10 50 1396 https://highway89.org/files/original/ddc3fc4d5a3433a18034865c40721cac.pdf 2056a87832e0d0170f0edffef4b89c8d PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: January 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Fifteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on January 5, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of January 5 meeting. 2. Outline of public presentation for scoping meetings to be held March 3 and 4. 3. Review of notice of scoping meeting. 4. Continued discussion of alternatives. t Future ~eeting schedule: January 26 February 17 March 9 March 30 SLC91/d.ll0l - 7:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. , , , , District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING January 5, 1987 Attendance: John Neil - UDOT Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Fred LaBar - USFS Clark Ostergaard - USFS Jack Spence - Sierra Club Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Mark Shaw - USFS Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Gale Larson - Valley Engineers Steve Flint - Audobon Society ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES Jack Spence commented that if a 50 mph (AASHTO Standard) alternative on a new alignment was to be considered in the Canyon, then an alternative route such as Blacksmith Fork should also be included in the study. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that a 50 mph alternate on a new alignment would be feasible only on the Rich County section. The previous technical memorandum would serve as the basis for no further consideration of that option. The scheduling of the scoping meeting was discussed and due to conflicting schedules and the need to allow an adequate review period, the scoping meetings were shifted to March 3 and 4, with the tentative schedule as follows: Logan Scoping Meeting, March 3, 7:00 p.m. Government Agencies - Logan, March 4, 10:00 a.m. Garden City Scoping Meeting, March 4, 7:00 p.m. A draft of the notice of intent was circulated and comments on the wording received. ITEM 2 - ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION There was some discussion about how the alternatives would be defined and potential impacts evaluated. Howard Richardson pointed out that the highway, as it is now, is adequate for some disciplines and not for others. The objective of the I. D. Team is to do the best we can to meet the needs of all, realizing that no one is going to get everything they want. Howard also indicated that the official design speed for the previously improved lower Canyon was 40 mph. Any curves that do not meet the 40 mph criteria are then posted with a lower advisory speed. SLC-STAN/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/46">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46</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 1169439087 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1134591 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, January 21, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the minutes from the January 5, 1987 meeting attached and time and location for the next meeting, and schedule. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack Richardson, Howard Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1987-01-21 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 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_008.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cafc4378090458f9b6871ea2da1f40d7.pdf a458e4f265ae3b121b87393789216ed2 PDF Text Text Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon Road between Right Fork and Garden City (submitted to UDOT February ~ 1989) This alternative is designed to solve specific problems with minimal environmental impact. This is in contrast to the Agency Alternative, where the main goal is to increase the highway design speed on all except the 4 miles between Right Fork and Lower Twin Bridge. To make a point-by-point comparison of this alternative with the Agency Alternative~ you may obtain a copy of the Agency Alternative from: Lynn Zollinger Utah Department of Transportation PO Box 2747 Ogden~ Utah 84404 399-5921 Beginning at Right Fork (mp383.5), approx. 10 miles E of Logan: Add additional warning sign such as "Narrow Winding Road Next 7 Miles". Throughout the entire route put up specific curve signs with advisory speeds where needed. Add signs for side roads such as "Right Fork 1/4 mile". Similar signs will be needed at Wood Camp~ Temple Fork, etc. Construct a 100'paved taper for up-canyon traffic wishing to turn into Right Fork. Wood Camp (mp 384.5) Plow parking area in the winter. Burnt Bridge (mp 385.5) PavE; present turnout downcanyon from bridge, add "Turnout" signs. Replace Burnt Bridge on present alignment with 28' wide clearspan bridge. . Logan Cave (mp 386.2) Raise roadbed approx. 3' for 1000'; this removes an erratic bend from the road and allows the road to be moved away from the river. Contingent on availability of fill. Prohibit parking on curve. CONSERV ATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE �Cottonwood Creek (mp386.4) For cave access, pave two parking areas immediately downcanyon from Cottonwood Creek: one 150' x 20' on the river side, another 100' x 35'(tapering to 20') at the location of old Cottonwood Creek road. Plow in winter. Forest Service and volunteer groups construct trail to cave entrance. Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. (mp386.6) Raise roadbed approx. 18" for 500' to avoid flooding (contingent on availability of fill). Lower Twin Bridge (mp 387.8) Replace bridge with a 28' wide clear-span bridge immediately upstream from present bridge. This involves a new cut at the downcanyon edge of the bridge. Rubble could be used to provide a slow-vehicle turnout downcanyon of the bridge. Provide recreational parking at upcanyon edge of the bridge. Note: Here the Agency Alternative proposes a 3 lane bridge, a climbing lane nearly a mile long, and the beginning of the wider, straighter, higher design speed highway. Upper Twin Bridge (mp388.8) Replace bridge with a 28' wide clear-span bridge immediately downstream of present bridge. Ricks Spring Sign "NO PASSING". For downcanyon traffic, sign "Narrow Winding Road Next 7 Miles" Replace structure on present alignment with - 28' wide structure. mo 390.2 and 391.1 Raise roadbed approx. 18" to avoid flooding. Contingent on availability of fill. CONSERV A TIONISTS' AL TERNA 'fIVE �mp 392 Pave multipurpose turnout on side opposite river, plow in winter. Note: Here the Agency Alternative increases the road width even more, increases the design speed, and begins to add frequent passing lanes. Tony Grove Intersection (mp 393.7) Add turning lanes. Tony Grove Creek (mp 393.8) Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Bunchgrass (mp 394.2) Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Pave multipurpose turnout on river side of road; plow in winter. Red Banks Bridge (mp 394.5) Replace bridge on present alignment with 28' wide clear-span bridge. Above Red Banks Campground Construct climbing lane from milepost 395 to cattleguard. Beaver Creek Bridge (mo396.0) Replace bridge on present alignment with 28' wide clear-span bridge. Beaver Creek Structure (mp397.5) Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Amazon Hollow Structure (mp 399.6) Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Beaver Mountain Intersection (mp 399.75) Add turning lanes. CONSER V A TIONISTS' AL TERNA TIVE �Amazon Hollow Area Construct climbing lane from milepost 401.5 (above Amazon Hollow fill) to mp 402.1. Middle Sink Construct climbing lane from 404.1 to short of Sinks Road. Summit to Garden City Retain present alignment; add improved signing for curves and turnouts. Place climbing lane sections or slow-vehicle turnouts only where cutting would not cause erosion problems. Note: Here the Agency Alternative emphasized speed by realigning curves and steepening the gradient to up to 10%. They also plan . a continuous climbing lane. Initially we took no position on modifications to this section because much of it is not on National Forest land. However, the potential for massive erosion problems from the miles of excavation proposed in the Agency Alternative forced us to take this new position. Questions or comments: Steve Flint 45 N - 400 W Logan, UT 84321 752-Q/o2... (~~e~,~,s) CONSER VA TIONISTS' ALTERN ATIVE 4 � 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/47">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/47</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 1269806099 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2044488 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 Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon road, February 1989 Description An account of the resource Conservationists' Alternative made suggestions to improve specific problems within Logan Canyon with minimal environmental impact, in contrast to Agency Alternative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Flint, Steven Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction 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 1989-02 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_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/32d7a78c324a05b6b4bc5e35ae4a4e75.pdf 29c46baab7806eda681d280e2e244f2b PDF Text Text DRAFT #1 LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 14, 1986 Attendance Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Alan Steger - FHWA Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Jim Naegle - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Gayle Larson - Valley Engineering Todd Weston - UDOT John Neil - UDOT Clark Ostergaard - USFS Dave Baumgartner - USFS Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Carolyn Martineau - UDOT Jack Spence - Sierra Club Ken Riddle - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed. There was some discussion on the roll of the ID team. Jack Spence asked whether or not the ID team would recommend a preferred alternative to the cooperating agencies. After some discussion it was decided to modify the role statement of the ID team to include a recommendation of the preferred alternatives. Dave Baumgartner " asked whether the ID team was going to be part of the evaluations or just provide review. Stan Nuffer explained that the Forest Service which has staff and expertise is environmental areas would be directly involved in the gathering and evaluation of data. They would also assist in identifying areas where more data is required and assist in the identification of impacts and mitigation measures. During the discussion of the Public Involvement Program, Dave Baumgartner asked when the scoping meetings were going to be held. Stan Nuffer explained that the purpose of the public information meetings was to give the public the opportunity to develop more informed opinions and also for the project team to gather information which would be used to identify the key issues. The official scoping meetings would then be held to obtain from the public more clearly defined concerns and key issues. A ~~ a suitable SLC79/16 __ e mailing list were received from The press release had been turned ffairs Department who would put it prior to release. ~_~- 1 �DRAFT #1 ITEM 2 - TRAFFIC COUNTING AND FORECASTING The discussion of traffic counting and forecasting centered around information on the subject which had been mailed to team members prior to the meeting. There will be manual counts which will serve two purposes, the first is to provide classification information and the second is to provide additional information on the distribution of flow within the canyon. Four or five counts in the canyon should provide some useable data on the traffic flow. \ ( There will be two coverage stations from which counts will be taken. The FHWA Traffic Counting Manual recommends manual counts at coverage stations 2 to 4 times per year. There was some discussion of the need to make manual counts on days that were representative of the general traffic flow for that period of the year. Rudy Lukez asked for the daily summary of traffic flow at the permanent station for the month of February, 1986 in order to see whether the February count represented "typical" February traffic. Rud al asked for traffic flow data on other roads in Cache CQUDty i l o ther Utah Canyon roads if possible. Jack Spence disnd c ussed~ he- importance of conducting manu al counts on representative days in order to obtain data that would be statistically sound. The schedule and location of the proposed summer traffic counts was presented and discussed. Four summer dates, July 29, August 2, August 13 and August 16 were proposed and approved. Three locations, Right Hand Fork, Tony Grove Intersection and Beaver Mountain Intersection were proposed. The Sinks turnoff near the summit was substituted for the Beaver Mountain intersection and the 3 sites approved. Cliff Forsgren said that standard methods of preparing traftfic forecasts do not adequately address the impact of a significant recreation area on " rural system. For this reason a 2 methods of preparing the forecast were presented and discussed. The first method assumed full development around Bear Lake with traffic increasing in some proportion to the increase in cabins and condominiums .. Using this method and data collected in 1981, an increase in traffic of nearly 300 percent could be expected by the year 1990. This method was not recommended for use in this study, due to the volatile and speculative nature of many of these recreational developments. The second method uses past trends as a means of forecasting future ADT. Using data for the past 5 years this method would provide a significantly lower estimate of future traffic flow. An average annual increase of approximately 3 percent was predicted. This method was generally viewed SLC79/16 2 �DRAFT . #1 ( as a better approach because there were more factors influencing traffic in the Canyon than just Bear Lake. Jack Spence said that he thought recreational traffic had increased close to 6 percent per year in recent years. Clark Ostergaard indicated that the Forest Service had experienced about a 5 percent per year increase in campground usage. It was decided that a past trends approach would be used, but that a longer period of data was needed. Permanent station records as far back as available will be used. The past trends approach would also be checked against economic trends and forecasts. ITEM 3 - OUTLINE OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS A brief outline of the transportation needs analysis was presented. This outline was present primarily for information and there was little discussion on it. SLC79/16 SLC79/16 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48</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 236039513 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2002586 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 from Interdisciplinary Team meeting, July 14, 1986 Description An account of the resource Minutes from the interdisciplinary team meeting with a review of minutes, traffic counting and forecasting, and an outline of transportation needs analysis. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark Forsgren, Clifford Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Baumgartner, David Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1986-07-14 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, 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_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/e1057617494fd0bd12cb6c7b1bf6fa7e.pdf df8ec42dbe33900de2f287b1aad386f9 PDF Text Text United States "Department of ~griculture Forest Service Logan Rangel" District 860 N. 1200 E. Logan, UT 84321 Reply to: Date: 1950 June 1, 1988 Tom Lyon 655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 Deal" Tom: Thank you for your recent letter, Tom. what your concerns are. ' It helped. I think I see more clearly One of the problems I have had with this issue is the fact that people have not clearly understood what we are trying to do. I have struggled with what we should do to better explain our position. Perhaps I am too optimistic to assume that a.-win win situation is possible.' I think it is, but all parties of the issue must want to work to that end. It will not work otherwise. I do not like compromise.' In a compromise no one wins. UDOT and the Federal Highway folks think they have compromised. ' They expect you to do the same, and do not understand why you cannot. In my view, I think they are wrong. Because, if people have a concern it ought to be resolved, even if it takes a long time. Working with people is what we are to do. ' Sometimes we forget this. ' Today the Forest Service is beginning to use mediators to help resolve problems like this. Still, the solution could be a form of compromise assuming the mediator is successful. The consensus is the better solution. Changes to Logan Canyon cannot happen if there is not sound and reasonable purpose for the change. A highway standard taken from some manual is not sufficient reason by itself to justify change. 1 This point will always be a problem between the Forest Service and the highway engineer. l Political compromise is a reality. But if we ever do that, at the expense of the 'environment, then we have abdicated our responsibilities as natural resource managers and public land stewards. ' The higher up the ladder a decision is made, the more political it becomes.' It is in the best interest of all of us to make the decision as low on the ladder as possible. 1 This is one reason why I make the point that we need to work for a win win solution if we can, or there is no deal. A no deal means I will make the recommendations as to what I think ought to be done, but someone else will make the eventual decision. , You understand, I think, what the although skeptically. My problem thought. " They would like to plow courts decide.! Sometimes this is win win is all about. ' is, I am not sure UDOT through the issue, and successful, but leaves I think you support it is comfortable with the if necessary, let the bitter enemies. l The person who will stand up and say, "Well we must have made the right deCision, nobody is happy with it" misses the real point here. Political decision makers sometimes like to talk like that. ' We are better than that. ' FS-6200-28(7·82) �~ ~ompromise is a last resort. , But all sides of this issue will force us into a compromise situation if we cannot work towards a reasonable and proper decision. Tom, your thoughts on va~idating decisions with solid data are good ones. ' We do not want to draw you into a consensus without a good review of the facts. My only hope was, because of the expense of drafting plan after plan, was to at least philosophically agree, so the design people could draft a more accurate plan for review.. This by no means reduces the need for careful study of the results, nor does it lock us into any position.! It was just a starting point. The draft of the draft EIS is not acceptable to anyone I know of at this time. Much work remains to be done on it. ~ Sometimes, Tom, I sound like I am preaching to you. I do not mean to do that. ! But I am confused too. ' As I visit with each of you I hear one thing, but subsequent communication is different. You mentioned the bridges.; Are they an issue now? Rudy told me some time ago that he and one or two other examined the bridges and agreed with the engineer's assessment. , Because of that I haven't worried about the bridges.' , UDOT will not build the type of highway they recommended last. That is not acceptable to the Forest Service. ' The committee of three, are trying to reach consensus on what realistically ought to be done. The ideas I bounced off of you and others were attempts to resolve the issues you mentioned. ' If they do not, then it is back to the idea arena again. ' I think this is a point many do not understand. ' The committee is working for us, you and me. ' Their objective is to design the right highway. ' You ideas and my ideas are just as important as the committees. 1 My fear is that we cannot tear down the walls and work together on this. 1 Right now I do not have either you or the State convinced that this is possible. ' The walls are very thick and high. You fears of a political solution are valid if the walls stay up. ' I think we have solved the riparian and fish habitat issues. : But we have not solved the aesthetic issue yet. ' At least not totally. ' Your concerns have been passed on to the committee with a note from me supporting your concerns. ' The Forest plan is one of the more difficult decisions UDOT must make before they can start work again on the EIS. ; If what they eventually propose and agree to is outside the current direction in the Forest plan, those changes, the environmental documentation, and decision must be addressed in this EIS.! If that is not possible, then a separate environmental document must be prepared.' I do not know which way this will go at this time. We are pushing for them to do it. , You are right, the Forest plan could become a significant issue. Keep up the good work.: S· cerely, District Ranger FS·6200·28(7-82) �~· ~ G cc: Steve Flint Jack Spence Rudy Lukez Dick Carter FS-6200-28(7-82) � 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/49">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/49</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 2558578447 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 534141 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, October 4, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dave Baumgartner to Steve Flint regarding the role of the National Forest Scenic Byway Program proposing a complementary aesthetic experience in the canyon with improvement of campgrouds and appropriate signs. Proposes the organization of a committee to define standards. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas 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 1988-10-04 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_016.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5b25c2d4dbbafcfd2de687a447f3ccdd.pdf 167add3900d8bfb8b3ccef92e331985d 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 Cache Chamber of Commerce letter, 1987 PDF Text Text CACHE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Todd G. Weston Board of Commmissioners Utah Department of Transportation 285 Temple View Drive Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Todd: The Cache Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors met on January 7, 1987, for a special meeting and made a resolution wherein it unanimously voted to approve the following priorities for local highway improvements. 1. Four-lane highway from Logan to Freeway at Brigham City; 2. Highway upgrade from Smithfield to the Idaho State line; 3. Widening of the Valley View highway; and 4. The Logan Canyon highway project. Representatives from Logan City and the Cache County Mayors Association were present at this meeting and indicated they would go back to their respective organizations for their views. Copies of letters from those organizations are enclosed herewith. We appreciate your interest in behalf of Cache County with respect to highway improvements, and if we can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Paula O. Bell Executive Director Encl. (2) 52 West 200 North, Logan, Utah 84321 - (801) 752-2161 "CA$H IN ON CACHE" � 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/50">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/50</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 3487515341 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 551134 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 Cache Chamber of Commerce highway improvements approval Description An account of the resource The Cache Chamber of Commerce voted to approve four local highway improvements. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bell, Paula O. Subject The topic of the resource 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 1987-01-07 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 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_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5688c1527a10b08fdc7ae74859ab4e67.pdf 48f4239b4d264ffbeddeafcfd6fa3f30 PDF Text Text ���� 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/51">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/51</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 1884105563 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 138787088 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 Canyon Courier, April 1980 Description An account of the resource A newspaper entitled Canyon Courier based in Hungry Horse, Montana with articles that discuss the safety and economy of proposed changes to United States Highway 2, making it a four-lane highway instead of two. Also a legal update on the Canyon Coalition suit stating the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. Blasting in the BOB relates to an area in Montana dedicated to Bob Marshall who was an advocate for Montanan wilderness where companies are requesting to use seismic exploration for gas and oil. Road Crisis discusses the rising gas prices and the shift toward rehabilitating existing roads instead of building new roads. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Skrotzki, Mark A.A. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Arcel, Jeff (cartoonist) Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction Traffic engineering United States Highway 2 Montana Wilderness Association Blasting in the Bob Wilderness preservation Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Newspaper Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canyon Courier Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1980-04 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Hungry Horse (Montana) Flathead County (Montana) Montana 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_7.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/523faf9a93af3eb93bcb17beb21022b3.pdf f47e63aa91e8caae6bcb28ecc74052e2 PDF Text Text MAY 1986 · THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION ~BLM I ~ "l Your testi ony is crucial to the future of Utah wild lands Utah wilderness supporters will get their first opportunity to comment on the Bureau of Land Management's statewide draft environmental impact statement May 7 in Vernal and three other communities as the public hearings on the document begin. The agency will cram 16 public hearings into five days in May, ending with two in Salt Lake City on May 15 (see full schedule in box below). ) \ Is tt worth your time to speak at one or more of the hearings? Absolutely ... if you care about protecting Utah's outstanding desert and canyon wildlands. Maggie Fox, Southwest regional representative for the Sierra Club, calls testimony at the hearings ~the most important conservation activity you can undertake this year. ~ "If you have time for only one conservation commitment this year, the wilderness hearings should be it," she added. The BLM is required by law to hold public hearings on the wilderness proposal embodied in its massive draft environmental continued to page 8 Hearing schedule (Unless otherwise noted. all hearing begin at 7 p.m.) May 7, 1986 Tooele Tooele County Courthouse Commissioners' Chambers. Third Floor 47 South Main Street Kane County Courthouse 70 North Main Street Moab Grand County Community Center (Old Legion Building) 500 East lOON orth Ogden Roland Perry Choral Room Browning Performing Arts Center Weber State College 3750 Harrison Blvd. Cedar City BLM District Office 1579 North Main Street Loa Community Center One block west of the courthouse Price Carbon County Courthouse 200 East Main Street Logan Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium 45 East 200 North St. George Washmgton County Administrative BUIlding 197 East Tabernacle Delta HIgh School Auditorium 50 South 300 North Castledale (2 pm and 7 pm) High School Auditorium Kanab May 15, 1986 High School Lunchroom 70 North First West Monticello May 14, 1986 Utah County Building, Courtroom 310 51 South University Ave. Escalante May 13, 1986 BLM District Office, Conference Room 170 South 500 East Provo May 8, 1986 Vernal Emery County Courthouse Salt Lake City The Salt Palace Suite E 100 South West 1 emple tliin'Wirrorri;-tl'-H'.i&r.rlai:V 10 pari proposal. There are over 100 miles of canyons such as this one in the White Canyon complex. Narrow, winding canyons cut through the same formation [hat occurs in adjacent Natural Bridges Natural Park. The BLM dropped most of the White Canyon complex in the inventory and is recommending none of [he remainder for wilderness. v\yc~WJJ~f:O~~Ml~'~~t~Qh'~"~ wi~ Faced an appeal by the Utah Wilderness Coalition, the Utah Bureau of Land Management has agreed to restore the original boundary of the Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills Wilderness Study Area and to undertake "reasonable" reclamation efforts to restore an area illegally chained on the mountain. Jim Catlin, conservation chairman for the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, who wrvte the appeal on behalf of the Coalition. heralded the decision as a major victory for Utah conservationists. "It was especially good to win this one because of the way Mt. Ellen has been treated throughout the wilderness study process." said Catlin. "The treatment of Mt. Ellen may stand as the worst violation of interim management policy on BLM wildlands anywhere in the country. In addition to the chaining. the Bureau has allowed the Exxon drill rig and its six miles of new road. a trespass road near Mt. Ellen's summit, and a reservoir within the wilderness study area. And much of the land on Mt. Ellen that enjoys wilderness study status is only there because of conservationists' appeals." The chaining occurred in 1984 when the bureau contracted for the removal of pinyon juniper forest on Mt. Ellen's western slopes in the Henry Mountains of central Utah. Two bulldozers linked by heavy chain ripped through the forest. 300 acres of it within the published boundary of the 8L726-acre wilderness study area (WSA). continued to page 3 �2 THE UTAH" lOER ESS COALIT ION MAY 1 UWC wilderness and Utah's parks parts of a whole b} Terri Martin The l tah \\ ildernel>~ Coalition's 5 million-acre "ilderne!lll proposal renecb another theme: enhancement and protection of l tah's national parks. By designating orne I.e) areas adjacent to the parks a~ "ilderness the l ' \\ C proposals "ould remedy the arbitrariness of important park boundaries and better protect the natural and scenic \alues of ecOS) stems and vie,,sheds integral to our parks. Ho\\ often have you thought. as you gaJed across Utah's canyon country. that mmt of southern Utah could have been set aside as one huge national park? That many other state. almost any chunk of this "ordinar)" BLM land would probablj be a national park? Bndges l'.atlonal Monument. Too often, of course. those arbitrar) boundaries disregarded Imponant park-quality values on adjacent lands. The result? Areas with outstanding scenic, hIstone and natural values were excluded from Utah's parks and remain vulnerable. And many of those adjacent areas possess high wilderness values as well. The BLM wilderness review gives us another chance to speak out for protection of areas like these before it is too late. Some key wilderness areas adjacent to our parks include the following: Zion UWC wilderness proposals abut Zion National Park on all sides. Protection of these areas would enhance the park's ecological, recreation and scenic values. Southern Utah's canyon country is clearly Id wor class" - a unique and unparalleled Iand cape. And while pieces of this superlame regIOn have been preserved as national Parunuweap Canyon parks, crucial areas integral to the parks Parunuweap is increasingly popular for its superlative hiking opportunities. The were excluded in drawing their boundaries. Unfortunately, the boundaries of our UWCs Parunuweap proposal includes the natIonal parks were too often the result of upper half of Parunuweap Canyon, a deep arbitrary political compromises or timid canyon carved by the East Fork of the vision. Crucial areas were sometimes exVirgin River through Navajo sandstone. c1uded because of specUlation about potenThe lower portion of Parunuweap Canyon tial resource conflicts - fear that inclusion lies within the park, and protection of the WIthin a park would lock up the land, upper Parunuweap is critical to the longbarnng possible future development. Other term preservation of park water quality and park boundaries were drawn narrowly to recreational values. protect only specific scenic features _ the The BLM Wilderness DEIS admits that pmnacles at Bryce, the Waterpocket Fold at ~scenic values here are equivalent to those Capitol Reef, the rock ~bridges" at Natural present in the national park." The BLM calls }-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I can't BEAR to be without my UWC T-Shirt!! - the hike through Parunuweap "superlauve backpacking quality." The Washington County Water Conservancy District. however. has proposed a 35,000-acre reservoir on the East Fork within the Parunuweap WSA. The dam would be located near Zion's boundary and back water up to 3 to 4 miles into the heart of the Parunuweap wilderness proposal. pines and salmon colored spIres that are in the national park Box Canyon forms an integral road less unit with Bryce Canyon. The unit contains many of the unique erosional features found in the park itself. Canaan Mountain Capitol Reef National Park was set aside primarily to protect the Waterpocket Fold - a 60-mile-long uplift of sandstone cliffs with highly colored sedimentary formations. Protection of and in the UWCs wilderness proposals next to Capitol Reef would greatly enhance park values by assuring protection of scenic views, adjacent watersheds and roadless areas. Immediately south of - and contiguous to - Zion National Park, Canaan Mountain is a spectacular plateau towering 2000 feet above the surrounding desert. I ts rugged slickrock plateau top is broken with pinnacles, cones, scours and natural arches and is partially covered with scattered stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Canaan Mountain offers impressive panoramic views of Zion National Park, the Pine Valley Mountains (designated forest wilderness), and the Pink Cliffs. Bryce UWC is proposing wilderness designation for 3 areas which would enhance the natural, scenic and recreational values of Bryce Canyon. BLM dropped all of these areas during its inventory process. Squaw and Willis Creek Visitors to Bryce Canyon's popular overlooks view the pinyon-juniper covered benchlands of the UWCs 21,OOO-acre Squaw and Willis Creek proposal when they look beyond the park's famed pinnacles and spires. Wilderness protection of this area would help assure protection of Bryce's scenic viewshed. Similarly, protection of the area's slickrock canyons and pinyon-juniper bench lands would significantly expand hiking and camping opportunities available to Bryce visitors. Conservationists also promote the expansion of the park to include the narrow strip of Forest Service lands which lie between Bryce and the Squaw-Willis Creek area. Capitol Reef Mt. Pennel The UWCs 143,OOO-acre Mt. Pennel proposal abuts Capitol Reefs eastern boundary for around 15 miles and comprises a major portion of the scenic panorama viewed by visitors to the park's impressive Strike Valley overlook. Wilderness protection would help to assure that coal strip mining --once proposed for Swap Mesa and Cave Flat - does not occur and scar this vista with the sights of industrial development. The BLM has recommended none of its 74,300-acre WSA for wilderness. Fremont Gorge The rolling benches and sandstone cliffs in the UWCs l8,OOO-acre Fremont Gorge wilderness proposal are a natural continuation of geologic features in Capitol Reef National park. The area also includes many deep, narrow canyons which drain into the Fremont River as well as four miles of the Fremont River Gorge itself. Colorful rock walls and seasonal waterfalls create high quality day hiking opportunities convenient to the Capitol Reef campground. Colt Mesa The UWCs 24,OOO-acre Colt Mesa proposal includes Deep Point, a small heartshaped mesa which extends westward from East-or-Bryce and Box Canyon the south end of Capitol Reefs Waterpocket East-of-Bryce is a small -- 887 acres F old. The mesa provides a bird's eye view of but logical extension of Bryce Canyon the park's amazing geologic features . It was National Park, located northwest of Tropic. probably only excluded from the park itself It features the same towering ponderosa • because of the congressional preference for straight-line boundaries. continued to page 7 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION Legend on Reverse: 5 Million Acres of BLM Wilderness! 100% Cotton Color: Sand o XL (4648) 0 L (42-44) 0 M (38-40) 0 S (34-36) $11-50 (Includes postage and handling) ·ame ___________________________________________________________ ddr~s ______________________________________________________ Clly ________________________________ State ____________ Zip ________ Make Check To: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O . Box 11446 alt Lake City, Utah 84147 Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands The Ulah Wilderness News is a publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition - 18 com.ervation organizations united in support of a proposal to designate 5 million acres of Utah BLM. wilderness: The News will appear once each month during the comment period on the BLM s draft envIronmental Impact statement and as often thereafter as needed in pursuit of the Coalition's goal. or information. contact the Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84147. or phone 801-363-9621. Escalante Wilderness Commitee Wasatch Mountain Club Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Utntah Mountain Club Slickrock Country Council The WIlderness Sociely Sierra Club National Parks and Conservation As>ociation hiends of the Eanh Defenders of Wildlife Four Corners' Wilderness Workshop Friends of the River. Colorado Plaleau Arizona Wilderness Coalition Colorado Environmental Coalition Arizona Whitewater Association Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalition Desen Tonoise Council (supporting wilderness designation in Joshua Tree and Beaver Dam Wash Areas) rundtng for The Coah(lon Ne ....1 I~ provided in pan by RecreatIonal Equipment Inc. (REI). 1124 Brtckyard Road . Salt Lake City. tah 84106 �MAY 1986 Utahns oppose Burr Trail boondoggle by Kris Dangerfield In a whirlwind of activity in Washington April 7-10, Utah conservationists lobbied against Sen. Jake Garn's plans to pave the Burr Trail, a 66-mile dirt road from Boulder, Utah, to Bull Frog Marina on the shores of Lake Powell. The week-long lobbying effort culminated in testimony before Sen. Malcolm Wallop's Public Lands Subcommittee. Proponents of the bill claim that paving 9.5 miles of the road and gravelling the rest as Sen. Garn proposes would substantially increase tourism in the area and would link all five Utah national parks with the Lake Powell ferry boat system in the Glen Canyon National Recreation area. Utah conservationists disagree, opposing the bill over these critical major points: • The paving plan would damage the outstanding scenic, recreational and wilderness values of the area which draw The descent into Long Canyon along the Burr Trail, one ofseveral places that various proposals call for paving. Utah conservationists favor a minimum improvement alternative at a fraction of the cost of paving. people who want to preserve the rural character of the road and its somewhat different "get away from it all experience;" • Paving and gravelling are unnecessary. The Burr Trail is now a graded, twowheel-<irive road easily driven in passenger cars; the road is passable year-round except for 10 or so days a year during periods of heavy rain or snow. Plus, there are paved, highly scenic alternative routes to Bull Frog, the new Boulder Mountain road among them; • The Burr Trail cannot be paved without altering the existing horizontal and vertical alignment. To accommodate tour buses, as the Gam bill provides, the road would have to be widened from its present 12 to 16 feet to 24 to 30 feet. Major cuts and fills would be required in the scenic and sensitive switchbacks portion of the road through the Waterpocket Fold in Capitol Reef National Park; • The costs of paving and gravelling, as well as an estimated $435,000 for annual maintenance and operation afterwards, are excessive and unjustifiable, particularly in the face of the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act which is already taking its toll on established Utah parks. Those budget cuts have forced reductions in staff, services and operating hours for Utah parks and visitor centers; • Despite the fact that supporters of the bill claim that only a handful of environmentalists is blocking the bill, the facts show that a majority of people in Utah oppose paving the Burr Trail. The Deseret News/ KSL poll showed that 53 percent of those polled who knew of the Burr Trail opposed paving it. And editorials in Utah's three major daily newspapers have spoken against paving; and, • There are serious flaws in the bill as drafted. The legislation does not address the original concerns - many also cited by the National Park Service - the conservationists raised in their opposition to paving. Among them are cultural resources, habitat for the endangered peregrine falcon, the existence of two wilderness study areas adjacent to the road, the long-term impact of roadside development on the seven state sections that adjoin the road, the use of the road for commercial hauling and increased use of the backcountry with no increased protection. Much of the bill's intent would be accomplished not through the language of the bill itself but through a contract between the National Park Service and the State of Utah. That contract exists now only in draft form and some of the major provisions have not been drafted at all. Among them is a so-called "reverter clause" that would give the road back to the State of Utah if the Park Service C:id not maintain it. One of the most troubling features of the contract approach, according to Maggie Fox of the Sierra Club, is the fact that if the Congress passes a Garn bill incorporating a contract that may not yet exist, the public is denied any opportunity to participate in the process. The Utah group voiced precisely those concerns in visits with National Park Service Director William Penn Mott after the Senate hearings. Mott firmly reiterated his view that the road must follow the existing alignment and meet other standards he set out in his proposal of last fall or, "We won't sign the contract." Conservationists told the subcommittee that the Park Service estimates the true cost of doing what Sen. Gam wants done on the Burr Trail will be around $16.4 million. (That compares to the present annual operating budget for Utah's 13 existing park system units of only $11 million.) Sen. Gam's bill would authorize the expenditure of $7.7 million the Congress conditionally approved late last year, leaving the fiscally strapped State of Utah to come up with roughly another $6 million in addition to the $3.1 million it has already scraped together for the Burr Trail paving scheme. The Utah conservationists also visited a number of senators and representatives to explain their views on the Burr Trail issue and to seek help in defeating the measure. The testimony and the personal meetings Burr Trail story used without author's okay The article on the Burr Trail in our April issue was written by Ruth Frear, Salt Lake City, for Sierra Magazine. It was used. due to a misunderstanding, without her permission. We apologize to Ms. Frear for any inconvenience we may have caused her and thank her for her understanding in this matter. accomplished two very important things, said Del Smith, Springdale, associate director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). "First, the extensive conflicts with the language in the bill and the draft contract, the environmental costs and the real costs to the people of Utah were added to the Senate record. Second, our testimony and our discussions give to members of Congress who are serious about balanced budgets and environmental common sense a stronger footing from which to oppose the measure." Others involved in the hearings were Clive Kincaid, Boulder, Utah, director ofSUW A; Dale Dockstader, Rockville; Christine Swanson, Boulder and Salt Lake City; Clay Puckett, Orem; and Tom Messenger, Arlington, Va., a frequent visitor to Utah. Also, Terri Martin, Salt Lake City, Rocky Mountain Regional Representative for the National Parks and Conservation Assn.; Darrell Knuffke, Denver, and Regional Director for The Wilderness Society; and Maggie Fox, Southwest Regional Representative for the Sierra Club. Kris Dangerfield is ajournalist who lives in Springdale. She also testified in the Burr Trail hearing. THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION BlM backs off - Mt. Ellen win • • • continued from cover Chaining is a common practice on public lands as a way to allegedly increase grazing for domestic livestock. Such activities, though, are illegal under the BLM's Interim Management Policy (I M P), regulations that are meant to ensure that the agency manages wilderness study lands in ways that do not impair their wilderness values. After conservationists, including members of the Utah Wilderness Coalition, protested the action, the agency announced in August 1985 that it was modifying the WSA boundary to remove the bulldozed area, suggesting that it was only correcting a "clerical error~ and that the ravaged land was never part of the WSA. The Coalition appealed both the chaining and the boundary change to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), asking that the 300 chained acres be reclaimed and restored to the WSA. The IBLA notified Catlin on April 17 that it has dismissed the case because the BLM has agreed to the Coalition's requests. DISCOVER THE BEST OF UTAH IN THE UTAH GEOGRAPHIC SERIES BEAUTIFUL COLOR BOOKS ABOUT UTAH... Canyon country, mountain ranges, skiing, wildlife, rivers, deserts, pioneer trails and people-all are featured as separate titles i? t?e new Utah Geographic Series! Each title contains 120 pages of authontatlve text and approximately 175 color photographs by the West's finest photographers. UTAH CANYON COUNTRY, the first volume in the series, is now available. Written by Moab author F.A. Barnes with a foreword by Ted Wilson, UTAH CANYON COUNTRY is a comprehenSive portrayal of the unparalleled country of southeastern Utah. Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands ........................................................... : : TO ORDER UTAH CANYON COUNTR Y, : send $14.95 plus 51.80 for sales tax and postage (S\6.75 per book) to: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O . Box 11446. Suit Lake City. Uta h 84147 Address . " Zip : ~'~"',... .. , . . ..... . , ... ... SLue , . . . ...... .. . .. . .. . .. ... ....... .. . .. . 3 �4 THE UTAH WILDER NESS CO ALI TION MAY 1986 In Defense of Five Million Acres The Coalition's Proposal in Brief In this issue we summarize our wilderness proposals in the Zion-H ot Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah. We give a synopsis of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as national parks, a description of some of the remarkable features, an~ t~e BLM's rationale for its recommendation. This is the third part of the senes m Utah WiJderne5S News describing the Coalition's 141-area, five-million-acre BLM wilderness proposal. (Note: Map areas in black are BLM's recommendation; grey areas are the UWCs proposal.) Cougar Canyon Zion and Hot Desert ' The BLM gives no reasons for their nonwilderness recommendations in their EIS. (Mojave) Region Why! Perhaps because their proposal is so Southwestern Utah i'i a mosaic of diversity: the upper Sonoran desert meets the Great Basin and the canyonlands of Utah's Colorado Plateau. Here, ponderosa forests nest in coral pink sand dunes. Clear mountain streams descend through rugged cougar country. Many of the important wilderness candidates are logical parts of Utah's most vi'iited National Park, Zion. Bear Trap ZIO N and HOT D ESERT R E GION Existing WSA Unit Na me Beartrap Canyon Beaver Dam Wash Black Ridge Canaan Mountain Cottonwood Canyon Cougar Canyon & Doc's Pass Deep Creek Goose Creek Canyon J os hua Tree Nat. Area La Verkin Creek Canyon Moquith Mountain ;-'; orth Fork Virgin River Orderville Ca nyon Parunuweap Canyon Red M ountain Red Butte S hunesburg Spring Ca nyon Taylor Creek Canyon T he Watchma n Ka na b Creek Totals 40 0 0 53,600 11 ,330 23,768 3,320 89 1,040 567 14,830 1.040 1,750 30.800 18,250 804 0 4,433 35 600 0 166,296 Ut a h W ild ern ess Coalition P ro posal BLM D E IS Pro posal 40 0 0 32,800 9,853 0 3,320 89 0 567 0 1,040 1,750 14,100 17,450 804 0 4,433 35 600 0 86,881 40 38,221 12,500 62,400 11 ,000 28,600 7,070 89 13,500 567 14,830 1,040 1,750 30,800 18,000 804 80 4,433 35 160 25,750 271,669 ZION & MOJAVE DESERT REGION T he head of Bear Trap Canyon just lies outside of the Kolob part of Zion National Park. Secretary Watt dropped this area from wilderness study, but legal action by members of the Utah Wilderness Coalition forced the BLM to reinstate it. This small40-acre area is now supported by the BLM for wilderness designation. Deeply incised and capped with pine forests, Bear Trap Canyon warrants a visit. Beaver Dam Wash This large 38,22I-acre area laps into Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. A large part of the desert tortoise popUlation depends on the Beaver Dam Slopes which form most of this wilderness proposal. Brigham Young University conducts scientific studies and education programs within this area. BLM dropped this area from wilderness study without publicly giving any reason. The Coalition proposal deletes the few developments in this area; no known conflicts block wilderness designation. Black Ridge La Verkin Creek exits from the Kolob part of Zion National Park through this road less area - a popular route into the park. The black volcanic mesa to the west of LaVerkin Creek forms the rugged Black Ridge. Incredibly, the BLM dropped this area from wilderness review, claiming that neither hiking the ridgetop nor sightseeing and photography of the scenic geological features such as the adjacent Zion National Park "are individually of outstanding quality." Canaan Mountain L aVer kin Creek LOCATION MAP T ay lor Can y o n Spr in g Ca n yon Red Mounta in Black Ridg Cre ek . Virgin River rderville C. -- Cottonwood Canyon S hu nesburg Joshua T r e N at ural A rea Cr e ek Long protected from off-road vehicle use, Canaan Mountain abuts the southwest side of Zion National Park and the north side of Colorado City, Utah. The masthead of the Utah Wilderness News is an 1872 drawing of this mountain by W .H. Holmes from Dutton's classic Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District. Although BLM supports the core for wilderness, sigrtificant parts of the cliff base, including those just south of Rockville at the mouth of Zion Canyon, are not recommended. Access is limited to just a few routes to the top. The views of the Arizona Strip and Zion Park from this area are superlative. Pa runuweap C ana an M oun tain Public comments ('ount! BLM now supports this area for wilderness designation because of your comments. Exposed Navajo Sandstone canyons lie northeast of St. George, Utah on the south slopes of the Pine Valley Mountains. Hiking access via the Red Cliffs Recreation Area is popular. Drilling wells for water poses a conflict with a few acres on the south side of the area. Protection of sensitive wildlife species including the gila monster and chuckwalla make wilderness designation needed. Several thousand acres of adjacent National Forest road less lands need consideration in the DEIS. hard to defend: witness Cougar Canyon, where clear streams flow into Nevada's Beaver Dam State Park. BLM states that the area has "extremely narrow and dense riparian zones that are practically inaccessible." Earlier, BLM argued the area was too rugged to be a wilderness area! No conflicts exist in this area. The Coalition proposal includes the Forest Service part of this area near Pine Park on the north, a good starting point for hikes. Deep Creek Hiking up the one of Zion's deeper canyons, you reach the unmarked boundary of the National Park and wonder why the park doesn't continue for another ten miles? Access from outside Zion is from the Lava Point area northeast of the park. The BLM proposal includes only the lower half of Deep Creek: the upper half was dropped in order to put in a developed mechanized recreation facility. The Coalition proposal includes that upper part of the canyon to preclude such unwarranted uses. Goose Creek Canyon Tucked against a comer of Zion National Park, this 89-acre area is recommended by BLM for wilderness designation. To their credit, the BLM is also trying to acquire nearby land on Kolob Creek. Goose Creek Canyon was dropped by Secretary Watt from wilderness study but was reinstated by our legal efforts. BLM states, "Mountain lion activity in the vicinity is heavy. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources considers mountain lion herd 58 (which includes this WSA) as the state's best kill record for cougar hunting." Joshua Tree Natural Area You won't fmd Joshua Tree Natural Area or the surrounding 12,460-acre roadless area mentioned in the Utah DEIS. The BLM recommended against wilderness for this area without environmental review or a chance for the public to comment. In addition to one of the most remarkable Joshua tree communities, this area is critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The BLM dropped a majority of the area from wilderness study by exaggerating the sigrtificance of a few impacts on the edge of the area The Coalition redrew the boundary excluding those impacts. LaVerkin Creek Canyon One of the special canyons in the Kolob (northeast) section of Zion National Park is upper LaVerkin Creek. The BLM recommends adding 1.5 miles of the upper canyon to the Zion Park wilderness proposal. Douglas fIr, white fIr, aspen and juniper grace the tops of the nearly vertical 900-foot-high canyon walls. Moquith Mountain West of Kanab, Utah, and southwest of Zion National Park, Moquith Mountain abuts Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Reserve. Several deep canyons incise the Verrnillion Cliffs offering hanging gardens and archeological ruins. The most amazing value is the pockets of ponderosa pine nested in sand dunes, a unique biologic community containing endangered plants. The BLM recommends nonwilderness, leaving the area open to jeeps and motorbikes. �MAY 1986 TH E UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION CANYONLANDS REGION Existing WSA Unit Name heir ns. I so Ion, aa's Ithe hse ces- t~~ ~ mg n 0 12,635 0 54,290 22,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,870 59,300 Beaver Creek Behind the Rocks Hunter Canyon Black Ridge Butler Wash Fisher Towers Goldbar Canyon Goose Neck, NOIth & South Granite Creek Hatch Wash Harts Point Indian Creek Labyrinth Canyon & Horseshoe Canyon Duma Point Spring Canyon Point Hell & Roaring Canyon Lost Spring Canyon Mill Creek Negro Bill Canyon Six Shooter Peaks Little Bridger Jack Bridger Jack Mesa Shaffer Canyon Westwater Canyon Utah Wilderness Coalition Proposal BLM DEIS Proposal 25,500 20,000 3,800 52,290 25,780 13,300 8,790 5,800 4,400 7,920 13,800 42,000 26,920 135,420 0 12,635 0 * 24,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,870 56,500 Adjacent areas 3,880 9,780 7,620 5,290 0 31,160 212,855 3,880 0 0 5,290 11,600 14,570 13,500 32,640 Adjacent areas 2,800 31,160 481,990 0 26,000 135,365 ch al by Red Mountain Sandwiched between Snow Canyon State Park and Gunlock State Beach, Red Mountain offers hunting, backpacking, and horseback riding for the St. George area, six miles to the southwest. In 1984 the BLM recommended non wilderness for this study area. They now recommend wilderness - largely because of effective public testimony. Shunesburg Totals itat Red Butte Locals call it ~the most beautiful drive in North America~ - the road from Virgin. Utah, that crosses the middle of Zion heading north to the Upper Kolob Plateau. Its beauty owes partly to Red Butte - a 2,OOO-foothigh sandstone massif abutting the park east of LaVerkin Creek. Supported by BLM for wilderness, this is another example of legislators drawing straight lines for a park boundary, ignoring the pleading of the land. Secretary Watt dropped this area and - you guessed it - we sued and won. CANYONLANDS REGION Goldbar Canyon -Black Ridge Westwater Canyon ranite Creek Hikers exiting Zion National Park in the Parunuweap canyon pass the vertical cliffs of this area, just north of the Virgin River. The BLM ignored the presence of the adjacent National Park and dropped this area from wilderness study. This is another logical extension of Zion's wild country. Spring Canyon Visitors to Zion notice the deep-red sandstone canyons just north of the Kolob Canyon turnoff from 1-15 to the northern part of Zion. This is Spring Canyon - rival to the Kolob area itself. Secretary Watt dropped this area from study but members of the Coalition sued, reinstating the study. Now the BLM recommends wilderness partly a result of the lawsuit but also because of public comment. Kanab Creek Bill Canyon --"nill Creek the Rocks (>-----+--.\-1 a t c h Wash Neck ew Six Shoote Peaks Bridger Point Monticello o ob is LOCATION MAP North Fork Virgin River of The North Fork of the Virgin River flows into the northeast corner of Zion National Park and is clearly of park caliber, yet was excluded by the ruler-straight boundary. Many hikers walk this canyon unaware of the mistake the boundary makers made. BLM supports wilderness for this area - but only as a result of strong public support. Orderville Canyon oen The classic Virgin Narrows hike through Zion National Park begins by passing through this canyon east of the park. The area includes several important side canyons: Esplin Gulch, Englestead Hollow, Walker Gulch, and Birch Hollow. Initially, the BLM recommended nonwilderness but as a result of your comments, the BLM reversed itself and recommended wilderness. This area is a logical component of Zion National Park. Parunuweap Canyon East of Zion National Park, this area is the scene of one of the most protracted wilderness battles in the state. The BLM tried to drop all this area from wilderness review and lost. Then they recommended nonwilderness, but changed their recommendation thanks to your comments. Local government proposes dewatering Parunuweap - a classic "wet narrows" hike - with a dam. At this time the BLM recommends wilderness for much of the area, but excludes the forestcovered top of the White Cliffs and scenic Elephant Cove, and Harris Mountain. streams offer excellent hikes with a spectacular white sandstone backdrop. The Coalition's 25,750-acre proposal includes unimpacted lands the BLM dropped from wilderness study. The Allen-Warner Valley Energy Project, now dead, proposed a coal slurry pipeline across this area. The Watchman Zion is the fIfth most visited National Park in the country. The fIrst impression most visitors have of the park is The Watchman, the huge buttress just above Springdale that is partly on BLM land. The BLM recommends wilderness for a portion of the cliff; the Coalition includes the natural lands down to the river. Another "Watt drop~ that is being studied only because of conservationists' legal vigilance. Canyonlands Region slickrock maze The Green, Colorado and Dolores Rivers all meet in Utah's Canyonlands. Abutting these rivers are numerous BLM side canyons with wilderness equal to those found in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks. Beaver Creek East of Moab, the Dolores River crosses the Colorado state line passing Beaver Creek. A l3-mile crystal-clear stream flows down the thousand foot deep canyon. This area includes the wild and scenic river proposal for the Dolores River in Utah including numerous side canyons down to Ridge Canyon. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness inventory, claiming that impacts high on the edges of the road less area impacted the core. The Coalition proposal excludes those impacts, protecting a major portion of the Dolores River in Utah. Taylor Creek Canyon This logical extension of the park's northern wilderness flows into the Kolob Canyon area. The BLM proposes wilderness - but only after conservationists appealed yet another ~Watt drop.~ North of Kanab, Utah, the White Cliffs wrap around the headwaters of Kanab Creek. Several deep canyons with clear Behind the Rocks and Hunter Canyon Just west of Moab, an 1,800-foot cliff announces the edge of the multifluted petrifIed sand dunes in Behind the Rocks. The BLM supports wilderness designation for much of the area, excluding the northern tip near the Colorado River Portal and the western third including Hunter Canyon. continued to page 6 CEDAR MESA REGION Existing WSA Unit Name Arch Canyon Comb Ridge Cheese Box Canyon & Deer Canyon Cross Canyon Dark Canyon & Beef Basin Sweet Alice Canyon Fable Valley Bowdie Canyon Plateau Youngs Canyon Lower Horse Flats Black Steer Canyon Fish Creek Fortknocker Canyon Grand Gulch Gravel & Long Canyon Harmony Flat Mancos Mesa Mule Canyon Nokai Dome & Mikes Canyon Road Canyon Sheep Canyon Squaw & Papoose Canyon 0 0 15,410 12,000 68,030 Utah Wilderness Coalition Proposal 8,800 14,460 25,000 Adjoining area 12,000 119,300 BLM DEIS Proposal 0 0 0 * 68,030 Adjoining areas 46,440 0 105,520 0 0 51,440 5,990 0 Totals *Arcas being studied by the Colorado BLM 5 65,000 7,680 136.120 37,200 10,470 108,700 5,900 80,000 35,220 0 105,520 0 0 46,120 5,990 0 52,420 0 6,580 363,830 52,000 4.500 6,580 693,710 45,720 0 * 306,600 �6 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION MAY 1986 dropped this area from wilderness study using the presence of a few impacts to exclude a larger natural area. continued from page 5 Congressman Hansen, R-UT, has proposed that these two canyons be added to Canyonlands National Park. Shaffer Canyon LOCATION MAP Dark Canyon Sheep Canyon CEDAR MESA REGION N.P. Wash ravel & Long Canyon Squaw & Papoo e Glen Canyon Box Canyon N.R.A. -----Mule Canyon omb Ridge ish & Owl Canyons Road Canyon Cross Cany Flat Recognizing the significance of Pritchett Canyon to ORV users and mountain bicycles, the Coalition has excluded this canyon from its proposal. Rather than consider land exchange, the BLM excluded the Hunter Canyon portion of this area from wilderness study because of the presence of state lands. Black Ridge Stretching from Westwater to Colorado National Monument along the Colorado River, Black Ridge is recommended for wilderness designation by the Colorado BLM. This area is not discussed in the Utah BLM wilderness DEIS. Butler Wash Again, praise for public comments: the BLM added several hundred acres to this wilderness study area to enlarge the agency's wilderness recommendation. Located on the south side of Canyonlands National Park, this wilderness proposal matches the quality of the adjoining park. Fisher Towers One of the best known geologic formations in southern Utah, the Fisher Towers is well-known for rock climbing. Unknown to many is the pristine 5·rnile Waring Canyon which begins just behind the Towers and drains into the Dolores River. This area, located south of the Dewey Bridge on the Colorado River, was dropped from study by the BLM with the claim that ~the natural character of the unit has been compromised." The Coalition proposal excludes the peripheral impacts and includes the imposing towers, cliffs, and Waring Canyon with its stream. These impacts were used by the BLM as reasons to drop a larger natural area from wilderness study. Goose Neck, North and South Many float trips down the Colorado begin near Pyramid Butte. The first 13 miles wind through the Gooseneck road less area. This 600-foot-deep canyon is a logical extension of Canyonlands National Park. River users question the BLM's assertion that ~Iandforms in the unit consist of open flats" and lack wilderness solitude and recreation. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness study. Granite Creek North and east of the Dolores River crossing the Colorado state line, Granite Creek offers impressive hikes along lush green-lined streams. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness study, arguing that wildlife habitat does not offer significant wilderness values. Again the BLM claimed the hundred-foot-deep canyon lacked adequate topographic screening for solitude. Hatch Wash East of Canyonlands National Park and west of the LaSal Junction on U.S. 163, Hatch Wash carries the major sources for Kane Springs Creek. Impressive 500-foot cliffs like those of Canyonlands line the wash as side canyons join this natural area. By drawing a boundary including the natural canyons and excluding the impacted mesa tops, the Coalition developed a sizable wilderness proposal. The BLM used these boundary impacts to conclude the canyon was impacted and not deserving of wilderness study. Goldbar Canyon Hart Point The north side of the Colorado River Portal west of Moab, Utah, has several excellent short day hikes. Two examples include a trail beginning at the portal itself, ascending the cliff beside the Colorado. A second hike begins near Bootleg Canyon and leads to Little Rainbow Ridge. The Coalition boundary excludes any wilderness impacts from the potash rail line and roads. Newspaper Rock abuts the Hart Point cliff face which runs for nearly 20 miles. Originally proposed as part of Canyonlands National Park, Hart Point and Draw are logical components of this park. Views from the point catch Six Shooter Peaks and DaVIS Canyon. For a sampler hike, explore Bobby's Hole behind Wind Whistle Rock, six miles west of U.S. 163. The BLM Indian Creek Abutting Canyonlands just west and north of the Needles District in the Park, Indian Creek has some of the area's most remarkable Indian ruins. The numerous canyons are the east bank of the Colorado River's equivalent of the Maze. The BLM moved the boundary, excluding two-thirds of the qualifying natural area from its wilderness proposal. Most of Indian Creek was excluded. A rarely visited area, excellent hikes start where the Hurrah Pass road crosses Indian Creek. Labyrinth Canyon After leaving the Book Cliffs, the Green River flows south, entering Labryinth Canyon and eventually Canyonlands National Park - one of the few rivers on which you can canoe for several days in deep slickrock canyons without rapids. The BLM dropped most of Labyrinth Canyon from wilderness study leaving only Horseshoe Canyon in its recommendation. River travellers cannot understand how the west bank is wilderness while the BLM claims the equally natural east bank ~clearly and obviously lacks wilderness characteristics." Lost Spring Canyon Behind Arches National Park are some wonderful canyons rarely visited. The National Park Service has openly campaigned to have these canyons protected and perhaps added to the park. Secretary Watt dropped this area, but our lawsuit forced the BLM to reinstate the study area. Now the BLM recommends wilderness for about one-fourth of the deserving area. Mill Creek Mill Creek flows through the center of Moab after leaving a BLM wilderness study area. This is one of Utah's finest canyons, with petroglyphs, swimming pools, numerous drops, and trees covering the perennial stream. BLM dropped this area in the inventory and we got it reinstated though administrative appeals. Now the BLM says this area is unsuitable. (This is an area for which Grand County opposed wilderness designation using a county bulldozer to plow a lOO-yard track near the area boundary. The BLM capitulated to this political threat and recommends nonwilderness.) Negro Bill Canyon A bout 2.5 miles east of Moab along Utah 128, Negro Bill Canyon Creek flows out of its deep canyon to meet the Colorado River. Grand County staged a second demonstration against wilderness here, reconstructing a road up the canyon. Under conservationists' pressure, the BLM sued the county for trespass. The suit was settled when the county agreed to stop bulldozing the canyon while the BLM agreed to drop the area from wilderness recommendation. Our administrative a ppeal of that decision was the first in the country to restore wilderness to the study process. Today the BLM continues recommending nonwilderness. Six Shooter Peak Two impressive canyons, separated by Bridger Jack Mesa (a relict plant community), Little Bridger Jack and Six Shooter Peaks abut the Needles District in Canyonlands National Park. Only the top of Bridger Jack Mesa (a sixth of the area) is being recommended for wilderness. To assist the Department of Energy in siting high-level nuclear wastes next to Canyonlands. the BLM dropped Davis and Lavender Canyons from the wilderness review. The BLM incorrectly claimed that these areas lack wilderness-grade solitude and recreation. The northeastern corner of Canyonlands National Park and Dead Horse State Park are sep?rated by the BLM roadless area called Shaffer Canyon. Totally ignoring the magnificent view this canyon gives park visitors, the BLM astonishingly found, ~the irregular configuration of the unit which wraps about the state park would severely limit opportunities for solitude." This area is a clear choice as an addition to the national park. Westwater Canyon The Colorado River first travels through Utah in this ca:nyon, strongly favored by river runners. The BLM supports wilderness designation for a majority of the area. The BLM recommends nonwilderness on the southern area in order to encourage off-road vehicle use. Cedar Mesa, Land of the Anasazi The most important evidence of walled Utah's ancient peoples lies in the Cedar Mesa region - an unmatched reference collection for understanding early Americans. Unless key parts of Cedar Mesa are designated wilderness, new roads will expand vehicle access - and expand the range of the "pothunters" that destroy priceless archaeological sites. Arch Canyon West of Comb Ridge, just north of Utah 95, Arch Canyon contains cottonwoodlined creeks that tumble from the Abajo Mountains to the north. Despite a 63-1 record of public comment in favor of wilder- ness study, the BLM dropped the area claiming that State-owned land somehow "divided" this natural area. (In similar areas where the BLM supported wilderness, State land was not a problem.) Comb Ridge One of the most memorable views in driving Utah 95 is crossing Comb Ridge, a dramatic, uplifted reef 15 miles long and over 1,000 feet high. The BLM dropped this area in the initial inventory, concluding that the area "clearly and obviously lacked . wilderness character." Citing a few impacts on the edge of the area, the BLM claimed the area was ~heavily impacted by human activities." Cheesebox and Deer Canyons These serpentine canyons flow into White Canyon, which parallels Utah 95 north of Natural Bridges National Monument. The BLM opposes wilderness for Cheese box and is not even studying the roadless areas surrounding the Monument - Harmony Flat and Deer Canyon. Their claim of significant human impacts is exaggerated, given the very real wilderness values of the area. Cross Canyon About four miles north of Cutthroat Castle in Hovenweep National Monument, Cross Canyon lies mostly in Colorado and is being studied by the BLM in that state. Utah's portion contains badland formations next to a pinyon-juniper forest. Dark Canyon Only half of the BLM land in this popular backpacking area is proposed for wilderness. A BLM wilderness recommendation is needed to complement designated National Forest wilderness in the upper canyon and recommended Park Service wilderness in contin ued to page 8 �MAY 1986 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION 7 Parks and wilderness • • • continued from page 2 Red Desert Arches Abutting Capitol Reef for several miles on its northeast border is the UWCs 28,800acre Red DeseI1 proposal. This area includes an unusual and colorful basin of deep pink badlands and fluted mud columns. Protection of this area would enhance the scenic and recreational experience of visitors to Capitol Reefs North District, as the park access road forms the Red Desert boundary for several miles. Abutting Arches' northeast boundary, Lost Spring Canyon offers diverse hiking opportunities in conjunction with Arches National Park. The unit includes the upper reaches of Arches' Salt Wash and the entire Lost Spring Canyon system. The area is characterized by deeply eroded side canyons and colorful rock formations, including fins, domes and several arches. Canyonlands Natural Bridges Canyonlands National Park lies within a large, cliff-edged basin of highly eroded slickrock formations - canyons, buttes, spires and needles. The original proposed park boundary would have included this entire basin - rim-to-rim - from the Orange Cliffs on the east to the Hatch Point Cliffs on the west. This proposal was whittled down until only a heart-shaped portion of the Canyonlands basin was established as a national park. The UWCs wilderness proposals adjacent to Canyonlands would help provide needed protection to deserving lands excluded from park protection. Six-Shooter Peaks The UWCs Six-Shooter Peaks 32,640acre proposal would protect the lower ends of Lavender and Davis Canyons (the upper ends are in Canyonlands National Park) as well as Bridger Jack Mesa. Scenically and geographically, this area is an inseparable part of Canyonlands National Park. Protection of this area has become particularly critical because of the U.S. Department of Energy's consideration of Davis and Lavender Canyons for high-level nuclear waste disposal. Indian Creek Fourteen miles of Indian Creek Canyon - a narrow, twisting canyon draining into Canyonlands National Park and the Colorado River - would be protected in UWCs 26,920-acre Indian Creek proposal. Indian creek is a major feature in the Canyonlands basin west of the park. When viewed from BLM's Needles Overlook, it is frequently perceived as part of Canyonlands National Park. The Canyon offers an unforgettable hiking experience because of unusual rock formations and rich color combinations in the rock. Wilderness designation would also enhance protection of the many Indian rock art sites amateur archeologists have documented. Shaffer Canyon and the Goosenecks Just north of Indian Creek are these two units the BLM dropped during its inventory process. The UWC's 2,800-acre Schaffer Canyon proposal lies directly below Deadhorse Point and would protect the Point's scenic breaks as wilderness. The Colorado River winds back and forth through the U WC's 1O,200-acre Goosenecks proposal. Boaters in Canyonland's Cataract Canyon float through this stretch of river on their way into the park. Butler Wash Abutting the park on the south, UWCs 25,780-acre Butler Wash proposal includes the upper end of Salt Creek, a major canyon and hiking corridor in Canyonland's Needles District. Hikers seeking remoteness and solitude in the Needles frequently make the Butler Wash area their destination. The BLM recommends 24,190 acres of wilderness for Butler Wash. Lost Spring Canyon Natural Bridges National Monument is literally surrounded by UWCs wilderness proposals - and for good reason. This small monument was set aside primarily to protect 3 natural rock bridges, but it is surrounded by outstanding wilderness lands. These wildlands are part of what the UWC calls the "White Canyon Complex" - a series of canyons dissecting the Cedar Mesa plateau and draining into the White River. With its maze of deeply incised canyons and pinyon-juniper covered benchlands, the White Canyon Complex includes tens of miles of outstanding hiking and backpacking opportunities. Designation of the White Canyon Complex would make Natural Bridges National Monument the heart of one of the most impressive wilderness complexes in southern Utah. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Geographically, the Glen Canyon NRA forms the heart of the UWCs 5-million-acre wilderness proposal. The NRA itself is not included in the proposal because it is under national Park Service jurisdiction. UWC wilderness areas abut virtually the entire perimeter of the NRA, one of the nation's largest. Thirteen UWC wilderness proposals adjoin NPS-recommended wilderness within the NRA. Although Glen Canyon NRA was established primarily to administer the recreational values of Lake Powell, it includes - and abuts - some of the most remote, pristine and impressive wilderness in the state. The NRA contains, for example, the lower stretches of the Escalante River Canyons, and abuts the UWCs North Escalante Canyons wilderness proposal. The UWCs Lillie Egypt, Scorpion, Dance Hall Rock and Sooner Bench proposals all would protect the upper ends of canyons draining into the NRA's portion of the Escalante Canyon. The Coalition's French Spring/ Happy Canyon-Dirt)' Devil and Fiddler Butte proposals meet the western boundary of, and are natural extensions of, the wild and remote Orange Cliffs section of Glen Canyon NRA. The San Juan Arm of Glen Canyon NRA forms the southern boundary for UWCs Nokai Dome, Castle Creek, Mike's Canyon, and Grand Gulch/ Johns/ Slickrock Canyon wilderness proposals. These areas would protect the deeply incised narrow canyons draining Cedar Mesa's pinyonjuniper covered plateau lands which flow into the San Juan River. Protection of these areas in conjunction with the San Juan River would form an outstanding river and canyon wilderness. Terri Martin lives in Salt Lake City and is the Rocky Mountain Regional Representatives/or the National Parks and Conservation Association. This spectacular spot in Parunuweap Canyon is the site 0/ a proposed site 0/ a dam the Washington County Water Conservancy District would like to build within the Parunuweap Wilderness Study Area. Wilderness designation would protect it. Photo copyright Ray Wheeler Help UWC New Books To Focus On Utah Ulah Canyon Countfr. the first volume in the new Utah Geographic Series, will be released April 14. Written by Moab author Fran Barnes, with a foreword by Ted Wilson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah Canl'on Country contains 120 pages of text, maps, and charts and nearly 200 color photographs of southeastern Utah. Rick Reese, President of the Salt Lake City - based Utah Geographic Series, Inc. said that his company is unique in that it will publish more than a dozen books which focus exclusively on Utah. Each title in the series will contain 120 pages of text, maps, charts, and a large number of color photographs. The beautifully illustrated series will portray in words and photographs the unique diversity of Utah ... its astounding landforms, abundant wildlife, colorful history and vigorous people. Other titles currently in production or planning include Utah Ski Country, Ulah Wildlands, Pioneer Trails, The Wasatch Front, Utah Wildlife, Ulah's Great Basin. and Ulah Mountain Ranges. Utah Call1'on CountrI' has sections on natural hist~ry, human ' history. national parks and special areas, and recreational opportunities in southeastcrn Utah. The informative text is supplemented by the work of more than three dozen photographers including John Telford. Tom Til\. David Muench, Rod Millar. Paul Logsdon, Tom Bean, John George, JeffGnass, Larry Ulrich and Pat O'Hara. In his foreword to Utah Call1'on Country, Wilson writes: The Utah Geographic Series is a celebration of all that is Utah: its vast space, its matchless beauty, its absolutely unique diversity and its peopie . . . Utahns and visitors alike will welcome the knowledge and understanding this series brings. The accompanying sensitivity to and appreciation of our special province of the West will make it a better place for all of us. Ulah Canyon Country is being sold through the Utah Wilderness Coalition (see ad, page 3) and the proceeds from the sale of each book will go directly to the Coalition. Send $14.95 plus $1.80 for sales tax and postage ($16.75 total for each book) to the Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446, Salt Lake City, Utah 84147. The Utah Geographic Series guarantees your money back if you are not pleased with their books. �8 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION MAY 1986 _ __ __ __ BlM Hearings continued from cover impact statement. But the agency is not going out of its way to make it easy for conservationists to register their comments either through the hearing schedule or the hearing procedure, said Darrell Knuffke, Central Rockies Regional Director for The Wilderness Society. Signing up to testify is easy enough: the bureau will have sign-up cards available at each hearing location starting one hour before the hearing. Individuals who want to testify need only fill out a card. Jim Catlin. Utah Chapter Sierra Club, said the latest information from the BLM indicates that people will be permitted to speak in the following order: elected officials will go first. followed by governmental representatives, organizations and companies. The _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ general public comes last. Catlin said that the bureau has told him the individual signup cards will be shuffled after they are collected and individuals called in the resulting order. There will be no first-come, firstserved order. Catlin has asked the agency to at least announce the final order of witnesses so people will know when their turn is likely to come. So far, though, the BLM has made no such commitment. All speakers will be under the same time limit, probably from three to five minutes - not long, but long enough to enter persuasive comments into the hearing record. It is impossible to detail in three or five minutes all the areas you support for wilderness protection or all the reasons why you support them. By stating your support for the Utah Wilderness Coalition's 5 million acre proposal. you go on record as opposed Five million acres of Utah wildlands _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ to the BLM's small recommendation and you amplify the need to support many areas in addition to the ones you specifically In writing your testimony, it is important to stress the personal aspects - who you are, what you do, how and why you use wilderness. Other points to cover include: support for specific BLM areas you know personally; - support for the Coalition's 5 million acre proposal; - brief discussion of your wilderness experiences on Utah's public lands and why they are important to you; - a recognition that we need not - and cannot afford to - choose between the equally important directions of economic development and wilderness protection. We can have both if we plan carefully. I n Defense of • • • continued from page 6 the lower canyon. Most of this huge natural area is BLM land, but they would slice off its edges with exaggerated claims of impacts in Beef Basin, Youngs Canyon, and Fable Valley, The BLM understated wilderness values in Sweet Alice Canyon which abuts the Forest Service road less area, Ruin Canyon, More than 60,000 acres should be added to the BLM recommendation. Fish Creek Located south of Utah 95, west of Comb Ridge and southeast of Natural Bridges Natural Monument, Fish and Owl Creek are popular backpacking areas. BLM supports wilderness designation for the canyon bottoms and mesas on the west but not on the east. The BLM plans expensive bulldozing of the forest and reseeding for cattle - money better spent on less sensitive areas, One of the most important canyons missing from wilderness study is lower Mule Canyon which Utah 95 crosses in its middle. Fortknocker Canyon FaclOr .. BUlle in Ihe Mudd .. Creek Vnil. PhOIO by Eldon Briand THAT'S WHAT THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION IS FIGHTING TO PROTECT WITH WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. We need your moral, political and financial help to save that land from destructive development and the BLM's poor stewardship. Just before White Canyon flows into Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, it is joined by F ortknocker and several unnamed side canyons, Access is from Utah 95. The area has nearly 20 miles of deeply entrenched white sandstone canyons, The BLM dropped this area with claims of impacts that "caused this unit to lose its natural character." The Coalition redrafted the unit boundary to exclude the mere 10 percent of the area that has significant impacts. Yes. I want to help the grassroots and national organizations fighting for 5 million acres of wilderness on the Colorado Plateau. Enclosed is my donation. 0$15 o $25 o $35 o $50 0$150 0$250 Name Address _________________________________________________ City, State, Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Make Check To: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O. Box 11446 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Members of Ihe Vlah Wilderness Coalilion are: The Escalame Wilderness Com millee, The WasQ[ch Moumain Club, Ihe Sowhern V/ah Wilderness Alliance, Ihe Slick Rock Coumrl' Couneil, The Wilderness Societ)", The V/ah Chapler Sierra Club, The NQ[ional Parks and Conservalion Assorialion, Friends oflhe Eanh. Defenders of Wildlife, Four Corners Wilderness Workshop, Friends oflhe River - Colorado Plaleau, The Ari=ona Wilderness Coalilion, The Colorado Environmel1lal Coalilion, The Arizona WhilewQ[er AssociQ[ion, The Ne\'{}da Ow door Recrealion Associalion, The New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalillon, and The Deserl Tonoise Counul (suppomng Ihe Joshua Tree and Beaver Dalll unils). I """"""""""""""'1"'1 Grand Gulch One of the biggest - and most popular - road less areas in Utah, Grand Gulch meanders 53 miles over a straight-line distance of 21 miles, BLM divided this single road less area into many smaller parts, just as they did with Dark Canyon. Unlike Dark Canyon, they only dropped one: Steer Gulch. The rest were joined as they should have been with the Grand Gulch Primitive Area, Numerous natural arches, rincons, and pinnacles line the Gulch and its side canyons: Bullet, Kane, Polly's, Collins, Step, and Pine. Gravel & Long Canyons The most prominent sandstone tower between Hite and Natural Bridges along Utah 95 is Jacobs Chair, sadly scarred by uranium exploration. Alongside this tower are two magnificent unimpacted canyons: Gravel on the east and Long on the west, both flowing into White Canyon. The BLM used mining impacts - which totaled a mere 1,800 acres - as reason to delete the remaining 37,200-acre road less area. The Coalition's proposal simply excludes the impacted area. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ , Harmony Flats The south side of Natural Bridges National Monument is bordered by Harmony Flats, The name is a misnomer, since a deep canyon and several tributaries fill the area. The BLM dropped this area in the initial wilderness review, leaving the door open for yet another proposed roadside tourist attraction. Mancos Mesa Scene of one of the ftrst confrontations with the BLM over protection of wilderness study areas, Mancos Mesa has a stormy history, Just after Congress passed legislation requiring a BLM wilderness review, Gulf Minerals punched in almost 30 miles of new roads for uranium exploration in the middle of Mancos Mesa. The BLM granted access under the condition that the roads be reclaimed. Now the BLM has relented, recommending nonwilderness for the impacted area. Our proposal differs from the BLM's by including all of Moqui Canyon on the southern part of the area, The BLM ignored the pristine perennial stream and canyon, Mule Canyon Just north of Utah 95, a few miles from the turnoff to Natural Bridges, is Mule Canyon Ruins - a reconstructed Anasazi village that borders the Mule Canyon Wilderness Study Area, BLM recommends wilderness for this area, which offers excellent day hikes through "Class A scenery characterized by smooth red sandstone and contrasting ponderosa pine and Douglas ftr." Nokai Dome This huge area lies south of Utah 263 to Halls Crossing, north of the Sanjuan River, and west of the river takeout at Clay Hills. The historic Mormon Trail crosses the western portion. Numerous canyons drain into the San Juan River. The BLM cut the 80,OOO-acre area into ftve pieces, citing impacts, and then dropped them all. The impacts occupy less than a square mile in a road less area three times larger than Salt Lake City, Road Canyon Road Canyon is north of Mexican Hat, Utah, east of Grand Gulch, and south of Fish & Owl Canyons. In 1984, the BLM proposed half the area for wilderness. Now the BLM has enlarged its proposal, adding the cliffs that face the Valley of the Gods on the southern part of the area. The Coalition proposal includes the rugged canyons that reach Comb Wash in the east, outside the BLM study area. Lime Creek and Road Canyon are favored hiking areas, Sheep Canyon Abutting a National Park Service wilderness proposal in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Sheep Canyon represents a logical extension of the NRA wilderness proposaL The area is west of Dark Canyon; Sheep Canyon reaches the Colorado River at Mille Crag Bend. The BLM said that the few impacts near the edge of the road less area affected "the entire unit" and "caused a significant loss of natural character.~ The facts argue otherwise; the Coalition's 4,500 acre proposal simply excludes those few impacts. Squaw & Papoose Canyons The Colorado BLM is taking the lead in studying this area east of Blanding and north of Hovenweep National Monument. This area abuts Cross Canyon Wilderness Study Area just to the south. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/52">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/52</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3289444056 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7032201 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Utah Wilderness News, May 1986 Description An account of the resource A publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition published in May 1986. Summary of wilderness in Zion-Hot Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah, giving a synopsis of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as national parks, a description of remarkable features, and the Bureau of Land Management's rationale for recommendations. Also includes a hearing schedule to discuss the future of Utah's wild lands. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Martin, Terri Dangerfield, Chris Subject The topic of the resource Natural resources conservation areas Wilderness areas Utah Wilderness Coalition Wilderness conservation Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Wilderness Coalition Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-05 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Zion National Park (Utah) Bryce Canyon National Park (Utah) Capitol Reef National Park (Utah) Arches National Park (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5a4debd35673be86bac9ac2e709b8761.pdf 26ba5aac3f851a7e5f94f58d39e0b7e5 PDF Text Text '. (~::, : ',--,='-~L"""'~~__<-- ' ' - ' ' US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY . re requested, and can be provided below . Name ----~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------- / SLC87/26 �THE WORLD'S LA'RGEST CHAIN OF MOTELS, HOTELS AND RESORTS IFOR RESERVATIONS DIAL TOLL FREE (800) 528-1234 ( BEST WESTERN CREST MOTEL 243 NORTH 4th STREET MONTPELIER, IDAHO 83254 TELEPHONE (208) 8471782 ~l~Ct::-JVED IJ n -r\ 1 5 1q(86~ ,_ lJ ... " .; H2iVI HILL / SLC October 3, 1986 Valley Engineering 168 North 100 East Logan, Utah 84321 To Whom It May Concern: u.s. ( ( Highway 89 through Logan Canyon serves as a vital economic link for the Bear Lake Valley. The canyon is a beautiful place, however, I feel that with good common sense and concern for the environment, greatly needed improvements such as bridge replacement, pavement widening and passing lanes or turn-outs can be constructed. I also urge CH 2 M Hill to conduct public me eting s on this project in the Bear Lake Valley. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincere~~ , -~/ ~p / �?-00#//tAAZ~~Af4J k.ey / (J 1'P¥. 1/iJD~,It .! At?#6' C'Alu. /~.k ~g¥> pZ~$ ~.&-.Yr ~~~ ~,L- ~&JtP4A//,~;-; (;;Z)C/~/ ~~ .. M~~) ~~ ~r?- ~e ~5~s' -I#c- tfV~f d/~~~A&~ 7Z7 .AI v /.&-P r9 P?& ~~4f3c/~6- ~r-~ (0 e&A/ j#£- 2~~:fJ ~~S6~ g~·O~~~~­ ~/S/~O 77vt:J 0:e-~6-6Z#L- ~6'~s :: /) #R?/-&-~£:-:s - Q~ Rk/U t'/R4fie/ ;&4?/L-5 / /?:(/#t::-C-L? ~0'j7L!fe(7 #ft6- ./P~~~~~~ $,d/#66J1 ~/?~4gij J7z? AJ4~ ~) ~tCJ~~ ,O/PA:Aclcu(ypaJ ~~~ &9~~~ /7;6?~~~, ;r#-~?dL--fi- )7h/~ &/~~k- P~6'(}J~ y-?/ ~ ~6#?/'~g.O t!v///bA/$O ~Po~4~6 #~ J~~ /0 /,6££ /.J>4~00g /Dij ?#P',{J(:f'/il$P#~cJ /£l~/tJ~~ r /t:JcJ $~A/y J~rCJ~ C£/6U/r~ - J:y~:C>q/ 2)Ut/~//~~s m4'P/ .e3/?/~e) /J J72Jo ~r t/&!~?UU..r ~ e:rpt&c/Al-~ ---- /# n/J' J/P$..6- ~A-/l- ~f hk79'e4JP/lc~~., / 6t7&rp-~/e?~.81 tA!J~~ rW/#£;bl/¢?~6) 7Z~J~ t?/ v-/ &/<YCJ C::c-//-'~ ~e.ac V.8-7~?' ~P'~ rr~4P;zt 6£..//-A~/ flbV TPJ $2L:- {//'f,/ rCJ~ tt:J~ ~/Jr- ~,6~ J?##~~bZP.Ef.P..F d9-~ <9~~~~(O4-' J i -- - --- . -- 1 ---- ---_ .t" . _ _ _ __ __ _ - ---. --- _.- j -----~- I - I I /f/.d-~06/~P-~ ~$ d]e/Y-V-Z; - #b? 6¢M? C/1)ZU/6 V2¥A~ J70 ,<:~~~ ~/!:; ~pg~ -1fJfi- ~ ~ ~ ~p- --__ ~h 4b',(?/)77~A/ tIII',P!--P7P'~ ./&t1~p- _ _ __ #//heI7~#L- //~"d//<i- #.,u~~b?~ �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY I ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. / SLC87/26 �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. t\~~~~~~~'~~~~ ~\l~"-L- I ( ( SLC87/26 C~ ~~ ~---lL- ~ ~ , �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY / ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. 12\(',\4. c...o \2 tJ~ Un\), 1M. (SS (OM C\1:01 «1M \1rcJ \a."}..J ~U?-1j JJ~~ Name Comments: th;:\U W1 w tLhMt\~2 11?t\.£rl<:' )iJCf[,C -6.0E rc\,· ~ e~± \0 _"1 ~V;', !1-£GI \hl'£ CAU '1 0 l~ K-ob/-...J I ----- , \ t~ f --,,'---'=:.-..--,---,,"'",--,-",.!---'-"-'-"'--"--'--"''-L'-'~+----'-V-~----'--''-'''''''-+''--'-'-'--'--'-'-..J...L.;o''''--'-_-L''-''--'-''--''-'-.l.DGJ,.~''''::::''''->' ~ (' '-'. ~ \ l '(" /) ) ( . (,:J\" L",J t -: : :....\.,,)..1) ~- b \W (1, J ( :. -; =fbr\Qlc;t ) I SLC87/26 V i A \j f'Caw =t iC) t F-i7vJ\u. \?)~..I / \~V,-(? \ S. VXJ - �us 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. ( I / (" ( q~r .0;'-- ¥~ d / �f40V 1 01986 US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Phyllis Smart - Montpelier, Idaho Name Comments: 83254 Unsafe driving conditions on Logan Canyon road are due to: (1) narrow bridges, sharp curves, narrow road and little shoulder. (2) when long lines of cars, trucks, trailers etc. exist, there always seem to be one or two who take chances in passing. Not only does this endanger lives but also causes mental stress to drivers and passengers. (3) narrow winding roads through the canyon makes it almost impossible to try to avoid an accident by moving to another lane of traffic or to the shoulder area. Deer and cattle on the road could be more easily avoided if there was another lane of traffic or more shoulder room. ( ( ~, (there would be less dented fenders & broken head lights). Also accidents due to winter conditions (vehicle sliding etc.) would . be less if another lane was available. If one has an appointment etc. during the summer, at least one half hour more time is needed due to slow traffic (sight seers, heavy loads, trailers, tourists all travel at a slower speed than the posted speed limit. Drivers who are not familar with the road or canyon driving tend to drive much slower and use their brakes quickly upon coming to a curve). Many Montpelier drivers use the road to Preston vs Logan canyon road due to the unsafe conditions listed above. Mileage wise there is very little difference. I commend the Highway Department for their "being on the job" ( during winter conditions as they do a good job in keeping the road passable. SLC87/26 Some tourists who have stopped at the place I work do not like that road and if you mention the beauty of the canyon, river etc. they have failed to notice it as they were so busy with just driving the canyon road! Beauty cannot be enjoyed under stress. Logan Canyon Road causes stress !!!! �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Name Comments: I ( jvuY{. SIA.-<-~ ~;,. 12--\ cY 5 \> \i/1Vv"1& r. s . ~\; ~\b ~; S\'11JeD Lb l-J G l~tl L~1?G U'.2!Z.b~0l2 1JAs. hi ") \,I-!&2M{ S ( - 'No Vu/ c-G{ ~ v! Y..f..-'l!:N t ~L v RR \u v, rnss, . .?,"( C?v 1I~~..Q o..<?:to kit (( LNk of OJ i she·corR ~ b dttJ ctJt 2 ~ ll'v~" lk'0 , 3 lPwt ~~i �( ' ( ( �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Name I~ Comments: <- ('/ ( I . ) / L C ".) i / 1 / .';-.~ . ( ( ( J �( �( T~~-p~-c~"V\A/) l~ ({~ fu c~(~ ~c~ b...(J~ ~ ~-p 1",<) t-·k~( k<-.J( ':717 C ~ ~) h-Cf-fJ « L( A~ .Q..",~-\. . II /-c"I\/\ {o-W ~t h-v-/llc .~ ~c/Vl---?, ~ ) -"1-P ~ ( /", ( p.~-r !-e (J LL' '''V\.~/l ~f J]-e. C'--A" n1 &c~ ~'-0J1 J i-~ (0--:7 /~f _Jjj c'- f~ C CC"':: ( ,d I'<LC(J (kd ., ~j/J /v~~"--t (-,:, Lr-Lc; c~~, c~ ~'-A~r~ /~~ ./L~-",,,--t /'VV"--'---'-./J....--1 !-o /1- '-f.J .--1?-f! 0-1Ir{J cl (-C2 M c-? / Sr-~'~~ ~ ?Q~' !~~ 37-1 L) ICL; Aj L '1 "-"'') c, T NO\/1 .-'- ' 7 1Q02 { h)U,-, CH2M H:tL / SLL ?lt3 2 ! �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Name Dl V I Slo Yl tYF t'7P.rti L~l2S f ~r5:S~. J / --.::~:::.:(Z:...;;:fl=/~(j.L..-..J..P.....:If::.-L..T...... 7f.L.:.6~R..Io.£.-=kl....L) _ _=S....;.::>--=E=Il~S=-..L.I-L-/..;::;·O=()...:...-....~c...c/...looQ~£:Ti~...L.tlL.-,,_ 'L0C; {IN I f Conunents: l! ' t i ·h " I '; 7k g LC:T a a go ~ , 1...- <-( -, t-r fr (.' (' lz) C .:..... Th r i '~lUrC G tl -& c +-1 v t iC Izc.a s 3 t lJ/(13:v/, " 0'7 121 (=,1'1 V'<? ?' 0' /Y' (,'ry-lc-\ /e f ( b~ 7 D('C'(/ ( c/E'c( e oc e t" E' h ( c / r::...) L-U , f tc ~'r ~cj-ek"'- {fl o j b ~h'l v1r( I f lf c:tyc:f's yeA he ir;;( 0f . • Ir'l k 0 ,--/ / (>/'-'- / , i ) C! lu c!e: ,J 'j .CK< 2 l' C, ') b liu? 11;17 .) <-;: C\(' . ~: 7 in. .7 e J:p~-;:>q tev-- h k- "E-k V 1 s Lit' sf '-:-',,( S0 UL</r( I <2..! fi c q tl ~C v ( ·f(o ,-, ' s Y (d h (? Lx Ot? (?de ,,{ -1-0 c r ( d~ k{, O'll (I .; Q ;-r 0 -j/vt£ '\ c �-' .:'/; ~r" ~'1.· ;: V ... --.., ..r... ! US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY ( ... .J ' .. , ....-. ..... . ~_ Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Name C,YBi C1 \ \' \)DmOvS.. l),~ '6q it> I m~D'f\wn)O:c Yo ~ Comments: e:... \.\\c.(hl.t)~ re&iA>D~ o\o~ U yY\a~oc ·±b1Z tsQ(QY W1,J I ~~ l,p. k<,< \) '" l.,~ . :r::;;,i 1\2(=1'1,1 ~ ) ~ ,\OIA< hold, 0.-"> 'cW...,y~\?vJo\.c... VYieel.N)s t>---S> ?uSS ; b l&- v i 'N +t,.q ~ LA\s. o f \ t l A < \ <., - • ( SLC87/26 . ~ :' :'...,J' . ~ . �September 20, 1986 Mr. Allen Harrison Bear Lake Regional Commission Executive Director Fish Haven, Idaho 83267 Friend Allen: We read the articles in the News Examiner about the Logan Canyon road. We travel the road once or twice a week in the summer months to take care of the 40 acres in Fish Haven and down to Ogden to take care of our home there. The traffic is real heavy most of the time and at times it is very dangerous to drive in mornings and evenings, when the sun is in your eyes. We would appreciate having the road widened and improved not only for our selves but family, friends and others who travel Highway 89. We appreciate your interest, concern and energy in trying to get improvements made on roads and the Bear Lake area. As you know Highway 89 extends from Canada to Mexico and we thank you for the effort you put forth to get improvements made. l;,rl ~ =~1jJ;;;:/ · G~/rDorJ.s ec Stock Your neighbors over the hill in Fish Haven Canyon �f November 12, 1986 Mr. Clifford R. Forsgren, P.E. NOV 1 ? 198B CH2M Hill, Consulting Engineers P. o. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, utah 84101 Re: Highway u.s. 89 - Logan Canyon Study Dear Mr. Forsgren: I've just read the November, 1986 Summary Fact Sheet concerning the referenced project study. One statenent in particular causes ne considerable alarm. On the last page, paragraph three states, "During the tour, it was suggested by some present that the Canyon should be treated as a recreational corridor (a destination) rather than as a transp::>rtation link (a conduit for traffic). Recreational use of the corridor should be given priority over transp::>rtation use whenever a decision involving trade-offs is to be made in the study. " ( ( No one disputes the recreational value of Logan Canyon. People skiing, camping, picnicing, haul ing f irev.DOd., etc. go to the canyon for a specific purpose. I use the canyon for these activities myself. But to categorically give priority to recreational use over transp::>rtation needs borders on the absurd, in my opinion. A native of Bear Lake County, and still owning property there, I strongly protest the idea of recreational priority. Perhaps residents of cache and Box Elder Counties consider the canyon a destination rrore than a transp::>rtation link, but residents of , other areas rrost certainly do not. I submit that rrost weekend traffic from OJden, Salt Lake, and Provo in the sumrrertine ends up in Bear Lake, not in Logan Canyon. Ask the people in Bear Lake and Rich Counties and beyond, even into Wyoming, how many stop in the canyon as opp::>sed to those who use the route for access to Logan, OJden, or Salt Lake. I assure you, that canyon exists as a vital link connecting them to these other areas. I repeat, to consider other priorities ahead of transp::>rtation demonstrates seriously faulty thinking. Certainly only a fanatical environnentalist who would have us all backpacking through the canyon could seriously suggest such a thing. ( let's be reasonable, Mr. Forsgren. Certainly recreation has its place and deserves consideration, but not at the expense of those who depend on that highway for transportation. I was born in lDgan. As a youth, I traveled through the canyon for lTUSic lessons, medical care, shopping, etc. alnnst ~kly. Now I drive it dozens of times each year for business and pleasure. Sometines �2 I stop for recreational purposes, too. But I believe those people on the other side of the mountain deserve better than to stand in jeopardy because of special interests groups whose access to the ~rld is provided by a six-lane freeway and see lA>gan Canyon only in tenus f their limited, selfish needs. / st\rel , Y:en~1j1;ent 107 East Ma.in Hyrum, utah 84319 cc: ( ( Gale larson, Valley Engineering, Inc. �US 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY Your comments are requested, and can be provided below. Thorras C. Jensen, 1750 Foothill Drive, lDgan, UT Name 84321 Comments: I have lived and operat.ed my business in lDgan for the past 10 years. One of the prime reasons for selecting lDgan was the natural beauty and adjacent wilderness areas. However, I feel that there needs to be a reasonable and balanced approach to the natural beauty and wilderness in regards to highway design and rraint.enance and 1) SafctV' - ilCC2SS through these areas. The nurrerous accidents in the Logan Canyon area testify to the need for proper passing and slow lanes. I have personally witnessed or experienced rrany "near-misses" as a result of blind corners, ice build-up from cross drainage ( in late spring, narrow bridges, and limited passing lanes ( causing backups and "daredevil passes." 2) Access Route: Logan Canyon is not only a scenic drive, it is the rrajor artery to lDgan from Rich County. The highway must be travelled in dangerous conditions by service and delivery agents, professional services, truck traffic, temple visitors, tourists, and shopping excursions for the citizens of Rich County. Travel in the canyon becomes a very serious considera- tion in winter and spring due to very hazardous conditions, and summer due to slow moving R.V. traffi<;:. Commerce is drastically hampered. No one is askingfolr a super-highway, or for cOl11fl'ercial develOJ?l!Ent that ( ( \'.QuId seriously reduce the natural attractiveness of the canyon. It is SLC87/26 of questionalYle value however, if the canyon highway is left in its current dangerous condition. If this artery of cOl11fl'erce and tourism �US 89 - lDgan Canyon Study / Thomas C. Jensen Page '!Wo becomes increasingly choked, it will cost both lives and livlihood. ( ( ( ( �HYDE PARK CITY CORPORATION P O. BOX 489 HYDE PARK, UTAH 84318 -{ECEfVEC NOV 241986 November 21, 1986 CH2M HILL / SlC Mr. Stanton S. Nuffer CH2M Hi 11 Associated Plaza, Suite 500 349 South 200 East PO Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Dear Mr. Nuffer: He as the Hyde Park City Council feel additional construction in Logan canyon will ultimately benefit not only Cache County residents, but also Rich County residents. We also feel that if it is done in an orderly fashion, it wouldn't adversely affect the environment in Logan canyon. ( ( We would like to see improvements done in this part of the State to enhance tourism and possibly generate additional revenues for our community. Sincerely, Hyde Park City Council Leslie A. Ball s Da vi d t·1. Cheney Marilyn P. Grunig Michael T. Kirby John A. Rich ~-/-~~ Robert J . Ball s t~ayor RJB/jh ( • � 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/53">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/53</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 4011851985 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 25984481 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 Comments on the improvements of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Comments from local leaders and residents of Cache, Bear Lake, and Rich counties arguing for both minimal improvements to the canyon road claiming it as a destination, and maximum improvement to increase traffic flow and reduce accidents by adding lanes to existing road. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bean, Richard Pope, Lewis Floyd, Craig Allen, Karla Brown, Ken Stringham, Brian Smart, Phyllis Jensen, Thomas Balls, Robert Harrison, Alan Collins, Kathlyn Pendery, Bruce Pettigrew, Craig Thomas, Craig Stock, Glen Stock, Doris Jensen, D. Brent Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction 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 1986-10-03 1986-10-16 1986-11-10 1986-11-03 1986-11-17 1986-09-20 1986-11-12 1986-11-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Bear Lake (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 28 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/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 MSS148VIIIB28_Fd7_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5a694471328c25ebb7aa4aab03285e46.pdf c4faf9002cc30e3115224e2f250799ca PDF Text Text Sa fety Highway safety in Logan Canyon has been a concern of previous highway projects, and has been raised in the current project. Safety for any highway involves two major issues: (i) accident rates and (ii) severity of accidents. UDOT has provided data for the period 19801985 (6 years) for accident rates in the canyon. These rates were compared with the accident rate for Rural Arterial Federal Highways in Utah (the standard), and stattistical analysis indicated 3 or 4 sections ~ the highway (of 13 sections) had accident rates significantly higher than those of the standard. The other sections of the canyon had rates insignificantly differerent or significantly lower than the standard. Subsequent analysis of the UDOT rates, however, revealed many were in error, casting serious doubt on the validity of the data. This also cast doubt on the validity of the standard: if many of the calculated accident rates for Logan Canyon are wrong, what about the reliability of the standard, presumably arrived at by the same methods? Requests for UDOT data upon which these c~lculations are based were made, but no data has been furnished. In order to make meaningful comparisons of accident rates, Logan Canyon should be compared with similar canyon highways, such as Sardine Canyon, Ogden Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Provo Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon. No such comparisons have been made by UDOT or CH2M, and the necessary data 'has not been provided. Faced with this serious question concerning accident rates, CH2M chose instead to compare total accidents over a 6 year period (1980-85) for 0.1 mile sections of the canyon with the average for 0.1 mile sections to determine the location of the highest accident numbers. This has led to identification of 16 0.1 mile sections (out of 374 0.1 mile sections total) as having significantly higher numbers of accidents .(4 or more accidents in 6 years, 80 % conficdence level) than the average 0.1 mile section. Such results would occur for any highway, and it is important to note none of these 16 sections had accident numbers greatly in excess of the expected number. Many sections of the highway, by the same analysis, have significantly lower numbers of accidents. At this point, there are no data to support a conclusion that Logan Canyon has a significantly higher accident rate than any comparable highway in Utah. With respect to severity of accidents, by far the most common accident is sliding off the road in Winter, involving only one car. Deaths and serious injury have been rar~, and the numbers are too low for any valid statistical analysis. As many deaths have occurred in the lower improved sections (mouth to Right Fork) as on the ~ of the highway from Right Fork to Beaver Mountain turn off. 5ec7JOns As the CH2M report concludes, the chances of being involved in a serious accident in Logan Canyon are small at any time. Safety is not a current issue in Logan Canyon and, in the absence of valid supporting data, cannot be used as a justification for major highway modifications. � 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/54">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/54</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 531811683 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 768468 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 Safety of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Paper stating the importance of highway safety which involves two major issues: accident ratesa and the severity of accidents. Analysis of the Utah Department of Transportation statistical accident data show that the number of accidents in Logan Canyon do not justify major modifications of the highway due to the fact that accidents included cars sliding off the road in winter which involved only one vehicle. The paper concludes that safety is not a current issue in Logan Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) United States Highway 89 Safety 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 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_Page_9.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fe40f9168446c8d40313a03df21de24b.pdf 9aaca0cff5cf93cd5df13adfe8c971d3 PDF Text Text oR161ttAL 2 3 4 5 6 .. " o ... PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 7 City Hall 145 West Center Garden City, Utah ~ I[ o IL 8 9 -000- 10 Presiding: Todd ~~eston state Highway Commissioner Utah Depar tm ent of ,.. TI'8.nsportation Conducting: stanton S. Nuffer 11 12 13 Project Manager 14 15 16 17 , 18 < U 19 o Z UI \oJ I[ IL 20 ~ UI \oJ ~ o « z " 21 22 \oJ D.. 23 24 25 CH2M Hill �I N D E X 2 3 Statement by Mr. Dee Johnson 6 5 Statement by Mr. Barry Negus 7 6 Statement by Mr. Val Peterson 8 7 Statement by Mr. Bryce Nielson 10 8 Statement by Mr. Ted Seeholtzer 13 9 Statement by Mr. Bryce Stringham 19 10 Statement by Mr. John Flannery 20 11 Statement by Mr. George Preston 23 12 Statement by Mr. Russ Currel 25 13 Statement by Mr. OWen Wahlstrom 26 14 Statement by Mr. Paul Webb 27 15 Statement by Mr. Bill Peterson 28 16 Statement by Ms. Cathy Webb 29 17 Statement by Mr. Ray Elliott 32 18 Statement by Mr. Lynn Hillsman 35 19 Statement by Mr. Don Huffner 36 20 Statement by Mr. Todd Weston of UDOT 38 21 Statement by Mr. Jess Anderson 42 22 Statement by Mr. Howard Richardson 43 23 'of Statement by Mr. Ken Brown 4 ell 0 3 3 .. Statement by Mr. Otto Mattson Statement by Mr. Dave Baumgartner 45 ~ II: 0 Ii. III ~ 1'1 C7I < u 0 z II) '" II: Ii. ~ II) '" ~ "0 0( z " III Q. 24 -000- 25 ) i. �GARDEN CITY, UTAH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1987, 7:00 P.M. 2 -000- MR. WESTON: 3 Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to w~'re 4 begin this meeting. 5 County, in Garden City. 6 for the use of this room, this facility. 1 here tonight on behalf of three agencies and a lot of other 8 interested people. 9 Commissioner of the Utah Department of Transportation, 10 happy to be over here in Rich We thank the Garden City officials We welcome you My name is Todd Weston. I'm the representing this part of the state. 11 We're here tonight to further our discussions 12 that we started with some information meetings some time 13 ago in this same room. 14 tonight. 15 had one in Logan last night and another one this morning 16 in Logan, and this will complete the scoping process of 11 the study that we're entering into on Logan Canyon. This is called a scoping meeting It's the third of three that we are holding. We The meeting will be conducted by the people from 18 19 CH2M Hill, who are the consultants employed by the Department 20 of Transportation to make the study in Logan Canyon. (Further comments by Mr. Weston. 21 Introductions 22 of officials present were made. Further comments by 23 Mr. Weston. 24 were projected upon the wall, and Mr. Barker gave a 25 narration. Comments by Mr. Sheldon Barker. Colored slides Mr. Nuffer continued the narration of the 2. �) slides. Further comments by Mr. Weston.) 2 MR. WESTON: 3 followed by Ken Brown. 4 We will first have MR. OTTO MATTSON: Ott~ Mattson, Gentlemen, after all these 5 6 route on a main artery, the highway system. 9 o Our economic growth is severely hampered by the fourth-class 8 III to be deprived of an adequate means of travel to and from? 7 ., studies, these surveys, the discussions, do we still have future is not to continue to be deprived because of a few N ~ a: ... o 10 We hope our we feel know nothing of our protective situation. We all love beauty, but we also love Twentieth 11 12 13 situations, transportation, livestock, construction, goods . 14 1-15 is an artery. 15 not least, recreation, the Wasatch Front's playground. 16 .J Century progress. economic growth now depends on the travel of these routes. < our future. o Last but Our Build, and remove the change for We hope you will consider that. MR. NUFFER: 19 U It's a Yellowstone route. Our views: 17 18 In our situation we have medical Thank you. Ken Brown. Then we'll Z til 101 20 a: t.. have Dee Johnson. ...: til 101 MR. KEN BROWN: 21 ~ Good evening, ladies and o « 22 gentlemen. 23 to see you, a good number of people here in attendance. 24 It shows good support, whether you're in favor or not in 25 z " I appreciate being here tonight, and it's good favor. 101 CL ) 3. �) The newsman from Channel 2 gave me a title of 2 being outspoken. 3 in there to indicate that. 4 But on the news, I didn't put- anything So I'm a little disappointed. As everyone knows, the Logan Canyon road 5 improvement issue has been one of a lot of controversy, 6 and I think that's probably unfortunate. 7 bit about the road. 8 been improved in Logan Canyon, as you know, is a very narrow 9 road, difficult to pass, problems for good flow of traffic. Just a little In my opinion, the area that hasn't 10 The bridges are a disaster, in my opinion, a real hazard 11 to traffic. 12 With respect to the study--and somebody correct 13 me if I'm wrong--I understand that this is the fourth study 14 --is that right, Todd? 15 ) MR. WESTON: 16 17 , 18 Well, I've been involved in three. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fourth. MR. BROWN: That's a real concern to me. going into the fourth study of this area. We're What are we going 19 to gain from the fourth study that we couldn't have gained 20 in the first, second, or third? 21 in my opinion. 22 The improvements. So I think that's a waste, I look for a design, improved 23 road, such as that in the lower portion of the canyon, or 24 that which has been improved. 25 essential for the flow of traffic. The passing lanes are New bridges need to ) 4. �) be built, in my opinion. 2 It's been my understanding that there has been 3 some proposal of a four lane system in Logan Canyon. 4 totally opposed to anything of that nature. 5 and it wouldn't be cost-effective. 6 Traveling in the canyon. I'm It isn't needed, I have spent most of II> 7 my life in Rich County. 8 of times, a lot of miles, a lot of different years, going 9 " o to college and Utah State University. N I've traveled the canyon a lot ~ II: o ... I think I have a 10 pretty good feel for how the road was prior to improvement 11 as now. Going through the canyon 12 now, and especially 13 the improved section, I can't see where you can tell there 14 was any disturbance carried out. 15 affect the beauty 16 there now, how can you tell, as I said, anything was ever 17 done? 418 <: u o I don't think it will once it's restored. As you drive through From a business standpoint or an economic 19 development, it's essential and critical. We know that 20 all businesses are struggling. 21 money, from the county standpoint, as well as from a grant 22 aspect, to the economic development in the Bear Lake region, 23 and we need to be able to get people to and 24 the Cache Valley area, as well. z UI LoI II: ... We are putting money, public ~ UI LoI ~ o « z " '" a.. 25 from~ I think As I said, I'm very much opposed to a fourth 5. �study coming forth of this issue, and I am very much in 2 favor of a road improvement in the portion of the highway 3 where the improved area ends in Garden City. 4 entire route needs improvement. MR. NUFFER: 5 6 I think the Thank you. Dee Johnson. Then we'll have Barry Negus. MR. DEE JOHNSON: 7 Good evening, ladies and 8 gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. 9 I don't want to be repetitious of what's been said. I represent Rich County as a Commissioner and 10 11 12 ) as a citizen also. I sit in the middle. Mr. Francis was at the Logan meeting, and you've heard from Commissioner 13 Brown. 14 the other one is the other. 15 way to be would be to get in the middle of the road of those 16 two, and by so doing I sort of am an eternal optimist. And one of them is just as bullheaded one way as So I have decided the best I don't think there is anything that can't be 17 18 done if all people concerned try to make it happen. As 19 long as there's dialogue and study, then things like that 20 can happen. It's been mentioned that the entire economy, 21 22 of course, on this side of the hill depends on that road. 23 It is a major artery. 24 certainly fraternized by our people on this side of the 25 hill. I think Cache County's economy is You know, babies are born over there, and they will 6. �) always be born over there, and I'd like to see the road 2 improved and the environment withheld to a point that these 3 babies that's being born today and those that are going 4 to be born in 10, 15 years, can enjoy it. I see a situation where we have a present road 5 6 standard of approximately 25 feet. To get a standard or 7 a modified standard, we need to have about 8 I just can't help but think we can't add another 10 feet 9 in places where it's needed and still keep the environment io feet, and 10 so that it's protected, scenic. There has to be a way, 11 and there will be a way if we're all willing to work towards 12 it. If we go with Plan A, and we simply say no action 13 14 taken, then we haven't helped everyone concerned. We've 15 only helped one particular element, that being the element 16 who said, nBy doing anything, we disturb the environment." 17 If we go to the extreme and take alternatives 18 D or E, then we haven't maintained the environment as it 19 needs to be. 20 a road that can service the needs now and in the future. 21 We all have to work together. 22 the time. III N .... f ''"' " < u Somewhere we have to get in the middle, get o z I/) 101 a:: IL ...: I/) 101 ~ I think we can. I appreciate '0 « z " Thank you. 101 11. 23 MR. BARRY NEGUS: I agree well with everything 24 that's been said so far, and I think there is a definite 25 need for an improvement on the road. I think I can say ', ) 7. �most of the people travel on that road at least once a week, ~nd 2 3 to make it a little better and to help things out, not only 4 for us over here, - but for anybody else that wants to travel 5 the road. 6 think there are ways it can be done to keep the scenics 7 there and still make a good road and help everyone out. 8 12. · if not two or three times. Thank you. And with the scenic beauty and everything, I MR. NUFFER: 9 10 it does need to be improved Thank you, Barry. Next we'll have Val Peterson, followed by Bryce Nielson. MR. VAL .PETERSON: 11 ~ntothe I would like to have read 12 position that was taken by the Cache Chamber of Commerce 14 board of directors on the 15th of October in 1986 relative 15 to the Logan Canyon road study. such a study, which may eventually provide clearance to 17 much needed road improvements in the Logan Canyon. 18 our understanding that the study focuses primarily on the 19 stretch of canyon road between Right Fork and Garden City. 20 ~ 13 16 ) or recorded official record of this meeting a This is basically the unimproved section of the canyon road. We are pleased to support It is As a Chamber of Commerce we recognize that our 21 22 neighbors to the north in Idaho and Wyoming as well as Utah 23 depend on the canyon, Logan Canyon corridor, to provide 24 transportation access to services found in Logan and Cache 25 County. Their patronage to our businesses are encouraged, .) 8. �) welcomed, and appreciated. To these outlying communities, 2 this access is critical and fulfills a great need, a 3 lifeline, if you will, to much needed services and goods 4 not found in their areas. 5 Bear Lake is one of the largest bodies of clean 6 7 Salt Lake, and other Utah areas. 9 III facilities for not only local needs, but those of Ogden, 8 ., o ... fresh waters found in Utah. This area provides recreational area, as well as the canyon itself, attracts out of state ::E a: o IL 10 The beauty of the lake tourists, especially in the summer months. We think that the upper reaches of the Logan 11 12 Canyon Road should be made safer and more usable by upgrading 13 to an acceptable modern day standard as much as possible; 14 specificall~ 15 bridges widened, curves made less sharp, sight distance 16 lengthened, and areas widened. passing lanes installed, turning lanes built, It is recognized that environmental consideration 17 III ... N '" f 18 must be taken into account and in some cases allowed to 19 govern the situation. 20 attraction of the canyon is its uniqueness in its natural 21 setting. 22 uncontrolled road construction in Logan Canyon. III < u ci It is agreed that the charm and Z .., 1/1 a: IL ~ .., 1/1 ~ We do not want nor do we propose to support 0 <{ z " .., 0. 23 It is reassuring to know that an interdisciplinary 24 study team has been formed to guide the development of the 25 study currently underway. This team is made up not only 9. �of economists, biologists, engineers, UDOT, Federal Highway 2 Administration representatives, U. S. Forest Service 3 personnel, but the environmental community as well. 4 should provide a well balanced technical steering group 5 for recommended improvements. This Economical developments and the well being of 6 7 our existing businesses and those that may come into Cache 8 County is the basis of the Chamber of Commerce. 9 important for a Chamber of Commerce to help build a better It is also 10 11 the economic and social stability of our valley. 12 an opportunity for us to get behind this effort to do 13 something about the Logan Canyon Road and to work together 14 to improve our northern access from Logan to Garden City. 15 ) community by encouraging people to work together to improve Thank you. .. 16 17 18 MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Mr. Nielson. This is And after the Mayor, we will have Ted Seeholtzer. MR. BRYCE NIELSON: I appreciate the opportunity 19 to speak tonight. I look at the Logan Canyon Road from 20 various points of view. 21 up and live in Logan and to utilize the canyon from a 22 recreational point of view. 23 to live for a good number of years in Rich County and use 24 the canyon as a main artery towards the livelihood that 25 we require; doctors, stores, that type of stuff. I've had the opportunity to grow I've also had the opportunity ) 10. �! . I have also have had the opportunity to be a 2 fisheries biologist and a "environmentalist," you might 3 say. 4 the mayor of Garden City, and been able to see many of the 5 concerns that citizens of the area have about travel, 6 tourism, businesses, the life blood of communities. I have also been on the other side of the coin · as about I feel this gives me a good overview of the 7 8 problem on the Logan Canyon road. I feel that I can't really 9 state what alternatives I'm in favor of or opposed to. 10 11 13 appeal. is extremely important to me, since I transport my family, 15 my loved ones, through the canyon, and my friends travel 16 through the canyon. 17 to say which is more important that one or the other. 18 < throughout the canyon, its scenic values, its esthetic 14 u both the fishery environment and the other environments 12 ) Obviously, the environment is extremely important to me, think they're both extremely important. 19 o But on the same hand, the safety of the canyon So it's very difficult for me as one I I don't think speed is an issue in the canyon, Z III III 20 can you go around a corner? 22 many minutes can you save? 23 with most of the people in Rich County. 24 an issue with many people. 25 ... and I constantly hear this brought up as speed. 21 a:: very much in favor of improvement of bridges. How fast How many miles an hour, how I don't think that's an issue I don't think it's Safety is an issue, and I'm I'm very ) 11. �much in favor of improvement of passing lanes, so that 2 individuals who are impatient, want to get on down the road, 3 will not take hazardous actions that may affect the safety 4 of myself or people that I know and that I think a lot of. I think that it's important that the canyon is 5 6 improved for the tourist industry in Garden City and the 7 Bear Lake area. 8 about in many of these meetings is the fact that you talk 9 ' about loads through the canyon, people, numbers of cars; You know, one thing that's not been talked 10 but nobody has really talked about the amount of people 11 that go through Evanston, other routes to the area, primarily 12 to avoid the canyon. 13 utilize this exceptional resource . .J I'd like to see more of these people One other thing that I'm probably not--well, 14 15 I'm not in favor of--is any realignment of the Rich County 16 side. 17 and boats and semi's labor up and down the hill. 18 I also can see the scars of the old road that existed in 19 the thirties, and I don't want to see additional scars in 20 that beautiful area. 21 of the valley here and many of the tourists who come through 22 thoroughly enjoy seeing deer, moose, and associated wildlife 23 in that area. 24 25 I live on that alignment. I see the cars and trucks However, I know that many of the residents I think with some minor changes I can be very happy with the route as it exists at present. 12. �On the economic side, I don't want to see citizens 2 of Rich County be unduly taxed to maintain a road that they 3 would abandon if in fact they actually did abandon the road 4 or the alignment was changed so that it was our 5 responsibility as taxpayers to maintain the road that exists 6 right now. Above and beyond all, and in quick summary, I 7 8 would like to see more of us get together, both the 9 "environmentalists," "the users of the canyon," and the 10 politicians and look together to see the type of ending 11 that I think we can all be proud of. 12 ) MR. NUFFER: 13 MR. TED SEEHOLTZER: 14 15 Thank you. Ted. It's hell to get old,isn't it? My name is Ted Seeholtzer. I'm affiliated with 16 17 Travel Council for 11 years. 18 < u Beaver Mountain ski area. Bridgerland Tourist Council, which includes Rich County 19 and Cache County. 20 Some of them sit a little sideways from time to time, but 21 basically I'm straight down the middle type of a guy. a I'm a past member of the Utah I am now chairman of the So I can speak with two or three hats. z \II 101 a: ... ...: \II 101 ~ o '" " Z 22 I have been accused of being a special interest 101 IL 23 ·individual regarding the canyon. Perhaps I am to a point, 24 but I'm here to tell you one thing, whether or not I'm 25 associated with Beaver Mountain, if I thought for one minute 13. �that canyon was going to be uprooted, I would be completely 2 on the other side of the fence. So I do have some very, 3 very strong concerns about the canyon and what ought to 4 happen to it and the condition it ought to be in hopefully 5 when we get some work done on it. Just to throw a few insights to you regarding 6 7 the area and traffic patterns that we have there, on a day 8 that Beaver Mountain has 1,200 skiers, that develops into 9 roughly 440 cars at 2.7 persons per car, which is a good 10 average. It's pretty much a set number by all the resorts 11 in Utah-Colorado areas.· We have that happen any number of times during 12 ) 2.7 is a pretty good figure. 13 the winter. 14 Day and some of these type things that we get upwards of 15 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 people. 16 of 1,200 to 440 cars, if those people were to leave the 17 resort in an orderly fashion in a two-hour period, every 18 27 seconds an automobile would hit that road. 19 within an hour period, every 13.5 seconds an automobile 20 hits that highway. 21 Of course, we have some peak days. President's But as an average weekend crowd If they leave So we know that that road cannot be developed 22 to handle total peak traffic. The 24th of July, Labor Day, 23 Fourth of July type crowds. 24 considered when that road is designed that those types of 25 traffics are possible on it, and consideration should be But it certainly ought to be 14. �" given to that. We're noticing a great deal more traffic coming 2 3 4 We need those people in this area for their tax dollars, 6 the tourism industry, probably the easier industry to 7 attract. 8 water systems, and that for them. 9 (II resort. 5 " o '" from the Soda Springs, the Wyoming country in to use the your tax dollars. This side of the mountain needs some help also. We are not asked to build schools; cess pools, ~ II:: i 10 11 They don'tccme out of All they do is add to the coffers of the cities and counties where they visit. There are a few misconceptions that probably 12 have been handed out in the last 30 to 60 days concerning 13 the study that ought to be discussed just a little bit. 14 If you remember, the information was put up here on the 15 board regarding Logan Canyon as a designated scenic highway. 16 It · has been designated only in the Forest Land Use Plan. 17 It has not been registered in the Congressional Record at 18 this point in time. 19 that people think it is now in the record. 20 Forest Use Plan, not in the Congressional Record. III N ,.. 1'1 0> < U o I think that's a point of confusion Only in the Z VI III II:: '"- 21 It's been suggested that we use wider stripes, 22 · brighter paint, to mark the canyon with. 23 But, you know, it's rather difficult to see it in the winter 24 when it's covered with snow. 25 That's great. It doesn't show up too good. They talk about better .ighway atrol, law ) 15. �I. enforcement on speed down through the lower end, the lower 2 section of the project. I hope the heck they don't throw 3 the whistle at me when I'm on the way down, because there 4 is no place off of there. 5 for you and me to pull off if we're in trouble. 6 those things really need to be taken. care of. There are very, very few places Some of True, there could be some destruGtion to the 7 8 river. In places they have to build ret.a'ining walls. 9 question. It is a Class 2 fishery river. No But keep in mind 10 11 and it will always be a put and take river as long as the 12 ) it has been a put and take river for the last 10 to 12 years, fishing pressure is there. 13 it is possibly not a rating of a Class 2 river at this time. 14 So we have to consider .that We're been told that it will kill the algae in 15 the river if they work along the banks. 16 grow back next year. 17 have to be disturbed somewhat, providing we do not have 18 to maintain too many retaining walls. 19 So some of that stuff may have to be sacrificed for the 20 interim period, but it will return. 21 True. It will come back. But it will The bushes may Those will come back. Talk about campground destruction. Some of the 22 campgrounds will be eliminated. Two campgrounds are involved 23 in that lower section of the road. 24 other is the one at Cottonwood. 25 been blocked out for the last five or six · years by the One is China Row. The The one at Cottonwood has 16. �" Forest Service. It is no longer in use at this time. The 2 3 of the corridor of the trees. 6 granted. 7 GO have an extremely difficult time getting back on because 5 o You have . a difficult time getting off the road, and you 4 ., one at China Row shouldn't be, as it's far too dangerous. point . It is a beautiful place, But it is also a very dangerous place at that N ~ II: Logan Cave, a very definite problem area, probably 8 o ... 9 10 the most controversial area in Logan Canyon. question about it. Beautiful place. Agreed. No But it can be solved. The last four or five years, UDOT has had to 11 12 more fill in later on, nor push it into the river, which has been done the last two or three years . . I think that 17 problem could be handled very easily without a lot of 18 U it, and it's set. 16 o road. 15 < 13 14 ) haul fill in there to keep the river from coming over the destruction to it. 19 portion of the canyon--probably the one phenomenon in all 20 of Logan Canyon. Why don't we elevate the road? No problem. Cantilever out over We don't have to haul any And heaven's knows, I don't want that Z 1/1 W II: ... One thing that hasn't been discussed here a great 21 22 deal is the amount of snow that falls in Logan Canyon from 23 the Forks to, say, Sunrise Campground on this side of the 24 canyon. 25 there's somewhere between 300 and 500 inches of snowfall The records we've kept over the last years shows 17. �1/ within that area. , The 500 inches would fall from Tony Grove 2 over the top into Sunrise. Have you ever considered the 3 size of bar pit that you need to put that much snow in? 4 Sure, some of it can be blown away, but a 5 lot of it also blows back on. 6 ask the gentlemen who drive the plow trucks through there, 7 they will tell you -that 100 inches could blow in one night 8 that they have to push off, not only that that falls. I'm sure if you were to So we do need some bar pit room. 9 We do need 10 some shoulders for those in trouble to get off and to make 11 the road safer and less narrow in the winter time when there 12 is an awful .lot of snow falling. My recommendation would be on the improvement 13 14 15 estimation an excellent job on the bottom end of the road, 16 they have used awfully good judgment to improve that road. 17 f of the road to let the UDOT people, who have done in my It is not unsightly. 18 place, but that was necessary for a passing lane. 19 you did not have the one passing lane along by Brown's 20 Rolloff, you would only have the passing lane from Malibu 21 area until you hit the dugway, and that is too far for people 22 who need to get through the canyon. True, they got into the river in one And if I thank you very much for your time, and I 23 24 appreciate the privilege of speaking to you tonight. 25 Thank you. 18. �.. MR. NUFFER: 2 Bryce Stringham. Then we'll have John Flannery. 3 MR. BRYCE STRINGHAM: I'm Bryce Stringham. I've 4 5 It was about eight years before that that I was a part-time 6 resident. 7 that canyon any more than I have in the last '28 years, and 8 I put in quite a lot of input in the last meeting we had 9 ~ III o been a resident here for all the time for about 20 years. here, and I kind of protested about that road, and I'm sure I don't think there is anybody that has traveled Of I II: o ... 10 11 that's been covered many times. The concern I have on this is changing the route 12 13 'he's for keeping it on the route it's going. 14 go along with that to a point, that if we've got to change 15 that route, that we change it on the face here because of 16 the scenic values, because of the people who are already 17 ) on this side of the hill. I think, as Bryce has said, that there who need to serve in part. 18 need to change the road, let's keep it near where it is, 19 and let's come out where we're at. I essentially ,~ In other words, if we ill N ,... t'I 01 <: u o We have to look at the Z til W II: ... W economic part of it, too. 21 Now, if they're going to change the route down 22 Hodges Canyon, they've got to buy more property, they've 23 got to ·change the route. 24 maybe using some of the old route they had, or whatever. 25 I don't know what . the study is. That costs a lot more money than But I'd be violently against 19. �II changing any other route but essentially the route we've 2 got. Now, with some variations and like that would 3 4 be fine, but to change a whole new route that's the thing 5 that I'm opposed to. Thank you. 6 MR. NUFFER: John Flannery. 7 MR. JOHN FLANNERY: Thank you for the opportunity. 8 Can you hear me in back? I'm a writer, not a speaker. 9 So I'm going to read what I have for all here. First of all, I have no financial interests in 10 11 any way in Logan Canyon or Logan or Rich .county. This is 12 not in opposition to what has been said or to the idea of 13 improving the road we have. 14 it as a note of caution. I would prefer to think of When I came to Utah to work for the State 32 15 16 years ago, it was Parley's Canyon that said: 11 good place. 18 two-lane road going into Salt Lake City is marvelous. 19 gone. This is beauty." "This is a That small stream by the It's Provo Canyon was a quiet meander from Provo to 20 21 Heber Valley, with a few scattered mostly summer homes. 22 Excellent brown trout fishing and shade. 23 and winding. 24 gone. 25 The road was slow It was a place of tranquility. And it is The road from Ogden to Huntsville is less exciting ) 20. �perhaps. 2 homes. 3 13. k~ Steeper, a little bit. Narrower. Not too many That, too, is gone. One canyon remains, admittedly butchered in part, 4 riprapped in part, but maintaining its uniqueness. 5 Logan Canyon, as you all know. As a sometimes travel writer and photographer, 6 ., That's 7 I find that will attract and appeal to both the veteran 9 o my concerns are the esthetics of an area. 8 III What is it that traveler and the first-time or once in a lifetime voyager? N 10 11 I have visited and worked in a lot of states and a lot of 12 countries, flown over quite a few of them too. 13 ..J Without going into a travel log, I would like to say that of these have been visually diminished by the straight 14 ribbons of cement and blacktop we equate with progress and 15 call development. Too many Less than a month ago in Hawaii, I had the 16 17 privilege of driving a road called the Road of a Hundred 18 Bridges, and it runs down across the back of Maui to the 19 tiny town of Hana. 20 is 20 miles an hour. 21 And at many, many bridges you have to stop, yield to oncoming 22 traffic. · 23 There are 23 miles. The top speed limit You often have to go 10 miles an hour. These are one-way bridges. And you'd be glad that you're in a Japanese car and not an American car when 24 you do try to cross those. Still, it's an unforgettable 25 drive of leisure and beauty, with enough ·pullouts to 21. �) encourage dawdling and savoring a unique place on earth. 2 The Hawaiians don't lament those 23 miles of beauty, and 3 that leisurely drive makes people come allover the world 4 who care about scenic beauty. 5 of the tourist industry. 6 It's the backbone of some I submit that Logan Canyon and its river are 7 similarly unique. Certainly there is nothing like this 8 canyon and the Logan River left in . Utah. It's butchery, and it could happen. 9 It will 10 diminish its ability to draw the many people who come to 11 savor what we have. Injuring this canyon will diminish Utah's full 12 13 house of attractions. Its damage could and will reduce 14 the value of what is a gateway to your beautiful valley 15 and perhaps wipe out travelers' enthusiasm for the total 16 experience of the drive from the Wasatch Front communities 17 to Bear Lake. Minutes saved will never repay posterity for 18 19 the measured damage that may be done to the unique canyon 20 we have. Thank you for listening. 21 I know you're not 22 sympathetic to some of the things I've said. 23 this is not opposition. 24 you. 25 MR. NUFFER: As I said, It's a word of caution. Thank you. Thank Well, those are ~ll ) 22. _. ____ .. _ .. _.... ..... .. _. . .... . _.................. . . . . . _ . . . . ....... ....... _... ...... .... , ... ... ....... .\.\.. _,"\ H'" ... . . .? . • • _ .' .. r .. r .... ' ..... ·. _-•• , • • -·.""\ ' ..... ·--; .... _l �II the ones that signed the list that indicated they would 2 wish to speak. 3 home at 10 after 8:00, now, do we? 4 Some said maybe. We don't all want to go I hope the setup here hasn't intimidated anyone. 5 This looks kind of official, but we would certainly invite 6 you to come up. 7 if there is anybody that's changed their mind about talking 8 --if you said no here, I don't care. We sincerely want to have your input. MR. GEORGE PRESTON: 9 So Come on up. My name is George Preston. 10 11 of residency, but not newcomer in the sense of being over 12 here and enjoying the place, and I have a very deep sense 13 of feeling towards the responsibility that we each have 14 ) I guess I'm a newcomer to this county, newcomer in the sense towards this community. 15 16 Club and have thought as Mr. Flannery thinks, we would still 17 have a double width wagon track through the canyon. 18 < u If our forefathers had been members of the Sierra would be totally cut off from any sort of civilization; 19 and as far as any economy, there would be none. 20 there is now. o We Less than z I/) LoI a: IL ~ I/) LoI ~ I have listened to five hours of meetings. 21 I o « z " 22 have listened to both sides, pro, con, all the way from 23 Alternative A to Alternative D. LoI IL With that in mind, I drove through the canyon 24 25 today. As I drove through, I convinced one person, and 23. �that was myself, that this road can be improved, it can 2 be widened, passing lanes can be made. All of this can 3 be done with the gentlemen that are here and available as 4 experts, without compromising the esthetic beauty of the 5 canyon, without compromising fish, wildlife, with hardly 6 any· compromise to the ecology, because we can do it. 7 looking at the alternatives, and driving through the canyon, 8 Alternative C category, improvements can be made in the 9 first lower portion. In The C category can be made in the 10 upper portion. 11 down into Garden City, significant improvements can be made. Two of the worst corners in the entire canyon .12 ) · 13 And, of course, from the top of the canyon can be eliminated. We all know what's happened on those 14 corners. We all know of the accidents. There is no reason 15 to maintain a ·hazard like that in which it affects me and 16 potentially you, because those that have gone before us 17 . on those corners, they're gone. Who is next in the future? 18 When the economy of Cache County was sorely in 19 need of a highway leading into Logan, so that Logan could 20 say, "We need that highway to boost the economy," it was 21 given to Logan. 22 road and those modifications, compatible with the ecology, 23 to boost this economy." Rich County is now saying: 24 Please give it to us. 25 MR. NUFFER: "We need that Is there anyone else here? Yes, sir. ) 24. �II MR. RUSS CURREL: My name is Russ Currel. As 2 3 I came together. 5 ... I do speak for myself today. 4 n -- I look over this group, I recognize nearly everyone here. in Logan, Cache County, when that statement was made. 6 do support the statement of the Chamber of Commerce. I did come over. Val and I was president of the Chamber of Commerce I I would like to make some comments of my own. 7 8 I do own property in Bear Lake and property in Cache Valley . 9 I was born in Bear Lake county, and I don't think there 10 11 My family, as we were talking about taking a posi t ·ion here-- 12 ) is anyone here that enjoys Logan Canyon anymore than I do. I have five children, and without exception, all five said, 13 "Dad, please don't take a position to destroy the canyon." And I said, "I think you know me better than 14 15 that." But one thing I do take a position on, and that 16 17 is the safety of the canyon. I don't know what you would 18 do to the canyon. 19 getting from here to Logan very much. 20 are a lot of things there that need to be done for the safety 21 of the canyon. II) N " en 1'1 <: u o I don't think you'd speed up the time But I do know there Z III 101 a: ... I think I would be about B plus position on the 22 23 map, where I think there are a lot of those things, B, that 24 need to be done. 25 C. Most of those things, and even some in And I really feel they can be done without really being 25. �a hazard to the ecology or to the wildlife. 2 I don't fish. Never fished in my life. But 3 I think there are ways that we can handle the river where 4 we're not going to be a detriment to that. I would hope that we all get together, and I 5 6 think the mayor over here stated it best. 7 together and work hard on this, I think we can overcome 8 the problems that are here and really accomplish what we 9 want to accomplish. Thank you. MR. OWEN WAHLSTROM: 10 If we all get My name is OWen Wahlstrom. 11 12 know how to express my feelings to you; but this winter 13 in the canyon, we were going through the canyon to Logan. 14 It was snowing so hard I had to stop and get the ice off 15 my windshield at Twin Bridges. 16 I watched three snow plows go across that bridge with their 17 blade jammed into the guardrail to miss a car coming the 18 other way. They were all three sliding. 19 ) I'm a resident here. feet between them. My family is from this area. I don't While we were stopped there, There wasn't six I definitely agree that the bridges have got 20 21 to be widened. 22 you'd call a modern day miracle. 23 wide body cars. 24 make it. 25 Somehow they missed the car. It was what One of those big full, And we didn't think they were going to If we don't do something, and if we go completely ) 26. �with the esthetics, are we going to make up a road like 2 is going through Glacier National Park, where all trucks 3 are prohibited and large motorhomes are prohibited? 4 It will eventually come to that if the traffic keeps up. I, too, enjoy the canyon; but I do think some 5 6 7 there are probably lawsuits against the State in that canyon . 8 We're going to pay one way or the other. 9 .., CII o .,. improvements have to be made. happening in there. I don't know. I imagine ~ a: o ... Accidents keep It's been stated here, it's a 10 11 - substandard road. are many areas in there where if somebody wants to raise . 12 problems for I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure there it can easily be done . anybody, I also rely on the economy over here very much. 13 14 I don't want this to be a two-bit tourist trap, but I think 15 we can accommodate more people than we're getting. 16 you. 17 18 < u MR. NUFFER: MR. PAUL WEBB: 19 o Thank Yes, sir. Can I just stand here? is like driving through Logan Canyon. The trip (Laughter.) Z \II 20 W a: I/.. ..: \II 21 w ~ o « I just had a few thoughts I want to say. taking any alternative-- 22 MR. NUFFER: 23 z " MR. WEBB: III IL By Could you give your name? Paul Webb. I am a resident here in 24 Garden City. By taking any alternative less than a major 25 resurfacing modification, we're only going to reduce the ) 27. �Il time between conflicts between people and also reduce the 2 time between disturbances of the environment. We must 3 remember at this point in time we consider the canyon a 4 beautiful place, where wildlife thrives and brightens our 5 lives. 6 was butchered, and it has recovered. 7 the butchery. 8 can be improved and provide transportation to people. 9 we're doing the job, let's do it right. But remember, at some time in the past the canyon And it's beautiful. 10 MR. NUFFER: 11 MR. BILL PETERSON: We are looking at With caution, the canyon While Yes, sir. Bill Peterson, Garden City. 12 13 20 years. 14 surveys and signs and studies go on in the canyon. 15 think it's time we get past the looking and the studying 16 ) I've been a resident of Garden City and the area for about and do something to improve the canyon. 17 For 15 of those 20 years I think there have been I'm in the real estate business. .1 really I have numerous 18 people coming through the canyon stopping in the office, 19 many of them upset. 20 21 22 23 24 25 "That's a beautiful canyon, but I would never drive over it again." I mean, I'm not kidding you. That's what a number of people say. It's dangerous. want to go over it. It's beautiful. But they don't I really think even the first section ) 28. �down towards Logan is out of date. i We've got you gentlemen 2 3 than your 1 to 2 percent you've predicted. 4 of major developments, at least 5 are major. 6 • o coming up here. Our growth rate is going to be much more every year. tw~ We have a number that will be here that And we have building permits. We're growing 7 I think if you go and improve to meet what you 8 had in the lower part of the canyon, as Paul said, you're 9 III wasting your time. III ~ a: o ... We should plan · now to have the facilities 10 for the future. 11 Canyon is not going to do us in 10 years from now. MR. NUFFER: 12 ) 13 That section in the first part of Logan Thank .you. Is there anyone else? Ye s, rna' am. MS. CATHY WEBB: 14 My name is Cathy Webb. I'd 15 16 view. 17 to and from Logan probably at least once a week. 18 < u like to make .some comments from a woman's standpoint of even more than that. 19 o z VI .... a: Everyone of us ladies - here in this community travels Maybe I'd like all of you executives and officials 20 that are in this room tonight to know that I have spoken 21 to each and everyone of you several times. 22 didn't get past Paul's ears. 23 And I've gone through that canyon a million times, and I've 24 remodeled it a dozen times. 25 ... to see what . would happen if somebody dug away some dirt However, it It didn't get past the car. I've checked out the mountains ) 29. �and some shrubs. I've put up fence along the dugway for 2 years, so that the rocks wouldn't bounce down on the road. 3 I just know I'm going to get hit by a boulder on the dugway 4 one of these years. I just know it. On top of the car. I've taken four little children, tiny little 5 6 babies to the doctors, the hospitals, the groceries. I 7 have spent probably a minimum of $500 a month, ·and that 8 probably is a minimum, over in Cache Valley. I appreciate the comments of the Chamber of 9 10 Commerce. We like to feel appreciated over here and the 11 fact that we do put a lot of money into Cache . Valley . . I would also like to make a comment that last 12 13 year in August I packed up my car, took my 15-year-old 14 daughter at 10 o'clock at night. 15 My husband had already left. 16 with just my daughter and me, 10 o'clock at night. .> We were moving to Logan. And I started out the journey I climbed up the summit. 17 I had a car behind 18 me. 19 to get in front of me. 20 to the point that I had to pass him again. 21 him. 22 tell, I had a carload of screwballs following me. 23 I let him pass through Tony Grove, or through Beaver, He slowed down. And then he continued to tail me. He slowed down So I passed As near as I could Needless to say I was scared to death by the 24 time I got to Logan, because, you see, we passed no other 25 cars on the way. There was no moon. It wasn't bright. ) 30. �') There were no reflectors. I couldn't tell if there was 2 a place for me to pullout on the road. 3 my tail. 4 on going. 5 But I couldn't tell. I wanted him off I had no choice but to keep At that point, I told my daughter, "Hand me a 6 7 GI o traveling through the canyon, put a man's hat on, it will 8 • .. baseball cap," because I had always read if you're a woman protect you. ~ I[ o a.. 9 We're driving down the road, and I am scared 10 11 this hat on, and we went that way through the rest of the 12 canyon with these guys tailing me, turning their lights 13 off, harassing me through the canyon, and I not being able 14 to get off the road to make them pass me, until we got onto 15 the new part of the road again. 16 bugger, you go ahead, and I'll find somebody, and I ' l l get 17 ) to death. "Hand me a hat." I tucked my hair up and put your number." And then I thought: "You 18 19 to the point, once we got to the turnoff, that he had to 20 pass. 21 < u And he had to pass me, because I slowed' down ' was my greeting into Cache Valley to be a resident there. o z \I) LII I[ IL. And that's the way we went on into Logan, and that ..: \I) LII ~ o « z " 22 LII Well, we lived there for nine months and then CL 23 24 25 we ended up moving back to Garden City. May I say to those of you that are here and representing the environment, you'll find no one that ) 31. �\ appreciat.e s the esthetic beauty of Cache Valley and of the 2 mountains more than those of us who choose .to live in them. 3 We talk about the drives. 4 single time we go through Logan, because every time you 5 go through Logan Canyon you see something different. 6 We talk about the beauty every Improving that road is not going to change what 7 we see when we go through that canyon. 8 to say. That's all I have 9 Oh, I do have one other comment. 10 who is in Logan, calls Logan Canyon a paved cow trail. 11 MR. NUFFER: Thank you. 12 MR. RAY ELLIOTT: My dentist, Anyone else? Yes. My name is Ray Elliott. I 13 know most of you here. Some of you may know us from being 14 here in the summer. 15 So I wanted to speak just a little bit concerning all of 16 the interests involved. I have interests here in Bear Lake. This seems to be quite a polarizing issue. 17 I '18 went to the meeting last night in Logan. The meeting was 19 heavily represented there last night by environmental 20 interes~s, 21 towards development of the road. 22 different motives, different personal interests, some of 23 them personal, some of them environmental, some of them 24 concerned with safety. 25 from people who have specific monetary concerns in the canyon and the interests seemed to be more slanted Everyone seems to have Some interests are monetary, either ) 32. �I, or on either side of the canyon, to see improvement made. 2 I feel that we really need to be responsible to 3 4 we need to be careful to protect the things that we all 7 ., to be made in the canyon. 6 flII improvement. 5 o the future, both for the environment and safety and feel are important. .... But in making those improvements, There is going to be increased traffic. 8 9 Improvements that are going to be made need If we want to see increased use here in Bear Lake, we need to 10 decide who we're trying to attract. 11 Lake is attracting tourists, we need to be careful. 12 we want the tourists to get through on a faster highway, 13 or do we want to attract people who are there to enjoy the 14 scenery? 15 If the economy of Bear There are gives and takes there. Do In trying to 16 attract more people, if they declare 17 route and list it in the Federal Registry, you may attract 18 more tourists; but in doing so, you're going to have to 19 accommodate more people in that canyon, and the roads are 20 going to have to be improved. 21 both ways. 22 th~ highway a scenic There are going to be trades If we decide over here--and I have interests 23 here that I need--I would like to see tourist trade increase, 24 but I'm not sure that faster roads or scenic highway, either 25 one, there's a question that exists there. Which is going . ) 33. �to be in the best interests of Rich County in attracting 2 3 tourists? We need to be careful that this type of forum 4 that we have in getting public opinion does not leave the 5 engineering firm, CH2M Hill, UDOT, with the impression that 6 what they have seen either in support of widening the road 7 or in support of saving the environment and doing nothing-- 8 they're going to be left with an impression there, and then 9 they're going to take that 10 info~mation home and decide what they will do with it and do what they will. 11 the two groups is because each group feels that one group 13 is trying to take advantage of the other group or that the 14 concerns of the environmentalists will be totally served by 15 whomever is going to make the decision, or the concerns 16 of improvements in the road are going to be served over 17 ) Now, some of the polarities that exist between 12 14. the environment. 18 I have a suggestion that I'm not sure what could 19 be done there to insure that both sides are served; and 20 I feel that there is a middle ground that could be achieved 21 without destroying the environment and without changing 22 the canyon, and still improving the road. 23 responsible to the improvements that need to be made. 24 25 . We have to be I mean, I've driven a pregnant wife at 2 o'clock in the morning over that highway from Bear Lake to Logan, ) 34. �with labor pains and two minutes apart, and I know the 2 anxiety that accompanies that. 3 So there are safety concerns that we need to 4 5 forum like this leaves people with a few notions that they 7 will go ba.ck and, . again, as I said, do what they will. 8 there could be a committee put together of interest groups 9 ., o ... same time, I really love and appreciate that canyon. 6 III be .concerned with, that we really need to address. that each have their own interests that could be used as At the A If ~ I[ o "- . 10 11 environmentalists, the Sierra Club may have a representative 12 at that meeting, the Rich Tourist Council should have a 13 representative on that advisory committee. 14 perhaps there should be a way to insure that everyone's 15 ) checks and balances for whatever is going to be done, the interest there is served, and I feel that they can be. 16 17 MR. NUFFER: 18 < u That's all I had to say. MR. LYNN HILLSMAN: I think that Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Lynn Hillsman, 19 and I have one thing that's just a little bit different 20 than most people. 21 of others. 22 the middle of the road, and there are major problems with 23 the subgrade. 24 up the road just to even maintain it. 25 improvement and still try to maintain it? o Z \/I 101 I[ "- I drove that canyon today, like a bunch ...: \/I 101 ~ (; « z " a. 101 To my idea, there is water coming up through To redo this, you're going to have to tear So why not do some \ ) 35. �But with the subgrade and the drainage the way 2 it is, there's something drastic has to be done with that 3 road to keep it to where you can drive on it. 4 you're doing it, do it right. 5 That's all I have to say. 6 MR. NUFFER: 7 MR. DON HUFFNER: So while Yes, sir. I'm Don Huffner. I wasn't 8 going to say anything tonight, but Ray reminded me of 9 something that happened to me. I used to be on the Highway 10 Patrol. 11 in Logan Canyon, it was probably me that gave them to you. 12 In fact, 20 years ago if any of you got tickets Ray said that he has driven Logan Canyon with an expectant wife. 14 somebody else's expectant wife, and it's no easier when 15 it's somebody else's wife. 16 ) 13 trying to tell the father how to deliver that baby. 17 Well, I've driven Logan Canyon with It's hard to drive that canyon I've got some recommendations here, or at least 18 things, as I look at the presentation and look 19 a little more specific 20 maybe Alternative C was all right. 21 looked at it, and Alternative D, they have changed the road 22 just below Ricks Spring and cut out an area there that in 23 my opinion, my experience, it is quite a bad area. 24 made a lot of other improvements here, too. 25 like the difference between C and D is this cut just below On at the maps the first section I thought that But then the more I They But this looked ) 36. �1 , ) 1 Ricks Spring that eliminates an area where the banks are 2 very steep and in the winter time the sun never gets down 3 to the road--well, seldom gets down to the road--not because 4 of clouds, but because of the mountains shading it. 5 quite a dangerous area in my opinion. Now, Alternative C I believe would be fine other 6 7 That's than that. On the next section, on Section 2, I thought 8 ' 9 10 they would like to see the road brought right up to snuff, 11 put a brand new road in there, because in 15 or 20 years 12 ) Alternative B was satisfactory. NOW, some have said that we're going to need it, or maybe even sooner. 13 possible. That's But ' economically speaking, I don't know that-- 14 15 I'm afraid we're going to choke the horse if we try to feed 16 it that much and that we need to be realistic on our needs 17 now. 18 <: u We've got other areas, other routes of getting 19 in and out of the valley. 20 too, to develop those along with this. 21 summer people that have cabins here on the lake that come 22 from Salt Lake, well over half of them--well over half of 23 o I think we need to work on those, them--from the Salt Lake area come through Evanston already. Z III III It: IL 24 25 Already of the Now, as more people learn of the Evanston route, there will probably be more and more people come that way. ,. ) 37. �') And that's not all bad to have several accesses into our 2 area. The last section, again, there are some very 3 4 bad curves there, and I think that they need to be looked at. I think Alternative D would be the one that I 5 6 would recommend. It eliminates the bad curves without 7 realigning the road drastically, and I think we could get 8 along with that. Thank you. MR. NUFFER: 9 Is there anyone else here that would 10 care to testify? 11 want to that changed their mind? Now is your chance. Well, with that, do any of the UDOT people want 12 13 Anyone that came thinking they didn't to say anything in closing? MR. 'WESTON: 14 I was ready to go at 10 after 8: 00, 15 but since we've talked some more, let me make one thought 16 or two in conclusion. 17 through our previous meetings that Logan Canyon itself means 18 different things to different people. 19 all going to agree upon what Logan Canyon means to us. 20 think we've found out that it's a very sensitive area. I think 'we've found out tonight and I don't think we're I I think we already know that the Forest Service 21 22 desires to keep it a scenic highway, and I think that's 23 fine. 24 25 I think that can be done. I think we need to remember a few things, and I think I need to answer a question of Commissioner Brown's. ) 38. �I think it deserves an answer. That is, what's to be gained 2 3 study. I don't think we've lost anything by three times. 6 that this better be the last study before we do something 7 CIO And I've told you previously that this is my third 5 . asked. 4 o ... by an additional study? I think that's the question he in Logan Canyon . study~ng it But I do think that the time has come now l: II: I say that from the standpoint that we now have 8 o "- 9 -got some structures up there in the canyon that have got 10 to be repaired or replaced quite drastically. I can see 11 some problems if we don't repair those bridges; and if we 12 try to do it on the existing alignment, on the existing 13 bridge, we're going to have to build a route around those 14 bridges for the traffic to go through that may be more 15 detrimental to - the highway than some of the things we're 16 talking about. I just want to say this much, that we have got 17 18 19 do something on the bridges is quite obvious to most of 20 you here. 21 of our study. 22 Transportation is not flush 23 the Legislature recently passed a 5 cent gas tax increase, 24 the needs that we have, I've got to say in all honesty that 25 <: u to do something on the bridges. - The reason we've got to 5 cents more gas tax is a drop in the bucket to our needs. o z II) 101 II: ... What we do over and beyond that is the purpose But I do know this. The Department of with dollars. Even though ) 39. �We have to rely on the federal highway people 2 to help us fund primary road systems. Logan Canyon Highway, 3 Highway 89, is more than just a road for Cache County. 4 more than just a road for Rich County. 5 federal highway; and as long as we're going to have a primary 6 federal highway going through that canyon, we've got to 7 keep it up to certain standards. It's It's a primary 8 Now, if the time comes that there are enough 9 feelings that that shouldn't be a primary highway, then 10 I guess we'll address that at that time; but it presently 11 is, and we're required and obligated in our responsibility 12 to the highway system of the State of Utah' to do certain 13 things on that highway to make it reasonably safe and usable 14 for the traveling public. 15 to do it. 16 it's our judgment as a Department of Transportation, that 17 there will be no money spent up there, even on bridges, 18 until we complete an environmental impact study in depth, 19 like we're doing now, and there will be a chance to have 20 you come to a hearing on our draft environmental impact 21 study, which will be ready sometime this fall, hopefully; 22 and at that time you can make the decision, help us make 23 the decision, on what we're going to do with Logan Canyon. 24 But I do know that the study has got to be done. 25 We need federal highway dollars The federal highways, I can tell you now, and When I first came on the Commission, ·1 was the ) 40. �\ i first one to go to the rest of the Commissioners and say, 2 "Why are we spending half a million dollars up there to 3 study something we already know?" 4 statement as Commissioner Brown made. You know, the same 5 6 ., I since have become a little older and a little wiser, and I know that we've got to complete this document . 7 and consider every option and consider everybody's feelings 8 and examine every portion of it and now do anything in that 9 ell o canyon until we're satisfied that we're doing the right III ~ II: o ... 10 thing. 11 to release any money and Dave Baumgartner and the Forest 12 Service are not going to support us if we don't do the job 13 And I know the federal highway people are not going -and do it right. 14 Now, that's the reason for the study. You have an opportunity to give us input. You 15 16 consulting team up until April 6. 17 has the address you can mail those to, if you have things 18 < u will have written comments that can be written to our to say that you didn't say tonight. 19 if you want to get your name on the record, you send that 20 in to the people and express yourself. o You have - a handout that Even if it's repetitive, Z III W II: ... I don't think numbers are going to be things 21 22 that make the determination. I don't think numbers ever 23 was the determining decision-making process in any valid 24 decision. 25 good solid concrete suggestions on what you think we ought But we do want your input, and we want to have 41. �to do. Thank you. MR. NUFFER: 2 3 Jess, did you have a follow-up on that? MR. JESS ANDERSON: 4 I just have a question. Can 5 you do anything with the area around Logan Cave? 6 make that parking or something? 7 in a snowstorm in the middle of the night, and there's not 8 much room on that corner. That's what these experts are going MR. NUFFER: That's one of the areas we're going to tell us. 11 12 You come through there MR. WESTON: 9 10 Can you to take a good close look at. A VOICE: 13 Just on the time frame fot the 14 environmental impact study, how long does that need to 15 proceed? MR. NUFFER: 16 Well, if all things go reasonably 17 well, we hope to complete the draft environmental impact 18 statement this summer, which will give you the environmental 19 datq to accompany these alternatives that we have identified where. 21 One more question. 22 A VOICE: I'm a little uncomfortable with the 23 monologue type input. I feel a little better with the more 24 dialogue type input. 25 says something, another person says something, and it's What's been happening is one person ) 42. �tough for both parties to get together. What my question 2 is, ultimately who makes the decision, and how is that 3 decision going to be made on what is actually done in the 4 canyon? 5 6 '" III o 7 MR. NUFFER: Does Howard or Todd care to answer that question? MR. HOWARD RICHARDSON: This draft environmental N ~ II: 8 impact statement will contain an inventory of all of the 9 o "- resources and the values that all parties have identified 10 in the canyon; and a recommended design will be recommended 11 or proposed, considering all of those things; and where 12 impacts or problems are perceived to take place, mitigations 13 and recommendations will be supplied in the environmental 14 impact statement containing what will happen. 15 There will be a public hearing that will be held 16 17 < o on that proposal and on those recommendations and on the 18 U that will contain the comments of people who wish to comment proposed mitigation. 19 U. S. Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration 20 will make a determination of whether the environmental issues 21 and safety issues have been properly addressed and whether 22 that represents a reasonable and proper and prudent solution 23 to the problem at hand. After that has been heard, then the Z VI 101 II: "- ..: VI 101 ~ o 0{ I!) Z 101 II. 24 25 So the agencies, the sponsoring agencies are the ones who will make the final decision. It will be made 43. �only after a tremendous amount of input, of which these 2 meetings last night and tonight are only a part of. MR. ELLIOTT: 3 Another question. Is there a 4 possibLlity of having a citizens' advisory to that decision? 5 Has that been done? MR. RICHARDSON: 6 Well, I don't think that's--it's 7 possible to have that done on an informal basis. 8 would be simply a measure to help structure and make sure 9 that the problems are identified and the concerns were 10 properly put into the environmental document. MR. ELLIOTT: 11 12 But that Could you take that into consideration? MR. RICHARDSON: 13 Yes, I'm sure that will be taken 14 into consideration. 15 that. 16 meeting for several months, there has been 12 to 15 meetings 17 by the interdisciplinary team. 18 of varied interests of the resources and the values in the 19 canyon. 20 place. 21 22 23 On the The team and I were thinking about interd~sciplinary , team that has now been That represents a composite So there already is a type of that thing taking Yes, there is. MR. ELLIOTT: Is there any way of getting a record of what transpires next? MR. RICHARDSON: Well, those minutes are public 24 information, and minutes have been kept of all of those 25 meetings, and CH2M Hill are the guardians of those things. ,) 44. �~) They manufacture them and make them and circulate them for 2 each of the meetings, so that everybody knows what was done 3 last time, and they are reviewed and approved and discussed. 4 And, yes, those things are not secret. 5 for everybody who wants to look at them. 6 III o 7 MR. NUFFER: 8 ., . MR. ELLIOTT: MR. DAVE BAUMGARTNER: 9 They are available Thank you. Dave Baumgartner. As a suggestion to us all--and I haven't talked to Howard nor to Stan nor the 10 CM2H folks about this, the original design of that 11 environmental study is unique, and it really didn't operate 12 like we had thought it was going to at . the beginning. 13 had invited some members of the environmental community 14 to sit on that, because they had the major concerns with 15 the program. We 16 17 o needs that legitimately ought to be done on the highway. 18 < u I think most people recognize that there were 'And our thought in the beginning was to bring in those people 19 who had adverse views to that and help us work through the 20 process, so that that would go a little bit smoother. Z 'II W II: ... ~ 'II W ~ 21 But it's changed a little bit in its organization. o 0( z " 22 I would suggest to us who were on that team that we do what 23 he suggests and invite a responsible member from either 24 this side of the hill or however we want to do that, in 25 order to provide that balance that not only he, but several W IL 45. �others have suggested. I think we ought to consider that. 2 That's more of a statement to these guys than the crowd, 3 but I think it's a legitimate thing to bring up. 4 MR. NUFFER: 5 (At 8:43 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1987, the . 6 7 Thank you. meeting ended.) -000- 8 9 10 11 12 ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 .1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ) 46. �r - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------- - -..-_ . C L ! -~ r 'T' I 2 3 State of Utah county of Salt Lake 5 I, Ronald r . Llul.1.;;trd, 01 0 here!.. '.' certify that I ,un a certified shorthand reporter in ano [or the ~~t() te of Utal'lt 7 8 proceedings, and that tlLi : ; 9 correct record of said proceedinqs. 10 11 Dated a t of 12 ()~r~ Sal t Lr -· ll l~i cr..i.pt L.'1J:(~ C ity, ..i. :.~ ,l Lull, true, Utah, tlnd day 1986. (R~&.~..2__ 13 '~ '. !lon.:lld F . 14 IIubbilrd - 7.30 LTudCJ(~ J1.ui lc1in'J Salt L ~lk.C City, Utah (301) 355-1611 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ::-) L___ _ �. . .- ....' () LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SeOPING MEETTNGS . 3« 1987 ~o§aD Utah 4, 1981 - Gar-en city, Ut~ March ~rch ) \~ /V2) �, I LOGAN·CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING -MEETTNGS I March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 1987 - Garden City, Utah NAME REPRESENTING r/\~ t>-Av DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? j!cJ~ } r. I �LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING . . - "\ 1 I ~ \ ....J . ~NGS March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 1987 - Garden ' City, Utah I ; NAME REPRESENTING DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? �•• I LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 19~7 - Garden City, Utah DO YOU WISH TO - ). � 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/55">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/55</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 372804673 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 29603450 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 Public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study Description An account of the resource Transcript from the public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study held at City Hall in Garden City, Utah on March 10, 1986 where several spoke and answered questions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hubbard, Ronald F. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mattson, Otto Brown, Ken Johnson, Dee Negus, Barry Peterson, Val Nielson, Bryce Seeholtzer, Ted Stringham, Bryce Flannery, John Preston, George Currel, Russ Wahlstrom, Owen Webb, Cathy Elliot, Ray Hillsman, Lynn Huffner, Don Weston, Todd Anderson, Jess Richardson, Howard Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah)--History 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 1986-03-10 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Garden City (Utah) United States Rich County (Utah) 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 11 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_Fd11_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/05000b787d127fdff1a5e6262eef75e0.pdf a783e49070c82fce5c1ea0b353524e93 PDF Text Text ClOd Hill MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Nuffer Interdisciplinary Team File FROM: Mark Hill DATE: December 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Resource Value of Logan River PROJECT: B21163.FO At the last Interdisciplinary Team meeting a question was raised concerning the perceived "value" of the Logan River. It is a generally accepted public, state, and federal agency view that the Logan River is a sensjtjve and valuable natural ~ource. This viewpoint has evo~ed over time and i~_derived 'from three se arate ers ectives : ~recreational value~ conomic yalueL an iolo ical value. The river can be examined from each of these perspectives in order to understand the value, sensitivity, and importance credited to it. RECREATIONAL VALUE .. The Logan River has been cl~ssified by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources as a a II - H' h Priorit Stream has been placed on this agency's Unique Stream List. These actions by the UDWR reflect the Logan River's unique fishery and aquatic habitat as well as the stream's ability to sustain high quality, wild populations of salmonids. At the present time the Logan River above the impoundments is managed as a wild trout fishery. A self-sustaining trout fishery has numerous and relatively narrow habitat requirements at various life stages; consequently, the fishery is sensitive to any degradation or alteration of water quality and stream morphology. Fishing pressure is also a key factor in maintaining a wild trout population, and angling must be managed appropriately. Throughout the state of Utah there are a limited number of stream miles classified as Class I or II fisheries. The Logan River is also unique in that it is both a high priority and an urban fishery. Nowhere else in Utah is a wild trout fishery located so close t Q _ rna J ~r metro olitan area. Cona sequently, the recreational value of the Logan River is substantial. �MEMORANDUM to Stan Nuffer Page 2 December 19, 1986 B21163.FO The intensive recreational use of Logan River is shown in Figure 1 as the estimated past, present, and future number of fishing days. The generally steady rise in fishing days reflects the population increase in Cache County and metropolitan Logan City over the last 35 years. In addition to the river's accessibility to a large number anglers, it serves as a Datural laborat9£Y for Utah State University. The Logan River is used to train students in fish and wildlife, hydrology, forestry, archaeology, geology, engineering, and environmental field techniques. Numerous studies, theses, and dissertations have been carried out using the river's environmental features. ~f ECONOMIC VALUE Although fishing pressure is heavy on Logan River, excellent catches have been made (such as brown trout weighing up to 36 pounds). The mystique of "big trout" combined with the opportunity to catch the bag limit make the Logan River a preferred fishery for anglers. As such, the river generates a substantial amount of spending by anglers and is a valuable economic asset both to the state of Utah and Cache Val ey~ Table 1 shows the past, present, and future amount of money spent annually to fish the Logan River. In 1970 the river become a million-dollar fishery. During the 40-year period shown in Table 1, over $68 million dollars will be spent by Logan River anglers. Based on the river's length of 30 miles, about $30,000 was expended in 1985 for each mile of stream. Historical creel census data indicates that over 47 percent of the fish harvested are taken bet\veen DeWi tt Sp'ring--and -the mouth of Beaver Creek -.---------------~-- �70 ~ 60 0 0 0 .- 50 ~ en > oCt C (!) 2 :I: en 40 V LL 30 v v / ~ ............... .............. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ......... 11""'" /- 20 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 YEAR Figure 1 SOURCE: UDWR creel census data and regression analysis. B21163.FO ESTIMATES PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE RECREATIONAL FISHING ON LOGAN RIVER �MEMORANDUM to Stan Nuffer Page 4 December 19, 1986 B21163.FO Table 1 Estimated Past, Present, and Future Expenditures by Anglers on Logan River b 0 Year Fisherman Days 1950 1960 1965 1970 197.5 1980 1982 1985 1990 26,684 42,801 51,206 a 48,219 a 52,227 a 56,235 53,748 a 60,244 a 64,252 Cost/Da~ Expenditure $ 2.99 b 6.81 12.55 b 22.10 b 31.67 b 41.22 45.04 C50. ]~~ 60.34 $ 79,785 291,475 642,635 1,065,640 1,654,029 2,318,007 2,420,810 3,059,190 3,876,966 a UDWR creel census data and regression analysis (r=0.87) b UDWR annual cost factor and regression analysis (r=0.73) Another economic factor is the investment value by the state of Utah. The UDWR, from 1960 through 1980, annually stocked the Logan River with brown and rainbow trout. An average of 36,612 trout were stocked each year at an estimated investment of $732,000 (based on an average cost of $l/fish over 20 years). Additional investment value has been made by the UDWR and the Forest Service as labor and expenses for management and study programs. BIOLOGICAL VALUE The Logan River supports four salmonid species: brown trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and mountain whitefish. The relative abundance and distribution of these species varies by stream reach. In general, however, the river above Right Fork has a smaller brown trout and whitefish population with a larger cutthroat and rainbow population than does the area below. Table 2 shows some historical data that indicates the general quality and health of the Logan River fishery over time. From 1948 to 1982 the catch rate and total numbers of fish caught has remained remarkably similar. This also indicates that management efforts have been generally successful. �MEMORANDUM to Stan Nuffer Page 5 December 19, 1986 B21163.FO K-factors or coefficient of condition are a measure of fish health or condition. It is also a measure of energy transfer through trophic levels and K-factors ~ 1.0 for trout po ulations indicate that fish e ' ot_ sxres ed b y a lack f food base . In the case of Logan River, K-factors for three sizes of trout have remained relatively constant over a 20-year period. Taken as a whole, these data indicate stable and suitable habitat conditions. Table 2 Historical Logan River Fisheries Data Year Measure Catch Rate (fish/hr) Total Number Fish Caught K-Factors: 0-199 rom 200-275 rom 276-350 rom 1948 1952 1972 1982 0.61 0.60 30,850 32,012 1.83 1.73 1.64 1.82 1.50 1.59 Fundamentally, highly valuable features of trout habitat are the overhanging banks and the fish pools associated with streambanks and bank vegetation. A Logan River habitat inventory showed that in 1962 these conditions did exist along Logan River segments that have not had channel encroachment. Along river segments encroached up to 30 years ago, no valuable streambank-associated fish pools and cover were found. Following on-site encroachment impact 30 years ago, the substitution of "junk" pools for the valuable bank- and vegetation-associated pools and cover occurred. Today one of the major limiting factors in the physical environment is the lack of good quality pools. Table 3 shows the results of a Forest Service habitat study performed on Logan River in 1966. The percent of optimum habitat (based on pool, substrate, bank conditions, and other environmental factors) is shown in comparison to other, regional streams. Compared to other streams, the Logan River exhibits high biological value for a salmonid fishery. �MEMORANDUM to Stan Nuffer Page 6 December 19, 1986 B21163.FO Table 3 Comparison of Habitat (%) for Regional Trout Streams Stream Fish Creek Montpelier Creek Fifth Water Diamond Fork McCoy Creek Sixth Water Currant Creek Wolf Creek Rock Creek rk Duchesne West o an River (entire Taft Creek North Fork Duchesne Hades Creek State Average Width Percent of Optimum Habitat Wyoming Idaho Utah Utah Idaho Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Nevada Utah Utah 16 13 8 22 23 15 21 8 40 22 37 7 36 10 64 62 51 49 49 48 46 44 41 50 37 33 25 SUMMARY The data, information, and statements presented in this memorandum must be taken as general comments, subject to revision when a more detailed analysis is performed. Nevertheless, this discussion does validate the position that the Logan River is a valuable resource when viewed from recreational, economic, and biological perspectives. BOT538/011 � 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/56">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/56</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 1514713720 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3398765 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 on the value of the Logan River Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Mark Hill to Stan Nuffer explaining the resource value of the Logan River highlighting three perspectives: recreational, economic, and biological. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hill, Mark Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Rivers--Recreational use--Utah--Logan 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 1986-12-19 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 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_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ce14ddcc14199fc8f19712cb8a148039.pdf c4faf9002cc30e3115224e2f250799ca PDF Text Text Sa fety Highway safety in Logan Canyon has been a concern of previous highway projects, and has been raised in the current project. Safety for any highway involves two major issues: (i) accident rates and (ii) severity of accidents. UDOT has provided data for the period 19801985 (6 years) for accident rates in the canyon. These rates were compared with the accident rate for Rural Arterial Federal Highways in Utah (the standard), and stattistical analysis indicated 3 or 4 sections ~ the highway (of 13 sections) had accident rates significantly higher than those of the standard. The other sections of the canyon had rates insignificantly differerent or significantly lower than the standard. Subsequent analysis of the UDOT rates, however, revealed many were in error, casting serious doubt on the validity of the data. This also cast doubt on the validity of the standard: if many of the calculated accident rates for Logan Canyon are wrong, what about the reliability of the standard, presumably arrived at by the same methods? Requests for UDOT data upon which these c~lculations are based were made, but no data has been furnished. In order to make meaningful comparisons of accident rates, Logan Canyon should be compared with similar canyon highways, such as Sardine Canyon, Ogden Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Provo Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon. No such comparisons have been made by UDOT or CH2M, and the necessary data 'has not been provided. Faced with this serious question concerning accident rates, CH2M chose instead to compare total accidents over a 6 year period (1980-85) for 0.1 mile sections of the canyon with the average for 0.1 mile sections to determine the location of the highest accident numbers. This has led to identification of 16 0.1 mile sections (out of 374 0.1 mile sections total) as having significantly higher numbers of accidents .(4 or more accidents in 6 years, 80 % conficdence level) than the average 0.1 mile section. Such results would occur for any highway, and it is important to note none of these 16 sections had accident numbers greatly in excess of the expected number. Many sections of the highway, by the same analysis, have significantly lower numbers of accidents. At this point, there are no data to support a conclusion that Logan Canyon has a significantly higher accident rate than any comparable highway in Utah. With respect to severity of accidents, by far the most common accident is sliding off the road in Winter, involving only one car. Deaths and serious injury have been rar~, and the numbers are too low for any valid statistical analysis. As many deaths have occurred in the lower improved sections (mouth to Right Fork) as on the ~ of the highway from Right Fork to Beaver Mountain turn off. 5ec7JOns As the CH2M report concludes, the chances of being involved in a serious accident in Logan Canyon are small at any time. Safety is not a current issue in Logan Canyon and, in the absence of valid supporting data, cannot be used as a justification for major highway modifications. � 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/57">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/57</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 3097680673 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1133965 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 Graphs of Traffic Flow Description An account of the resource Bar and dot graphs showing the summer daily traffic at the highest hourly volumes (1979, 1982, 1984, 1985), the average daily traffic by day and by month from 1984-1985. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering 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 1984 1985 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_019.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/581a9890fa0f0cffdb2e38fd8cf0bf69.pdf 4a8747b0fab3ee89ecb37e56799a249e PDF Text Text LC Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon 17 June, 1987 Mr. Wes Wilaon USKPA, Region 999 18th Str t, Suite 1300 Denver~Co rado 80202-2413 Dear Mr. Wilson, I am writing to express my concerns with the draft ETS ~urrently being prepared for the Logan Canyon highway project (US 89) through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest east of Logan, Utah. This draft is be:ing 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 requeslt, but I feel the si tuation warrents attention. Several environmental groups and a number of unatr'iliated citizens are working together as Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. We are attempting to make sure the draft EIS is an acceptable document when it is released. As CPLC 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 is only a few days ago that we- got our firs.t look at the impacts and mi tigation sections of most of' thes- chapters, yet. C1f2MHILL expects the Interdisciplinary e Study Team to have completely reviewed them by Monday, 22 June. Despite the fact that no discussion has taken place on the great majori ty 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 for a 4.5 mile stretch of road. Most riparian vegetation will be destroyed where these retaining walls are placed at the edge of the Logan River. While the Terrestrial Resources chapter admi ts some of the impacts would be obvious f ·o r decades, the summary chapser ignores this information. In addition to these retaining walls, a continuous cut into the hillside would be necessary to accomodate the wider road. Despite the fact the WasatchCache Fores.t · Plan calls for the visual "retention" of natural characteristics in the canyon, the summary chapter ignores this conflict. p.o. box 3580 logan, ut 84321 �2. During the public input period it was clear that there was strong support for a "spot improvement" alternative. It was recommended that each proposed modification be examined on the basis of need, contribution to safety, and environmental impact. Increasing .speed (which is all 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 represeniativ~ is interested in. CH2MHILL has slighted this alternative. Their spot improvement alternative 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. This: process has been continued despite our repeated mention tha.t the Forest Flan permits only limited changes to the canyon highway. The plan is very s·pecific 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 CH2MHILL has consistently ignoi:ed this,. There are a number of other unanswered questions' in the present draf·t . Disposal of rubble from the many propos.e d cuts has scarcely been addressed; the few available locations (abandoned gravel pits and old roadbeds) will only handle a fract,i on 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, r think this illustrated the problems with the present draft. If they adhere to their present timetable of a summer release of the draft ErS, 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 q~Iity of the document. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, . ~~a2ZLr Stephan D. Flint Home: 752-9102 Work: 750-2474 or 752-2242 Copies: Bridgerland Audubon Cache Group Sierra Club Utah Wilderness Association 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/58">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/58</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 515882524 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1572529 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 Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon representative Stephan Flint discussing the drafted EIS and the how the document could be improved to better reflect the needs and wants of the citizens. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Flint, Stephan D. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roadside 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 1987-06-17 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 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_13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/607f9e0aa669bbf32ba04003c3770414.pdf 1abebd82dd16fa4cfb0e4eac1cd71a88 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING June 10, 1986 ( ATTENDANCE: Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Jim Naegle - UDOT John Ne ~ l - UDOT Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club Todd G. Weston - UDOT Al Stilley - Northern Engineering & Testing Dave Baumgartner - USFS-Logan Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Howard Richardson - UDOT Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL Tom Haislip - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Frank Grover - USFS-SLC Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked members of the group to introduce themselves. Following the introductions, some of the members were asked to briefly describe their views of the project and its objectives. Jim Naegle indicated that UDOT wants a thorough investigation and has no preconceived idea as to what, if anything, should be done in the canyon. He expressed appreciation for the interest of the environmental community and the public in general. He also wants members of the 1.0. Team to have full input into all phases of the project. The most serious problems in the canyon presently are narrow and obsolete bridges which are in need of repair or replacement. Lynn Zollinger explained that UDOT has a responsibility to the traveling public to provide safe, efficient transportation. UDOT wants to satisfy the needs of the traveling public and the environmental community. He expects an openminded study with adequate input from all of the interested public. Dave Baumgartner said that the rules of the environmental "ball game" have changed since the '70's. A successful study is dependant upon public support and understanding. This project will be a challenging one and standard solutions will probably not work in every instance. I 1 �( Todd Weston stated that he does not have any notion that there will ever be a freeway or a 4-lane highway through the canyon. He feels that there are more problems in the canyon than old bridges and the study must address those problems without being locked into one concept. He does expect ideas to improve transportation can be implemented. Rudy Lukez stated that there are many personal feelings about the canyon and that some people will be upset if there is a large construction project in it. The canyon is an environmentally sensitive area and there is a need for careful study and analysis before any work can begin. The environmental community desires to be kept informed. Rudy also expressed concern that meetings held during the day may be difficult for those who work elsewhere to attend. Steve Flint stated that there were many people who questioned the transportation needs in the canyon. Stan Nuffer then explained the I.D. Team and the role of each I.D. Team member. The I.D. Team is to function as the group which reviews scope, data, methodology and conclusions of the study and determines whether each stage of the study adequately addresses the 'critical issues and meets the objectives of the study. Gale Larson said that Valley Engineering's office in Logan will be the local contact point and someone will be available for questions at least 10 hours per week. Valley Engineering will also perform the field surveys and traffic counts. Some traffic counts were conducted during the ski season in order to have the information available for the study this summer. Gale expects to work closely with Sheldon Barker with the public involvement task work. Stan Nuffer then introduced the Scope of Work, as included in the consulting agreement between UDOT and CH2M HILL, and led the discussion on the tasks outlined in the agreement. Task 1 - ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS The discussion covered the major areas of potential need covered in the agreement; safety, maintenance, substandard geometrics, and congestion. If areas with substandard geometrics are identified, options to correct the problems will be identified, these may include road re-alignment. During the discussion of congestion, Rudy Lukez asked what was meant by levels of service c,d,e. Stan Nuffer gave a brief description and said that detailed descriptions will be provided to members of the I.D. Team in a Technical Memo. Rudy Lukez also asked how traffic projections were determined. Stan Nuffer said that UDOT uses projections of population 2 �( prepared by local councils of governments and other agencies who are charged with the task of preparing proiections of that type. TASK 2 - LOCATION STUDIES The study area will include the roadway between Right Hand Fork and Garden City. The alternatives listed in the contract scope will be evaluated as well as others identified during the course of the study. New roadway alignments may also be considered from the summit to Garden City. John Neal asked what the termini of the project were. FHWA must approve the termini in order for the project to be eligible for funding. Lynn Zollinger said that Logan City to Garden City had been proposed to the FWHA and he expects approval shortly. Since Logan to Right Hand Fork has already been improved there would be no action considered on that stretch of road. Tom Haislip said that the development of the alternatives will be one of the biggest phases of the project. Mapping was also discussed. Existing mapping available through UDOT will be used on the project wherever possible, however adequate mapping is · not available over the entire route. As the mapping is completed, maps will be made available to members of the 1.0. Team. TASK 3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS ( The extent of the geotechnical investigations will be determined as alternatives are developed. It is expected that they will be needed primarily in areas where re-alignment is considered. Dave Baumgartner expressed concern about the role of the I.D. ream in this study. If the team is to be advisory only, he does not think a satisfactory solution to identified problems can be found. To be successful, the I.D. Team should have a role in establishing study criteria and in formulating recommendations. Other team members expressed their views on the subject, and expressed their belief that the 1.0. Team would function in a manner that would lead to a successful resolution of the transportation problems identified in the study. TASK4 - PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Sheldon Barker said that CH2M HILL would make three promises in the public involvement program; (1) to be a good listener, (2) to get input from all interested individuals and groups and to treat each with respect, 3) when the report is prepared, it would contain no surprises because everyone had been involved in the process. 3 �. ( ( The scoping process was also discussed. It will include the development of the project objective, holding informationai meetings to educate the public, meetings with small groups as well as large, preparation of a video tape, and maintaining a project office in Logan where interested parties could come to obtain information on the project. Rudy Lukez suggested that information also be made available at the USU Library and the Logan Public Library so that it would be available during evening hours. Sheldon Barker said that the suggestion was a good one and it will be implemented. There was considerable discussion on the number and scheduling of meetings. Rudy Lukez did not feel that a lot of meetings was necessarily a good thing. He used as an example the recent meetings held by the Division of Water Resources on the proposal to build a dam on the Bear River. Meetings should be proceeded by 2 or 3 weeks of media coverage and should be well prepared. Rudy was also not certain if there would be any value to meeting with small groups because it would not' give people with differing views an opportunity to hear the opinions of others. Sheldon Barker indicated that the different views would come out in the larger public meetings and that meeting with small groups would give the project team the opportunity to better prepare for the larger meetings. Rudy Lukez said that fall would be the best time to hold the scoping meetings because more people would be able to attend. ( . TASK 5 - COORDINATION Tom Haislip discussed the 1.0. Team and its organization and the need to have each member involved. TASK 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~lENT Tom Haislip said that the 1.0. Team would playa key role in the project by providing input and direction to the study team. Tom also asked for help from the environmental community. If there were any data or studies that are available and not in UDOT files, they may be of great help in the study. Rudy Lukez said that there was a study underway at USU investigating the impact that high speed traffic has on deer. Tom Haislip indicated that field studies were not planned because there is extensive information available. Tom also explained that it is intended that Technical Memos be prepared presenting in detail the findings of each phase of the study. After the 1.0. Team has reviewed, discussed, and revised the Technical Memos, the information would be summarized and placed in the report. 4 �( There was more discussion on the role of the 1.0. Team. Dave Baumgartner again expressed his concern that 1.0. Team members be in a position to do more than simply review conclusions and give their comments. Stan Nuffer said that study data, methodology, and conclusions would all be presented to the I.D. Team and discussed before incorporating anything into the report. Tom Haislip said that CH2M HILL's job would be to the "doers" who would gather information, review data and prepare Technical Memos for the I.D. Team. The I.D. Team would then review and discuss the memos and hopefully resolve any differences. Dave Baumgartner said that it may be necessary for superiors in each agency to resolve conflicts if they could not be handled on the I.D. Team level. He also indicated that the whole process would work much better if each alternative developed offered a real solution to the problems so that the alternative evaluation would be believable. Todd Weston pointed out that the Forest Service, UDOT, and rHWA must all agree to whatever solutions are presented in the report. If any of the three agencies disagree with the findings, the project will never be completed. ( In discussions at the end of the meeting, there was no agreement as to when the first public information meeting should be held, or what purpose it should serve. After further discussion, it was decided that the date of the first meeting should be set after the next I.D. Team meeting. It was recommended that a feature article on "the project be prepared for the Logan paper. This should be published prior to the Logan public information meeting. The next meeting will be held on Monday June 23, at 7:00 p.m. at District 1 headquarters in Ogden. SLC73/39 ( 5 � 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/59">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/59</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 2735761469 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3942259 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 Environmental assessment minutes of interdiscipline team meeting, June 10, 1986 Description An account of the resource Minutes from the environmental assessment meeting of the interdisciplinary meeting including a summary of the scope of work, analysis of transportation needs, location studies, geotechnical investigations, public and agency involvement, agency coordination, and environmental assessment. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Naegle, Jim Zollinger, Lynn Baumgartner, David Weston, Todd Lukez, Rudy Flint, Steve Larson, Gale Neal, John Barker, Sheldon Haislip, Thomas 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 1986-06-10 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, 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_4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f18498c1149acf10feaf0aae8d1a8076.pdf 780f698a8ddc4ba224f5dd1855202e25 PDF Text Text � 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/60">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/60</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 2186952952 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 40242993 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 Grid map of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Grid map of Logan Canyon, scale 1 inch. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Christensen, Leon Subject The topic of the resource Cartography--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Maps Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 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_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/461a00ecb8b00630f131a52025799e52.pdf 29ff9516e01b982c156872e12e9a5007 PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING March 30, 1987 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 1. Distribution of copy of scoping meeting letter and list of agencies sent to public agencies (March 9, 1987 minutes p.s.) 2. Distribution of copies of scoping meeting testi~ony. Summaries to be mailed later. 3. Distribution of Alternatives Dl, D2, and D3. 4. Distribution of the Aquatic Resources and Land Use Technical Memorandums (existing conditions sections only) . 5. Distribution of additional traffic projection data. SLC-STAN/14 1 � 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/61">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/61</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 2142525986 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 403385 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 March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Additional data for agenda items March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah 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 1987-03-30 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. 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 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_007.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fdfdcd6adf7f36a2e9205361ffb82882.pdf d42231376f93baac56bc0501b4903008 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 AQUATIC RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Prepared by CH2M HILL Salt Lake City, Utah March 1987 �CONTENTS Introduction Methods Existing Conditions Aquatic Habitat Fisheries Biology Impacts Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County .:W· :n= Mitigation Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County .::' References .::' "~ :::: .:: .. ... .::;;;::::::::. TABLES ': :::::::::::::. 1 Mean Mouth River at the 2 Water Mouth River at the ~It· ~~ Data for the Logan 3 River and Ife:aver./ Cteek o;"" ;;i"~'ent 4 Comparison Optimum Habitat for Regional Trout Streams 5 Logan River Gamefish Life History Periodicity Data 6 Logan River Angling Data 7 Estimated Past, Present, and Future Expenditures by Anglers on the Logan River BOT538/027 ii �INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes existing conditions, potential impacts, and possible mitigation measures for aquatic resources affected by proposed improvements to the Logan Canyon Road between Logan and Garden City, Utah. Logan Can- yon is located ln the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in north central Utah. An important component of this scenic canyon is the Logan River, which originates in southeastern Idaho and flows south through Logan Canyon to ~; t: ~:;t~:~nfluence wi th ~~~~~~~~:;~~~;~~~~~~::~~~~P;~:~~::,~,;~~~~;~rf~!!:;:;~~:;~;;; tions, and realigning the ro~a:;::::;::::::::~he:; : p~.:6:p:osed modifications mile~ii\.d;;t:: :~;~: i: : L~:~~:~ River (Right Hand creek-:: : Co.Df~1~ :~~i{~;~r):: : : :~~d about 3.2 miles of could affect about 15. 4 Fork to the Beaver cutoff Figure 1. BOT538/025 1 yes �,... ~,..----~--=-=======~.,....,.-- III1 .DOUBL E TOP 9,872 Sfee~ :E o :> z <t a: o :E W w 1- . :E m...J UCl) CX)<t CI) ~ . -C) I- Z «_ :J..J ~ o c.. ~I IU ~w a:« ~~ w CI) :> a: °0 >CI) _ W z:> 00 a: U i~ _Za: <ta: ~~ CI)«:J u~ 0 Z I.... _ CI) <t<t =," .~O LA. ..J :~j~~~..V·~;~M T GOG ~1"'··~· ~$.. 'In:ll\~~,,· <tz «~ I~ U'/c9 '" >-U w ,,=> a: g~ 9,700 ·~:\';MT. MAGOG ;,W:::~ 9,756 "- 31 31 ~ TOny Grove ) \ ~e .. ~ ~,,\/~ 1 TONY GROVE RANGER SCHOOL CACHE~ ~\~ ~ o -"70 0' es g ,~ .----- . TEMPLE PK. " ~"v.~. '4> l~ ,\\I"~:"\. I 31 ~:::f 9 1 0-:)9 Co ~.. ""C: ~/" J~I~~i' PARALLEL NORTH 6 6 MUD FLAT G,S . I ~ ® t <::> I ~ ~ ' -" /9~.,. _ 1-- r r I ~ LODGE CAMP_ GROUND ~. ~AY~~ %NATIONAL~ ~~~;~ o M u.. to .... N en �METHODS Aquatic resources present in the proposed project area were described and assessed based on a review of pertinent scientific literature, interviews with fish and wildlife agency personnel and other knowledgeable persons, and a site visit. Much of the Logan River and Beaver Creek aquatic resource data are more than 15 years old. However, this was not a problem in describing existing conditions s~~~e the project C. ~ti~b;~ Road was widened 1952 (Dunham, 1963). Data presenteqit~~;1h~;; ;~ 9::9-thered within adj acent to project area boundarie: § ;:~ ~i;:~;: :' NU~'~ ;1;;:6fi~ $. fisheries area has changed little since the Logan in or studies conducted downstream of T~!~;~~/;~;~;~i ; were""" tf6:t referenced in this assessment since they were·"" w~'l'i.i:/~utside the project are a . """"'\",,,:::,,::), Potential impacts determined based on the nature and for the three Rich County), public prQ.]:e 'e ;t ;:. ·:~;t3~·t~i.on~::;':;';(Middle : tf:~fu:: : i' s, ; ~ri; iE~~~ ;i;~!d concerns scoPin~;~ ~i ~ir9.ces~il~ ;l and enh; ~;~d~~ent identified during the from comments provided by the Interdisciplina·i;y.;;~;: .;S ~t.,Jl~Y:/Team. mi tigation and Canyon, Upper Canyon, Where possible, conceptual measures have been identified that would minimize or offset potential project impacts associated with the various improvement alternatives. BOT538/025 3 �EXISTING CONDITIONS AQUATIC HABITAT DISCHARGE The Logan River and Beaver ' Creek watersheds are located in the Bear River Mountains, primarily at elevations above 5,000 feet. Their annual discharges and flQ!wi:: periodicities ., $: h: ~~~ack and snowTheir peak discharges typicallY :i~:;'~:dti~::'i ~ip. the spring, base flow condi tions can occu~:/~:~~: ing ':'£h,;"'itil,ate summer, are strongly influenced by variations in melt. while durilffi5f:: :;~ih~:/~iinter '~ : : : :~'nder d :::dm::: ::::::. flow for the i ':;~:~;;:i;;:;~~;:/:t the mouth of when the snowpack is low, or Logan Canyon is about 24,O::; :;e :1J.bidi:,·:if:~~:{ : : p~r extremely second (cfs), while f,;t: b:~ : : : ~; t. =:Ibp. od1t ;\S35 cfs (Kappesser, 1983). dischar~~~f:'; ;t~O~!::; tb.:.~: !~;!ii b'gan River at the mouth of are.: : :p;:t:~; s :~,'~:t:~.J; ;t~ ,j..n "~:~ble 1. These values provide it reaches bankfull Mean monthly Logan Canyon :::::P:~::~::~,:~,:~~~;g~i~'::~:::::::~:;o:::::::~:::n :;:~:~~::e a third-order stre'~ht:::::~hat has a moderately steep gradient (1.9 percent average grade). It is rated a Class II - High Priority waterway on the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources' (UDWR) Unique Streams List. The Logan River has not been proposed or determined to be a wild and scenic river. 4 �Table 1 MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS (cfs) FOR THE LOGAN RIVER AT THE MOUTH OF LOGAN CANYON (Gage 10109000) Water Year --- Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 170 148 67 134 100 131 96 197 247 228 165 158 126 75 126 107 123 96 175 213 211 156 141 113 77 97 110 89 157 186 182 125 125 105 72 103 101 104 84 141 159 161 123 120 97 75 96 99 99 98 131 147 143 205 128 94 127 104 106 100 256 109 309 187 289 146 535 676 131 131 823 579 541 "d::~29 678 "::/~:::}1'30 308/" :~( 362 255 86 395 191 345 155 170 73 181 136 176 105 260 337 333 170 316 140 65 153 106 153 90 209 246 253 169 267 Mean 153 142 126 205 168 Source: III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"",;:~~'~ i'i " ~:}~:' ~ ~~ ~n , : ;,:~:;"':,!5, ::':~,~: :,:i!'~H 759 381 U.S. Geological :::i:::~:~~~:~:,~:;,:;:;ii~~!~~~:~,~?i;:~::::~::::~:::~::s::::::gh along the prd':d';~d p;;~j:~~c~:::i: "reach ~: ~inl:thlf:","/i ~" ,n~ Right Hand availab~!~~h:: ":f~:~ " any of these Fork, Rick I data are are Beaver Creek, Temple S Fork. No specific flow tributaries. WATER QUALITY Data for the Logan River (see Table 2) indicate that it is a cold water system (maximum temperatures less than 20°C) with good to excellent water quali ty. Overall, the river has excellent dissolved oxygen concentrations (6.9 to 9.8 mg/L) , low turbidity and suspended solids levels, and relatively low nutrient levels. Results of a bedload transport study conducted by Kappesser in 1983 indicate that suspended sediment levels and turbidities can be expected to increase at 5 �Table 2 WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE LOGAN RIVER AT THE MOUTH OF LOGAN CANYON Sample Data Parameter 10/1/BO 12/2/80 3/31/81 Temperature (OC) 2.0 7.5 9.4 4.8 0.7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.0 ~i il"~ ~ : ; \",:. 6.9 9.B Specific Conductivity (umhos/cm) 310 345 pH (units) 8.2 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Cations (mg/L) Total Alkalinity as CaC0 Turbidi ty (.NTU) 3 192 146 204 16~!i/: 66 0.05 14~::,::;'i:;;:"·· .:\:. 144 156 0.5 6.2 206 166 13.6 4.0 8.7 8.7 8.1 5 0.05 69 0.06 56 0.05 1.5 174 148 188 158 3.0 9,/l:::::. 172 179 184 :)' .::F TDS @ 1BOoC (mg/L) 8.1 55 0.02 (mg/L) 3 (mg/L) 8.2 9.8 270 363 5 ... -., 72 Total Phosphorous (mg/L) Total Hardness as CaC0 5 325 8/4/81 8.7 8.4 3.0 6/2/81 0.5 2 .0 ':::. . ·:\;;"<:;[7:..1 196 162 ... T.O.C. (mg/L) C.O.D. (mg/L) Total Anions (mg/L) 1.0 1.8 ... 3.2 20 15 15 15 143 100 11B 107 Nitrate as N (mg/L) 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.21 Nitrite as N (mg/L) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 SOURCE: 1~:.2?,;/":;,: ~~~i:i::;':;': ': ;} 1~: .15 o•05 .:;,;:'. 0 . 05 Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Salt Lake City, Utah. BOT538/028 2. 7 0 . 05 1.0 15 107 0.25 0.05 412 9.0 12/2/81 210 B.3 �flow ~ates greater than 240 cfs_ The only water quality param: ter 'that could potentially present a problem to aquatic e life ~n the Logan River is pH. prote~tion 1986) :. Acceptable pH levels for the of freshwater life range from 6.5 to 9.0 (EPA, There are two instances in the available data (Table 2) where, Logan River pH levels reached or exceeded the upper limit: 9.3 on May 8, 1980, and 9.0 on August 4, 1981. No water quality data are available for Beaver Creek. the geology and land use practices in the B~~yer However, Creek water- shed are similar to the rest of the Logan.:iiii~;~V:i~r basin. fore, Beaver Creek's water quali ty is e 1 :::A::: :::D :A:: Logan River . 0 pt'~bi ~; ly. ": :" :!;': .: '.: ,'i.:'~;." ,:. ' There- similar to """"""';::":,::,;'" :::::"::;:::::::::. :~~~i :~o:: :::a:~:o:::n~::~,:~'~~~,~,~~:~;;~~':'e::~::d a::l ::ea::ail- qe:~;t:~;e.," ~~l! , :th:~y ;i; ;p.ISO consume vegetable matter (seeds, algae ;ii::;",Ji tp':: ~;i (~:: : :: :.;,: Te,~fi ~strial invertebrates (grasshoppers, ' ants, b~:~ti le.: ~:; >;i;i ;c~~ms ·; :':; ; ~ 'tc.) can be an important food source dUJi.d~;~; t~t:: :th;;; ; ; ~;;£.:i.:~1g, summer, and fall, when they fall into the·;1i;~.~~?r f~~!b~; v~:~etation (especially overhanging riparian brush ·:;~h4;; ; ~.+=~.~ ;~) along rivers, lakes, and streams. Aquatic invertebr~; t.; ~~;/:·(maYflies, caddis flies , dragonflies, larvae. To a lesser etc.) are an important fish food source all year, but especially during the winter when terrestrial food sources are lacking. No quantitative data on aquatic invertebrates are available for the Logan River or Beaver Creek. However, good water quality and numerous riffle areas in the river and creek (typi¢ally productive aquatic invertebrate areas) t - suggest that ~quatic invertebrate densities could be relatively high_ , Limit$d observations by UDWR (1972; 1974) 'indicate that the relat+ve densities of Logan River aquatic invertebrates in 7 �the project reach are about 70 percent caddisflies (Trichoptera), 20 percent stoneflies (Plecoptera), and 10 percent mayflies and midges (Ephemeroptera and Diptera). Because it is similar to the Logan River, the relative densities of the Beaver Creek aquatic invertebrate community could be expected to be similar. No data are available on terrestrial invertebrates (that are potential fish food sources) along the project reach. Aquatic invertebrates typically feed on eta ti 0 n ( leave s, t wig s, etc.), car i on etc. ), and other invertebrates. ::~;::~a~e::~~ a.l:g: ~~;i~ decaying veg- C~if~'~ Q:: : :f ;i.:.s h , No .,! (f~f:' · bird s , a;;~ ; ~;:.~\r,p.ilable on sources for aquatiS::;::'~'~'~:,~:~,ebra~~~)"~Sing the FISH HABITAT in the Logan Can- An aquatic habitat yon between DeWitt Hand Fork cOnflU~JlCe;;1 ;,.·'~;fi4: :iif 'h e ':; ~;~ :aver 3. 4 miles Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966). The inventory above:: : :~:fi'~::; :m.~iit~~~ ~: ~:;f,;: was ':!i;~¢rh~ fo i~~J~i~~ Habita~::i i;A:~: ~~ ~ y:!:~fi=l collected at ': ~i li ~'~:f :~e the Right Mountain turnoff, about u. S. Forest Service Region 4 Aquatic procedures. Physical habitat data were intervals along the study reach. Using data on five component categories for a stream (pool measure, pool structure, stream bottom, stream environment, and bank stability) percent optimum fish habitat was estimated for each study site. The five component categories were rated from 0 to 1, with a rating of 1 representing optimal conditions. The five ratings were summed (see Total Points in Table 3), then divided by 5 (the maximum number of total points) conditions. if all component categories exhibited optimal The result was expressed as percent optimum fish habitat for each study site. 8 �Table 3 PERCENT OPTIMUM HABITAT DATA FOR THE LOGAN RIVER (RIGHT HAND FORK TO BEAVER CREEK) AND BEAVER CREEK (MOUTH TO BEAVER MOUNTAIN TURNOFF) Approximate Location Station Number U-S U-6 U-7 U-8 U-9 U-10 U-11 U-12 U-13 U-14 U-15 Right Hand Fork Confluence China Row Campground Approx. 1 mile above China Row Near Logan Cave Approx. 1 mile above Logan Cave Just above Lower Bridge Just below Upper Bridge Just above Temple Fork Just above Rick's Spring Near Bear Hollow Creek Approx. 1 mile below Forestry Field Sta. At Forestry Field Station Just above Tony Grove Just above Red Banks Camp Near mouth of Beaver Creek ~pprox. 1 mile above Beaver Creek Near Beaver Mountain Turnoff Average Width Average Depth (ft) (ft) 43.4 .:::.. 1.30 Percent Riffle 89.4 Percent Pool 10.6 U-21 PROPOSED PROJECT REACH AVERAGES SOURCE: Adams, 1966 BOT538/030 0.22 Pool Structure 0.04 Stream Bottom 0.67 'i~ll"1i: :" : :' :~~~;<i : ;il1;!]i",)i :~:! f11 fi! .. ;::~. . 0.92 0.88 0.89 0.68 0.76 0.50 0.52 88.7 94.9 16.84 1543.7 15::: 34.3 0.99 90.8 9.2 0.27 0.00 0.03 97.3 97.0 11.5 15.7 O~!O J)Ci~\,. 11. 3::::" Bank Stability Total Points Percent Optimum 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.70 2.31 2.44 2.12 2.14 2.47 2.04 2.12 2.38 2.37 54 46 49 42 43 49 41 42 48 47 0.40 0.59 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.72 0.79 0.85 0.62 0.80 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 2.72 2.48 2.33 1.98 2.28 54 50 47 40 46 O. 71 0.72 0.62 1.00 0.80 2.65 2.22 53 44 12.35 1.6.• 4.0 ... 0.72 0.96 1:!1 -:: . 0.38 38.0 44.4 32.0 39.5 28.9 Stream Environment 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.61 0.52 0.75 0.70 0.76 0.81 0.80 i~i~i~: i : : i:; ; "i:'~;Sii: :n ~U ~: ~~ ~:~! ~: ~~ 583.6 U-16 U-17 U-18 U-19 U-20 Pool Measure 0 .-21 ~T::. 00::. :::~:: ,: 'i: i ,: : i;i~i:i:": :":i: :i : ::: 0.18 0.04 0.42 3~.75 ... ~ 95 2.34 47% �~he inventory results presented in Table 3 are only for the sections of the Logan River and Beaver Creek that could po~entially tions. ~he be influenced by the proposed highway modifica- Data indicate that the average stream width is 34.3 feet, average depth is 0.99 feet, and the riffle-to-pool ratio is 9:1. The average percent optimum fish habitat in the project reach is 47 percent, the best study site was 54 percent, while the poorest was 40 percent. Three study sites in the project reach (U-5, U-15, U-20) were considered to be above average in quality when compared to o ~~r .iF' '::: study sites (Adams, 1966). The project reach percent with other regional trout on physical habitat data, reach of the Logan River is trout stream . .:::: :::::::: .. ·:": ';: ;: .l.~.i T~:· :a ~..I·:e\:.. ;4:;~ i:. l.:1::- ~ CaMP ARI sON:::..dE.... EJ(CENW::~~:6PT IMUM HAB I TAT P: .:;:':: .;/:::',;::::::' FOR R;Edfor~fAL·:;;;T:R'OUT STREAMS ~!~~p~;;;;:r:'::~': ;: : ;: ,: : : :';i" ':~ :" "':;!;;;:g ~~:~~e A Fifth Water ·::ii:i:,;""::· Diamond Fork McCoy Creek Sixth Water Currant Creek Wolf Creek Rock Creek West Fork Duchesne Taft Creek North Fork Duchesne Hades Creek Logan River and Beaver Creek (proposed : project area) Source: Utah Utah Idaho Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Nevada Utah Utah Utah Adams, 1966. 10 8 22 23 15 21 8 40 22 7 36 10 34.3 Percent of Optimum Habitat 64 62 51 49 49 48 46 44 41 . 40 37 33 25 47 �The Logan River and Beaver Creek generally lack good quality pools (Adams, 1966). Overhanging vegetation, such as brush and trees, is an important fish habitat component for the Logan River (Brown, 1935; Dunham, 1963; Adams, 1966; Helm, 1986). A fish habitat utilization study was conducted using four Logan River sites between Chokecherry Campground (about 1.5 miles below Right Hand Fork) and 0.5 miles above Brachiopod Picnic Area (near Cottonwood Picnic Area) by the UDWR in 1973. Their results indicated that more trout used areas where bankside vegetation was present than tation was al ter e d. There were 46 to 64 trout captured in areas where the not al tered. a~e as pe: ~:¢ :~:nt where vegemore brown ripar ,i!~ :~ : : ; ~~:g: ~tation was . Jn8:~;~ :· c~:'f:t;'£.q:?lt trout ;/M'~ti~t.a:!4.n wh i:t:e ~fish were Also, 32 to 68 percent were captured in unal tered areas. captured in equal numbers in al ter:~ :d ;: : ~ :h~:: : ~nal tered areas. Size frequency data for captured in 1970 and River indicate these ad u 1 tho I ding are a s brown'i ;::i~;;::; ';~:;'~; ':~;untain 1971:: :; :from : \;l~; a:t.;t:~:~:~ :~ ~:¢ :¢,:~ :t :i~l§.. ~~ ~ i!~ e areas of the Logan as juvenile rearing and ib.;r::!; : l?::9t!b: ; ;: ~~:~~~~I:~ s ( He 1m, 19 8 6). f:r:Pni:: : :a :l~~~:.~: ~:.. ar~: ~: ~ indicate these tend to suppor 1;:: : t.;~ : ~ : ~ : : ; ~J~~:~ :i ;s ~;i~: (mostly juvenile or groups of broJh;:::!~~ !!i7put ' :~ n:~ m~untain whitefish. frequency data There are few whitefish d:~;~':;:;'::;: ';~:~wning Si z e locations mostly adul t) habitat availability and qual- ity in the Logan River and Beaver Creek. Unpublished field data (UDWR, 1972; 1974) from three sites along the project reach (Franklin Basin Bridge, Utah State Forestry Field Station Bridge, Brachiopod Picnic Area) indicate that Logan River substrate is primarily boulders (37 to 78 percent) and rubble (10 to 55 percent). The three sites surveyed had only 1 to 15 percent gravel. Small tributaries along the project reach, such as China Row Creek and Rick's Spring, are reported to be essential for 11 �fish spawning (Roberts, 1977). Us~ng only stream gradient (no other data are available) as a ' criterion for identifying potential tributary spawning areas : (gradients less than 2.5 percent could be spawnable), only Right Hand Fork, lower Blind Hollow Creek, Temple Fork, and lower White Pine Creek could provide some spawnable habitat. Other tributaries along the project reach have gradients exceeding 4 percent. However, all project reach tributaries probably contribute gravel to the system and could have spawnable areas where they join the Logan River or Beaver Creek. "",/ii;i'iiiii:,i:i:::::,, Frs HERr E BOLOG~!;:' 'i/'''''iiiiii:i:::'': '!i Sr :::Hp::::::Sreach supports populations of brown (Salmo clarki), and nait~'~:~i;:~;~ :~; ~:;~dUCing gamefish tro\J;:t : : ;: ~sailrr:6.:/'r: ~: tE'~) cutthroat trout mqu:~t:~: l~~ji ,~h flt~;tish (Prosopiurn williarnsoni) I . catchabl ~i;: ;:;s!ii ~ ~:/:J:;:~::::;:t.Jl:/~ O-inch) rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri),: : : ~e:r :E:' : ; : §:t._d ,=~e~:: : : i~1rOUghOUt the Logan River and were not b¥:f::~:~:~: ~:~:i:::;:_:£~<i?:, '::i ~~ ~iroduce in the river. However, several rainba~jb.;p.tth;:~~lt hybrids were reported in electro- Until 1982, shocking 1 9 7. 1) • surve;:q;;;d~:~;~: : : ~9ii :lected by Utah State Uni versi ty (Gosse, '::~~~~;::://:' Rainbow trout stocking data are limited. For the entire Logan River (including downstream impoundments), an average of 30,860 rainbows were planted in 1962, 1963, and 1964 1966). (Adams, Between 1969 and 1974, an average of 15,000 rainbows were planted in the project reach of the Logan River at Brachiopod Picnic Area (UDWR, 1974). No information is available on the current status of rainbow trput in the Logan River. The only rough _ fish species reportea for the Logan River is the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi)~ 12 �LIFE HISTORY Life history periodicity data for the three species of naturally reproducing gamefish found in the Logan River are presented in Table 5. Rainbow trout reproduction in the Logan River is probably limited. Logan River brown trout and moun- tain whitefish are fall spawners. Egg incubation occurs through the winter, and the fry emerge in the early spring. Cutthroat trout spawn in the spring, egg incubation occurs through the summer, and the fry emerge in ~:pi~> fall. Brown trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whit~ftfh all reach ~::::~ :::U~~:~s:::n~a~9~;~~Oduce 'i:~:::,; ,' ~: ,': ;:~:: "'4'i;: ~~::S, of age T a!~ 1~:: : :?:; : i: : : : :;: : . ·: : ::~:~~\:;::::> LOGAN RIVER GAMEFISH LIFEh fI.I"S'l.lORY::::J?ERIODICITY DATA ... . .. "',\:\,,':::',;rr,,;rr" "";;" """ .:::/.f:::::;;:::;::::~ji~ ." .:: Brown Trout ~~~w~;~~ba t o~:: :": ~:" :i;, , , , , : :, ,": : ":,: :, : : ,gi'~~~: ~=~ ~~~~ er i ::::::::~,;;:,;~,~~:~':j' :,'t ' ' '; ' :' '>' .~:~~:~~=~:~::~: ~ Spawning ' ::~ ~ ~ ~iii::::::;://:' Nay-June Egg incubation Fry Juvenile Adult May-August August-January January-December January-December Mountain Whitefish October-November October-March January-June January-December January-December Spawning Egg Incubation Fry Juvenile Adult 13 �DISTRIBUTION Gamefish occur throughout the project reach. The section downstream from Temple Fork supports primarily brown trout, while the section above Temple Fork supports primarily cutthroat trout (UDWR, 1972; 1974). Mountain whitefish occur in relatively equal numbers throughout the project reach. No information is available on the status of rainbow trout in the project reach. 2 sinee18. 9 No rainbows have be~p!;;~;I~tocked there "",i"::i;","':,::i'::::",:i;;:':i,, \\,, ::~::::C:iSh population densi ty d~;;~"': ;~~")~ac~:'::'i" for the nd ~:~ ::r:~:e:r::: ::::::i~:e ::~i;i;LJ~i;;~;:,i~'?':r: ::W:h :h: :::u bankside vegetation is lJ:l1;ct':1;te;~J!/~~:~~: ~: ~ than altered (UDWR, on .:H:::::::::::::;::::: .. per mile of stream) were near the project reach near pass electroshock~1~1~ :/~ampling Estimates were based on multipleresults. It was estimated that the Logan River supported 460 to 920 brown trout per mile. It was also estimated that the river supported 692 to 1,454 fish per mile of all trout species: rainbow. brown, cutthroat, Increased fishing pressure and the termination of the rainbow trout stocking program in 1982 have probably resulted in reduced fish densities today. POPULATION STRUCTURE The Logan River supports naturally reproducing populations of brown trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. 14 �Past fish sampling data indicate that fry, juveniles, and adults of these three species use the river (Adams, 1966; Gosse, 1971; UDWR, 1972; 1974). Total length data for game- fish collected in 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1974 (UDWR, 1972; 1974; Helm, 1986) were compared to growth data from areas similar to north central Utah to estimate fish age (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Carlander, 1969). These comparisons indicated that in the early 1970s the Logan River supported the following age ranges of fish: 1- to 5-year-old brown trout, 1- to 9-year-old mountain whi tefish, ;i~qd .:::::' .:::::' 1- to 5-year- old cutthroat trout. Most trout and whitefish apparently occurs River above Third Beaver Creek, Temple Fork, loW~:r ;i : : :B.iJ.:.i~d:: ~: B6llkIOW in Creek, and trout are River tributaries and no substantial lakes or any of its tributaries Condition facto~;:" ":;I:~;;;: ;: ::;:e developed using fish length and weight data to determine the relative "robustness" or "well being" of fish populations. These factors can be used to compare the well being of fish populations from different habitats or fish populations using the same habitat at different times. Condition factor differences suggest habitat quality differences (higher K values suggest better quality habitats) . No recent data are available on trout growth or condition factors in the Logan River or Beaver Creek. However, condi- tion factors were developed for various length ranges of 15 �brown trout from the Logan River by Sigler (1952) and by Gosse (1971). The 1952 values were 1.83 for fish 0 to 199 rom, 1.73 for fish 200 to 275 rom, and 1.64 for fish 276 to 350 rom. In 1971, the K factors were 1.82 for fish 0 to 199 rom, 1.50 for fish 200 to 275 rom, and 1.59 for fish 276 to 350 mm. These K factors indicate that the condition of brown trout in the Logan River changed little from 1952 to 1971. This suggests that the quality of brown trout habitat along the Logan River also changed little between 1952 and 1971. Because the Logan River has not changed app~i~ ~iably since 1971, current K factors are probably simi::f:~l:: :'to 1971 and :::2p::::::. mortality factors for"'{~~~:': '~::" :':~:;:~:: fiSh in the project area are probably severe ~:ri~;i :~;~~ental condi tions f predation, and angling. Of tih~tse: ~ : . m'~ :b~: ~: l J ty caused by exposure to severe environmental :i!¢..d~d:±;; :i: 6 n~.: : : 't~OVl flows, floods, anchor ice, etc.) is proba:b,)'y :i~ti;~;~: :;:{~:~ d;~ng cause of fish losses to area. are also known only 4 inches (Scott and 1·6;h~.:; 1 J~a::;:E{ and juvenile fish. Brown trout been reported to prey on other trout crossm~: rl;:/ i i :~973). Because of its location and excellent accessibility, the Logan River has long been an important fishing stream. Fishing pressure on the river has steadily increased since angling data were first collected in 1950. From 1962 to 1965, an average of 30,860 catchable rainbow trout were released into the Logan River. It was estimated that 80 percent of these fish were caught (Adams, 1966). In the absence of the rainbow trout stocking program and increasing fishing pressure, angling could be an important mortality factor for trout and whitefish populations in the project reach. 16 �ANGLING The Logan River is near a major population center in northern Utah, supports a good gamefish population, and has excellent accessibility. For these reasons it has long been an impor- tant angling stream. Fishing pressure on the river has in- creased steadily since 1950, while catch rates have remained about the same. The number of angler-days spent on the Logan River doubled between 1950 and 1982. Fishing pressure increases are expected to continue through the 1990s . ;ii!i!:;;~Angling data for the entire Logan River are surnrnarizedi:i : f:~t::~able . .:1i i i!:"::;::i:i :~ l i;:~ :i :l ; : ; : . 6. LOGAN Year 1948 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1982 1985 1990 Angler Days Catch Rate (fish/hour) 0.61 a 26,684 42,801 (11,599)c,e (15,045)c a For entire Logan River, including impoundments. b UDWR creel census data and regression analysis (r = 0.87). cApproximate number of fish caught in project reach. Assumes 47 percent of total fish harvested were caught between DeWitt Springs and Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966). dStocked rainbow trout only. fish were harvested. Assumes 80 percent of stocked eRainbow trout only. 17 �Creel census data for 1962, 1963, and 1964 indicate that 47 percent of the fish harvested from the Logan River were caught between DeWitt Springs, about 4.7 miles downstream from the project reach, and Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966). Creel census data were also collected along the Logan River from First Dam to Temple Fork in 1982 (UDWR). In the 1982 study, the river was divided into seven sections. A section from Right Hand Fork to Temple Fork covered the lower third of the project reach. With the exception of the section from Second to Third Dams, where no anglers;:iw:~re observed, the Right Hand Fork to Temple Fork sectio.p:::;:;~~i~ the least used. fi$.)1:f;ri9.;:.: ; b~ tween First pet,;!'l'~:~f;; u~;i!;;~::'; 't>~e reach Of the 1,002 people observed Dam and Temple Fork, only 8 (0. 8 from Right Hand Fork to Temple Fo +.;J(~::(/· l\J1g). ing ~a:s observed thr~tq:~;;: ; ~ri:~ust; :; and;: ; :~u;:~; s~ t; >~~i~: . The in this section from February however, fish were caught only during July anglers in this trout (160 rainbows, rate of 0.5 fish/hour. were the First of the anglers MANAGEMENT The Logan River'; ; S: :':~;;;~;::d as a Class I I - High Priority water- way on the Utah Unique Stream List. Because of its location, accessibility, and popularity among regional anglers, it was largely managed as a "put-and-take" rainbow trout fishery from the 1940s to 1982. During this period, thousands (an average of 30,860 in the early 1960s) of catchable size (8to 10-inch) rainbow trout were stocked in response to the heavy fishing pressure the river supported. In 1982, the rainbow trout stocking program was terminated above Third Darn. The upper section of the Logan River, including the project reach of the Logan River and Beaver Creek, is now managed for naturally reproducing trout and whitefish. 18 �Fish habitat management in the Logan River and Beaver Creek has primarily focused on maintaining existing conditions. Studies (UDWR, 1973; Helm, 1986) have shown that the loss or alteration of bankside vegetation is detrimental to trout habitat quality in the Logan River. Current management strat- egies concern lirniting or eliminating future riparian vegetation damage resulting from encroachment or other actions. No programs currently exist to enhance or improve fish habitat in the Logan River or Beaver Creek. :::r::::l::::O::formation suggests t4i~:i!: ;~'::;:;;;"\~PtentiallY producti9:tt:i;~iiqn:g: the " : ~f;~ject reach, a good fishery currently exi~i:b~~~.:~:::/~:h: ~lude (in order of importance) the general /~b: Se.:p.~~;: : Oti.:\qpali ty pool habi- limiting further gamefish where their tat, historical habi tat quali ~iy' i ;;~: e:~;;:~:d: a:tii :6 'n, limi ted avail- ::~ ~~ t~ a::o:~a ~~:yd: :,~::~~:~~":'~,~:!:~:j: ,~, ; dri~'' '~ng1 pre s · ing sure Percent optimum 4~:h'I't:a.t ·::ey·atl.uations of the project reach ~:d~:::: ::::t,~:i!~::~~'~r:'::::::b~~ :~:h r:::o:~bi:::e~::~ity the evaluations ':; ~l;~:di: : ~{~diicate generally lacking 1966). ii h : i i ~~e that quali ty pool habitat is Logan River and Beaver Creek (Adams, The absence of quality pool habitat, which provides important adult holding and juvenile rearing areas, could be limiting further trout production in the project reach. Studies were conducted along the Logan River (UDWR, 1973; Helm, 1986) to determine the effect of bankside vegetation alterations on trout and whitefish densities. Study results indicated that overhanging vegetation is a very important component of Logan River trout habitat quality. Road encroach- ments and other riparian vegetation alterations made in the 19 �1930s and 1950s continued to affect local trout habitat quality and use during the early 1970s. little effect on mountain whitefish. The alterations had . The habitat quality reductions that occurred in the 1930s and 1950s could still be limiting further trout production in the Logan River and Beaver Creek today. Data on stream gradients (moderately steep) and substrate composition (primarily boulders and rubble with little gravel) along the project reach suggest that quali ~,:;r!!'~;iypawning areas could be I imi ting further trout productio:p"':' =*t1 the Log an River and Beaver Creek. Also, only four triqp't at;i '@.s,:. in the proj- ::tS:::::l:a::rg:::~:n:: :~:::f~:~:~::~,~~;::g~'~G:~~~,ns that may ~::r:~~~i::: ~:!:~ :!:~:n~S P;',:;~;;;;~~i,;t~:::r~r::~O::::us fo~: : : :t;:h,~ 16~iEt~::>Eb:i ::d of the project reach (Right Hand Fork to T.~fu;:fe::\~p:~k· ')i il: ~;ndicate that this section was not heavily utiII;~:~d; ; ::/~~;~~:; : :~ ;:l!: ~~ople were observed fishing there during all .: : $:f : : : :1: 9 : ~ ' '2: , ;' · :l!~;: : . Th~: i '~ data suggest that angling results (UDWR, 1982) t ::::::::o:h::~,:~;::~;::j:~::'~'::::~ti:~w~~:~ ~i::c::::o:h:n r:::: stOC~::{;h~: " ! !p.,t6:g~am was ended above Third angling p;~~~~re in the project reach is bow trout Dam in 1982, current completely supported by naturally reproducing brown trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish populations. Therefore, angling could cause a reduction in trout and whitefish production along the project reach by removing more naturally reproducing fish from the area than in past years. RECREATIONAL VALUE The Logan River has been classified by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources as a Class II - High Priority Stream and has been placed on the agency's Unique Streams List. 20 These �actions by the UDWR reflect the Logan River's unique fishery and aquatic habitat as well as the stream's ability to sustain high quality, wild populations of salmonids. At the present time the Logan River above the impoundments is managed' as a wild trout fishery. A self-sustaining trout fish- ery has numerous and relatively narrow habitat requirements at various life stages; consequently, the fishery is sensitive to any degradation or alteration of water quality and stream morphology. Fishing pressure is also a key factor in maintaining a wild trout population, and managed appropr ia tely . Throughout the state of Utah there stream miles classified as Class Logan River is also unique in anqI~ ng must be ./iiiiiii:://:' api(': ;~:' : '~ i::;:~~" " 'JlUmber Ii!!'ii~t.:/:~I/ii:t ishe;il i~:~. tha~::i i ii ~: : i i;~'/~oth of The a high priori ty and an urban fishery. Consubstantial. in Table 7 future number of rise in fishing days reflects the po~: ~ :~;ti' 6:~ /'increase in Cache County and metropbli tan Logan Ci ty'::ii6tV, 'r the last 35 years. ; In addition to the river's accessibility to a large number of anglers, it serves as a natural laboratory for Utah State University. The Logan River is used to train students in fish and wildlife, hydrology, forestry, archaeology, geology, engineering, and environmental field techniques. Numerous studies, theses, and dissertations have been carried out using the river's environmental features. 21 �ECONOMIC VALUE Although fishing pressure is heavy on the Logan River, excellent catches have been made to 36 pounds). (such as brown trout weighing up The mystique of "big trout" combined with the opportunity to catch the bag limit make the Logan River a preferred fishery for anglers. As such, the river gener- ates a substantial amount of spending by anglers and is a valuable economic asset both to the state of Utah and Cache Valley. :;:~: :n::::~yt:: :::~' t~:e::::~ ::;,¢~)~h::;:~" !;i:~;tt:: ::::~ .:~Pu.t'il1~(::;the became a million-dollar fishery. shown in the Table, more than $68 ': ~il'tid'~' Based QP '::\t h:e. .. Logan River anglers. ~{; :v.~: i : 'l $ 40 ~'year period will be spent by length of 30 miles I ~:1i i~ll~~.: 8 : ;: : ::;f;6;r; : : :l~ :~{~ h mi leo f s tr e am . Historical creel census .dat:9.- i' ~ ~l 1b:~f: ~;: : ; i:hat over 47 percent of the fish harvested ./€i:;:e:;:; ;-e;kJ:~n·\b~J:ween DeWi tt Springs and abou t $ 3 0 , 00 0 was expend ed i .the mouth of Beaver ~~'~:~.::.:'.:<:.:.:': :.: :;.": ":.,., : ,': ,;'.';':; ""'" .:::::::;:::::::::::::::;::. .:/:::':::;:::/::::::::;;:::;::. ':~:. ....... .. ":::. .g: ':;:\'. ':~11~':::T ab 1 e 7 ESTIMATED.:. Pb.ST, PE.ESENT, AND FUTURE EXPENDITURES ·::l\SY:\l.\NGLERS ON THE LOGAN RIVER Year 1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1982 1985 1990 Cost/Day Ang~'~'~,: ,;·~;s 26,684 42,801 51,206 a 48,219 a 52,227 a 56,235 53,748 a 60,244 a 64,252 $ b 2.99 b 6.81 12.55 b 22.10 b 31.67 b 41.22 45.04 50.78 b 60.34 a UDWR creel census data and regression analysis b UDWR annual cost factor and regression analysis 22 Expenditure $ 79,785 291,475 642,635 1,065,640 1,654,029 2,318,007 2,420,810 3,059,190 3,876,966 (r=0.87) (r=O.73) �Another economid factor is the investment value by .the state of Utah. From 1960 through 1980, the UDWR annually · stocked the Logan River with brown and rainbow trout. An average of 36,612 trout were stocked each year at an estimated investment of $732,000 (based on an average cost of $l/fish over 20 years). Additional investment value has been made by the UDWR and the Forest Service as labor and expenses for management and study programs. BOT538/024 23 �REFERENCES Abbey, L.A. 1974. Memorandum to L. Jester concerning the Logan Canyon highway route environmental analysis. Utah State Department of Highways. Adams, J.K. 1966. Memorandum to B. Reese concerning aquatic habitat quality in Logan Canyon. Contains the results of an aquatic habitat inventory and percent optiIl1~nxl!: lations for the Logan River from Dewitt habi tat calcu- $P~~~gs to the Beaver ;;;;;~::~:~;~:::: ~ ~;;:;~:;;:t;;:;~~~;;;h;;~~:::~;:;;l:;;;;::~ s U .: :\~~~!!;::::::> er i es • Car lander , . K. Fishery Biology. 1969. Iowa State on Fisheries Habitat Dunham, D. of Past and P~6ppsed U . S. Fore s t s~;£~:~~:~: ;; ;,;: ~:~;~~n, Construction in Logan Canyon. ~j.9)lway Utah. Envirpnmental Protection Agency. for water. EPA 440/5-86-001. 1986. Quality criteria u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Gosse, J. 1971. Logan River Fish Survey. Utah State Univer- sity, College of Natural Resources, Logan, Utah. Helm, W. 1986. Letter to C. Forsgren (CH2M HILL) containing unpublished fish electroshocking data for altered and unaltered sections of the Logan River from 1970 and 1971. Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan, Utah. 24 �Utah Department of Wildlife Resources. Results for the Logan River. 1982. Creel Census Northern Regional Office. BOT538/025 26 �:/:::::::::;::::::::::::::... 'i : ", : i;: , ~: : : ,: : : ;i : ': li:" : : ":'i '::11111:,/::' � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/62">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/62</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 4214344492 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 16407692 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Aquatic resources technical memorandum, Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Aquatic resources technical memorandum prepared for Utah Deparment of Transportation detailing the existing conditions of the aquatic habitat, fisheries biology, water quality, the impacts and mitigation in the Middle and Upper Canyons and Rich County, and references. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River Logan Canyon (Utah) Fishery resources Logan River (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Rich County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_010.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/45567e2889d98a2ba23bf38e0fc70b2f.pdf 1d8561f0241bc01d3905d1777a88f03a PDF Text Text CNMHIIl MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: April 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The nineteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on March 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at UDOT District Office in Odgen, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached for review is the Technical Memorandum on the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m .. at the U.S. Forest Service District Office in Logan, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of March 30 meeting. 2. Final discussion of traffic projections. 3. Discuss summaries of scoping meeting testimony (to be distributed at the meeting) . 4. Discussion on Chapter 7 - components of roadway improvement. 5. Discussion of the existing conditions portions of the aquatic resources, recreation/land use and socio-economic technical memorandums. 6. Outline for day-long work session session in Canyon on Tuesday, April 21, starting at 7:30 a.m. Future meeting schedule: May 4 May 18 BOT538/043 - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TE~l MEETING March 30, 1987 Attendance: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Arlo Waddops, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA Bruce Brotherson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc. Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Bill Helm Item 1 - Review of Minutes Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and approved, with some minor changes. Item 2 - Scoping Meeting Summaries Copies of the meeting transcripts were distributed. Team members were informed that copies of the written comments will be distributed after April 6. It was reported that the Cache County ~ouncil is going to request an extension of time to comment. Stan Nuffer indicated that the objective is to obtain as much input as possible and that comments will be given consideration even if they are received after the deadline. Hopefully, there will not be too many so that the summary can be prepared and some decisions made on the ' major issues. Item 3 - Discussion of Alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3 There was a discussion about these alternatives in preparation for a trip to the Canyon. Duncan Silver asked how the impacts of a 35 MPH alternative would be evaluated and compared to a 40 MPH alternative. The impacts would depend upon the amount of additional area affected due to flattening Visual impacts would be evaluated using the USFS system that was described by Clark Ostergaard. Steve Flint wanted to be sure that the accident data on the 16 sites that have higher than average accident occurrences was available when the team went into the Canyon. He also 1 �asked if it would be possible to consider spot improvements that were outside the project boundaries. There is a location approximately 0.7 miles west of Right Fork that might be suitable for a slow vehicle turnout. In preparation for the meeting in the Canyon, some sections will be staked to show the construction limits of the alternatives . . Project maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were distributed and locations to be staked identified. Valley Engineering will survey and place stakes at those locations a few days prior to the I.D. Team meeting. Item 4 - Aquatic Resources and Recreation/Land Use Technical Memos Copies of the aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos were distributed to the I.D. Team members. There will be some discussion on these after team members have had a chance to review them. Item 6 - Continued Discussion of Traffic Projections Cliff Forsgren distributed some additional information on traffic projections. A range of future traffic flows were developed using traffic volumes and northern Utah populations from 1940 to the present. The team members were asked to review and give their comments. Duncan Silver indicated that he felt that there was no real benefit in continuing to rework future traffic projections. The road cannot meet todays needs, even with a modified standard and he could see no benefit in spending more time working to precisely determine future volumes. Item 7 - Comments on Chapter 7 Due to the length of the meeting, discussion was postponed to a future date. BOX18/D.1401 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/63">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63</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 782905033 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1696924 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 from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Attendance, review of minutes, scoping meeting summaries, discussion of alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3, aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos, and continued discussion of traffic projections. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Silver, Duncan Ostergard, Clark Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River Traffic engineering 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 1987-04-15 1987-03-30 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (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 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_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/051632ff6e154cc43de6d32204759671.pdf 64700169ced87d90f3558986e3f6f0d8 PDF Text Text . Q ~ t~ ted States epartment of Agriculture Forest Service Logan Ranger District 860 N. 1200 E. Logan, UT 84321 Reply to: 2300 Date: October 4, 1988 Steve Flint 45 North 400 West Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Steve: Since Logan Canyon Highway became part ot the National Forest Scenic Byway Program, not much new water has gone under the bridge. To be honest, I am not sure what the designation means. 1 We have a title, but not much else yet; it seems as if we get to chart our own course. W are willing to do that, but to e date we haven't had time to do much. I have heard the State plans to include t~e designation on their maps. ; own idea is to tell the story with appropriate signs, improve the condition of our campgrounds and picnic grounds so they complement our visitors experience, and set esthetic and other standards for the highway by more clearly defining the standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan. ' I see a very carefully managed highway, designed to enhance the esthetic quality of the canyon, and perhaps an information station or two. M~ If we do get to chart our own course, then I would like to organize a small committee of interested, participative citizens to help us define the standards." I'll keep you posted. ~inCerelY' _ ~ Xlb MawmJ} J DAVE BAUMGARTNER District Ranger Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200-28(7 -82) � 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/64">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/64</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 1226344580 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 668303 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 Proposal from Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon proposal for modifications of Logan Canyon emphasizing the protection of the canyon's scenic beauty and recreational uses. Subject The topic of the resource Natural resources conservation areas Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) 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_015.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/67bfed02120d7b5ae8bc992c802a873c.pdf f6cfc455b4e57f71be4c96544230e2fc PDF Text Text FINAL 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 Clark Ostergaard, 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 Forest Service District Ranger's office. Transportation for the field trip was in two vans provided by UDOT. Weather conditions for the trip were ideal. The primary purpose of the trip was to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes that would be required for Alternates C and D. Some spot improvement locations (slow vehicle turnouts) were observed but generally the "no action" and "spot improvement" alternatives were not the subject of this trip. 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 sight 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 nearly impossible to re-establish on a 1/4:1 slope. 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 by black willows. The trees immediately adjacent to the road would be removed by any roadway widening or alignment improvement. The black willows are advanced in age and no secondary or replacement growth is apparent. If the canopy effect is to be maintained, I �replacement growth should be started that would conform to whatever aljgnment is selected. Because of the existing limited size of the picnic area, the Forest 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. 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 were 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 artist's rendering of what the cantilever structure may 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 for 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-Iong for the 35 mph design speed and ssO-feet-Iong 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 for 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 �5. Horizontal alignment change downstream from Logan Canyon. This would require a cut into the hillside. It was agreed that additional studies be done in this area to better define the options. 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 suggested 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 desirable to have the 40 mph design align with the tangent to the west to eliminate the reverse curve. Stop No.7 was at M.P. 387.6 just below the lower twin bridge. It was concluded that the existing alignment 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 an option is to replace the bridge with a structure on a 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 slopes resulting in 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 artist's rendering of how a rock-faced retaining wall may appear. Cutting into the hillside in the lower portion of the -dugway may require retaining walls or other stabilization, because the slope is less stable than the upper portion of the dugway where the existing rock cuts 3 �appear stable. The most feasible solution may be a combination of widening the rock cut in the upper portion of the dug~ay 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 downstream and as close to the existing bridge as possible to avoid the riparian areas of the river. Stop No. 10 was at M.P. 389.9 at Ricks Spring. There was some discussion about 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 passing 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 climbing lane along Beaver Creek from just above the Franklin Road intersection to just below the Beaver Mountain Road intersection. 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. Another alignment was also discussed. 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. The problem of flattening the hairpin curves beyond 35 mph which would result in too steep of a grade. 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. The consensus was 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 above Wood Camp campground where ·the McGuire Primrose is located. The Primrose was not yet readily apparent but the known locations were pointed out extending westerly down the rock outcrop to within about 40 feet of the existing road. Any proposed road improvements should avoid this area. SLC-STN/d.502 5 � 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/65">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/65</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 24101711 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3347494 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 from Logan Canyon field trip Description An account of the resource Minutes from Interdisciplinary Team field trip on April 21, 1987 where the primary purpose was to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes required, spot improvements were observed but were not the subject of this trip. Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1987-04-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) United States 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_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cd6efe244de617807eba980ea5ae5f21.pdf 8f09d4bab7e3fc9d96f44c6f84ee8e8b PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Study Team Members FROM: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL DATE: June 22, 1987 RE: Public Comments on the Proposed Logan Canyon Road Project PROJECT: B21163.GO Comments received at the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City during March 1987 are summarized in the attachments. Separate sheets are presented for each public meeting site and date. Written comments that were submitted following the public scoping meetings are summarized in two additional attachments (one for individual responses, one for group and governmental agency responses). These comments form the basis for completing a portion of Section 7 of the DEIS (Public and Agency Involvement). Please contact me if you have any questions. SLC-STN1/02 �encourage. exoect positive .f~ect dlscourage. ex~ct negative effect neutral. exoect no su~nif' • . or 1· 5t inq .ef·fect a ......-a~ .. ~ CANVON E.I.S. SCOPING MEETI ....G NU. 1 MRCH 3 • . - _______ z~ _ _=_a_K __ ~ __ ~--------------------~-~~---~--~--- _________ ~ ________________________ ~p----~-&------------------1987 l:OGAN. UTAH __ma____ 1<:1 II II II I " . _ .......H.L DESlU. II ACTIlJN f4...TERtIIATlVES Trno~t_ A/~t" 11-R~F~IC C~II--~.-------.--~-------- EX~'ANOED I.~t;rloesl ~ .----.--------.----.------.--~--.-------.-------II-------.-------.-------.--------.------.-------.--------11 I_===.-~""""=""""""==""=== I I "'=========== I I ===_ ===£"',."::,,.O:=-""=_-==OZE===="",.== .... =====O:==;.=..O: .....O:=s ....O:====c'= ======= I I __.. ~.. ~cc== .. =========.. ="' .... ===== .. =""=="'.. -====== .. "Marqar-et Pett is I I IICindy II I I Geor"e W. P .... est.:.n I I 1, IRichard Ca",oar,ellall I Johr. D •.Je .... sch I I IE .... i c Hash i I 1 John Pau 1 Reeus I i I Cor.rad Pete.'soY. I I IBetty Bc.el<.e.' II IT i M Dav is I I IRudy Lukez II I Ke"i~s ISteve Flint IClyde Hoth IBlair Francis IBruce Brotherson IDa'vid Buys IAI ice Stoke s I Nancy Warne.' I Mi ke Jabl.::)y,sk. i • I Ka,·er. Kroah I IToM Lye.n I I Shawn St arks I I L. C. Demars IIRussel1 Goodwin liKen Theis I Mary I Bedir.t;JField-Srn i th IScott Smith IDougl.AS Brin9hurst I I I I ? e __ c _____________________________________________ -------------------------------------------~----~-- IHEtiLIGNMNnWiOe;"IU H PHMorovel sP£EO.. II EXD@Ct Slonlfacant POSITIVE OR NEGETIVE IMPACTS Fro. Action Alternatives II WANT sco.:.E 0: sruUy TO I'klRC:: FULLY COVtR: - . It I Saeed I blans ______ " I iScer.ic I Nec. I I No I &t"09 t I "& ILoaanl thch I .. I LiMit I 1-----. - - - - - I 19ii;! IFiora &ltOOar.a Soec Scenic I H2O I Rivr Ecol Mult IA11-Vr IE_rg I ECOnoMY I EconQ!llY I I TouriSM I Tt"afficlScenic I &lcks...tn I Enoar.g ICost vs!" Pub! i c l I' 15oo ., \ I IHiwavl River I IAct:1 Reo.llirnorl(;l iMO Lr.1 Lan. I Coo I Laroes' t:.r.frc . Lower I Ralsel. 1 GaMeIHaoi tat ''':·'ar.1: " Ar.l 1 Dearad IO .... allFishing IUse ISafetYI Trar.s I Rich Col Cache C I 11Moacts I .. L 0 51 Rat ings Ifork Car. I I Benefit Hiuopc..... t ' I / . "~OMM~""TS 11------.-~--II---.~--.----.~--- ---I~----.----IFull . · NAME ________ I I .. II'" I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I I'" Refe.· .... ed I I I I I I i I I; I'" ... - I I II II I II ... I " II ... ... ... ... I ... I I I I ? ,, ... II II ... II II II ? ... ? ? ? ? ? ... ... ... I· I ' II II ... - II I' , I I' . f. ? 2 I' II Cost/BeneFit ~> ! _ 1.. - I 1/ i/ +t?- . -~ Study needed ~! ~. \ with D : I D ,, t ! I' II II ... 3 ~ ). i: , , stacewide cc·,.,oarisol'"••=.f needs :; 4 · I' I' 2 I' , i' I· II 2) I I II II + II ... II II II II II ... I' II II II ... " , I II 1 II ... Ii II II II ' ;I , I , I , I ... ... i i , I II II II II I I· '11 II ... II II II II ... II II II ... ... ... Ii I' ,, II II ... , I " II II II .... II I I II It II II II II ... I I I I i I II ... ; , , ; I ! II : I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II ... ... I _. I II ? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I II ... ... 1f If · I II , I , I I II i I ... ... . II II ... I ... I'" I I I i I ... I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ? I' II ... I I I I I I , I II I I ,. I I ======""====~"""",.,==== .. ="'=====:===,::-o:;: .. ====:o:=== .. = ........ ~=c==="" I , I I .- 1 -, II I I I I II t I ... I I ' -I I I I I'" I I I'" I I I to oreviously stated c.:once .... r.s and ey,dc"'ce'(fe.r.ts I I IRoy Hugie II i I ICrai'l Pil'",der IMonte Freeman I' II I Er i c Hansoy, II ICraig CaUDO , I IRon Ryel Ii IJiM Frankenfield II 1M. P. Co.:ove.' IRichard K. Winte.'sll I Bruce Pendery I I lOon Cundy II IDean F. Peterson II IDarrel1 Kunzler II IMay Coover II I Joyce Anders o n II I B r uce Bucbee II I I , II i I II II II II ' i I II II I I S~c. ""-_s'"'z= ........ ",_ce .. ';'_===_",,, •• ,,,,,,,===== -f- q 3) I j Olve Dreference to bicycle I.tses. �r:-' -8S 'LOGAN CANYOfIf E. I.~. 1P1ING MEETING - WAITTE;N R£SPONCES •__.-'_____________ . , ' '" " . . :' + , " , ' , , :, - , ' • , , ' , , , ? - .ft~~. I ------------It------___ 1----.-------.---------__ .________ ~.--------.----.------.~----.-------.---~---II-~-----.-------.--~----.-------~.------.-------.---~-.--" 18iq .IF.1or. . . . .:.¥.d.nq SO~i:&ceniC~~ ' i~ivr EcoIMu.t -'AI1-Yt", 'C:_ruIECOf'tOM¥.EconoMVII Touri ... ITr.ff'c'SC.ni~ , . 11Hck~tnIEno.r.qICOst v.," Puol lcl I & A" 11D.ur.d IQuAllf'isninQ IUse c ____ ___ :________________________ ' IS.fet,,·, Tr.r•• , Afch ColC.cne CII I - - - -____________ ______________________ & I IMPacts' &' L 0 SIR.I; ir.t;JsIFork C .... ISoec. Il<enefit ISUODO."t ,I •• :1 ~ , \ \ , Raise •_____ ______ R____ "Hiw.y I River' I,Act I Real ' ,hlor c ______ Lr. I Can. I Co. c _ c ____ c ____ I SI;t;'l DeS 'Lower __ ___ I 'Gi...e IHabi t'.t I;:>lant c _ c s ICI ifllb __ ________ I Lenes 'E.nfrc __ ~ ' encour.qe. eMa.ct oo.~tiv• • t~ect di.co~":-.D. . . . . . pect .... Q.t~v• • ffect . . nautr., . . . . o.ct roo stQn~t'. or ta.tl.n!tl --~-------------~---~---.-~------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~-~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------~----------IINAT'L OESUi. II ACTION ALTERIllATIVES I wEf.lLIGNMNTlWid.nIU H ~11"'Drovel SPEE:.O £ II t::Mpect SiQnl flc.nt ~S ITIVE O~ NEG€TIVE IflWACTS FroM Action Altern.tiv.s' , t I , IoIAIIIT ElCPAfIoQtD ~'Or-' SrUUY TO' rwRc: FlJl..LY COVt::R. I: ~~S 11--'----.-----II-,-.------.----.--------I-----.----IFull I Saeed I Sipns ITRAFFIC CAPI \\ IIScenicl Rec. IINo I Brag I~DOt I Trnout &ILog.nl Richl ~ ILi_it'l &Ior 1----. -----I t.,-1. Allen - ' , irwee P-.nderv ~ ~R ~ c_ccc~_=c_= I 1/ I I , ' I'" I + I I I , Wri1:ten resoonce duolicates statement or ser.teo at' Scooinq l'Ieetina I , I I I I " ~ I .,_2C~&&C~_=_=_c==~_.~. I I' ._.e ____ e___________________________ s~ I ' , I I I , II " II i II II ' I I I I I I I a~ I I , 1\ : I :: 'I I i : II II II I I ,' I 11 1I I 1 II I ' I , I I i I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I! ; // II I, , I , 1 II II 0 I I i 1i ; I " " I I I I : I! -I 1i ! ! ; 1i II II II 11 II I I II i I /1 , I : I I II I. I I II II Ii II ; I : ; : I t I. I . ~ I 'I i I . :,' L "' ( : l 1 I' t I t' (' a ....... ~ a ,... .. i I a �, ts-'89 1:...OGAM cANYON E. I. S.- + SCOPING MEETING NO.2 ' ~ ---------~-------~----~-- _______ r - -____ =~~~ __________________c MARCH 4. 1987 - , LOGAN_ UT~ " II : I " " COMMENTS \\ IINAT'L ~SICi. II -ocnlJrf ALTERNATIVES IfCE~IGNI'INrIWloenIU H PII.orovel ___ ~ ____ ~ __________ c ___ c __ ~ SPEE.D .. 'II Expect exoect positive .~~ect exoect negatiye e~fect eKoect no signi~. or la.tinG_ .f~Wc~ encour.ge. ~iscour.pe_ ___________________________________ ~ ______________________________________ a a . ___ ~~ __________________________ _ ? SiQn~hcan:...~;TIYE OR NEGETive II'IPACTS FroM Acti~n AlternatiYes • I -neutral. '-'ANT I:JePANDED 'SCOPE Or"" sruuY TO ...<lAl:: fULLY _ COVERs I 11------.-----"---.----.:~--.--------,-----_----IFuJl I~ORedl Siuns 'TRAFFIC CAP"----.-------.-------______ - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - 1 I l~er.lcIR~. IINo tliroplSPOt I Trnout "ILoganl R1C",1 ~ IL1Mit' &/~r 1-----. -----IIB1Q IFlora &IEnclanu &:J~SceniCIH20 I Rlyr E:.co'l'Iult IAl ,I-:'trIE_rg I EConoMY 'ECOnoMY' • TouriSM' Tr.~flcIScenlc f~lcksM~nlE.no.naleo.t vs'" Pubilcl .:---~--.ac_-~~~c::~::::=~~!:::::~~~~~::~~~:::!~!~::c~:!c::::~_~~~!~::::~~:~~~~!:::::~~::::~::!::::~:::!~::~~::~:!:::c~~~:~~:::~!~~:~~~!:~~::=~~:==~~:~::~~~::::~~!~=~:~~:~:~::!:::~::~~::~~=~~~::!:::~~~~:=~::!~~:c~~::~!!!~~~::.: • I Georue- Preston I I IIRobOt Fothet-inl;maf'lll I I Bryan Booth I I 1 I Richard De r-,t or. I j I I Bt-llce K i r.Q If I -I Newe 1 Da i nes , f I I Ted Wi Isor-, , I I I Gc.rdc.r. Lowe II ? I I I II I I I I II I + I + , f • ,- I , I ,+ I, I I I I II 'f I.. I + + " II f + J.,~ , .;.. v be issuinQ wt'itten recomrner.o a t i or.s 0/ - II I .. -f't \ - I , 1 -} +- I I + II I ..... / L/ .f~ i- ---i .:. i / " (/ ~ // () .J. , II I ' I I. + I I + I I Lache Countv G.=.v't wi 11 I + I I II I I + I I . II II I I , I 2 ..,111 enec.uraIJe sahle fron4 r/layors ar,eI ci ty _ cour-.ei Is I , + f ' I , I ? , I 1) f l l l actlc·r-, a1ter-r-.atives will ~.; '.! ./ 2) flll action alternatives will ,- 0 c/ I " ." ( ( ( ( i, -. I I I I t i l , _ , I II II II II + t-eouit-e State Engineer's clearar-.ce fc·t' ar-.y wc.rk c.n the river. reouire Bureau of water- Pc.llution Cc.ntrol cleat'ance. + ~\ + o II II o �$ LOGAN _ _ £.1.6.. INS MEETING NO. 3 ~. 1987 GARDEN -CITY. UTAH _ ___________________ I I " ~ + ~---~--------------------- _______ ~ ____ ~---------~--------~-------~---~----~na~----------~-------~----------------------~--------~ encour.qe • • M~ ~Itive effect discour.ge. exoect ne9ative .ftect neutr.1. exoecC no .aDni~. or la.tinQ .ffect ________ ? .~ ___ ~~----------------------------- IINATtL DESII3. II ACTION ALTERNATIVES IREf.LIGNMNTIWide"IU H PllMOrovel SPEEO & II Expect SiDnificant ITIVE OR NEGETIVE II'tPACTS FrOM Action Alte~tiv_ ... WANT ~X~D ~ OF ,srUlJY TO I'klRc FUi...t..YCOYER. - II , , 'CQI'IMENTS II--!--. IFull iSoeedl Sign, ITRAFFIC CAP I 1 - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - :-.----. - - . -...:----. - - - . ------. - - - . - - - - - . - - -- 1 1 - -- - . '-----~. - - - - - - . - ...- - - - . - - - - . - - - , - - . --,-~. --I, ' ' ' IISCanicIHec. llNo IBrdglSootlTrnout &lLoganlRichl ~ ILiMitl &/ar 1---.-----IIBig IFlora &IEnaan~ 5 ISceniclH20 IRivr Ecol"ultIAll-VrIE~~r9IECOnoMyIEconoMyIITouri5MITr.~~icISCenic l&lck~Mthlcnd.n~ICo.t vsl~ Publici I " " IIHi ....v I River. tAct I RepillMDrlCI iMb Lnl Can.' Co. IL.na.Uin1'rcIS~ripesILowerl R.i~eIIGa_l~bitat IPleant & .... 1 I Degrad I Queal IFishin" IUse ISa~etvl Trans I Rich Co'-Cache en IMoaCtsl& L 0 51 Rat inoslFork' Canl5oec. IBena~it ISupoort U ---.11--. --. -:----. .--,--. - - lOtto Mattson IKl'!'n Brown IDee Johnso .... I Barrv Ne,,'.ls IVaI Petersc..... IBryce Nielso .... ITed Seeholtzer IEcryce Stringham I John Fla .... nery lGeorge ~resto .... IRuss Currel lOwen Wahlstrom IPaul Webb IEcil1 Peterson ICathy Webb IRay Elliott f Lynr. Hi 11 sma .... lOon Huffner ' .. .. .. .. .. + f. + I II II A. v- 0 ... ... I II II II II II II II II I .. + + ? ? .1 II ... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? II II II II I I II . .. .. ... II II II II II ? It t I + ... + II II + ...... ,r: ;,-' .... t ·~· I ~" o I o c· . .· 6 - d \ , ----- ---- ~--- ( (, ------------------_. I ,1 : �) ) . ) ) ) \~ \ I I ~3 y. ~ I .r l/?- . -tZ .3 <~ 1-1'5 /-1- { -; 7- . . . .-::.... j I i ~ 2 (r)... I . . . .3 \ u ·r").... ~~ -fJ..1.t(/!-tJ,'). ~4; ' '- H '.. I· ( " ", I I!;~ I'. . ') . . (" j). --ll \ A ;;/10 I 2\ I l'1-"}7 I I ,:) i h 3 I I ~ ~I - r; t= positive effect ~ 3 r • did,,,,., "~,,,I neg.1i ,..if.ct .\ \.r I l' ,l \ ' :UDit! pt;bilC;; ;;5cenic;Rec. ;Brdg:Spot;Trnout ';Logan:Rich ;' > :Floril. Spec ;Scenic;H20 :Rivr ECC';I\Ult:lll-vriECerglECOnCIY;ECOnOIY;;TOuris.;Traffic:scenic ;Slcksmth:Endang:Cost vs;,; :!Hillay :Ri'/er: :Ad:Repl:hlpr-:Clia:b Ln: Can.: Co.:Lanes:Enfrc:Stripes:lower:Raise::Salle:Habitat\Plant ft AnI :llegrad:Qual:Fishlng :Use lilfetY!1rans/Rich Co:Cache c::rapacts:L L S:Ratings:Fork etc:Sllec. :Benefit:Sapport :: ::==================: :============: :================================================================: ~======================= ==========================T=====;:=====~===============: : ======================================================::: : ::Karla Allen" :: ! :: : !: : + : +: : : : : :::: I! :! : r -+! ! : :: ! : : : ::: : ! Brilce Pennery :: : :: : !: :: l : : : i !~ !: :: : :: ;?: :! : : : : +: ;: II :: ) I - ' ~f I l~-:z.' ~.h I ~ ( ~ en[()~rage, e~pect 1 ( r I ,\ ~~;;;~~~:~~~~~f~f~~~~:~~ J~~ ~~~~~~~:~~~t~~,~~;;~~:~:l;;;;;;;{:L~ic;~:;:::~!~~~1~~~~~~:~~ i;~~;:i;;f,~;~~:~~~;~'i~~:~~t;~m~;t:::i::=~~~f~~~~~;j;:~~~~~:~:~~1~~~:~~~~~:~mt:=~ C~~!'!ENT5 i~~~s ;-~-~-:----~;;Bi9 ~~Endang LJ5-89 LDSAN CANYON E.I.S. SCDPING ""WIS - 'R ITTE. RESPCOCES ) 1" \ D ~s I ~> I \\ NAME \\ ! : ! Eerdon LO)l :: : : Robert Eri ckson " : !llennis Pi=per " " : !Da:liel Horton " : : J. Steven Larsen :: : !Wil SOIl Wahi stroll " : :Doug S?ence II ., : : E. H. Berry : :Eric Hash " ! : T Wi 1son 01 ::Til Davis ! : Don Hancey " : : 6eorge Roohr : :Don Huefner I. : :Pilul Johnson : :Eldon Stubhs : !Keith Stubbs : !Rcss Wilson : :!'!i ke Lockhart : !!!ar jorie !lizard : :C. 5harpsteen + : !Anne Jones : : Boyd Bradford : :Larry Jardine : :C. Val Grant :: Ja:tes Frankenfield:: : :Richard Calpanella:: : : Lilrri ssa Pl!tko :: : : : Stephl!n Boyd : : D. Brent Jensen : :Julia Sold : :Sandy Borthwick : : Alan Carpenter + : !Karri Sli th : :Frank Salisbury : IPatricia Sordon : : Jaaes WilsDn : : Kathy lIebb : :John Spic:Heaan ':: .. : :IIargaret Pi ersall :: ! :Allen Stokes I: -n : :IIax Lyon : :Nancy lIillius ' II I II .. + ., II II I I " II ., .. .. ., I. . I. II II II " II II II II II II II II II II II II II !! t ,. II II II II ., II ., .. ., ., II II I I II II II II II I I .. .. + ,. II .. .. II '1 I. + II + II II ., ? II " II II " II II + .. : :Sadfi! Hanson II " ., .. II II II .. II II II " + II II .. I I II I I " II II II II " " " II II II II " II II ? . II " " II II " II II II I "I :+/- II II II II II II II II II II II .. :+/- ? +/+/- .. ? II II • I II II I ?I+ I ' " II - I , II II .. + II II I I +/- ' 1 .. I .. II II II I. II II II :: .. II II .. II I II : :Russ Lirson II " II I • +/+/+ II .. II .. I. ? II II II II II :: II I ) II II " " I + " II II I! ! I + ,. " II II II ., + + .. II " :~ :: .. " II I. " I. II II II II II II " II II .. II I. .1 I I " II :i " II II II II II ) + II II ) + II II II :: II I I II I. ) II II .. II II .. II :! II II " II II ) !: -+ II II ) + :: (14) II I L II II + II II :: :: :: I I ' 1 .. :: ? II II ? 1/- :. : .. 1 II II - II " II (15) II II I I , .. I · I : II \ : .. :: :: ' .;~ : J'~ l: --~ II It -/ - . I �'::: ..::::.J :' ' "."'~'''''_''''''''''''''''...,__....... . ..... . . . .....";.; . ....'...(.'."..:.":''';.'' . ..~ ........ ~ . ) " ) II II ., II II .1 ., .. ., II :Seorgie Leighton II I. : Steve Ryder ., II II II II II II .. ., ) l :Bonnie Hallin ) ) .J ) .) II II II II II II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., :: Ann Spring : :Eric Rexstad : l Di ane Behl : l Jehn Nicholson : : Daria Wighhan : l Ri chard Perkes : :Sylvia ilight=an : :Paul ilighhan : l Bruce Bugbee II II " II ) .) + " II ., II .. : l Cathy Welsh I. II I I : : lIayne Padgett :'l J. R.Allred : : Margaret Petti 5 :: + l l 11. Bedingfiel dSlith: : l : Jerry Jayne :: : l Ri chard Cazpanell a: l : : IIi II i am Boy 1e l: :: Al ice StoKes :: : : !Ireta Satterwai te :: II l : Dave Burkhard I. II :: J. Kent Hartin : lilendell Anderson ., II : ~J. lIaidl!r II I. : l Alice Lindahl I. : : Ll yn DwelUs :! II + +/- " II II II II " I I " " +/- " : " " II " " :: + II II II ? +/- + I. .. " II " :: II II II ., ., .. .. ., II ? II ., " " .. :: + " I" + - ::- I ? + n I · +/- ,. ,. + II I (113) II II' I I . ., , " II II .. " .. I " II ., II II I I + " I. II II , I I II I. II II II II II II I ' :: + II II " " " .. II , II II II II .. .. .. .. I. II I. II I. II I. (15) I ". II + II II I • " II +I? II .. II + I I " ., .. .. .. .. ... .. I. II (t!4) I' .. ., i .. .-' II II II I • 'l'J\ I I I I . .J " !I I. II ., ., " I II II " ., II .. .. " II II II I. II II II II ,. I. II I. " II I • I ". I I .. ., ., .., . II + II I. .. II II ., ., (1m II I' " +/- (113) II I • + . .., !I II I I :! + ., ~: .. .. .. ... .. .. ., + II II II I . II + ., " II ., II II " " II II II II II II " ., ., ., + II II II II II II '1 " +/- II II II " " II I "I II II II I' + II II :: I I II I. II ., ., " ,. ., + II II ., .. ,. I I I I + II : :Rebert CaldlieH : l Char Ies Carpenter l : James Ri chards : : El don Drake : : Ri chard !'Ii chaud l :Charles Salzberg l l Lucy Jordan : : Mar jori e Lelli s : :Ron Hinkley l l Lei h Shultz " II ., II II '1 ., + .. .. (tb) II I. I. " II II II I' II II I I II (to) I I II II ) : (46): .. II II II " II II II l : Ronal d Lanner l lililliam Furlong ) +1- ., ., II II : :Ken Theis ::Eric Johnson +,\'i: " " '1 II I' I. : (t6) l II + I I II .. II I. II .. .. ., " "I I ., " .. ., .. '1 II II II II II + II II II I. '1 II II .. .1 .. .. .. (is) II II I I " " II I I II II I II ., II I. r I " " I I '1 + " " ., " '"t' •...... /l .. >." II I. .. + II I. •••• , ..... ~)~ ••••• ,., • • • II +/- :: II II oJ · II II I. ., .~. II ?I- ., " : : Karen Leach . II '1 " II II : : Mark Hashovsky l :Danald Sanda l: Roni PeKins : : Judy !'Ioff att I -"" " II II II .. : : Sarth Bar ker + I , "' I' '1I ' '1 " II : : Bryan Booth ) " .. .. IBetsy Neely :Lee Hiller : :Anon. ) " " II I' " I • ....... .... , - . ,- -' ' i ' \ II I. I. II ~, II : Terry Hall ) . - -' - -' - ! .. .. .. +f- : Jose~h Weston ~ ' - \ i i +1- II I . : Karen Sanz .11 ez :ThaClas BakI er -, (IW illS) I. ., ., ., ., II ' .. II �) ) : :!1adeline Mazursh : : Des:lOnd Anders:);) ! : Jales Haefner : : Rebert Niel son : : Cl a~ke Cam~bel! : :t!e~d2l1 Morse ! :Craia Caupp ::£. A. Soeker : : Jan Yaung ., " " " " " " " " " " " " : + " " " " " " f/- :+ I "I " " " " " I + " .., ] 1 . , : .,: ~ . .'~'. ,. . } m6 ) " I I ., II " II II " " " , . II II II I I " " II " ., !I " II ed!1catior.~ etc. t2l rllpro.es $ liabihty for safety of eller. trans. personnel 13l Modify cross-drai nage structures to allow -Ii sh passage into vi abl e side streams t4l Re=edial mitigation in tOKer canyon (beloll Right Fork> IS) McSui res Pri IIfOSe ibl Highly detailed specifics in the final LI.S. m Fer.ce or bar livestock grazing in canyon (conflicts tr1ith vehicle traHid tBl Expect no illpacts IIi thir. Agency jurisdiction II " " " ., " " " " II 1 Upgrades a vital link for gov't services, . , ,. I I II ., " " " ~ I; " " .~ I, ,. II " " !, +1- " 19) Cor.cern e;! Ki th wetland d!' l ini ation/mi tigatio:\ ptan clearances E ~ p"ct no i~voJveite;)t of ~i3tin!1al Natural La;;d:arks, b:: t need more details #11) /1i tigat ion :;:easures suggested - olant salt-resista:1t .eg. 112) Int2rfe r!!~[e ~i th a~uders ~ear Bear La ke SlJui t; affects on groundwa.ter recharge i13) Study p r2fere~:::e5 ·to bi~y::les ! _r.d closure of Logan Ca:lyon b motor v"hides 114) Close ~ D to tr~d traffic ute t15) Statew; d<? crior i ty - Cocpare IIi t h other canyon roads. U6) Re::ledii I :;ti tigaticn fer Logar, River - restore past highway-related channelization. I HM II II �() 5 ) ) f, "t - (0 <:r AIJ (!.J...~ Y<J /J £" L S . . . . • _ + ~!:"~,.~OCQ.1 ..,~~~t P¢ S; +; v ~ "'_!.~ c-14., . , .. . " ~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~§~¥~~~~~~~~ :--.----I--'-----1~---.----:FUl1 \\ COtl!!EHTS : :-----.---: :Spe!d: Signs :TRAFFIC CAP: :---.----j-------.------. ---.------.----.----.:----:------.-------, ,-------·-------·r------!-------·-----·---·----·--, \\ : :Scenic :Rec. : :No' :erdg:Spot !Trnout I: Logiln :Rich: 4 :Lili t: "or :---.--:--: :Big :FIon rr:Endang Spec :Scenic: H2O :Ri vr Eco:lM t:All-Yr !Elerg !EconoIlY: EconolY! :Touri ~.:Traffic}Scenic ~Blds.th:Endang : east vs:t PubliC: ItA~E \\ ::Hiuy :River::Act:Repl:lllpr:Clilb Ln: Ciln.: Co.:Lilnes!Enfrc:Stripes:Lolfl!f'lRai51!::Sale:Habitat}Phnt rr AnI !Oegrad:l2ual!fishing !Use lS~fety:Trans:Rich Co:Cache C!lIlpad!l:z. L 0 ~:RatingslFort etc:Spl!e. !Bl!nl!fit:Support : ::==================: :==========: : ======================================================: : ==~================= ===============':===================================: : ======~===::====r=======================~==========' ::n PRIVATE SRmJPS, ASSOCIATl!l~5, ETC. ! f 2+ : :!..ugan High :! !: !2f! b+ bf 9+ 1+ B+ 3+ 1+ 3+ 2+ 3+ :: 1+ " II 4I I School Students :: !: 1-: 4313121- " 47" (36 letters) 3? 1? 2? " 1?: 3? 1? I? I? :: 2? ., II I, , (13) : :A:er Fisheries Soc:: + , " II + + : :Friends Bear Lake :: + " +~ ;; +/::c. Prot. Logan Can:: + + " "I tl I II + +/: :Suui t Cycli sts " ? ? II +/+ : : eri dgr la~d Auduhon:: + ., " " :: :: :: ., .. .. ., ,. ., If .. It II " ., .. If ) ) ) ) ) J ) ) " " .. .. .. II .> .. .. .. ,. .. .. " " II ::+1 + " , "' ,. ," ~ + + I (m .. .. .. " " " " " .. " .. + + + + I . " " + + .1 i. :: + + + ? -~ + + " STATE II FEDERAl SDVER~ME~TS, : :ut.SLllildlife Res:: : :Ut.St.Lands It For.:! ::Ut.Off.Mang't Bdgt:: : :U. S. Bureau of Ree:: {tlB : :U.S. ArlY - C.O,E.:: ::Nat'l Park Service:: ::Fish z. IUdlife Ser:: : :Farlers HOII! Admin:: (IB) ,. " II " " II " II " II : ,. ,. .. ., " " " " -(131 :(m: ;(11): : <121: " " Upgrades a vi tal link for gllv·t services, education, etc. hproves S liability for safety of Her. trans. personnel lIodify cross-drain~ge structures to alllMl fish pilssage into viilbll! side streams Reledial litigation in lower canyon (bdow Right Forkl . ItcSuires Prilrose ~ " " " " " .. " :. II II II II II II " II II II " " " "I I II " " (19) : mOl (15) " " II II " II ,. " " " " " " " " .. II II II It + " " " " II + II II II , .' I. II It II , ,. :: " " II " " " II + + + ., " II . " II AGENCIES, SERV!CE DISTRICTS, ETC. h ., + II ., " " + I. II " " " " " II .. .. '"" ., + II It " " " + ? ? :Ull! + + +/? ? ? + + II II " " " , " II II 19) Concern ed lIith wl!tland deliniation/litigation plan clearances 110) till 1121 113) Expect !litigat Interf Study p no i nvol velent of National N~tural landurks, but nel!d lore details ion lI!~sures suggested - plant salt-resishnt veg. rence .ith aquifers near Bear Lake SUlli t; affects on groundllater recharge references to bicycles, and closure of Logan Canyon to lIotor vehicles I _ '1. !' J i ) ) 161 Highly "debited specifics in the fin.} E.I.S. I7J Flnee. or bar livestock gruing in canyon !conflicts with vehieh traffic) . 181 .Expect no i.pacts within Ac]rncy jllri'di~ion ',' ~:. . II II " " ) ) " II + ~ !~ ? II II II " " " " II + • , , II II tl . " II ,. 111 121 13) 141 151 + " ., <tIl :: II I ". II II {Ill (111 ? " I • " + :! II " II ? ? " " I. ~ .. ,. II II :: II " I • II " " ::ff LOCAL SOYERNMENTS, AGENCIES, SERVICE DISTRICTS, ETC. : :Hyrul Ci ty Mayor : :Fur Lake Co. COI=:: : :Rich County COli. :: : !Bear lake S.S.D. :: : :Sarden City !!ayor :: : :Rich Co. SheriH I I ! : Hyde Park llayor : :a.R.A.S. : :logan "ayor :: ::Logan City Council:: : :Sci thfield !layer :: : :Ri ver H2ights !'Iayr:: ::C.of C.- Bear Lake:: ::C. of C. - Cache Co. :: : : Cache Co. Cound 1 :: : :Logan Hospital :: : :Bl!ar River R.C.1f D:: II " " " II IW C1OS. r out. to trud traffic 1151 Sht",. dl priority - Colpare with other canyon roads. U61 Reletlil 1 Ii tigation for Logan River - restor! past highway-related channeli zation. .~I .;. ..1 � 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/66">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/66</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 1085875997 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7576656 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 Summary of public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City Description An account of the resource Summary of the comments received from the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City in March 1987 concerning the proposed Logan Canyon Road project. Legend deliniates + as improvements encouraged, - as improvements discouraged, and ? as neutral expecting no signficant or lasting effect. Graphs are broken down between individuals and groups. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource 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 1987-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Garden City (Utah) Logan (Utah) 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 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_006.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0b9488c88e01aa2a27762ee383469a7e.pdf 2339a53ab2d0cca68b18ec4a5f95d6ac PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING F~bruary~, 1987 17 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 2. Distribution of Revised Outline for Scoping Meeting 3. Distribution of copy of Notice of Intent from January 23, 1987 Federal Register Distribution of Legal Notice of Scoping Meeting sent to media. Distribution of letter sent to agencies Distribution of draft of fact sheet Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative Development Dated February, 1987. SLC-STAN/14 1 �LOWER CANYON SECTION 1-MIDDLE CANYON SECTION 2-UPPER CANYON SECTION 3-RICH COUNTY LOGAN CITY TO RIGHT FORK M.P. 374.62 TO M.P. 383.47 8.85 MILES RIGHT FORK TO 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING M.P. 383.47 TO M.P. 391.60 8.13 MILES R 0 A D WAY ST A. 482 + 00 TO 920 +·00 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING TO BEAR LAKE SLNMIT M.P. 391.60 TO M.P. 404.75 13.15 MILES ROADWAY STA. 920+00 TO 1690+00 BEAR LAKE SUMMIT TO GARDEN CITY M.P. 404.75 TO M.P. 411.78 7.03 MILES ROADWAY STA. 1690+00 TO 2068+00 .... C Ol E C CJ)CJ) W c= ..... S2 c:x: c:x: z c:x: CJ) () COMPONENTS a: W ..... c.~ Ol'O.~ Ol .... en ..C Ol o W - Q)- 0 OOl >c .,... Ol a.E EC -.2> .c:x:. '0< . C zcuCJ) c: c.S W Ol"- ~ ~~ c:x: ~w ..... 'O.~ .....J .- X C\I c:x: en :::J:2 ~'3 W .... co ..... en C\I W .... C Ol ~ a.E EC w -.~ co E W o La. .c:x:. '0< . E c: c.~ W Ol"..... 'O.~ .....J .- X Ol > ..... c:x: 0 c:x: z .sz z c: cu- a: ..... . ~ 0 .....J CU:::J c:x: ~a en >c W ..... .....J c:x: +-' o a. en E Ol > o ra. E ..o C ZCUCJ) c.. c:x: ~. W (J) Q)- ~c C")L-Ol o c.E EC W -.2> C") C") C") W LL.c .... c W :.: Ol o C).c ... .c:x:. '0< . .....zE w"5c: o Ol .~ (J) E c:x: C C z ~ CJ) z a: ~ .~ a:Ol= wzC:X: w O l < C ZCUCJ) c: c.S W Q)..... 'O.~ .....J .- X ..... z ..... .....J c:x: ~w .....J c:x: c:x: CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS - No Widening (Maintain Existing Surface) .--~------~----~I~~---~--=---+------+------~--. -Widening-Standard (40' Pavement> ~------------~~----~------~------+------+------~----~~-----+------~----~~- Widening-Modified Std (34' Pavement) - C lim b in 9 La n e s (S eIe c ted Are as ) -Climbing Lanes (All Possible Areas) ~------------i~----~------~------~----_+------~----~~----_+------~----~~-= --+-----~------~~------+-----~~----~--~--_+---.~_+---.--~~~.--~ · . • • • ROADWAY CURVATURE (ALIGNMENT) - Retain Existing Alignment -Improve Alignment (Selected Areas) -Improve Alignment (35 MPH) -Improve Alignment (40 MPH) -Improve Alignment (60 MPH) - New Alignment (40 MPH) -New Alignment (50 MPH) ROADWAY GRADIENT - Retain Existing Gradient - Adjust/Raise Gradient (Selected Areas) -Improve Gradient (35 MPH) -Improve Gradient (40 MPH) -Improve Gradient (60 MPH) - New Gradient (40 MPH) - New Gradient (50 MPH) MAJOR BRIDGES - Repair Existing Structures - Replace on Existing Alignment - Replace on New Alignment MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY FEATURES - Retain Signing and Markings -Improve Signing and Markings - Slow Vechicle Turnouts -Retain Existing Recreational Turnouts - Provide New Recreational Turnouts (1) SOME CURVES HAVE AN ADVISORY SPEED OF LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SHOWN. •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~------------i~~L-~-------~------~----_+------~----~r_~--_+------+_----_+------~------r_----~t-------~----~------~------~----_+----~~----~ • • • ~------------~~----~------~------~----_+------+_----~r_----_+------~----~~----~------+_----~I~----~------+-----~------~--- • • • • j • • • • • (1) • • (1) .(1) -• • (1) • • • • • • • --- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (1) -- • • (1) • • • • • : • • FIGURE • • • • • COMPONENT AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOGAN CAN ·YON STUDY FEBRUARY 1987 c'::¥.U:mf �.OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION MARCH 3, 4, 1987 u.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 I. Introduction A. Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS - Tod Weston 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 of 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. Quickly recap results of study to present 2. Review goals and objectives 3. Explain project alternatives developed to the present 4. Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps more specific to alternatives 1 .. J �II. Project Setting A. Relation of U.S. 89 to Region B. Most of project area lies within Cache National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating agencies on EIS III. Study Findings A. Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource designated by the USFS as a scenic highway B. U.S. 89 serves traffic 1. Utilizing canyon for recreation 2. From regional communities accessing the regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake 3. Through traffic from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks c. Resources of canyon and population increase will increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future D. U.S. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial" E. Classifications carry standards to be met; U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial F. Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most of project area; gradient and curves add to problems G. Commence existing, standard, and modified standard, typical sections H. Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in 16 areas than the average for the Canyon I. Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions J. At present volumes, road falls into Level of Service D K. By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout project area Results of traffic needs study presented at previous meetings; fact sheet is available L. 2 ... j �IV. Goals and Objectives A. Primary opjective of study is to achieve balance between transportation needs and scenic and recreational resources of canyon B. Transportation needs - rural minor arterial standards 1. Achieve a level of service C wherever possible in the Canyon through year 2010 a. b. Widen and improve alignment Provide climbing lanes 2. 3. Improve safety in any identified hazardous areas 4. Improve roadside turnouts and parking areas 5. Improve major intersections 6. C. Replace substandard bridges and drainage structures Keep highway guardrails to a minimum consistent with public safety Scenic and aesthetic values - recreation and water quality are resources ~hich require greatest protection 1. Manage corridor as a scenic highway 2. Avoid Logan River channel changes and protect the riparian edge 3. Mitigate any encroachment damage to fisheries and wildlife habitat 4. Minimize cut and fill slopes 5. Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics, including abandoned road sections 6. Control runoff on cut and fill slopes to minimize erosion and protect water quality 7. Protect existing and potential recreation sites, and provide suitable access 8. Dispose of surplus material in designated areas 3 .J �v. 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 ') L. • 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. Sect.ion 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 2. 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 4 �G. Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 1. 2. Construct road along new alignment to north 4. IV. Widen and improve along existing alignment to design speed of 40 to 50 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 south Use of an alternate canyon for new road for through traffic such as Blacksmith Fork has been suggested as an 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. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at back of room. SLC94/d.ll0l 5 - j �LIST OF SLIDES TO ACCOMPANY PRESENTATION AT SCOPING MEETINGS MARCH 3, 4, 1987 LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 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 alternatives 3• Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M . .) 4• Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.) 5. Function of US-fr9 through Logan Canyon o o o o o o 6. Designation by USFS as a scenic highway Recreational access within canyon Regional recreational traffic Regional business and service Serves interstate through traffic Classification "Rural Minor Arterial" Roadway Characteristics o o o o Substandard cross-section Low design/travel speed Low level of service - delays Traffic volumes will increase 7. Typical Sections (Figure) 8. Goals and Objectives o SLC-STN/18 Transportation needs 1 �Level of service C in year 2010 Replace drainage structures Imp" ove hazardous areas r Improve turnouts and parking Improve major intersections Minimize guardrailing consistent with safety 9. Goals and Objectives o Scenic and Aesthetic Values Manage as a scenic highway Protect river and riparian edge Mitigate damage to wildlife habitat Minimize cut and fill scopes Landscape disturbed areas Control runoff Protect water quality Protect recreation sites and access Surplus material disposal 10. Study Area - Three Sections Section 1 2 3 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 11. Site Map (Showing three sections) 12. Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. E. 13. No action Spot improvements Widen along existing alignment Widen and improve existing alignment New alignment (Section 3) Alternatives A. No Action (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Maintain Existing Road 14. Alternatives B. Spot Improvements (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Replace bridges Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements SLC-STN/18 2 �15. Alternatives C. Widen Along Existing Alignment (Section 1) Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 16. Typical Sections - Widening on Existing Alignment (Figure) 17. Alternatives o. Widen and Improve existing alignment (Section 1, 2, and 3) Improve alignment - Section 1 35 - 40 Section 2 55 - 60 Section 3 35 - 40 Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 18. Cross Sections - Widening and Improving Alignment 19. Alternatives (Section .3) E. F. New north alignment G. 20. New north alignment New south alignment Alternatives Summary Alternative Categories A. B. C. o. E. F. G. Section 1 (Middle Canyon) No Action Spot Improvements Widen Exist. Road Widen and Improve: 35-40 mph 40-50 mph 55-60 mph New North Alignment New North Alignment New South Alignment SLC-STN/18 Al Bl Cl Section 2 (Upper Canyon) A2 B2 Section 3 (Rich County) A3 B3 01 03 02 E3 F3 G3 3 �(Notes Slides 21 . - 31 to be made from Figures) 21. Alternative B1 - Middle Canyon Spot Improvements 22. Alternative C1 - Middle Canyon Widen Existing Alignment 23. Alternative D1 - Middle Canyon Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 24. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (lower Half) Spot Improvements 25. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (upper Half) Spot Improvements 26. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (lower half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 27. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (upper half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 28. Alternative B3 - Rich County Spot Improvements 29. Alternative D3 - Rich County Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 30. Alternative E3, F3 Rich County New North Alignment 31. Alternative G3 - Rich County New South Alignment 31. SLC-STN/18 Alternative Summary (repeat of slide 19) 4 �L/s/ (7/ jJn;;/ #1eck~ r.4t/ reee<:C/-ed 0- :: C-e;P[1 of ~ ~,6 6/ /<fF7 .£ ep( ~#ce ' LOGAN CANYON PROJECI MAILING LIST MEDIA Organization ~ Logan Herald Journal ~ Contact Phone Cache Citizen v' Lake Tribune - Sa-If f4k Tl,bu~ (80l.) 752-2121 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 485 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Uinta (Evanston) County Herald (bi-weekly: Wednesday and Friday) v - Salt ~ Tim Vitale - Address - Mel Baldwin (307) 789-6560 (801) 237-2045 Utah State University The Statesman (Lc7~~) P.O. Box 867 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 750-1759 C h Y;J j~nJR-1.f~"­ P.O. Box B Evanston, Wyoming 82930 UMC 0165 Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322 Salt Lake Deseret News Joe Bauman (801) 237-2150 P.O. Box 1257 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Ogden Standard-Examiner City Editor (801) 394-7711 455 23rd Str. Ogden, Utah 84402 Box Elder News and Journal (801) 723-3471 55 South 100 West Brigham City, Utah 84302 V Bear Lake Gazette (208) 847-3077 484 Washington Str. Montpelier, Idaho 83254 ~ The News Examiner (208) 847-0552 847 Washington Str. P. O. Box 278 Hontpelier, Idaho 83254 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 KVNU Radio (801) 752-5141 1350 N. 200 W. Logan, Utah 84321 KVEZ Radio (801) 753-8210 26.00 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-3143 University Hill Utah State University Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 752-1390 810 West 200 North Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-5018 606 North 500 East Logan, Utah 84321 j,/ - ~ ( KUSU Radio Therese Stamm Editor Lee Austin KBLQ Radio Salt Lake Tribune (Local Correspondent) SLC-STAN/BIG Chris Jorgensen 5 �_ _ l ~:£~ lillI' _ . Enginee~s . Planners ' Economists Scientists February 6, 1987 B21163.DO Logan Herald Journal 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 Attention: Legal Advertising Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Meeting. We would like this notice to appear in the next possible issue of your paper. Please invoice us fo~ the cost of the advertisement and send and Affidavit of Publication to my attention at the address shown below. Sincerely, Sandy Leonard Office Administrator . SLC94/46 t Enclosure 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 �NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS US-89 Logan Canyon The Federal Highway Administration (FHW~), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environ~ental Impact Statement (ElS) being prepared f9r 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 ElS. 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 ElS. It is the purpose . of the scoping meetings to determine ' from the interested community what are perceived to be the sensitive resources of the project area and what environmental factors should be studied most closely in the ElS. Several public meetings discussing the project have been held previously. Other scoping meetings will be held as 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- �... " outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment is selected areas, etc. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs, 2. 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit, and 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City (Rich County). Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No action Spot improvements Widening along the existing alignment Widening and improving the existing alignment Constructing the road along a new alignment in the Rich County section A fact sheet providing information about the project will be available at Valley Engineering, in Logan; Utah State University Library; Garden City Hall; the U. S. Forest Service, Ogden; and CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City; approximately 3 weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. Written comments or questions will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be directed to: Stanton Nuffer or Clifford Forsgren P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 363-0200 SLC60/72 84110 �_ 1~:ft~ ,",,, _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists c;orJy o f LErrG~ S:£/\/T TO 77 OFP/ce.S, February 13, 1987 B21163.DO Economic Development Administration Denver Region Office of the Director 909 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Federal Highway Administration, u.s. Forest Service, and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold an agency scoping meeting for the environmental impact statement (ElS) being .prepared for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon (Summit and Rich Counties, Utah). ' The meeting will be on March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in Logan City Hall, Logan, Utah. Agency personnel are invited to attend . and provide input regarding major issues that should be examined in theEIS and concerns about impacts of road improvements. Public scoping meetings will be held on March 3, 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. You are also welcome to attend these meetings. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting f~rm 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 anEIS. The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Forest Service will be cooperating agencies on the ElS, which will be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Several public meetings discussing the project have been held. Notification of other scoping meetings will be . provided ·through the local news media. Meetings will also be held when the draft ElS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve U.S. 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 CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lone, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Soft Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East p.o. Box 2218, Soft Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801.363.0200 �Page 2 February 13, 1987 B21163.DO narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is travelled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along with the road constraints, often results in traffic delays. 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-outs, provision of climbing lanes, and constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 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. Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1) no action; . 2) spot improvements; 3) widening along the existing alignment; 4) widening and improving the existing alignment; 5) constructing the road along a new alignment. A fact sheet providing information about the project will be sent to you in the next few days. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be addressed to: James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, utah 84119 We request that you advise us at the above address by March 1, whether your office will participate in the scoping process. Questions may be directed to James Naegle, telephone (801)965-4160, or CH2M HILL, telephone (801)363-0200. Stanton Project Manager BOC5/026 �lh,j LOGAN CANYON US-89 FACT SHEET TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIS L + - .s7{o~"f-, '" ~ "' L -:J .ec. -' f' ~ f) . r r, 1f - ~P,S (if This fact sheet is the third in a series that has been developed to inform the interested public on the progress of The previous fact sheets outlined the scope of the study and reported the result of the transportation needs and traffic volume projections. This fact sheet outlines the tentative alternatives that are under study and provides the means for the public to evaluate the progress of the study and comment on important environmental issues and other possible alternatives at the project scoping meetings on March 3 and 4. The development of alternative plans for the improvement of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is dependent on the identification of feasible improvements. "Improvements" refers to separate actions that can be taken to improve the road, such as widening, straightening, providing slow car pull-offs, etc. "Alternatives" are "combinations of improve- ments proposed to be applied in specific locations that would result in a certain level of improvement of the road. ~hese alternatives and others that may be suggested in the scheduled scoping meetings may be evaluated for environmental impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A preferred alternative will be selected in conjunc- tion with preparation of the draft EIS. In the case of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, feasible improvements have generally been defined as (1) actions that will correct problems identified in the previous transportation needs study; (2) actions that will result in a reason- able cost to benefit; and (3) actions that will not result 1 ./ ; l f-of- C),u~ e5 n,.it A fk h.Nf". February 1987 the Logan Canyon Study. I �in extreme environmental impacts. u.s. under study for application to o Improvements that are 89 include: " Widening of the roadway, shoulders, recovery areas and ditches to normal UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainoHs terrain, or to a modified (narrower) standard that would be less disturbing to the environment of the canyon. o Widening the roadway to provide passing lanes in all possible or selected areas. o Improving the alignment (straightening curves) and the road gradient (degree of slope) to increase the minimum design speeds. o Developing all new road alignments and gradients to 40 mph or 50 mph minimum design speeds. o Repairing existing major bridges. o Replacing major bridges. o Replacement of small drainage structures. o Developing slow vehicle turnouts. o Improvement of signing and pavement markings. o Providing recreational parking. Each of these possible improvements was considered in terms of the opportunities and constraints posed by the existing road and Logan Canyon. 2 �It has become obvious during the study of transportation needs that the roadway consi~ts of several sub-sections :. based on 'the physical characteristics of the terrain. These sections, as shown in Figure 1, are: o Section 1. Middle Canyon - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring o Section 2. Upper Canyon - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit o Section 3. Rich County - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City In the analysis of improvements, certain improvements were identified as more appropriate to certain sections of the road than others. As a result, separate sets of alterna- tives were developed for each of the three road sections. These are summarized in the following table. TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES US-89 - LOGAN CANYON Alternative Designation Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. No Action Spot Improvements Widen Existing Road Widen and Improve Existing Road E. New North Alignment F. New South Alignment G. New South Alignment Section 1 (Middle Canyon) Section 2 (Upper Canyon) Section 3 (Rich County) Al B1 Cl A2 B2 A3 B3 Dl D2 D3 E3 F3 G3 3 �The alternatives proposed for each section of the project area are descr,ibed below: Section 1. Middle Canyon The Middle Canyon is environmentally the most sensitive section of the project road. The narrow canyon floor, confined by steep slopes and the Logan River, limit the road improvements that can be made without substantial affect on visual quality and other attributes. The range of alternatives considered for this section is therefore limited to more conservative improvements that would provide somewhat limited benefits to travelers, but that would protect the environmental qualities appreciated here. AI. No Action - Routine maintenance including resurfacing would ' be continued. Repair of bridges where possible and improved signing and marking would be made. , Geometric constraints (road width) and winding alignment would continue to result in a low level (D-E) of service (LOS) on the highway. B1. Spot improvements - Turning lanes at intersections, slow vehicle turnouts where space is currently available, bridge replacement in existing locations, and improved signing would be carried out in this alternative. Most geometric constraints and alignment problems would continue to exist, and the overall level of service would therefore be unchanged. C1. Widening along existing alignment - The current road would be widened to a standard that is modified from UDOT's normal standard for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain. Figure 2 compares these two standards 4 �and the existing roadway width. lanes would be provid~d Additionally, . climbing in selected areas (specifically in the Dugway between lower and upper twin bridges); gradient will be adjusted in selected areas, bridges would be replaced on the existing or new alignment, depending on each situation, signing and marking would be improved and new recreational parking provided. This alternative would widen the roadway and provide limited improvement to geometrics, but most alignment problems would remain. Improvements to the roadway width would improve the level of service to LOS C through 1995, when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. 1D. Widening and improving the existing alignment - In addition to the widening and other improvements included in Alternative 1C, this ' alternative would improve ·the entire alignment of this section of roadway to . a 35 to 40 mph minimum design speed. This would be the same design speed as the improved section of the highway below Right Fork, which is designed to 40 mph standards with a few curves at a lower speed. The more extreme curves on the road would be softened to achieve this design speed. Up to 18 curves of the 51 curves ·would be modified to attain the 35 mph design speed. An additional 12 of the 51 curves would be corrected to attain a 40 mph design speed. Geometric and curvature problems would be improved with this alternative to raise the level of service to LOS C until the year 1995 when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. Alternatives that would improve this section to a higher level ·of service have not been included at this time because resulting environmental impacts appear to be unacceptable to most people. 5 �Section 2. Upper Canyon While environmental quality is still considerable and important in this section, it does not limit possible improvements to the highway as much as in the Middle Canyon. A smaller range of proposed alternatives are therefore necessary for this section. A2. No Action - The No Action alternative for this road section would be the same as described for Section 1. B2. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, replacement of bridges on the existing or new alignment, depending on the specific conditions, and improvement of signing and pavement marking. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D2. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and improve existing alignment - Widening of the road to UDOT standard for a minor arterial road in mountainous terrain would be done for the entire length of this section (see Figure 2). Climbing lanes would be provided in all possible areas (upper portions of this section). The alignment and gradient would be improved to 50 or 60 mph minimum design speed. of the 20 curves would be modified. Up to 7 Bridges would be replaced on the existing or an altered alignment, depending on each case. Improved signing and marking and additional recreation parking will be provided. By correcting most geometric and alignment problems, this alternative would maintain the level of service on the road at Level D through 2010. 6 �Section 3. Rich County This section is relatively free of environmental constraints to road improvement. The Sunrise campground and Bear Lake viewpoint near the summit are important features to be protected. The existing road is below standard in width, has a number of curves that lower the minimum design speed to 25 mph, and has a steep gradient that also lowers the travel speed. Since environmental constraints are not particularly limiting here, alternatives that would correct only portions of the problems identified are not seen to be worthwhile. A3. No Action - The No Action alternative for this section would be the same as for Sections 1 and 2. B3. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, and improvement of signing and pavement markings. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D3. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and Improve the Existing Alignment - The entire route would be widened to UDOT standards for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain (Figure 1). A passing lane would be constructed for the entire length. The horizontal and vertical alignment would be straightened to a minimum design speed of 35 to 40 mph. Up to 11 of the 34 curves would be modified to the 35 mph design speed. An additional 16 of the 34 curves would be modi- fied to the 40 mph design speed. Signing and marking would be improved, and additional recreational parking provided. 7 �- New alignment to the north of the E3. New Alignment F3. identified, and a new road existing road road would be " constructed. Road width would be based on the UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainous terrain (Figure 2). A climbing lane would be provided for the entire length of the route. Alignment and gradient would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational parking provided as needed. G3. New Alignment - A new alignment to the south of the existing road for a portion of the route would be identified and a new road constructed. A possible route that would leave the existing road below the Bear Lake overlook and rejoin the existing road just below the residential area has been identified. Alignment and gradient has been identified that would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved and recreational parking provided as needed. These alternatives plus any other feasible alternatives resulting from the scoping meetings on March 3 and 4 may be evaluated and compared in the environmental impact statement for the project. Graphic illustrations of the specific location of proposed curve improvements, new alignments, etc., will be presented at the scoping meetings. may be directed to James Naegle, UDOT (801)965~4160 Clifford Forsgren, CH2M HILL (801)363-0200. BOT538/017 SLC95/d.201 8 Questions or to �"'-./. '.---./ BEAVER MOUNTAIN LOGAN CANYON SECTION 3 RICKS SP-RING UPPER TWIN BRIDGE LOWER TWIN BRIDGE CHINA ROW -~...J- -""---....~ RIGHT FORK CARD RANGER STATION FIGURE 1 STUDY S. CTIONS E LOGAN CANYON STUDY �.~ t: (1) 5:1 SLOPE I·VARI:sJ· 5'+ 29' MIN 55 MPH 23' TO 25' 24' MIN 50 MPH · 18' MIN 40 MPH ~~-------.. I 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 __________________________________________________~10~:1~ .-<\-? ~~ (' (8) STANDARD 0...0 (HOURLY VOLUME OV ER 250) - """ -- RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN 1100. CUT DITCH _5' .... -, -- -- 34' 12' -- -?~ ~ ?'~ - ~ ...... RECOVERY AREA - - _1100. 12' -- _5'_ ~ S· "\ ~ 70:7 (C) MODIFIED STANDARD FIGURE 2 \ J ~ CYl TYPICAL SECTIONS _______________________________________________________________________________ LOGAN CANYON STUDY L.::"~.WI" • '- � 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/67">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67</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 3469863492 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 16261148 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 Logan Canyon, February 1987 Description An account of the resource Outline for scoping meeting presentation, list of slides and the print media that received legal notice, findings from the Logan Canyon study, goals and objectives of the study, alternatives for development, notice of public scoping meetings (and letter to media), tentative alternatives to improvements, map of sections to be studied, typical sections of existing, standard, and modified standard conditions in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction 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 (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-02-17 1987-03-03 1987-03-04 1987-02-16 1987-02-12 1987-02-06 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Rich County (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 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_6.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; https://highway89.org/files/original/8ce4c5180b73097b145f0fd547c9d7a4.pdf caabb2b949352f8947a4764bb1422296 PDF Text Text /, / CIOAHILL ME. ORANDUM M TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROEJCT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the second Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 23, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on July 14, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. SLC77/59a � 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/69">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/69</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 1776426114 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 418004 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 July 9, 1986 Description An account of the resource Memorandum July 9, 1986 from Stan Nuffer thanking participants for their attendance with attached minutes and agenda review. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1986-07-09 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 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_2.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/9df15fee1b62048a0db38c6f5a5ee6b4.pdf 1a18d841f44852d756943df04bf3fd33 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING November 3, 1986 COMMENTS FOLLOWING CH2M HILL PRESENTATION: ( With that information we are here to listen, so we would invite you to make your comments. We are recording the meeting so we would like you to identify who you are for our record. This is not a formal hearing, we are here to get ·your input. We want to know what your concerns are, what you see as the issues and we invite you to star~. You can address your comments to the consulting team, the Highway Dept, so let's be brave and lead off. Bryce Nielson: . 1 was wondering what the original decision or reason was to have three alternative routes come from the summit down. What is the specific problems associated with the existing route? Stan: Well, as you know, there are several hairpin curves on that alignment. We will be looking at that alignment, we are not discarding it, but we are saying, Is there another way? There is some unstable ground in that alignment that the Highway Dept. has had to deal with over the years. And it is now being built up along this portion of the road. We were just asked by the Highway Dept. to look at the ~ossibilities, to review the whole route. If therp is not a better way, we'll find out, if there is, maybe it is worth looking at· in more detail. Price: I have a question for Commissioner Weston. What kind of priority is. the Highway Department assigning to this project? Todd Weston: Well, very low. I've got to answer that honestly. The problem we are in with money right now, we can't separate funds from the north part, south part, or Wasatch Front and with the problems we've got on the Wasatch Front right now, funding for this project is considerably down the road a ways. That is as honest an answer as I can give you. It is not a high priority. If we had all this decid.ed today, ~t wouldn't be the most high priority, JoJut it is something we have to go through, irregardless. It is still a long ways down the road. .,.. . / I'm Brian Stringham 'and I've been travelling that road for a long time, and that is a deplorable situation to have seven 18 foot bridges on ~ US highway. That ~s uncalled for. This is 1986. That road was started back in ~he late 20's and finished up in 1932, and there has been little improvement on that road except for th~ lowe~ end that was improved 20 years ago. But, I travel that road as much ~S anyLody in this room for a lot of years ana the~ is one of the biggest beefs I've got when I talk to anybody, that lousy road that we have to travel on. So if we can do something with those bridges, and I'm glad this summer that they finally put in a few guard rails, but half of the places they put guard rails in they didn't need them. Up the street here there is about 600 feet of guard rail that drops over 10 feet. A mile· above that where you come around the curve where you need it and it drops 100 feet or 150 feet, there is no guard rail. Now why is that? I think what has happened is that the contractor come up here and missed the place where he was suppose to put it. Those are some of the 7 �· , gripes I've got. , We've got to change those bridges. I've drive a big truck down there and I go down there and a woman was coming up in a big car and she stopped in the middle of the bridge and I was coming down at 40 miles an hour and she was just petrified, and finally we worked it out so we got through, but I was afraid I was going to push her off into the river. These 18 foot bridges have got to be changed and we are not going to accept anything. less. That's the main thing I'm unhappy with, those lousy bridges we've got. I'm Alan Harri~on, Director of Bear Lake Regional Commission. Ken Brown, County Commission Chairman of Rich County asked me to read a statement. "Having watched traffic increase for the past ten years, I feel the canyon road should definitely be improved. Minimum improvement should include three lane passing such as in the lower canyon. Tourist flow to and from Bear Lake is important to our economy and Logan Canyon is a problem. Safety is a real COllcern, and anyone who travels the road regularly w')uld agree that it is becoming more and more cumbersome and time consuming. I feel no more studies are necessary and we should commence with construction. Stan: Would you please give us a copy of that? Alan Harrison: Yes sir. Paul Webb: I understand that this study has ' been in progress since June of this year. One question is how much longer is the study going to continue and the other question is, if this is a low priority on the UDOT budget, what is the time frame for any kind 0:: improvements rather it be the status quo approach or the whole ball of wax? Stan: We will be completing our work in June of next year. We were given a year to do the ,study, and we are about halfway through with our efforts right now. As far &s the priority listing, there is a number of funding programs that the state has ' access to, things such as the br~dge repla~ement, maybe, could be a different priority than improving the whole road. I'll. let the UDOT answer that more fully. ~.,,- UDOT: If we 10 any work at all in the canyon, it will have to ~e documented quite well from an environmental approach, that is to justify the expenditure of fedelal funds on this project, and that it will not harm the environment. One purpose of this study is to identify various ways in which projects may be staged in the canyon. It is our opinion that the structures are an important issue and should be addressed as soon as possible. ~ut even if we had the money right now to replace the structures, we couldn't do it until we complete the _environmental study that is underway now. So the first step in this process is to evaluate the alternatives and to also evaluate them on an environmental basis to justify the 8 �, ( , expenditure of funds, and then funds could be awarded. Portions of this project will go sooner 'than other parts. But if we are going to do any work at all we must complete this long process. Question: Who has the final say, the UDOT or the environmentalists? UDOT: Both. What we are doing through this environmental study is coming to a mutual understanding as to what we can realistically do in the canyon. Question: Okay my other question is, environmentally, which is more important, to lose a life, even if an ambulance has to go through any kind of weather through this canyon, which is more impor~~nt saving the environment or saving a life? Lynn Zollinger: Those questions are hard to answer. (There was an uproar in the crowd). Let me say what we intend to do is to design a facility that will be the best facility we can build within the constraints we are given. And it is not going to be a super route or 60 mph he~e ... Comment: I'll bet if you ask any person in this room which is more important they would say it is a person's life. Question: I'm a citizen here in town. Didn't you have funds approved for the entire Logan Canyon before the environmentalists shot it down? Isn't that why the improvements were shut down before? Lynn Zollinger: There was a construction scheduled to begin at Right Fork and continue to Ricks Spring. That was following closely on the heels of the one completed on up to Right Hand Fork. In the early seventies is when that was slated to go to construction and the funds werp. completed and I believe we were almost ryady to advertise. Then the environmental issues surfaced and the momentum at that time was stopped to this date. Comment: I can't believe with all the rocks and trees we've got around here there is anything so particular in that canyon. Lynn Zollinger: There is, bel~eve me. . There are very many issues that are sensitive from an environmental standpoint. Question: !~:>w mar.Y lawsuits do we have to file to get this standard road improved? Lynn Zollinger: . .-/ s"o- I can't answer that. Question: What has 'happened to all those funds that they have from the 5% tax in the whole U.S., there was supposed to be 60 million dollars in the State of Utah to take care of substandard roads, such as bridges. This was going to make employment, upgrade the roads in the secondary and third grade roads in the whole u.S. and 9 �-( ( each state was going to get their share. any of the pie back, did we? I don't think we even got Commissioner Weston:· I thought I was in a friendly area here. I think in all fairness, · and I know your concerns, I travel that road quite often myself, and I know that there are some things that ought to be done, and I don't think there is anybody that doesn't agree with that. How far to go is the problem. We know that we have to replace some bridges. We've got some bridges up there that are too narrow and besides that they are structurally unsound, so that if we don't do something pretty quick, we may have to do something more drastic. As far as why we have to do these studies, I think I have the same position you have. I was County Commissioner in Cache County for seve~al years, and we went through several exercises trying to make improvements up the canyon and we never could satisfy enough people on what we needed to do and to get enough unity in what to do in order to have the federal government release funds. NOw, that is a pure and honest statement. We have some bridge replacement right now. These funds rollover and each year and what funds aren't used rollover to another year. Th~ priority for our funds in Logan Canyon may be better next year than this year, we don't know. We know that highway funds are badly depleted right now. We are at least 40 million dollars behind our funding of state highways right now. We actually got far enough along in the last year- to program points for Logan Canyon on three bridges, two of them are close to being funded, and we decided that we needed to go through the necessary requirements to get the ·federal dollars. Remember that 95% of the money that wo~ld be spent on this canyon is coming out of Washington. I appreciate that it is your money, but it still has to be released by the Federal Highway Dept. and when we requested to move ahead with just the tridges we were told there would be no money given to us by Federal Highways ~ntil a complete and indepth environmental study fo~ the whole canyon was complete. So, that's why these peopile are hired. ·1 sat on the commission over there and we had $500,000 allocated one year to go from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring, which would have in those days, built the thing. But we couldn't move. We didn't have our homework done. Of course, I wasn't in the highways then, but I was on the county commission and I sat in the position you are in - frustration wondering why can't we go. Well, it is even more complicated now than it was then. We've got a terrible shortage of money for highways. We've got SOhle ter.;:ible problems. This isn't the only bad strotch ooC highway we hdve in Utah. I've been over a lot of it in ~~e la!c year and · I want to tell you this is not· the worse stretch of road. It is maybe, from your standpoint becc..use you have to travel it, but if you go from across the state you'll find many roads in pretty bad shape. We are doing the best we can with the money we have. As soon as the environmental study is complete, then we will go back to the federal government and say, "Here's our plans, here is what we can justify from a reasonable standpoint, here is what the people think we need, and here is what we can do with the dollars we've got, and not impact the canyon to the point that we are foolish, and yet build a road that we need and will supply our 10 �( needs to the year 2010 and if we can hit that happy medium, then we'll get approval. Of course, we've got to work with the Fo~est Service. They own the land. You people need to understand that. Comment: They work for the people. Todd Weston: Yes, but they administrate it. Dave Baumgarner: land. ( , Forest Service doesn't own the land it is public Todd Weston: You people own the land, but the forest ser,ice administrates it. ' And we are going to build improvements to that highway. When I say "improvements" I sometimes get a gun pointed at my throat. Some people consider that anything we do up there is not improving. You need to know we have a lot of people that feel that way. I'm not saying that they are right, or that you are right. I know that somewhere in the middle we are going to find some mutual ground that we can satisfy our needs with and that is what we are ~rying to do. There are some places up in that ca~yon that I don't want to see destroyed and I've got the same concerns you have, but we are going to do the best job we can. We've got make sure that it meets with their plans in their management process for the canyon. Dave Baumgarner is charge with his office to see that anything that is done in · that canyon is the proper thing to do for what the people need and want . . Question: I enjoy driving through the canyon as much as anybody else does at anytime of the year. I really enjoy it. I don't think anybody in this room would like to see the beauty of that canyon destroyed. It would be ludicrous on our part to assume that. It is a great calling card for us to bring people over here. However, when you drive through it and you realize how o~d the road is an~_ the fact that a lot of improvements can be made, , ~. hen wilCn . ' you've got to go through all these agencies you are talking abol1t and all the red tape and bureaucracy you are talking about, I don't see why these entities, public and environmental, forest service, ' can not sit down and give a little bit so that this road can be improved whereby the flow of traffic will be safer for all concerned going both ways. NOW, the last two years there have been a great flow of traffic throug~ the canyon. The truck traffic flow has increased considerable from Millers over there. And · that is fi~e, we"d like to see them come over here, but when you gpt in c~rtain places in that road, those trucks take up 3/4s of the highway and that leaves you with very little. As far as arguing about the road, we need the road and ~e deserve the road. And we need to have all the.s e entities sIt down and say, "Alright, these are the pr~blems, 'but let's get on with the program. Let's find out what has to be done, let's take and ~ive a little. ( .. ,./ 11 �( Sheldon: I appreciate all your concerns, they are great. Wet~lked earlier about the length of our study. I think it might be appropriate to answer why it-takes a year to do the study. We are trying to do the study correctly. If you read your newspaper you can see what happened in Provo Canyon. I'm not saying that will happen here, but, by gosh, we are going to do everything we can to keep that from happening. But there are some lawsuits in Provo that have been filed against UDOT and we do want to make sure that we take time to get everything documented well enough, · so that when our recommendations are accepted, or UDOT makes the recommendation and they and the Fore's t Service agree, we've got the proper framework to support any potential lawsuit that might come down. That takes time and I apologize for that. Question: I have a question for Mr. Baumgarner. I think everybody has preconceived notions about this entity out there called an environmentalist, that they are instantly going to battle with the residents over here. Since you are with the Forest Service and you are going to represent the federal government's interest and proba- . bly a lot of the biological and ecological interest in the can~on, I'm interested in your comments as to do you really think the envi~ ronmentalists and the citizens are that far apart? / Dave Baumgarner: No, they are not. I don't have an answer any different than that. There are some legitimate concerns on both sides. But other than argue about statistical data that justifies, or unjustifies the project, when it comes right down to it, the issues aren't really that strong. Almost down to the point of talking about a specific corner as to whether or not for a fishery or an environmental issue, there aren't very many serious issues about bridges. If we had this to do allover again, to be quite frank, and the state had the money to build bridges without having to qo to the federal government for funds, we would categorically exclude brid~~~. What that means in our process is that with a half page d~cision signed by my boss, the project would not have to go through the entire environmental process on the specific bridge replacement. In talking about individual corners, we are almost in the same box, but not quite, depending on the issue on the specific corner. From the Forest Service perspective, we are a lot closer than people realize. However, there are some processes involved that are giving us some troubl~, timewise. St ~ ~: S! ~eldon : why don't you identify where we go from herp with t:le public involvement process. Sheldon: This meeting was really only intended as a public information meeting. Certain:y to solicit your comment, but this is just the first of several opportunities that will come up over this whole period of this study for people to have input. This is an information meeting; we are just getting started. As we get into the environmental assessment we will have what we call a Scoping Meeting where we identify issues. We'll go from there with public hearings and you will have plenty of opportunity to speak up and frankly, I think it is great, and please keep doing it. 12 �Bill Peterson: I am questioning your statistics on your growth rate. We've been in a down trend in our economy in this area, but in the last year there have been a number of major projects express interest in building motels and hotels here and 'I think that your 2% growth rate is going to be way short of the actual growth rate of the traffic on the highway. I think we will get that 2% just from our locals. If there is any other increase, it will go way over that. Stan: We shar~ that concern. Cliff Forsgren did that study for us and it was reviewed very carefully by UDOT and by the interdisciplinary team we work with on a fairly regular basis. Cliff, why don't you cover the background on that. Cliff: The approach to putting together projections requires a great deal of knowledge, experience and skill, and computers and everything else and when you are done? Frankly, we look at it from a couple of different perspectives. We look at it from what has occurred over the past 10 or 12 years as long as we have the cata from a counter station. We also took the State of Utah's projection for economic growth in northern Utah and we came up with numbers that were very close to the same. From the standpoint of those of us that were preparing this projections, 2% is a bit uncomfortable. But based on the information we had, it was difficult to come up with anything higher. Believe me, I tried. Looking at the average daily flow in the summer in one year you may have a significant increase from one year to the next, but the next year then it will drop off some, and it averages out. If someone could give us some data or some information that would show that it needs to be higher, but based on what we have got, that's all we could justify. Ted wilson: Doesn't I-IS plan to finished off further past Tremo~ton? UDOT: That is correct. Ted Wilson: into Logan? Are they planning to improve the Valley View highway UDOT: We haven't got any engineering done on Valley View. o~ our hJpe list. It is Ted Wilson: At present, I'm sure everybody would agree that the canyon is beautiful, but we wou ..d also becoming a deterrent to traffic coming this way. An improved highway may bring as many as 10% higher flow rate almost immediately. People are getting scared of Logan Canyon. It is getting bad. The shoulders are horrible. They washed out really bad this last year. People don't like to travel it once they have seen it. If they want to get some place, they·are starting to go around. Other communities are advertising to draw the traffic away from Logan to Soda Springs, to Randolph, that type of thing. As for looking to the past, we have had a 13 �( falling off of percentage and that 2% may look that way, but if you have an improved highway, business wise and traffic flow wise, I think you'll see a tremendous higher use, and especially if 1-15 is finished and good access to Logan, to Tremonton. We still are the major route to Jackson Hole and Yellowstone areas, but Logan Canyon is a mess. Question: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Weston. First, how much do you project it will cost to fix the existing substandard bridges and how much did it cost to hire CH2M Hill? Westo~~ I'll turn those questions . over to the engineers; they've got the exact figures. Lynn Zollinger: The cost to build a structure cost about $45.00 per square foot. The new bridges I expect will be 40' wide, give or take a few feet, and the length is about 150'. That is a preliminary guess, so whatever 40 times 45 times 150 would be the structure cost. Question: How many substandard bridges? Todd Weston: .I / Seven. Lynn Zollinger: Some are longer than others, like at Tony Grove where they are relatively short span, but others sucn as Lower Twin Bridge and Burnt Bridge and Red Bank Bridge that are considerably larger. So the way I look at it, there are four major structures and at least three minor structures. Question: What about hiring a construction firm for a year? Lynn Zollinger: The fe~ for hiring the consultants is around $50(\.1)00. It is a very expeasive study. I . think it shows the UDOT'::; commitment to solve the problems at Logan Canyon. Kathy Webb: If you have two other options here you are thinking about for alternate routes through the canyon, how realistic is it that you are going to do something with the existing canyon? Are you plauning on doing any funding anyway? Stan: ~~a thy Yes, that's all part of the study. Webb: And the other two options are Stan: The other two options are only from the summit to G.lrden City, so they don't rea_Iy impact the canyon at all. Kathy Webb: The other question I have is I have to know what the logic· is behind the passing lane at Ricks Springs. I just have to know that. That is the craziest passing lane I have ever been on! Is that what it is? (Lots of laughter) Lynn, do you want to handle that? 14 �( Lynn.: There was a passing lane built at Ricks Springs. That was done as a desperation move. There is no other term for it, by the UDOT to provide some improvement in the canyon. (more laughter). In a lot of ways we had our hands tied as to spending money to make improvements in Logan Canyon. One group says improve it, do this, do that, and the other group says you can't do anything without the appropriate studies. And I guess the best .way to look at ·the passing lane is that while it did offer some relief and some improvement for that section, is that we wanted to make an improvement and go out and do something. · Question: meetings. You mentioned here tonight that there will be other Where are they going to be? Stan: We will have another Scoping Meeting when we get very specific about what are the alternatives we are going to be looking at. There will be one of those held in Logan and one held here in this valley. Question: Another question I have is how much weight does this meeting we are having here hold? Is Logan going to be able to override us . again? Stan: ' I don't know if that is ' a fair assessment. There are a lot of people in Logan that feel the same as you do. But they are unfortunately, the silent majority. So we are going to make these studies and identify some alternatives and there will be reports produced that will show what the benefits and non-benefits of each alternative are. The final result of this will be the recommended alternative, but the agencies will select, those being the UDOT and the Forest Service. They will select the recommended alternative and a hearing will be held that will discuss that. Paul Webb: I think it was commissioner Weston that mentioned that our project was a low priority project. I assume he W·: l,S talking about expenditure of money. I would like to know whose list we are on. Is that the UDOT's priority list and how will this study affect that priority? Todd Weston: Paul, I guess I've got to say that everyboGy -is on a low priority until we get more money. We just have some many projects ahead of us that we ~re ju .~t putting out fires, is what we are doing. We know that if we don't do some~hing ~;n 1-15 within the next three years, we are going to have a big parking lot between Brigham -:ity and Salt I·ake, and I'm talking about that lit ~rally. And we are talking about a major part of the population living in that part of the state. We have to put things in the perspective. I think our preconstruction engineer put it as well as I can. We are going to do what we can. See, there are different funds; there are bridge funds that are ready to go. We had some that were ready to go, but we were stopped by Federal Highways to do any bridgework until we completed this exercise we are going through now. Had Dave Baumgarner and I been able to sit down together as the Forest 15 �Service and UDOT we probably could have built those bridges and had Federal Highway release the dollars, and they probably will now. But in defense of the environmental study with CH2M Hill, why we are hiring these people, is that we are hiring to gain some time. We simply do not have staff to put them on this project and do· it in the time frame we are trying to do and get on with the construction. They are hired to do the job we didn't have staff to do it in the time frame we need. Question: I remember going to a meeting several years ago with the UDOT and talking about a problem we had in Laketown Canyon. That priority was very low, and then suddenly it jumped up to where it was partially completed. You mentioned that ·95% of the funds can't be approved until this study is done. If this study is done to their satisfaction and application is made and they approve 95% funding, what chance do we have to have that priority jump? Todd Weston: Of course, after that is done we have to go to preconstruction plans. You know, we could start on some bridges rather rapidly. But you see, when you start on some bridges, well, take the bridge at the bottom of the dugway, a tall bridge, an expensive structure, needs to be widened. Now, when you widen it, do you just widen the bridge, or do you go down .stream a ways and take that big sharp curve off from it and make a decent curve at the bottom of it? One thing leads to another to where -you start impacting further down the road. So we've got to do it in an orderly fashion, and frankly, I'm glad we are doing it this way because once and for all, we will have a document in our hands that says, "This is what we can reasonably do. to improve the canyon." Now, well you say the environmentalists stopped the other projects. Well, maybe yes, and maybe no, maybe we didn't have our homework done. We just got two lawsuits slapped on us on Provo Canyon, which is a similar project, with more traffic and more people, bu~ sim;1ar. We got slapped with two lawsuits, and neither one of them are €:nvironmentalists, typical qualified environmentalist groups ' like the Sierra Club, and others. They were not recog~ized as environmentalists g:roups. The person who stopped us was an economics professor at BYU. He is the one that filed the suit. I don't know if he has any other money behind him or not, but he is the one who stopped us. And he stopped us because he sain they didn't need the type or road we were putting through tha~ canyon. Pure and simple. And the judge decided he had better hear more about it and ·so there is an j.njunction on it. That is the kind of problem we run into. Comment: I appreciate all that you have to go through, but I still wonder if that low priority is all we are going to get. ) Todd Weston: -'Well, I guess we are a little bit like a squeaky wheel. If the demand is there strong enough and we can justify it then we are going to move faster where we can. But when I say 16 �( Logan Canyon has low priority, I've got to say it has low priority compared to 1-15, it has low priority compared to probably a dozen other projects in District 1 and we are only one District in the state. Don Huffener: You mentioned the squeaky wheel. I was at the meeting you had in Logan, too and you mentioned it again here, that in the summertime is the big volume of traffic and 80% of that traffic is through traffic all the way through the canyon. Most of those people never get heard because they are not from Logan or here, so Todd Weston: Don Huffener: picked it up. I think we have some better figures than that. Well, I stopped down at Valley Engineering and Todd Weston to CH2M Hill: Is that your statement? Sheldon: The people who start through the canyon, 80% go all the way through the canyon rather th~n stop in the canyon to recreate. , Don Huffener: So the majority of the people who use the canyon aren't getting a hearing on this. The other thing is at the other meeting your spokesperson said that the ID committee was unanimous in their desire to keep Logan Canyon .as a destination. Your spokeswoman said that. I'm sure I am right. So, the pass through traffic, how much consideration are they getting? That was a statement from your office. Stan Nuffer: I think she might have been misunderstood. COffirr;ent: She was implying that they want to make Logan Canyon a and recreational :area, where people come into the canyon, recreate and then go home. de~~ination Cliff: That is the desire of many people to make it that way. I guess the way to answer that is that you really have two views, and I don't see anything that is going to keep both of these from being answered. John Murphy: When I first cam~ to tr~ valley about 15 years ago I was looking for a place to buy some suppli~s and I soon found another route to Ogden and on through. Going on a dirt road in the south ena of the valley down there, which is called Canyon, which is 500 feet lower than your Logan Pass; it doesn't have any environmental problems, there is no river to fight, you can go down into Ogden and · it is 15 minutes longer than using your superhighway through Logan Canyon •. So if the people in Logan are so upset about the environmental impact of us people who live and drive the canyon, rather than those that stop and turn around and go home, why don't they build us a road into Ogden? We could get to Ogden in the same time it takes to get to Logan. Re-route 17 �Highway 89 up through Cottonwood, up through the flats up there, no river, basic road is facing south, so the sun does most of the clearing for you rather than snow plowing; it goes to the area of Monte Cristo, we can go on down there and get our supplies, route the tourists through there, and Logan can have their canyon and go up there and recreate and turn around and go home. (Applause) My name is Ernest Henry, with the Bridgerland Audobon Society in Logan, and I would like to second what was mentioned earlier. Environmental groups aren't out to stop everything and anything, but we do have distinct and definite concerns about Logan Canyon. That is why I am here tonight. There is nothing I'd rather be doing that be home tonight, but I'm here because I'm very concerned about the quality of the environment in Logan Canyon. So, we will work with you, and compromise, but I do have one concern. Something that has been repeatedly stated and stated here tonight and often times stated in the paper and that is that a big impediment to your economic development and the economic development of Bear Lake is the Logan Canyon road, that if it was somehow improved, the economy would be better. That may be true, I don't know, but one thing I have yet to see is any facts on that. Comment: MOVE OVER HERE. Try driving the canyon twice a week and you would change your mind. .~ UDOT: I'd like to make a comment on the alternate route. We have looked at it and an alternate route would cost about 1.2 to 2 million per mile. We don't have that kind of money right now. We do feel that two decades from now that will be a realistic alternative to look at. Right now the money we have available is to improve the facility we have built. I hope you are right about the environmental situation. When we get there I'm afraid there might be more problems that we anticipate, but alternate ro~tes have been lQ~l~~d at but at this time we don't feel the availability of funds makes it a viable alternate. We need to be upgrading what we have here. Comment: Just one comment about alternate routes. Someone must be sniffing glue if they tried an alternate route through Hodges Canyon. It is almost impossible to get through. You would never see a snow plow out. So the studies you are doing on alternate routes are not very well done. The other route that original pioneers used which is pretty ,:"lose ' : 0 your yellow route is a much better route. NOw, I talked to some of the old timers who worked on the route that we've got now and they said those crazy guys from Salt Lake City don't know how to build a road, but since tht.~y are paying us, we'll build it anyhow. The y~llow route does look like it is . ~ better route. .j UDOT: The yellow route is the principal route at this point, but we did indicate to the consultant that we wanted to look at some alternatives. We they took some geotechnical data and they have indicated that the green route is not desirable, but that the yellow one is, again we are going to have to look at that when it �comes time to getting the property and alignment, which will be in the latter stages of the whole study. But we will probably be working with the county people and if we can establish that that is a desirable route, and the local people are in agreement, then we will work with the county commission in reserving the rights of way so we don't have to come in unprepared. But that is the principal route at this time. CH2M Hill: Comment: my eyes. We share your conclusions about the green route. Do you? I saw what you were doing and I couldn't believe Comment: I was wondering, the lower part of the canyon that has been improved, was there any data before so that you can compare the impact that it has had on the lower route so you might have some information to apply to the higher route? Is that being considered? Stan: We have looked at all the data we can get. Unfortunately, the safety data, the basis has changed, so it is kind of hard to draw conclusions. We just have to go along with what is nationally accepted approaches to these kinds of problems. / Barry Negus: One. concern I have is if you change to an alternate route on the lower portion here, what are the people going to do? What is going to happen to the existing road there now and what is going to have to be done for the people that are living along that route to get out in the winter? Lynn Zollinger: If we realign the highway to another locations, it doesn't mean the other one will be clos~d, we'd probably say we would turn it over to Rich County to maintain and plow. Comment: Don't do ~~at. (laughter) Lynn Zollinger: The UDOT is not likely to maintain two routes. disposition of the old route would have to be resolved. The Comment: I would like to ask the gentleman from the Audobon Society if he is a native of the area, is hea student at ~he college, do you live in Logan as a temporary position the~e, what is your impact personally on improvements in the canyon or is this just an assignment you have f::.-:>m thE: college or Audobon Society? ... .,- Ernest Henry: No, I was born in Cincinna~i, Ohio; my parents moved to Albuqu~rque in 1969. I got a bachelors degree from Colc.rado State in Wildlife Biology in 1979. I lJoved to Logan to attend graduate school and I have a masters degree in Range Science there and I now work with the USDA in the agricultural research service doing research in alfalfa growth and I am a member of the Audobon Society because it is something I believe -in and am interested in • So, anyway, I live and work in Logan right now and I intend to stay there for the foreseeable future. 19 �Comment: What do you think about the problems on the road? Ernest Henry: I think there are two major environmental problems I see with road construction. One is the river itself, water quality, quantity, diverting it, changing it from something that is rather free flowing with biological integrity to something that is riprapped and has little biologica~ integrity, and also I think the scenic value of the canyon is important. If your only interest is in economic development, I don't think you can deny that something that is going to bring people to this area is the scenic quality of Logan Canyon. It is an important aspect to this area. It is a recreational resource, granted more in Logan's favor than in Bear Lake's favor. But it is a recreational resource of significance and that shouldn't be overlooked. Comment: I'm just glad to know a transplant from the Sierra Club in Oklahoma. Comment: I don't think it matters wher~ we are from, but I think the thing that this gentleman is stating and what the residents from this side of the hill are willing to work with them. We don't want to change the whole canyon. We think there are improvements that can and should be made and as a community we all feel that way. Comment: We all love the canyon. We don't want it spoiled. We do. We want it preserved. Comment: And I think we are all saying the same thing allover again. We want quality, but we also want some improvements and I think it is possible to work with them if we can just get on with it. Let's work together and get it done. Richard Mills: Have you as the state studied the other road coming in from Salt Lake and Evanston in the summer as far as ~oad counters? Stan Nuffer: proposed? Are you talking about the existing highway or those Richard Mills: The existing highway. You have a traffic study, right? You have two counters .. one Q....)ing north and one coming into Garden C.ity. : . .ave they done anything coming in from Evan~.~on UF over Laketown Canyon? Stan Nuffer: We are somewhat familia~ with the state procedures. They have permanent traffic counters allover the state. UDOT: We no longer have a permanent counter in Laketown Canyon, but they do annual studies. Sometimes they vary from a week or a day. But because of lesser volumes they don't go to the expense of a full time permanent counter there, but they use statistic projection methods to get a short count and project it. to a longer count. 20 �Stan Nuffer: They have a guide that is called "Traffic on Utah Highways that is published biannually that lists all this traffic information and I'm sure you could get a copy of that. Richard Mills: My point is if you would study that information you would probably f.ind out that as people get more scared of Logan Canyon, they are probably coming around the other way. A good share of the people that come in are from Salt Lake and Ogden. Stan Nuffer: I don't know if you can draw tha~ kind of conclusion from the data that is there, but it could be looked at. Joe West: I'm wondering how bad the lower end of the canyon looks now. I remember when that was rebuilt; realigned and they were fighting on that, and that was what stopped them from going on up into the canyon. I'd be interested in knowing how that looks 'now that the growth is back up. I can see that when construction goes on you are going to have a problem for a year or two, but growth comes back. I heard one man say that th~t was the first time he went down Logan Canyon and saw anything but the yellow line. You know, before the rest of this canyon gets built, the lower end of the canyon is going to be obsolete. J stan: We hope to get at least the same standard throughout the whole canyon. Beyond that, if traffic continues to increase, there might need to be alternate routes looked at to take some of the pressure. Joe West: I'd like to ask the Audobon Society how the lower end of the canyon looks to him. Ernest Henry: My general reaction is that it doesn't look that bad. Nevertheles~ . I don't think you, call just say, "Okay, there it t worked." We don't want to take any chances. I guarantee you that. We arc not out just to slow things up but we want it to stay a recreational resource second to none. I'd like to make another comment and this is strictly factual. As I mentioned I lived in Colorado for a while and if you think this battle over a road was somethin<3', Glenwood was an a\'lesome battle. That was on interstate 70 that went on for years and years and years. And they finally worked something out. I think Ch2M Hill would do well to look at some of the approaches that we~e use~ there. Stan Nuffer: We were involved in that process. Jim Naegle: Two months ago we visited Glenwood Canyon, and we built the Interstate 15 through the River by St. George at $1,000,000 per mile and we thought that was a great cost for building a road. The 12 miles of Glenwood Canyon now cost 14 million to put a bike path through, and 235 million dollars to build the road and it is because of tradeoffs with the envizonmental organizations. I want to add just this. That UDOT is more environmentally sensitive than we have ever been as a Highway Department; some of 21 �it from need and some of it from desire. The lower part of the canyon wasn't as environmentally sensitive as the middle portion of the canyon. We are intent on building a facility that will accommodate as much as possible. We are willing to make tradeoffs. We are looking for tradeoffs with the environmental people, the forest service and the Highway Dept. We want to get in and build the best highway with the least amount of impact that can be done. And we will be keeping you people appraised as to our progress on that, but we need your input and your support as to how you feel and that is why we appreciate your 'coming tonight. It is our intent to build something that will serve us as best as possible and to minimize the impacts. ~hat's the tradeoffs we are looking for. Cliff: Maybe as a summary comment, we can still have more questions, but I would carry it a step further than what Jim said. Other than the time that it takes to complete the study, which I 'would agree with is intolerable from your perspective, but other than. the time I'm not pessimistic as to how this will turn out. In fact I'm rather optimistic as Dave Baumgarner and others have stated that we are going to be able ~o f~nd some common ground that satisfies the environmental needs and still gives you a good road through the canyon that you all deserve. So, I wouldn't be pessimistic about it, but I would be careful to take the time to make your presence known, even if it takes going to Logan to do it. We need toe input and we need a balanced input. J Comment: I'm been on a committee representing this area for a number of years when we first started these studies, and I know when we got the information on this study we requested you come here and we do appreciate your coming here because it is cumbersome to travel that road in the wintertime. We want you to know we do appreciate your coming here and we hope you appreciate the impact the canyon has on the people on this side of the mountain. There are a lot of peop'~ from Bear Lake County . that have some concerns. We . would strongly ·~ncourage you to continue to hold some meetings over here and not to look at sheer numbers, but you are talking about real users and real business people, not an organized group by any means like you might find in Logan, because I listened to them and I've seen their tables etc. but please continue to come over here and keep us informed. I would suggest you may even explore the idea of holding a meeting in Salt Lake City, because that affects a lot of those people Don Huffener was talking about that travel through here const::!.ntly ~. nd a majority of those people are in ~he ' Wa3atch Front. CH2M Hill: We spoke with them today and they let it be kno\7n that they expect to see us. Comment: Good. Also you might consider that the next time you have a meeting in here if you hold it on a summer night and a Friday night you'll get some of those same types of people and you'll get a good cross section •. Stan Nuffer: That is a good idea, thank you. 22 I �I'm Cliff Brown and I'm a member of the town council in Laketown and I just think that the beauty of the canyon is out of this world at time, nobody disagrees with that. I'm also an EMT and I've driven the ambulance through there through all kinds of weather. I think we need to keep in mind that that road is our lifeline to the outside world. We are up here isolate otherwise. There are a couple of other places we can travel, but this is our main lifeline, between here and Logan and I think that is what we need to keep in mind. Question: Are there any preliminary plans as far as re-routing the existing road in places? Do you have any plans there at all? Stan Nuffer: We are just getting started in that ·process. We want to get your input first and then we will get into that process. ( ) Comment: As you drive through the canyon, in reference to the gentleman's comments about riprapping the river, as I drive through the canyon I see very few places where th0se kinds of places are going to exist and where the road possibly could be moved completely away from the river and actually add to the quality of the river instead of pushing the snow (I'm sure you are concerned about the salts that come off into the river and environmentally impact it that way.) But just driving through and seeing where some improvements can be made I don't see where there is that much that will impact the river, just by doing a few minor things. Comments: Along . with your accident statistics have you ever thought about having almosts? You should request people to send in and report how many times they have "almost" been wiped out. (lots of laughter) . Comment: That wOllld affect aL~ost everyL~J.y, wouldn't it? Commen~: Gale Larson went up there traffic counting and almost got hit himself. Comment: If any of you would like to write your comments I've got some busin=ss cards here that you can pick up on your way out. Stan Nuffer: If we have no more comments, some of you who felt to shy to speak in public, we'll be here for a while. Come up and look a~ the raps and drawings. : Is there anyone else that: want'"'d to make a comment? Comment: I'm John Hansen, and I don't think it has been brought up that We all do a lot of business on the other side of the hill and I'm very much concerned about the safety and while we talk a lot about the environment, but I wonder, since when do we place a higher value on plant and animal life than we do on human life? That is what has crossed my mind quite a bit. It looks to me like we are here tonight as a community to express this. 23 � 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/71">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/71</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 1803649205 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 14577551 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 Comments on the Logan Canyon CH2M HILL presentation Description An account of the resource Answers to questions from the public about proposed changes to Logan Canyon. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nielson, Bryce Weston, Todd Stringham, Brian Harrison, Alan Webb, Paul Zollinger, Lynn Peterson, William Wilson, Ted Webb, Kathy Huffner, Don Murphy, John Henry, Ernest Negus, Barry Mills, Richard West, Joesph Brown, Cliff Hansen, John Nuffer, Stanton S. Baumgartner, David Utah. Department of Transportation CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1986-11-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (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 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 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_2.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/4c57fcb956bc84df61ba6e04c681dff3.pdf 8deb4538a67b79ae4939e5bc8318213e PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES May 4, 1987 Attendance: Jim Naegle, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Clark Ostergaard, USFS Fred Labar, USFS Jack Spence, Utah Wilderness Association Duncan Silver, FHWA Gale Larson, Valley Engineers Bill Helm, Unattached Item 1 - Review of Minutes April 20, 1987 Meeting During the review of the minutes of the April 20 meeting, Stan Nuffer told the ID Team that he felt that input from the regulatory agencies could be obtained just as· effectively on a one-on-one basis as it could in another meeting. Duncan Silver had discussed this with Stan Nuffer and Stan is goLng to follow up on it. Bill Helm indicated that he had gathered some additional information on fish counts and spawning habitat and would bring it to the next meeting. Lynn Zollinger asked about a rare disease which occurred in some varieties of trees in Logan Canyon. Fred LaBar indicated that he knew what Lynn was referring to and that he would get some information on the disease to Lynn. April 21, 1987 Meeting There was considerable discussion on the minutes of the tour of the Canyon and there were a number of changes made. Most of those present asked for revised copies of the minutes when they were completed. After the review of the minutes, Jack Spence reported that the environmental groups had met and reviewed the project to date and had some concerns. They had looked at all of the alternatives and none are acceptable, except spot improvements on a case-by-case basis. Jack reported the environmental community felt that the size of the project was growing beyond the original scope and that it appeared that FHWA was driving this increase. Jack explained that the existing forest plan, which has been approved, left little room for improvements of any size in the Canyon. There is some concern that the study is progressing without regard to �MEETING MINUTES Page 2 the forest plan and its limitations. If the study results in recommended improvements requiring a change in the forest plan, that change would be appealed and the entire process delayed indefinitely. The belief of · the environmental community is that the forest plan allows only spot improvements and that all environmental sections of the report must address how each alternative would affect the plan. Item 2 - Discussion of the Existing Conditions Portion of the Socio-Economic Technical Memorandum (Due to the lack of time discussion of this item was postponed) Item 3 - Discussion of Spot Improvement Alternative Specific spot improvements were identified. These include: 1. A nominal deceleration and turn-lane at Right Fork 2. An improved intersection at Wood Camp 3. Flattening the first sharp curve above Right Fork 4. Slow vehicle turnout above Wood Carnp and just beyond the area where the Maquire Primrose is located 5. Replacing Burnt Bridge 6. Improvements to allow parking near Logan Cave, raising the grade along the river at the cave and possibly doing a better job of placing riprap. Options for flattening the curve are to be evaluated. 7. Replacing Lower Twin Bridge, possibly on a new alignment 8. Passing lane in the Lower Twin Bridge and Dugway area 9. Intersection improvements at the Temple Fork intersection. 10. Shift the alignment of the road at Ricks Springs to allow parking on one side of the road only. 11. Intersection improvements at Tony Grove 12. Intersection improvements at Red Banks �MEETING MINUTES Page 3 13. A climbing lane beginning approximately 2 miles above Ricks Springs 14. Intersection improvements at Franklin Basin 15. Replace the drainage structure at Beaver Creek 16. Intersection improvements at Beaver Mountain 17. Climbing lane between Beaver Mountain and the state maintenance shed 18. Climbing lane in the Sinks area 19. Intersection improvements at Sunrise Campground 20. Some curve flattening in Rich County 21. Intersection improvement in Rich County Each spot improvement will be evaluated individually to determine its impact and benefit. There was not enough time to address the other agenda items and they will be discussed at a later date. SLC-STN/51 � 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/73">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/73</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 1647843634 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1759223 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 from May 4, 1987 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Review of April 20, 1987 meeting minutes, recommendations of spot improvments with a specific list of locations. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Helm, William LaBar, Fred Zollinger, Lynn Spence, Jack Subject The topic of the resource Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1987-05-04 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 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_5.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2af4e42beaecdeaf61c9374e230e3eef.pdf 7beae6f3d27e14514fcaba6889b8de7a PDF Text Text ClfMHILl MEMORANDUM c.. TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: ~kev(~~( t2/~ UQA) B21163.FO The following items are submitted for your review in preparation for the next Interdisciplinary Team meeting scheduled for June 22 at 1:30 p.m. in Brigham City. Your support and cooperation are appreciated. We realize the agenda for the meeting is a very ambitious one. 1. Minutes of May 18 meeting (page 2 was missing from the June 4 mailing) Alternatives Technical Memorandum (Chapter 8) 3. Air Quality Technical Memorandum 4. Land Use and Recreation Technical Memorandum 5. Terrestrial Resources Technical Memorandum 6. Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum 7. Biological Assessment by Stanley L. Welsh The Socia-Economic and Visual Resources Technical Memoranda ......... will be sent as soon as possible. BOT538/063 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES May 18, 1987 ATTENDANCE: Jack Spence, Sierra Club Clark Ostergaard~ USFS Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Don Duff, USFS Bill Helm, Unattached John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Margaret Johnson, CH2M HILL Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 4 meeting were reviewed. ITEM 2 - DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Margaret Johnson led the discussion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Margaret ' distributed an updated draft of the memorandum which addressed the vlri tten comments received from Steve Flint. Jack Spence had a number of additional comments which were discussed. One of the primary items to come out of the discussion was the need to provide information on driving times, using alternate routes, from various locations on the Wasatch Front to Bear Lake. This is not information that is generally available. It was suggested that the "Friends of Bear Lake" a property owners association with many members in Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties be contacted to see if they could provide some information. The Friends of Bear Lake may also be able to provide information on the number of recreational homes in the area which are owned by people along the Wasatch Front. ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING NOISE John Neil led the discussion. The memorandum focused primarily on picnic and camping areas. John indicated that the only problem area would be at China Rowand that it would be impossible to mitigate above 40 mph because the picnic area SLCI02/32.1 �l MEETING NOTES Page 2 was so close to the road. He also expressed an interest in locating areas of the river near the road where there might be some fishing. The memorandum does not address fisherman, because John does not know specifically where they are likely to be. It is also not known if the background noise from the river is great enough to· muffle roadway noises. There was some discussion of dispersed recreation (hiking, crosscountry skiing, etc). Jack Spence was not sure that it had been addressed. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were enough sites evaluated and enough information presented to allow someone to estimate the noise level at a particular location where someone might be hiking or skiing. ITEM 4 - REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANQUM Jack Spence indicated that bald eagles used Logan Canyon (as well as Blacksmith Fork) and that he had seen Peregrine Falcons in Tab Hollow. It was also reported that Stan Welch from the BYU Herbarium had been in the Canyon and had located two additional sites with Maquire Primrose. He will finish his report within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Mr. Welch has indicated to UDOT that his primary concern would be during construction. Increased dust during the pollination season could cause problems. More detailed information will be in his report. ITEM 5 - TRAFFIC FORECASTS Cliff Forsgren and Jack Spence will review the traffic projections and Cliff will report at the next meeting. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Duncan Silver asked for a list of uncompleted items. There have been a number of things discussed in meetings and no record kept ot their completion. (Note: the list will be distributed at the next ID Team meeting) . Duncan Silver also told the ID Team that FHWA was going to require FHWA visual resource criteria be used in the study. A copy of the criteria had been provided to UDOT. BOX16/D.501 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/74">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/74</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 1390690475 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1732213 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 from May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum, review of the technical memorandum addressing noise, review of the existing conditions portion of the terrestrial resources technical memorandum, traffic forecasts, and other items of discussion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Spence, Jack Neil, John Silver, Duncan Welch, Stan Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1987-06-11 1987-05-18 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) 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 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_004.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/c992bada42438c7eff9d9abd3abb7ed2.pdf 0b87d403f969fd782cfeae0da72cfacc PDF Text Text ��\ � 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/76">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/76</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 884195660 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 711994 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 Rudy Lukez Description An account of the resource Letter to Rudy Lukez from Jack Spence. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Logan (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 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 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_10.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/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/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/f0be29538f634e213c75e8b903ea2c8b.pdf e774099549098bc4488a943fa80f3ff5 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Prepared by CH2M HILL Salt Lake City, Utah March 1987 BOT538/031 �CONTENTS Introduction Me·thods Existing Conditions Recreation Grazing Mining Logging Other Uses Planning and Zoning Impacts Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County Mitigation Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County References Access and Appendix - BOT538/032 ii �INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes existing conditions, potential impacts, and possible mitigation measures for land uses affected by proposed improvements to U.s. Highway 89 Logan Canyon between Right Fork and Garden City, Utah. The proposed project involves road improvements through various alternatives, such as replacing bridges, introdu~ing g lanes, developing parking areas, modifying ~rttersections, :::r::::::::: 2:h: r:::. 28 -mile prOj~t';:i; : ~:::~';~:: " d~ f cacJ#'~ : 'l:~: ~. ;firi~pnal way 89 lies wi thin the Wasatch ure 1). Land use in this area is l'i~~.'i"~~~· passing u. s. High- ; 'cii'est (Fig- to uses permi tted wh.'IG: h : ;':'~:!lc::fuJ;@ ;~ ~, recrea tion, Ii vestock grazing, logging, and m{~. li~'~;f~;; ·: : : : :Re: ; ; i: ~ation is the primary use of the Logan Ca.pY'd'n ::. a;~ ~:J<;::::,;'/~: ~'~eral stretches of the highway north of Tony .:, :G'~;6';=~';l i ~a$.~:~ ~ ~l :~brough private lands. The by the U. S. Forest Service, ~::::a~::~:~:~~,;~:;:~~:~~:;'!.~~'or~l:~~:'~';~~~::~~::~ ::::::;=!::Chl t own~:dll f.;;: l; ~~cep~ and the G~£.4:~h:: ':P:{:~y privately Forest mile west of town. one small section of the National public cemetery located one-half '::1;;:;::/,::' BOT538/020 1 �E B L A R A /( E ... ..... ....... . . . . . ..... . ...... ......... . .... .... . .......... .... . . . . . . . . .. . •• • .00 . . . , '--- . ,;/~:1@',(1, ", ", " CAe H E ". v i" EL rJ [ 9, c 09 ..!Jo + B21163.FO ~; //.////{/ , <> \ c SCALE IN MILES o . \. _ ~.' '," 2 3 r::::: :d U. S. FOREST SERVICE LAND PRIVATE LAND Figure 1 LAND OWNERSHIP U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �METHODS Land uses in and near the proposed project area were described based on a review of available literature and data, observation of the project area, and conversations with agency personnel and other knowledgeable persons. Potential land use impacts were identified based on the type of improvement alternatives (including the no-action alternative) that have been proposed for the three proj ect sections,;;:JMiddle Canyon, Upper Canyon, Rich County) from issues anq;:;;:,s:p;ricerns identi- fied during the public scoping process, .:,il~q:.·:::fil;om comments :~::i~::~:~;::~ ;~:~::::~~P:::::~:,~~~~~:~;~~':'~::~:::~:::Si­ :~:~:~:t~:::~ts associated wi ~\';': :::;: ,":'~:~:;:~:'~S improvement BOT 5 3 8 / 0 2 0 "<: ': ~!':" :'".: .:; .:'; :"'.:"' : ",: ",:" :; " , : , .:::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;. ' ' :' ' ';';':' '::':::',:::::::;:;::::It:'::):"'''''''" 3 �EXISTING CONDITIONS RECREATION The Wasatch-Cache National Forest receives the greatest recreational use of all National Forests in the nation. In 1981, the entire Forest received 6,730,000 visitor days of recreational use. Logan Canyon recreational use in 1981 was visitor days, or about perc~pt of that for the entire Forest. The Wasatch-Cache NatJ¢~i~;i Forest Plan emphasizes the use of Logan Canyon for pe9r;~i:~ft.:ion. shows recreational use in Logan Table 1 the pre- sent. ~:::::t:O::1 b:p i::;:: ~i ;~;:~;";~:~~;~on include camping, :::::::: : sight.~~:; :1h~:;;! ... bii~.yi¢.ling, hunting, and picnicking. Winter recr:~;~E; ~; qri'~1:: : :~: p~~6~tuni ties are downhill and cross-country ski.t.,ng: j: : : : ; ;riQ:~~bi· :i :i ;~g, snowshoeing, and sledding. Summer homes ar; ~: : : i: b: ~: 'ci~':~; d l: ·:1 h:;.'::the lower canyon outside of the project area. ':ii;;W.l!f!j).e m~c~ o~ the recreational use in the canyon is desti~'d! t,lhQ,~:{y~e use (people go into the canyon for recreational p~}p6~es, then return home), recreational fishing, hiking, use is also associated with people passing through the canyon with some other ultimate destination. Since u.S. 89 is a popular route to several of the national parks, travelers to the parks often stop in the canyon for travel breaks. Geological features such as Logan Cave and Ricks Spring are points of interest to travelers. The fall color of deciduous trees and shrubs in the canyon also attracts many sightseers. A study of traffic volume variation in the canyon from February through August 1986 (see Table 2) 4 indicated that during �Table 2 TRAFFIC VOLUME VARIATION February - August 1986 Saturday - February 22 10 hr Right Fork Road (W) Right Fork Road (E) Beaver Mountain Road (W) Beaver Mountain Road (E) Permanent Station 24 hr 10 hr 24 hr 1,176 1,170 1,041 558 404 Winter Counts Tuesday - February 25 1,541 1,533 1,364 731 530 848 831 712 382 375 1 , 111 1,089 932 500 492 24 hr as percent of 10 hr 131 131 Permanent Station as Percent of Right Fork (W) 34 44 ~~~;a~9- S:~;;~~Y2- ", ;' i: ':~~;;LSummer Counts Right Fork Road (W) Right Fork Road (E) Tony Grove Road (W) Tony Grove Road (E) Summit-Sinks Road (W) Summit-Sinks Road (E) Permanent Station 24 hr as percent of 16 hr Permanent Station as Percent of Right Fork (W) 16 hr 2,534 2,389 2,221 2,130 2,014 1,991 * 24 hr 16 hr 24.:::¥i'; :/:;:: ~.~. hr * ·24.: . ~Ji;: 16 hr 24 hr 2,881 2,710 2,609 2,496 2,391 2,351 2,330 5,317 5,087 ti :;': : ":.':~ '.:"'~ F.: .~; : '":;"': :' : ; :, :;i , )i Saturday August 16 5,306 5,035 4,793 4,588 4,267 4,148 4,187 5,624 5,337 5,081 4,863 4,523 4,397 4,448 106 1:: 79 ..:::;::::::::::::::. ::::pe:;n::~:::::e~~~~1~:;;~;~f;:~~;i~:: ::t~::::::::~::~ July 29 and Augus t 2. 24-hour counts for tti:~ ;;:~~riGal count stations were computed using the ratio of the 24-hour to the 10-hOli:r:' counts at the permanent station. BOT538/033 �winter weekdays, slightly over 50 percent of the traffic on u.s. 89 enters the canyon for destination purposes, mainly recreation. the traffic On winter weekends, slightly over 60 percent of ~tays in the canyon. The percentage of destina- tion traffic is much lower in summer. In summer, only about 20 percent of the weekday traffic and 30 percent of the weekend traffic into the canyon stays within the canyon. However, since traffic volume is 4 to 5 times greater in summer than winter, actual numbers of destination users of the canyon is greater in summer than winter . ,,, __ :::. There are a large number of developed ties within areas, 11 summer These facilities and s~ii:~J~: s ;~ campgrounds are heavily used campgroJ~d;~: : : ::::t: thi.~; : : : Ehe proj ect area. shows the locati.ofl:::.. of : ~! t-~c~~:~ :t :i :~nal facilities and Tables 3, 4, and 5. the most Figure 2 po i n t S 0 f inter est i Tony LakEi?::::";!fng.. n": '::,:,:';'~'~?::::~,:~;:~: ib~:;': Table 6 shows 1989::::::r:e:Q:x:-e:~t.l:o.n vIsitor days in the canyon by type of acti vi t;y:~:::;:/:::c: ~m;;;if1~;; ;: ~:~ the dominant acti vi ty in the canyon, compri-:~ ;i..ri9: :. 2 7 .~i ~ercent of total canyon use. Auto travel is second:; :; a,t::; ; ;4:6:; ~::4/ percent, al though this does not distinguish recrea~~~~~ travel from other travel. Recreation cabin use is the third most popular activity, comprising 9.8 percent of the total. Downhill skiing ranks fourth, picnicking fifth, and fishing sixth. Some bicycling occurs in the canyon, although most of this activity is confined to the lower canyon area close to Logan and Utah State University. Little pedestrian activity occurs along the highway because of its narrowness. Walking along the road does occur near points of interest where parking is not immediately available. 6 �I P1CKLEVILLE F'()P.1 0 6 TONY GROVE ~~KEAREA ) Ii Figure 2 LOGAN CANYON RECREATION FACILITIES B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �Table 3 LOGAN CANYON CAMPGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS CAMPGROUNDS Name Number of Sites Water Toilets Sunrise Red Banks Lewis M. Turner Tony Lake Wood £amp Lodge b Preston galley GUinavgh Malibu b Lower SBring Hollow Bridger 30 12 10 39 8 10 10 32 16 14 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x PICNIC AREAS AND GROUP DAY USE AREAS (BY RESERVATION) Twin Bridges Cottonwood China Row b Cho~cherry Card Bro~s Roll-off Nook b Beirdneau b Lower Spring Hollowb Middle Spring Hollwb Upper §pring Hollow Dewitt 5 None None x x x None x 4 bLocated Source: U.S. BOT538/021 On Tony Lake Hiking trail 2 miles from U.S. 89 Adjacent to G6e.oava C.G. .,::,;::"'",,;::'" ," N/A N/A N/A 11,240 4,720 4,100 12,900 8,360 4,570 5,550 17,500 13,600 3,000 4,060 .""" '\""',,' x 6 2 4 3 2 3 x x 180 x x 1,240 1,440 1,420 320 145 120 .,," ~':";"::"::"" 9 "i:::: ','...'.,!,!.: ',C: ",.i,':'.,. ./ :. "::·:;:::H::::::~· . . .. a One Other Features 1986 Visitor a Use Days ... 0::;;:::;::: for 190 people for 90 people for 135 people 500 1,400 320 �Table 4 LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT a SUMMER HOMES USE Location Gus Lind Flat Bierdneau Valhalla Birch Glen Number of Units 1975 Visitor Days b 1986 Visitor Days 5 1,400 2,100 11 3,100 5,950 3 900 800 26 7,500 6,700 Browns Roll Off 12 Card Canyon 12 5,700 4 1,800 12 6,700 The Junipers 3 900 Hailstone 1 Brachiopod 2 Pine Bluff Chokecherry TOTALS 3,500 8,000 .:::;W· .;;I~: .:::' " ':::::: : 300 .. 400 :ii~~~~;.'\;:/;:::::/:::::::::::::.·· /" ",: : : : ,:;:, :, ;": : ~: i !:?!;: :"i': : ; :i :i ': ~ 6 ,400 9 3 ,350 a AII summer homes .;~r.~ :::·in ·::'l -pw$,,r c~pyon outside of proj ect area. bone visitor per ·'~~i;; ; ~~ual~iili ~i~ h~~rs Source: U. S. Fores'~i""~;:~:~'~(' BOT538j023 of use. b �Table 5 LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT POINTS OF INTEREST 1975 Visits Name 1975 Visitor Days 1986 , , a Vlsltor Days Ricks Spring 51,100 1,400 2,330 Fucoidal Quartzite 25,500 400 370 1,000 500 2,220 Old Juniper (5-1/2 mile hike) b Malibu Scout Lodge , , 1,450 b Arnerlcan Legl0n Post 1,000 b St. Ann's Retreat 1,840 b Cache E. Cache Logan Stakes Corp 14,770 Beaver Mountain 29,790 Logan Cave 810 Tony Grove Memorial Ranger Station 125 Bear Lake Overlook 1,850 Limber Pine Trail Limber Pine Cache 2,130 Clubs 1,190 Sinks 3,930 Tony Lake Trail 4,960 a One visitor day equals 12 hours of use. b OutSl e of proJect area. 'd ' BOT538/024 �Table 6 LOGAN CANYON RECREATION USE BY ACTIVITY Recreation Visitor Days Activity Percent of -Total Viewing Scenery Viewing Activities (Spectator) 3,100 500 0.8 0.1 Automobile Travel Motorcycle and Scooter Travel Ice and Snow Craft Travel Train and Bus Touring 106,800 3,200 2,000,);,,:. 3 , ~J}6':,/l~; 26.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.0 ~i;~i!:::~:a:::n:i tS 'i :; ," 'i:; ,: ": ~ :;I~ji:': : ': ; : :," > f .:;~;;;:. Canoeing 300 Other Wa tercr aft ;i(:··::;;::;::::::~;:::;;:;:::::: : .. ·:;;;;;;;\::;;;;;;i~ 0 0 ~~:v~~~:~s Sports "i j;j j;: "i'i":'; ";" ' ' ':' :' : :;' :i' ~': ; ~~ d :::i:: a::a:a P :.l;:. :·~., :~ ter lay "i:,,::::,.'.::. ::.:.::::'.:.':'::.'i,:";!:::::,::"" ",;\;;), .:;;;;,,::::;11:" .. . ;;;;;;;: ;;;;r::t,;~~"";h: : : : ': "': ')j'; " "')' ::: 300 1.8 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.8 ;; :;;; 25,800 17,500 4.5 8.4 6.4 4.3 6,000 8,900 1.5 2.2 Picnicking 24,100 6.0 Recreation Cabin Use 39,800 9.8 Skiing, Downhill Snow Play Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoeing 28,200 1,500 3,300 7.0 0.4 0.8 Hunting, Big Game Hunting, Upland Birds 22,400 800 5.5 0.2 Camping, Trailer Camping, Tent .:;;;;;;;;;//:. Organization Camping, General Day Organization Camping, Night �Table 6 (Continued) LOGAN CANYON RECREATION USE BY ACTIVITY Activity Recreation Visitor Days Nature Study, Wildlife, Birds, Fish Nature Study, Hobby, Education Mountain Climbing Gathering Forest Products 3,500 1,200 100 1,000 100;;:::;::. Viewing Interpretative Exhibits Attending Talks and Programs Touring, Guided Touring, Unguided Walking, Guided Walking, Unguided Viewing Interpretative Signs General Information Source: U • S. BOT538/034 Fore s t ':::::::;::::::.. ':::4~;~)P 0 0 serV~;~~:; : ; : : ; : ':; " ;IL:;" ;'f: ; ':;: ;i:! ':"',; ,; : : ,;: , """""":":;,:,,::;,':,,;;;,,:";;',,;;,,;;,/;, ,;::::::;",,;;,::::,,::::::;,:::::::::,::::;,;,,;;!: """ """;;;:;:;,:'::,,"':,,:'i"" 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.2 0 .'0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 !!;::" TOTAL Percent of Total 100.0 �Beaver Mountain Recreation Area is a private concession within the Forest that provides downhill and cross-country skiing and other winter recreation pursuits. The area has 16 runs and three ski lifts; two of the lifts were installed in 1985. A fourth lift is to be constructed when financially feasible. The area includes a day lodge, but no overnight accommodations. Sweetwater Resort in Garden City provides overnight lodging and eating facilities for Beaver Mountain visitors. User figures at Beaver Mountain for the current and two past seasons are given in Table 7. .: ::" ":::. ." ",;,'/', ':::::;::,:"i(:::,,,, Tab I e 7 .:",/':::,');;;;;!:' BEAVER MO UNTAIN RECREAT'I ON"\US E Season ~~ri~~~::';;'f Skier Days 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 .... ':',:::;:;::,:' Season 75,665 61,422 15,000+ .;;::- .:::F Because of the .:!~~~ :;::~: !:: :::. ::; .:; narrow~;~;~:i,:; ;!~: t":'L'O~~~/ Canyon and the highway, :::~~:gw~:::t~:~;:~~;S~i~i;1~'~:;:C~;::~ :::::~:l~~C~~i :~:s m!::le located. The some places. ~: ~i6.~i"" 9f p.~Jking The ";'J\:~f,~;~dix constrains recreational use in lists parking opportunities through- out the Forest secti6~ of the project road. A survey of actual parking use in the canyon was made by the Forest Service on two Saturdays in August 1986. The findings were 48 cars parked on August 16, and 89 cars parked on August 30. Garden City, at the eastern terminus of the project road section, is one of several more developed recreational areas around Bear Lake. on the lake. Bear Lake State Park has three facilities The oldest of the three, the marina, is located just north of Garden City. about a dozen camp sites. It has slips for 150 boats and Rendezvous Beach, about 9 miles 13 �south of Garden City at the southeast end of the lake, has about 230 campsites. Cisco Beach, on the east side of the lake, has only pit restrooms, and was closed in November 1986 until more adequate restroom facilities can be installed (Chavez, 1987). given in Table 8. User figures for Bear Lake State Park are These facilities, particularly the marina and Rendezvous Beach, are heavily used in summer. The two areas are usually totally reserved for summer weekends early in the year. Camping spaces are open only from May through October, al though the marina is open all Parks and Recreation expects to upgrade i ties in the future as funding ye gi';;~; Utah State C; .i;~;~~;;: · Beach facil- become:"",,~~a"i'JI;,i~'~,: . .:::::w· .:::::::' '::;;\:..::~;;;:~ Year 1970 1975 1980 1985 1986 Source: Utah Department of Parks and Recreation (Chavez, 1987). The other major recreation facility at Garden City is the Sweetwater Resort, a private development constructed in the 1970s. Planned to include more than 7,000 acres of land, it comprises a marina, golf course, stables, swimming pool, tennis courts, approximately 150 condominiums, two restaurants, and a convention center. No new units have been con- structed since about 1981 (Call, 1987), and the development 14 �has just been reorganized following Chapter 11 proceedings (Francis, 1987). Construction has begun recently on a hotel- restaurant complex in Garden City to accommodate conferences. Other recreational areas exist north of Garden City in Bear Lake County, Idaho, and to the south in Pickelville and Laketown, Utah. Lake. A few facilities exist on the east side of Bear However, the road along the east side is unpaved, and a large part of the land ownership is public. The other large private resort on the lake/:<:~:~: ar Lake West ~:s:~:~::::n::::~::c::::: : :e:::~~;~~:~;;~:~;;;~~~'~~~~n:::::· ' planned for the development. Figurett t::.J:· . .hows the location of $ recreation facili ties and comrllftin:'it:ie~::t: ::h~:: : :tEear Lake. concentration on develon Bear west shore. Lake is GRAZING Six grazing section of the Forest. are located within the Logan Canyon Total animal unit months (AUMs) pro- vided by these allotments are 6,978 for cattle and 3,800 for sheep. A breakdown of AUMs by allotment is given in Table 9. 15 �- To Montpeli er Fish \-'\ovefl Creek ~ Fish Haven--- Bear Lake West Bear Lake Trailer Court b Cisco Beach Sweetwater Beach Sweetwater Marina ~ "0 8 ~ Highway Rest Stop - - - - u BEAR LAKE To Evanston Figure 3 BEAR LAKE RECREATION SITES B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON u.s. HIGHWAY 89 ', LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �Table 9 LOGAN CANYON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS Allotment Logan Canyon Beaver Mountain Blind Hollow Cottonwood Little Bear Swan Peak Date of Use June July July July June July 11 to Oct. 5 1 to Sept. 5 1 to Sept. 30 1 to Sept. 30 20 to Sept. 30 1 to Sept. 20 AUMs Type of Livestock 6,978 520 920 880 990 490 Cattle Sheep Sheep Sheep Sheep Sheep TarAL Source: U.S. Forest Service, 1986 .::;,,:::,,;,,/:':,,,:::::' Each of the sheep allotments h q,§ on~~~\ip"e' f~i ttee. 16 permitees for the cattle al;i;~~e=ni~;: ..·::'('ki::I ler, There are 1987). Live- al'~L:i!o'i::>~;~: :; ;iiilotments, except cottonWb:~4::~ \i: F'd~i': ~ ~:hese allotments, livestock stock is hauled by truck to Blind Hollow and on foot from these corrals to the '::~iiii;:;/'::::' Forest Service records show 30 mining claims in existence within the Logan Ranger District. Within the Logan Canyon Management Area, mining leases are given only under the condition of no surface occupancy. Leases in this area are for metaliferous materials, oil and gas, and common materials (gravel, clay, sand). area. No mines are currently active in this No drilling for oil or gas has occurred in the Logan Ranger District, only geophysical exploration (LaBar, 1987). 17 �LOGGING About 2,900 acres in the Logan Ranger District are suitable for logging. There is currently no active logging for lum- ber production on the Logan (west) side of the summit, al- though a small commercial firewood operation is removing logs from that area. ing in the Logan area. No lumber mills are currently operatIn the past, commercial logging occurred in areas just west and south of Bear Lake Summit. Logging trucks traveled Sinks Road to U. S . .::~!~) then east ;;;: s;:;::;;:;O::~:!t~~:r:::~Y;'{'~ ':'!'~:~'~' : ~~:':;'''::t s:~:: of logs are taken out over back roads ' : : 't~:: : ~~f~dowville in Rich County, then to Afton, WY:::;~!,~:i,;~::,"':'j,~:~:~)g. No residences, either;i:;,:;~,:~~'!'~', :" 6,~;:/~ermanent, exist within :::i~:o::~:t s::,~~~~::,~:,~;: ,:~!:~';:~;:':::~e~;r:::~d ~:::: ::a~:::~ inS e c t ion s 2 ~::~: ~ ~~~~h:: .3 6 Jf .ll: T 14 N, R4E in Cache cou~'t~::;'::'::,,:::':,,//' R3 E , and Sec t ion 1 7 0 f T 14N , Utah State University maintains a forest research station approximately one-half mile south of the Tony Grove Guard Station. A Utah Department of Transportation road mainte- nance shop is located near Willow Springs, approximately 2 miles west of Bear Lake Summit. Nearly all lands adjacent to u.S. 89 in Rich County are privately owned. Most of this land up to about one mile from Garden City is undeveloped because of steep slopes. However, Bridgerland Village a subdivision, containing about 53 residences, lies adjacent to the highway less than one mile east 18 �of the Cache/Rich County line. Sweetwater Resort lands lie just to the southeast of this subdivision. A gravel pit occurs within 200 feet of the highway east of the summit. Another gravel pit is within one-half mile of the highway near Mile post 411, almost to Garden City. The eastern terminus of the project highway is the community of Garden City. Land uses within this community include several recreational campgrounds; two motels; Sweetwater Resort; a portion of Bear Lake State Park; two grocery stores; several service businesses; and a number of private .::d::~ sidences, both ;;;;;:;;;r;;::;;;~~;:;:;~~;~v:::::~:~'~i;:~~;~:'~~~~~:~ ~:::~C- ce.mete' i y!: : :~ ·(~ agricul tural lands are classified as prime agric~:r;~::t: a: l.:;.. ~:d: ~;:~l ~ : . The Despain soil, through which the highW~:~h\~·i:gh.~;:.O:;f =; ~ay passes, has a capabili ty classificatiqrt:: : :9.::f : !~l ,3S· : ~\.:!l<!~h~ ···;hatcher soil, further Just east of the Garden Ci ty ::::1t::s:o::, t~: ~~:!;:~~,~:,~, :;:;,~~;~;,: ~a::o~: ~::~g:::: :~j:~e ::::r::n:h:oP:;~:~:::~:~'~~i':~::~:p:~S ,R:::r:O:::Y~o nat~o::a:: ural gas lines ne'~ :E l;: .:l!t4.e:::::·proj ect section of road currently under study in Loga~:::i ~anyon. There are, however, both over- head and underground power and phone lines in existence. Utah Power & Light Company lines originate at the · Garden City substation, about one mile west of the Garden City Junction. Overhead primary lines run east toward Garden City, then south-southwest. They eventually serve the Bridgerland Village subdivision, as well as a laser tracking station, by way of underground conduit. 19 �" =_ : .~9'> .: I- ....._~'I-......--..;;;.;;.;.~~-..:.. U ... Z IJJ o •••••••••• I i==~~· = = ~ < c.!' .2 Figure 4 RICH COUNTY LAND USE SCALE IN FEET B21163.FO 1000 o 1000 2000 3000 LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM C.:MCO" iiliiiii �Even though rural overhead telephone lines now run about a half-mile west from the Garden City Junction, there is a strong possibility that most or all of this system will be removed in the near future. Telephone facilities that serve the Bridgerland Village subdivision originate just south of Garden City Junction and are entirely underground west and southwest of that point. Power and telephone conduits are located 2 feet below the surface, and both cross under u.s. 89 at different locations . .... .... Once within the Bridgerland Village subdiv~i\~ri, much of the power-telephone conduits run together. i~~~~$e of inadequate mapping, the location of much Of.:: : : ~~:i: ~ :;i i" s.~:B qJvision' S underground secondary is uncert ain,;::,::::,~":;,,::,,::":::,::::;),""""""':';'" Two overhead telephone lines c;pq §.s U ":S" ~ ·:'S,,,9 a few hundred :::: ::U:hU::h t::p~:::~tC~;y;;~~:!~;!:~~~~nT~:a~i:::n~:::nce shop located about one J~1'~Ci~;;: ;~~S1~\i: ~i f;:· Bear Lake Summi t. On :::e:~::~~:::;!:i;:::i~~~;=i;~'i':i~~::::O::o:::;~:d~~:::~:: of these utili t~'~'~;:~:': : ~~~~!ING AND ZONING Current zoning through the Logan Canyon area in Cache County is FR40 (Forest Recreation - 40-acre minimum lot size). Cabins, but not permanent residences, can be constructed on parcels of 40 acres or more. The County plans for Forest recreational uses to continue here, although no land use plan has been adopted (Greenhalgh, 1978). The Forest Ser- vice's plan for the Logan Canyon Management Area (U.S. Forest Service, 1985) provides the following policies for land use: 21 �Transmission Feeder L ine \ ~\ \ \ \ \ ·Garden Clly 'r_ 0!bstation . I r ~- - --- - - - I_ I /~ _ . __ J I. /J /~. ~~~~~~~~~~~ , ~ I ' J •.!'o.V . , i If' . ,~ .." .. " /" ---- GARDEN CITY B E AR ... "-'-i ,h h" :_ :1 II :t y <' Loser TracKing Station I __ L_ ___ __ - - ~_, I,! , ".. , . / ..-1 / I I I , I I I Summ it . ;:~ ~; ;:. •••••••• SECONQAi~i~::;::/: UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OVERHEAD PRIMARY AND UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY UNDERGROUND PRIMARY AND SECq~OARY MOUNTAIN BELL OVERHEAD RURAL TOLL LINES .. MOUNTAIN BELL UNDERGROUND RURAL LINES PRIVATE SERVICE STATION LINE (UDOT) "::. ·'\;;iF Figure 5 UTILITY LOCATIONS U.S. 89 - RICH COUNTY B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM L A K E �Recreation: ties. The emphasis is to protect scenic quali- A broad spectrum of year-round developed and dispersed recreation opportunities will be provided. Developed recreation will be emphasized. Ski Area Development: Work with permittees of the Bea- ver Mountain Ski Area to protect the natural beauty of the area, improve existing facilities, and plan future expansion. Off-Road Vehicles: ::a:: e a::o:~ailS Wildlife: I res~:t'i:~' f'ed Vehicles are except over-sn~;,: [:~~h~,~:,~,:, Manage fish and to existing traveling wJ~~;i:;:~':"'h'abi :':':': ;~rograms to comp lemen t outdoor rec req,e'j:'€im . ""''!;"",,;;,::'::,::::';;' resources to complement Watershed: existing water quality. preserve unique natural, geo- logical, and""'Q.i;$"t qrical features. suppression Minerals: r;~~~~ se Make an appropriate on all wildfires. Issue "lease with no surface occupancy" only. Regulate mineral development to protect the recreational and scenic qualities of the area. Lands: Acquire land or easements as necessary to main- tain the scenic values of the canyon. 23 �Transportation: Logan Canyon Highway upgrading and maintenance will consider public safety needs, the protection of visual qualities, and other resource values and uses. o Public access in ihe canyon will be provided with adequate ingress, egress, pull offs, and parking opportunities. o Provide adequate parking and acces$.:;::. at: Spring, Brachiopod Park, Limber Cave • o .: ;f{~ri~, Ricks and Logan "" "" ::;;,::'::"/""',,:::,':::'\,\,,, P~'~~~~m~nt :'~"",~'ransporta­ Recommend that the Utah tion place signs warning' :; ; m~;€6:; ii'~ts of livestock and wildlife eros s i~9'S"" ,,,,,,,,"ii'\""':':i:':)" o Work with to manage Logan Canyon. springs, and streams o as salt and herbicides. o cooper·~;t~;;;;;~;f;~rt· the Department of Transportation to provide ~ci;1titi~1 assistance in the annual disposal of roadside slough and rubble. Planning for the Bear Lake region calls for development of conference center and accompanying recreational facilities. The Bear Lake Regional Plan identifies resource opportunities and constraints and suggests where development should and should not occur. on this plan. Zoning for the lakeside area is based The area in proximity to the lake is desig- nated for '' 'beachfront development." All development pro- posals must be reviewed and approved by the County Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 24 �Zoning also is designated in this area for specific types of land use (residential, commercial, etc.). the zoning near the project section of Figure 6 shows u.s. 89 (to be pro- vided by the Bear Lake Regional Commission) . A number of plans for subdivisions (presumably second home) and other recreational facilities are currently underway in Rich County and Garden City. Whether actual development will occur is questionable, however. Table 10 shows the number of building permi ts and the value of Jl!iq,nstruction since 1980. Construction activity decrea$~i 4/iii"n the early ::::::::::::::::e:::: :::1:: 6:~:r':;~~;:; :~~::::::':~~:: :~:::~::d ~:reg;S :i;: :gJld:;i: iu;~:~; ~:: Leg i s 1 at i on was Legisli~.f;~:f: ~: :; : fh;a ;;; :; :~ill help to impleA,: ; po.J.:"ti;6.ri;/~:~t:: ;~h~ state fuel tax on win ter r ec re a t ion a 1 oppo rt un i passed by the 1987 Utah ment such development. motor vehicles will b~/::~:i'~:~ :p. ]Lt.9. :;~~!~ Utah Department of Parks im~'t;:~'V;efu~;fi; t i;: .i6~~ :;li; ~ecreational opportunities vehi,G; I'e:s: : i; s.·~i ah<;a.s ~: ~owmobiles. This is estimated and Recreation for for off-road to be about $ 2 .?i d'::;O:~:~:: : : §~;;~t..~~~~e. Lake Area will:; i it1n~id~ive : Ii s ~me Logan Canyon and the Bear benefi t ""''''''''''":;,:':,,;;,;:,',,,/''' BOT538/020 25 from this measure. �Insert Figure 6 26 �Table 10 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RICH COUNTY AND GARDEN CITY Rich County Garden City Year Construction Value Number of Permits 1980 $3,515,000 76 1981 1,896,000 67 1982 1,039,000 43 1983 1,490,000 34 1984 1,649,000 46 1985 780,000 30 1986 550,000 30 *To be provided by Garden BOT538/029 Construction Value * Number of Permits * �REFERENCES Andrews, Wade H. and William C. Dunaway. November 1, 1975. Social Effects of Changes in Uses of Bear Lake, An Interstate Body of Water. Institute for Social Science Research and Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Call, Norm. Rich County Building Official. March 20, 1987. Personal communication. ::~::::~' L~::~~' Ut::~ChP~::o~:~7 ~O~~:{'8::~'~:;:~;~~,~ervation Francis, Blair. Rich County March 19, 1987. Personal commi~:;::ii~~i" :' wo~:':~'~ comm.ulti:cat i;d:n ·~ : ': : : Greenhalgh, Lorine. f, Utah. February 27, 1987. Gyllenskog, Lee. Bear Lake Office. March 20, LaB ar, Fred . :";" ~':;':,: ,:~~,~J~,l' s erv ice , Logan, Utah. V ious ar pe~sonal communl.ca ti;QflS . Miller, Stan. 1987. U.S. Forest Service, Logan, Utah. Personal communication. Peterson, William. March 19, 1987. Thomas, Craig. 1987. February 27, Bear Lake Realty, Garden City, Utah. Personal communication. Bear Lake Regional Commission. Personal communication. 28 March 20, �u.s. Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Ogden, Utah. Utah Department of Transportation. Utility inventories pre- pared for an earlier proposed improvement to U.S. 89 Logan Canyon. BOT538/020 .::0 .."""", ':: ~i';\:~i,: ,;,:~":;i~:':':~:' ' ': :':,: ; :, , , , , " " , , , , : ~',: ,: ,: ": : i: !i:; : "!: ': ;, "i:: '::"::i;;,::,,,,:,:::;,:::::;':;:;)""):, 29 '::,::::', """,)' ��Appendix . EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road 1 483+50 383.48 x 2 485+00 383.5 X 3 493+00 383.66 X 4 514+00 384.13 5 516+00 384.13 6 589+00 384.3 7 524+00 384.35 8 525+00 384.35 X 9 540+00 384.6 X 10 552+00 384.8 11 577+00 385.3 12 589+00 385.5 Could be lost with relocation of bridge Day use LWAC? 13 604+00 385.8 Day use LWAC? 14 625+00 386.2 Day use area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Right (R) / S Left (L) 300'/300 S &W Parking Area Description/Activity Right Fork Road L 200'/ S R 150' /0 S Day use & snowmobilers - cross highway Will likely be lost with alignments charge Obliterate S China Row Picnic Area, cross highway to Logan River Day use .::;:F '·:::::. China Row Combine with Location No. 5 Wood Camp CG Bridge X-C Skiing L !~ X L ..::::. S &W o ;1:::':::;';;;/;"::;;;;;/"';':::;::;:::1' Lost with alignment change? (LWAC?) LWAC? �Appendix EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 1 483+50 383.48 2 485+00 383.5 3 493+00 383.66 514+00 5 Season of Year / S 300'/300 S &W X 4 Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Left (L) X Side of Road Right (R) Plan Location Number Access Road Parking Area x L 200'/ R 150' /0 S 516+00 384.13 L S 6 589+00 384.3 R S 7 524+00 384.35 8 525+00 384.35 X 9 540+00 384.6 X 10 552+00 384.8 11 577+00 385.3 12 589+00 385.5 X 13 604+00 385.8 X 14 625+00 386.2 o Right Fork Road S 384.13 .:;;::' '::::\:. China Row Combine with Location No. 5 Wood Camp CG Bridge X-C Ski ing S .::~r .1r L S &W ..:::;:;:;:;::'::::::. : '(:d"'; ~:': : :':", ',~.!. l l' l::~ ~~ j ;.:;::.:':'::.,:;;:;:.i:.: . · .:::E: W ":::::::. S <';',:;:"",/""',;"" '" f""""",j, Lost with alignment change? (LWAC?) LWAC? Could be lost with relocation of bridge Day use LWAC ? S :";':"/: ~": ':" ': ':"': ;~~:;:"'): ":, ;:" "\" :" ~ Day use & snowmobilers - cross highway Will likely be lost with alignments charge Obliterate China Row Picnic Area, cross highway to Logan River Day use S X Description/Activity Day use UJAC? w Day use area �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Access Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity R / S Day use parking for Logan Cave. L 150'/ S &W R Parking Area Side of Road / S Additional Logan car parking desired Day use combined with Location No. 15 Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 15 636+00 386.4 16 638+00 386.4 17 638+00 386.4 18 645+00 386.6 L 100'/0 S 19 647+00 386.6 R 200'/ S 20 649+00 386.65 R / S Day use - will likely be enlarged with alignment change. Bractiopod Rec. Resids 21 673+00 387.1 200' /0 S LWAC? 22 675+00 387.1 200' / S 23 685+00 387.4 100'/0 S Day use - will likely be enlarbed with alignment change. LWAC? 24 698+00 387.5 150'/ S LWAC? 25 704+00 387.6 S Obliterate. 26 706+00 387.6 S 27 716+00 387.9 Day use UIAC? New parking on old alignment. Obliterate. 28 718+00 387.9 X X X o o X o S X S &W L .)",)"""" .... i:':::'::'/"""""';W Could be lost with relocation of bridge - new parking on old alignment. �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Parking Area Side of Road 388.4 X L 100'/200 S Day use 744+00 388.4 o R 100' /0 S LWAC? 31 747+00 388.5 L / S Obliterate 32 749+00 388.5 L / S Obliterate 33 775+00 389.0 34 790+00 389.3 35 793+00 389.4 36 796+00 389.4 37 806+00 389.7 821+00 38 Rick Springs 38 . 821+00 Rick Springs 824+00 39 389.9 389.95 X 40 827+00 390.0 o 41 832+00 390.1 Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 29 743+00 30 Access Road Season of Year Description/Activity Should be enlarged with alignment change. Temple Fork Road. Need to develop into snowmobile parking and road to Temple Fork fill area. Will be lost with alignment change. Will enlarge with alignment change. Day use 389.9 o �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 42 836+00 390.2 43 865+00 390.6 0 R 100' /0 S 44 876+00 390.8 o R 100'/0 S 45 890+00 391.05 46 905+00 391.5 47 925+00 391. 7 48 936+00 392.0 49 946+00 392.15 o 50 949+00 392.2 o Season of Year R X Day use S "(: 1:";: :" ;: : :;! ~: ~" ,: ,;:':,"', ~ ~ ~: ~ : s Description/Activity Day use cattle guard - fill area Day use w Eliminate vehicle access to river Day use X-C skiing parking / Obliterate / S Obliterate /200 L S S Need to develop parking adjacent to highway fill area Twin Creek Road .•::HE::;:::!·' '::::::. 51 955+00 392.4 X 52 958+00 392.45 X 53 960+00 392.5 o S Obliterate 54 976+00 392.8 o S Obliterate 55 999+00 393.2 X .://,::::::(:. S S &W R ... ";""';;,""" .::' ... '" "":;?,, Dispersed use area USU Field Service �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity 56 1015+00 393.5 0 R / S 57 1031+00 393.85 X L / S & W 58 1049+00 393.95 o L / S Tony Grove Lake Road Winter Park Obliterate 59 1070+00 394.3 R / S Fishing & day use 60 1070+00 394.3 L / S Bunchgrass Road is closed 61 1077+00 394.4 250' /440 S &W 62 1094+00 394.8 / S Red Banks CG 63 1106+00 395.0 200'/ S Day use 64 1112+00 395.1 X S Day use - fishing & camping 65 1119+00 395.3 X S Access to private land 66 1112+00 395.3 X 66A 1135+00 395.4 x 66B 1160+00 395.9 o 66C t~~5~t5o 396.2 X L 66D t~ijI~t5o 396.5 X R 67 1215+00 297.0 X 68 1231+00 397.3 X 200} /200+ .:::tiW ··:::!::::. S &W S & W L 200/200 'i;~ : ,~: ',i~~:~'~~f: Day use & X-C skiing Day use - fishing & winter parking, fill area Day use - fishing & winter parking, fill area Access to private land S 200 R Obliterate Access to private land 11 Access to Franklin Basin Road Day use - fishing & snowmobile area �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Side of Road 69 1244+00 397.5 70 1249+00 397.6 o L 1290+00 398.4 o R 1296+00 398.5 L 100' /0 73 1321+00 399.0 L 200'/0 74 1341+00 399.5 L 75 1414+00 399.6 R 76 1426+00 399.8 X 77 1428+00 399.8 X Day use - fishing access 100' /0 72 Description/Activity 100' /0 71 Season of Year L X S S &W Day use, fishing and skiing ·· .:/': )1' L ..::::. parking is off hy . ::,:::,;,:,:::';';~:::~" :::;li: "';" "~":",:, :":':': :,:'i',",;'; ':/ ' 78 1442+00 400.0 X 79 1455+00 400.3 X 80 1467+00 400.5 o 81 1475+00 400.6 X 82 1485+00 400.8 X 83 1498+00 401.0 X 84 1502+50 401.1 85 1506+00 401.2 ? Access to private land S & R w ::: :"'i",: ~,:; ,: " : ,"~'~!~;j!~: :", :,; :, " ', , :, : : X Day use, fishing access S X S 45 W Access parking off UT 243 not US-89. day use & winter parking. Skiers & snowmobilers cross. Access to private land, highway to use Stump Hollow area. Access to private land, highwya to use Stump Hollow area. Used mainly as a turnout o:,:;,:~:,::,:,"""""" \'::i : w Used mainly as a turnout fill area Used mainly as a turnout fill area Access to private land S &W Main use is snow storage 700' �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity Access to North Amazon 86 1508+50 401.3 87 1519+00 401.5 88 1541+00 401.9 Used mainly as a turnout 89 1554+00 402.1 90 1567+00 402.3 Day use, winter parking, crosscountry skiing. Access to State land 91 1567+50 402.3 Access to State mtce. shed 92 1590+00 402.9 Access to Swan Flat 93 1613+00 403.2 94 1625+00 403.4 95 1650+00 404.0 96 1691+00 404.5 97 1697+00 404.9 Day use parking, fill area, could be enlarged. Day use w/vault toilet, snowmobile parking Access to Sinks Rd, day usewinter parking, could be enlarged Limber Pine Reststop, nature trail. 98 1699+00 404.9 Hunting access 99 1713+00 405.1 100 1715+00 405.17 X L X R S 700 1/700 S & W Used mainly as a turnout �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Plan Location Number Approximate Station 101 1727+00 405.4 102 1735+00 405.6 X R S Access to Sunrise CG 103 1740+50 405.76 X R S 104 1742+00 405.7 R 200'/200 S &W Access to spring & pump, house Sunrise CG Day use - cross-country skiing 105 1745+00 405.8 R 300' S &W 106 1762+00 406.04 R 200'/0 Observation point, Bear Lake Overlook, could be enlarged. Snow storage 107 1781+00 406.4 108 1785+00 406.44 300' /0 Snow storage 109 1800+00 406.66 400'/0 Snow storage Approximate Mile Post Parking Area Side of Road o Access Road R R .. :::: :;:~:::;!;:~.:::: =::. 110 X S W 406.66 111 0 1803+00 1817+00 407.1 Needed Not Needed Summer Winter SLC-STN/30a BOTs38/D.2 t Season of Year 100' /0 S X X Description/Activity Hunter access Turnout day use, fill area, could be enlarged. �� 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/80">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/80</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 4262296060 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 22600494 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 Land use technical memorandum (Draft), March 1987 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon U.S. Highway 89 land use technical memorandum detailing the existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation, with references and appendix. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction 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 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. 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 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_009.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/c82d9167afb7f6ff97b58da8fc2eae41.pdf 3f2473fa055ba53acbc9fdfdfc70b736 PDF Text Text u.s.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Region Eight February 11, 1987 B21163.DO Ladies and Gentlemen: The Federal Highway Administration, u.s. Forest Service, and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold an agency scoping ' meeting for the environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon (Summit and Rich Counties, Utah). The meeting will be on March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in Logan City Hall, Logan, Utah. (Agency) personnel are invited to attend and provide input regarding major issues that should be examined in the EIS and concerns about impacts of road improvements. Public scoping meetings will be held on March 3, 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. You are · also welcome to attend these meetings. 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 Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Forest Service will be cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Several public meetings discussing the project have been held. Notification of other scoping meetings will be provided through the local news media. Meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve U.S. 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 travelled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, whi~h, along with the road constraints, often results in traffic delays. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and �Page 2 February 11, 1987 B21163.DO shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn-outs, provision of climbing lanes, and constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 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 Gargen City. Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1) no action; 2} spot improvements; 3} widening along the existing alignment; 4} widening and improving the existing alignment; 5} constructing the road along a new alignment. A fact sheet providing information about the project will be sent to you approximately 3 weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be addressed to: James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 We request that you advise us at the above address by March 1, whether your office will be making a statement at the scoping meeting. Questions may be directed to James Naegle, telephone (801}965-4160, or the Consultant for the Study, CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City, Utah, telephone (801}363-0200~ Sincerely, Federal Highway Administration BOC5/026 �rEnvironmental Protection Agency Region VIII Office of the Director 1860 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VIII Office of the Director Federal Regional Center, Building 710 Denver, Colorado 80225 Department of Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Southwest Region Office of the Director 14th Street & Independence Avenue S.W. P.O. Box 2415 Washington, D.C. 20013 u.s. Forest Service Ogden Region Office of the Director 324 25th Street Ogden, Utah 84401 u.s. Forest Service Logan Ranger Station Office of the Director 860 North 1200 East Logan, Utah 84321 u.S. Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Office of the Director 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 9-5814 Bureau of Salt Lake Office of 125 South Salt Lake Reclamation City Region the Director State Street City, Utah 84147 National Park Service Rocky Mountain Region Office of the Director 655 Parfet Street Denver,~Colorado 80225 �Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Project Review Office of the Director Denver Federal Center Denver Colorado 80225 u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver Region Office of the Director Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, Colorado 80225 Division of State History Office of the Director 300 Rio_Grande Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Division of Environmental Health Office of the Director 150 West North Temple, Room 426 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Department of Natural Resources and Energy Office of the Director 1636 West North Temple, Suite 316 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Division of Parks and Recreation Office of the Director 1636 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Division of Wildlife Resources Office of the Director 1596 We$t North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 State Planning Coordinator Office of the Director 124 State Capitol Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological service Office of the Director 1311 Federal Building 125 South State Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1197 �u.s. Bureau of Reclamation Provo District Office of the Director P.O. Box 1338 Provo, Utah 84603 Wasatch/Cache National Forest Office of the Director Federal Building Ogden, Utah 84401 U.s. Army Corps of Engineers Salt Lake City Office Federal Building 125 South State Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1197 National Park Service Utah State Office Office of the Director 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1197 Federal Emergency Management Agency Utah Office Office of the Director 1543 Sunnyside Salt Lake Ci ty, Utah 3L..lJ0-5 Soil Conservation Service Utah Office Office of the Director 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1197 BOC5/044 � 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/81">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/81</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 1188854566 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2623603 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 Public correspondence from Federal Highway Administration, February 11, 1987 Description An account of the resource Public correspondence from Federal Highway Administration, February 11, 1987 stating when and where public scoping meetings will be held, CH2M Hill's role in the Logan Canyon study, general proposed improvements along the Canyon Road, and who to contact with comments or questions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Federal Highway Administration Resource Center (U.S.) Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Roads--Design and construction Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. 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 1987-02-11 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 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_008.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/d26a45e111cadfb3aa723fa60e3fb68d.pdf 197389592bf6f59a17ff7e001ad0f11d PDF Text Text BEAR LAKE SINKS" BRIDGES ~~ Jt LOGAN RIVER BRIDGE I ~ ~ GROVE CREEK BRIDGE / __ LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY ~ BEIRDNEAU BEGIN STUDY PEAK RIGHT FORK MT. LOGAN J~N ·87 J . P.R . �CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Scoping Hearing Schedule Loglln March 3 7 pm Mountain Fuel Supp l y Aud 1.tOl- llIlII 45 East 200 North Garden City March 4 7 pm Garden City Hall Building BEAR LAKE _ __ ~\l'» 'tl..J . TONY GROVE ~ ~ D~I\'(" BRIDGE Q) tIl~ Q) Q) > Q) . Q) ~ Q) .. P:::O ~ Q) ,a ~ o LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY BEGIN STUDY . ~- -.- -- -RIGHT rORI< QS ~~ ~~ AA ~~ ,abO p...-I QS til ~ Q) bO'tl o +J 0 ~ bO cO 0 U~ J~"" J .P.' . �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 Yood Camp recreation area, this ancient but beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery . CPLC's proposal for Logan Canyon o The protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildl i fe hab i tat, rare plants, recreational sites and naturalness must be a prime concern . a An Environmental Impact Statement (ErS) must be prepared fa l ' <t ny sig n ificant road modification proposals to protect Logan Canyon ' s natural surroundings from haphazard road modifications . Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and R i ck's Sp r ing should o remain as currently posted . This area is very scenic and too se nsi ti v e 1. 0 PlIl"lII l. t any 'significant roadwuy 1II0dific ll tioll!> . o Bridges which cannot meet struc~ural safety requirements should be replaced when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wide only . Min 0 r a 1 t era t ion s t 0 b rid g a a p pro a c h e S w0 U ] d h 0 il C C e p t: iI h 1 l~ . o Turning lanes at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beuvut' Area may be constructed to facilitate turning traffic . MUUlIt H l Il Sk i Parking araas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood o Canyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and safety . o Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic, . pulloffs and pedestrian travel. o The road should be resurfaced and restriped where required . This will improve through traffic travel and nighttime safety t hroughou t I.Ogllll Canyon. c 1 1m bin g ( pas s 1 n g ) 1 a n a ~hould be built uL the J)lI~way (1H.:L Wl·l'1I and Upper twin bridge~). A eli IU b 1. n g 1 Lill cwo u 1 d a f f (: C t <I V l : ry sc e nic area by requiring lBaj or cut and fill operation~ with unsightly reti1ining walls . o N0 l t OW C 1' o No road modifications should alter the Logan River's watercours e Alterations could since the river is a major recreational resource . destroy important streambanks. o No new roads or major changes to the existing road should be constructed from the Bear Lake Summit to the Bea r Lak e Ov er look . Thi~ ItlglawllY section is in II very populLlr LInd s(:l~ lIle 1~ \~l! I'Ull t 1011 ~ 1I· l ~ a . o Congress should de.signate Logan Canyon Highway as Ut a h's first National Scenic Highway. This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to units in our National Park System . Logan River above Third Dam should be considered for National o Recreational River designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . This federal designation will protect the river's quality for all future generations. � 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/83">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/83</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 627818694 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1745890 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 Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon handout Description An account of the resource Illustrative map of Logan Canyon from Garden City to Logan with a description of the purpose of Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. Also included are alternate suggestions and requests about the construction and proposed improvements in Logan Canyon road, Highway 89. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Reeves, John Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource O'Keefe, Jane Subject The topic of the resource Cartography--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records 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 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. 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_4.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/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/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/84e13aa7f5231266363be775d4310513.pdf e27eb81a8fed17486d8afcf60b27ae49 PDF Text Text · {. - 9 November 17, 1986 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No. 4. Public involvement - scoping process status report 5. Existing roadside parking - draft technical memorandum 6. Areas within Canyon meeting criteria for climbing lanes - supplement to design criteria technical memorandum Revised typical sections - Figures 1, 2, and 3 7. Copy of US Forest Service evaluation of the 1979 UDOT construction proposal. Note the reference to the nega- tive effects of the 12°30 curvaure (40 mph) transmittal letter. 1 in the �,r I I •• I ,I' I / November 17, 1986 ! LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT - SCOPING PROCESS , . STATUS REPORT Concurrently with the development of the transportation needs, the environmental analysis and the transportation plan a continuing public involvement 1. effort is underway. This public involvement effort is part of the scoping process and consists of interdisciplinary team meetings, public information meetings, small group discussions, meetings with government agencies, media coverage, and distribution of written information to a mailing list of interested individuals and agencies. In addition, the consultant team has maintained a local informational office in Logan, Utah at t~e offices of Valley Engineering Inc. Through this scoping process, the issues and concerns of the public regarding Logan Canyon are being identified, and have been summarized in a memorandum circulated to the Interdisciplinary Tea~ dated November 11, 1986. The highlights of this public involvement effort to date are summarized below: Date Group Subject June 10 ID Team Scope and schedule of study. June 23 ID Team Role of ID Team, public involvement program July 8 Cache Chamber of Commerce In discussion of UDOT's plans for Cache Valley, the Logan Canyon Study was mentioned Commissioner Todd Weston. �/1 / /1 ( July 14 10 Team Traffic counting and forecasting, outline transportation needs analysis. July 25 Mailing List Fact Sheet Detailed outline of public involvement program. July 28 10 Team Traffic data, proposed forecasts, highway capacity and level of service. August 1 News Release Brief outline of study objectives and public involvement. August 11 10 Team Traffic forecast tech memo. Maintenance tech memo. August 25 10 Team Traffic forecast tech memo existing roadway conditions tech memo. August 26 Environmental Representatives and US Forest Service Field trip into Logan Canyon to identify areas of environmental concern. September 8 10 Team Safety analysis tech memo. Outline public information meeting. ,( I I ( September 15 Bear River · Resources Conservation and Development Outlined study objectives and obtained public input. September 22 10 Team · Traffic characteristics tech memo. Traffic capacity discussion. September 23 Local Government Officials Outlined study objectives and obtained input. September 23 . Public Informa- Presented findings of tion Meeting, October 6 transportation studies and Logan, Utah obtained public input. ID Team Discussion of public information meeting. Visual considerations by Clark Ostergaard - USFS. �" October 3 ID Team Discussion of safety analysis tech memo. Study goals and objectives for component and alternative development. November 3 S Discussed need for public information meeting in Garden City. October 20 7F Garden City Council 1D Team Alternate routes for through traffic. Discussion of goals and objectives tech memo. Alternate alignments from Summit to Garden City. November 3 Public Information Meeting Garden City, Ute Presented findings of transportation studies. Obtained public input. November 5 State of Utah Natural Resources Outlined alternative routes from Summit to Garden City. November 8 Cache Valley Mayors Assoc. Provided update of the study and received input. November 10 Mailing list Fact Sheet Detailed outline of traffic characteristics and transportation needs. I le This public involvement process will be continued through • the corning weeks with meetings planned with the Cache Cham- ber of Commerce, local service clubs and environmental groups. Formal scoping meetings should be planned for mid January in both Logan City and Rich County. Also technical memorandums will continue to be developed by the Interdisciplinary Team and fact sheets will be sent to the mailing list. gested schedule for these activities is attached • . I SLC-STN/12 The sug- �. . SUBJECT-.t06AN_ ~MYJ:!.~..Jr(Lp-y- __ By_S..sJ.L __ __ oATE1/L~ ,c -- /-JL./('JJ,L~ .I'N(2f)L Vt:Me.# ~_ - - - - - - - - - - -_______ ;f YEA~ H(JNr# WEEK sr/fJ2r/,v~ SHEET NO. _ _ _ OF _ _ _ _ PROJECT 1986 N()\/ 12 19 __ _ _ 1987 Oll't: 2.5 ~ 7 "I 21 I?I- I~ ACr.lv/ry No.8 2//.,3, _ .JAN 4/ II 18 125' F€8 JVfAJ2 8 IS 22 t29 S /2- 8 IS 22 I I A~~ 2G rI s: • t//fc. reAM ~ MEEr/A/6S" ~Nr: e< !2 Ll. 22 ~ !.J:. ~ u :I- -.- I I 01 i n: rRAAlJ"()RTATIDA/ ~f )./G~t7.s-FNr I ; I-- fHT; I ISSUeS I ~. I I I I COM:£8Vf I i (TECH. #5#tJ) ( I I I I I :rSSa£:f I f C41\1~ERAL5 ( FAcr -S#E~r) I I I i I I I I I ! ; I ! ( t:Acr S#~&T) I I ! ~<JM 4JA./eIV,S I I I I i I ~ I I i i' i : I j I 1 I I I t I I j r't./duc .:rA./F. HTlts Stllt//ee ! I I I I i ,GNU/~A/,4IENTAL I I I i , i , ; I I i I I I I I I i I I I I ! : i i t I I I ! I ! I I I I I I ~~IlS ~NAHd. (J,&." C4'A:"AI1 I 1 I I : I I i i ·S~()"1)'/6 ,4f£GT/~~.s I ! ; ! ~At:1At/~A/r IJE"E~()i4 I I I I • ! I I I I I I I I �d 1M I /1 I l November 17, 1986 DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM LOGAN CANYON ROADSIDE PARKING II ~l d A survey of existing roadside parking areas was made and is tabulated in Table 1. This summary includes the areas that E are currently being used by the public for all purposes in- Ie cluding recreational and emergency stopping. f. areas are no more than a wide shoulder with just enough room tt for a vehicle to get out of the traveled way while others Some of the are spacious enough to allow vehicles to be safely parked well off the shoulder. The impact of roadway improvements on these roadside parking areas will depend on the characteristics of the improvement. Spot improvements would have little effect, and some parking areas would be enhanced. Widening along the existing align- ment would eliminate many of the narrower areas that consist , mostly of a widened shoulder. Widening and improving the existing alignment would also eliminate many of the existing areas, but would in some cases provide a substantial area for parking development. For example, where a sharp curve is flattened, the abandoned area of the existing roadway could be developed. Partial roadside parking surveys were conducted during August on two weekend days in the afternoon and the results are summarized in· Table 2. The more complete count taken on August 30 shows at least 90 vehicles using the roadside parking and campground areas. SLC-STN/13 �I "l~ t~ ~ .• I' . I I / / I /' / Table 1 EXISTING ROADS I DE PARKING AREAS Station ,...ce R v COf cor ti ' tr 485+00 493+00 514+00 525+00 552+00 577+00 589+00 604+00 625+00 636+00 647+00 645+00 673+00 685+00 697+00 706+00 718+00 744+00 775+00 793+00 797+00 806+00 821+00 824+00 865+00 890+00 925+00 951+00 1077+00 1120+00 1135+00 1160+00 1231+00 1283+00 1290+00 1296+00 1302+00 1467+00 1498+00 1504+00 1519+00 1541+00 SLC-STN/13 Approximate Mile Post I 383.5 383.66 384.13 384.4 384.8 385.3 385.5 385.8 386.2 386.4 386.6 386.6 387.1 387.4 387.45 387.6 387.84 388.38 389.0 389.34 389.4 389.59 389.87 389.91 390.63 391.05 391.68 392.02 394.3 395.17 395.44 395.9 397.25 398.26 398.39 398.51 398.62 400.51 401. '401.09 401.40 401.91 Side of Road Left Left Right Right Right Right Left Right Right Right Right Left Left Right Left Right Left Right & Left Right Left Right Right Left & Right Right Right Right Right Left Right Left Left Right Right Left Right Left Right Right Right Right Right Right Approximately Length 300' 200' 600' 400' 300' 100' 200' 200' 100' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' 100' 300' 300' 100' 250' 300' 200' 100' 250' 150' 100' 200' 100' 200' 200' 100' 200' 100' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' 200' 400' 400' 400' 200' �Table 1 (Continued) Station Approximate Mile Post Side of Road Approximately Length I 1554+00 1622+00 1651+00 1715+00 1727+00 1743+00 1762+00 1785+00 179·7+00 1813+00 1857+00 1884+00 1952+00 1961+00 SLC-STN/13 SLC-STN/13 402.13 403.40 403.96 405.17 405.40 405.70 406.04 406.44 406.66 407.02 407.8 408.34 409.58 409.77 Right Right Right Left Right Right Right Right Right Left Left Left Right Right 300' 100' 200' 300' 200' 300' 200' 300' 400' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' ~t �Table 2 ROADSIDE AND CAMPGROUND PARKING UTILIZATION Mile Pose ~ 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 DescriEtion of Area Right Fork Road Area Camping Spot Wood Camp Campground Logan Cave Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Ricks Spring Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Forestry Station Area Red Banks C.G. & Tony Grove Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Aug. 16 P.M. (Sat) 3 2 16 3 1 6 12 1 4 1 7 5 3 2 6 ( a) 16 30 Sinks Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area 2 1 1 1 2 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) SLC-STN/13 SLC-STN/13 hi 3 3 1 --.l& 48 (a) Not counted 2 2 Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Abandoned Mountain Road Aug. 30 P.M. (Sat) 89 �I I d 17, 1986 AREAS WITHIN CANYON MEETING CRITERIA FOR CLIMBING LANES II, In applying the AASHTO conditions listed above, the followI • ing criteria taken from the traffic characteristics technical memorandum were used. Design Year 2010 Design Hourly Volume (DHV) 630 Recreational Vehicles (Percent) 12 Trucks (Percent) 3 Directional Split (Percent) 60/40 Each of the AASHTO conditions should be checked to justify the consideration of a climbing lane. 1. Upgrade traffic flow rate 630 x .60 = 378> 200 vph. Condition is met for entire route 2. Upgrade truck flow rate The highway capacity manual (HCM) in Table 8-6 indicates that in mountainous terrain, a recreational vehicle is equivalent to about 0.5 trucks. Equivalent trucks 12 • 2 + 3 630 x .60 x .09 = = 34 > 20 vph Conditibn is met for entire route 2 9 percent �~vember 17, 1986 3. Level of service and speed reduction determination. f r Level of Service In the traffic capacity evaluation draft technical memorandum, it was reported that level of service E will occur by the years shown below. Section Year Right Fork to 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring (MP 391) 2000 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring to Beaver Mountain (MP 400) 2005 Beaver Mountain (MP 400) to Garden City 2010 Level of Service E condition is met for entire route The foregoing analysis indicates that all of the criteria suggested by AASHTO is met for consideration of climbing lanes along the entire route from Right Fork to 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring. The most critical area is in the vicin- ity of the lower twin bridge and the Dugway. In this area the grade is steeper than in the rest of the section, for a , distance of about 4500 feet the upgrade varies from 3.35 to 5.85 percent. · From 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring to the Beaver Mountain turn-off, there is more passing opportunity and the need for climbing lanes is less critical. From Beaver Mountain to Garden City, climbing lanes should be considerea wherever there is opportunity to place them. SLC-STAN/14 3 �(1) 5:1 SLOPE: 29' MIN 55 MPH 24' MIN 50 MPH 18' MIN 40 MPH 16' MIN 35 MPH , (2) SLOPE VARlES10:1 TO 5:1 EXISTING 24 -29' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13 -16' 35 MPH 40' (1') RECOVER AREA ~~ (2') 12' 12' ~~~~~--~~~~&---~~--~~~~ RECOVERY AREA ______________________________________________~~70~:7~ .-(\-y ~~ -y~ (' STANDARD ~ (HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250> <'{<' ~ {<' RECOVERY AREA 34' 12' 12' V..q i:"/l. 1i/..qS l. 8 l.S MODIFIED STANDARD 1.. 0 I:JS FIGURE 1 TYPICAL SECTIONS LOG AN CANYON STUDY �----- ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 11' MIN 17' 17' 2' MIN RETAINING STRUCTURE/GUARD RAIL POSSIBLY REOURED. MODIFIED STANDARD (CENTERED ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT) 17' 17' NEW 10' MIN"':(40 MPH, 10:1) 8' MIN-(35 MPH, 10:1) EXISTING RETAIN RIVERBANK MODIFIED STANDARD (NEW CENTERLINE OFFSET AWAY FROM RIVER) FIGURE 2 TYPICAL SECTIONS ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT WIDENING;;;r LOGAN CANYON STUDY C'::ft~I:"" t il I �FIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE SHOULDER SHOULDER . MODIFIED 'STANDARD WITH CLIMBING LANE RECOVERY AR.EA" 12' 12' 12' _0 TRAFFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE CLIMBING LANE SHOULDER SHOULDER MODIFIED STANDARD WITH CLIMBING LANE (STEEP HILLSIDE SECTION) Note: Where climbing lane extends onto a structure, the should , r width will be increased 2 feet. e (1) See figure 1, (2) Recovery area includes climbing lane with total width dictated by drainage and slope stability needs. FIGURE 3 TYPICAL CLIMBING LANE SECTIONS LOGAN CANYON STUDY �III I . II UNITED STATES DEPARTM£NT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Wasatch National Forest 8226 Federal Bldg., 125 So. State Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 1950 November 26, 1979 r Mr. D. M. LeFevre, P.E. Preconstruction Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th Street, Box 309 Ogden, Utah 84402 ,l L Dear Mr. LeFevre, We 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. ) The report was prepared by a team and is for your use in preparation of your Environmental Analysis Report. This report describes those constraints which are necessary to protect the Scenic, Recreation, and Fisheries values which are so important to Logan Canyon and are considered the minimum necessary to meet the direction provided by our 1971 Environmental Analysis Report. The negative effects of the 12 0 30' degree of curvature alignment are too severe and are considered unacceptable. Our recommended alignment is described in the attached evaluation. 'If you have any .q uestions or would like to discuss this, we would be happy to meet with you. Sincerely, CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN Forest Supervisor U·f AH DEf f. OF T~ Enclosure ) OISTRlC.I JI .. ...' . .' . ..... ~ . �r Logan Canyon Highway Evaluation of Section 3 October lS-18, 1979 I y 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-e~viron­ ment is very important in the overall location of the highway, 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 de's ign details that the road-user can see from the window 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 desig'n ' and not an after thought to hide construction scars with cosmetic treatment. The AASHO Policy on G~ometric Design states that "a uniform slope through a cut or fill section often results in ' a formal or 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 "the slower one travels the more can, be seen." 4• The existing rock features in the canyon are of utmost importanc'e . 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 Shaw - F~sheries Biologist Clark Ostergaard - Landscape Architect • " • • ' ,'P" ·-. 'r . " I �I t I This evaluation was limited to Section 3 as described above because of insufficient resource data from Station 865 to Ricks Springs to conduct a meaningful evafuation. It is not our intent that the project should end at this point station 865, but to indicate that any evaluaticn and agreement 'on that segment of the project will be .delayed until the following information is furnished. A~ Soils data which indica~ed 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 road D. A plan view of the estimated location 'of top of cut slopes and toe of fill slopes in relation to ' the proposed center- profile~ line~ 11 ) from Right Hand Fork (Sta. 605) to Curve at the Through Cut abo'v e the Dugw~y at Twin Bridges (Sta. 860). This evaluation was conducted without adquate information about the structural" details for the retainer walls, jersey barriers, curb and gutter, culver.t energy dissipator~, 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 will review them . to insure our evaluation is still valid. To conduct an e~aluation of .this n~ture it was necessary to establish certain' criteria. These are listed below and any deviation from them will require a . reevaluation . . . 'I " • ".: " ." " '., ; .' I ' �111 1 . i .:1 ., . .' . .. . . I I ./ , . " : ',: .: ... . ' . 3 1. f A two lane road with the following cross sectional configuration would be used from Station 610 to Station 835. 51' MAY-AM-fUM I~' M~X. 15' MAX. ) ) 2. 3. Removal of vegetation would be limited to the construction area. The construction area limits would be 5 feet above the top , of a ~ut slope and the toe of fill slopes. 4. ) 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 ~ane " to the above cross sectional' configuration. The principle purpose for retainer walls is to ke e p 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 will be used. . If 'no other comments are made concerning curb and gutter and retainer walls, they shouid be considered acceptable. ," �4 5. The Special and Functional Consideration and Recommendation contained in the 1971 Environmental Analysis report are still required. 6. Top soil will be stockpiled for respreading ovei cut and fill slopes and other disturbed areas. 2. 3. ) 14° alignment reflects a design speed of 35 m.p.h. and is shown as the office revision on the same plans as the 18° alignment. 7 . f(() ( . . The 12°)0' alignment reflects Nm.p.h. design speed and is shown on plans F-021~1(4Yat a scale of 1" = 200'. This alignment was also shown on the I" = 100' 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 will be required on the cut bank associated with curve 1/30 to mitigate visual impacts.• . Station 625-630 - Two curves are preferred. They are Off. Rev. #32 (14°) and Off. Rev. #33 (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° ' alignment would result in somewhat less visual impact than the 14° or 12°30'. The difference in effects on the visual resource is not deemed significant and, therefore, the. curve data for Off. Rev. 1134(14°) is acceptable. The cut bank on 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. Fisherman parking should be designed and constr'u cted in the wide spot between the road and the river. / . Station ' 641-648 - Curve 1135 should be the 12° curve to avoid impacts on the stream which would be associated with 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.l.654 and use the 14° curve. Fisherman parking should be developed be. tween the road and. the river at 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 . u~acceptable impacts on the visual resource. The existing China Row Picnic area east of the road may have to be aband.oned 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 coordinat'e point N512,803.924, /' El,01.7,206.904. This will help reduce the impact on Wood Camp. A turnaround loop ~ill 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, El,017,277,993. reasons are same · as Station ~56-662. ) Station 672-680 - Centerline to be as dictated ' by next curve coordinate point. Station 680-685 Use 12° curve at 018,713.259. . c~ordinate · point N514,OOO.429,El, , Station 685-689 - Use 14° curve at coordinate point N514,329.967,El, 019,035'.966. This is necessary to avoid impac~s on the visual resource and protect the Rock Feature •.· ! Station 689-706 ~ The reverse curv~ alignment 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 ) ,. i i Deg~~ 14° 14° ' 9° 3° Curve II 41 42 43 44 Tan8e~t Coordinate Point N514,389,996,El,OI9,422.989 N514,651.927,El,OI9,714.915 N514,772.032,El,020~083.101 N515,149.968,Er,020,500~394 / I �'T~_ .... _ __ _ _ _ ••• _ _ -~ -~ __"_ '" ___ J . __ ....____.... _ ..• . ~ __ . ___ ~=:-.-=_ ~ i ~ '__...... -...._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~ -r- , '_ ~ - ····1 Station 706-716 - Use tangent coordinate points N515,532.192,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~ainer wall. The impact on the hill at Station 716 with the 12°30' alignment is tooseverea~d will cause visual degradation~ I " __ _ 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. Where soil pockets exist in the .c ut, they . should be sloped back and revegetated or retainer wall of log cribbing or rock dry wall construction used. 1 ../ S~ation 130~7~7 - . Use 5°30' curve with either coordinate point shown I on the plans. Station 737-743 - Curve data for 1148 :or Off. Rev. #46 is acceptable. , / Station 743-748 '- The inside slopes of this curve are stable 1edgerock and g~ave1 soils. Relocate P.l. points #49 and Off. Rev. #47 or use a flatter curve which will relocate the center line approxima'tely 20" west of the 14° or 18° alignment. The reason for this ~s 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 1150 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 11519,422.325,El,024,005.507. Use a through cut. The access to the summer horne at Station 773 is to be maintained. Some fisherman parking should be developed on the old road bed. . i I Station 775-780 :- Use 5° curve· and .P.l. point described for Off. Rev. curve 1151. , Station 780':'785 curve 852. ) ... -..~- ~ -.- - .... i Use 14° curve and P.l. c90rdinate data for Off. Rev. ~. �__ _ -~-------~---' l ' ':'_~ __J~:. . : ..,_ ,1,/ I vl 7 " St~tion 785-792 - , Use 14° curve and coordinate point for Off. Rev. curve #~3~ , . Station 792-800 ",- Use 14° ~uIye and coordinate point N521,589.423, El,025,811.651. The abandoned road s~ould be dev~loped as fisherman parking and as a waste disposal area with the appropriate Landscape Design and trea tment. "The 12 °30' alignment is a much greater impact on the visual resource. I Station· 800-807 - Use 14° curve and P.I. c06rdinate point N522,483, 530, .El,025,765.054. Remove the old concrete :wh-ich 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. R~v. #56. Station .815-825 - Use Off. Rev. #57 which is ~ 9° curve and coordinate point N523,184.736,El,027,495.885. · . The old road between the creek and the road is to be 'p~ssable to vehicles when cons truction is complete~ Use retainer walls as :' appropriate to accomplish. Station 825-835 '- Use 14° curve and P.l. at · coordinate point N522,946, ' 908,Ei",028,185.936. The 12°30' : a1ignment causes a severe impact ' on the cut side. v/ 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 brid'ge 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.l. at / N525,362.~18, El,027,858.246. The outside of the curve between Station 860 and 865 can be used as waste disposal. The limits of the area used will be established on site. Station 865 to R. ck' s Spring will be evalu'a ted when the addi tional i data is fu r nished. ) . '-- -,- -_.,.-..... -. . .If ~- J .. " . OJ .I �.', - I ' .0 ' : "I Plans Required The following plans will be required before construction begins. 1. I' 2. A Water Quality Management Plan will be developed by U DOT for approval by the Forest Service. This plan will include; a) Monitoring standards, frequency, intensity and qualifi- cations of monitoring personnel. b) Measures to be used during construction to maintain the existing water quality standard. c) Turbidity and other standards which will be met during construction. Macroinvertebeate analysis should be utilized before, during and after construction. 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 tech,niques 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 p I an. I ·1 I I I 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 sites were evaluated. They are: 1. Gus Lind Flat. 2. Wood Camp Hollow (See November IB, 1976 Analysis by Clark Ostergaard, attached). 3. Flat on outside curve above Ricks Spring. -4. On hil (below lower Twin Bridges (north of road). impacts are severe at this site. 5. Across from Preston Valley Picnic Area upstream from the waste area used in construction of the lower 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 Twin 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 selecting the site to be- used. ) 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/87">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/87</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 1969191173 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 13386944 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 Status report, November 17, 1986, and correspondence from Chandler St. John, November 26, 1979 Description An account of the resource Interdisciplinary team meeting additional data for agenda items including scoping process status report for public involvement, draft memorandum for existing roadside parking, technical memorandum of the areas within the canyon that meet criteria for climbing lanes, and a copy of the US Forest Service evaluation of the 1979 UDOT construction proposal. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource St. John, Chandler P. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study 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 1986-11-17 1979-11-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 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_009.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/d4f3fbd12f09a828683306f8f51a21a2.pdf 49771aba8a4baf947f97982500df30bb PDF Text Text ORIGINAL ") 2 3 4 5 6 7 LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 8 -000- 9 'f III 0 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND OTHERS Logan City Hall Logan, Utah '" ~ a: 0 to. 10 March 4, 1987 , 10:08 a.m. 11 -000- 12 Presiding: Conducting: ) Todd Weston State Highway Commissioner Utah Department of TrCinsportatic:n Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager CH2M Hill 13 14 15 16 17 III N • 18 .... I"l 0> < u 19 0 z III 20 to.! a: ... >- III 21 to.! ~ 0 q: 22 z " to.! a. 23 24 25 " , 'x''''' , ..;;( ~ 1 �) I N D E X 2 8 Statement by Bryan Booth 9 5 Statement by Richard Denton 13 6 Statement by Bruce King 17 7 Statement by Dr. Newel Daines 18 8 Statement by Ted Wilson 23 9 ell Statement by Robert Fotheringham 4 0 3 3 .., Statement by George Preston Statement by Gordon Low 28 III ~ II: 0 ... 10 11 -000- 12 13 14 15 16 17 III 18 ~ l'I en < 19 u 0 Z IJI 20 '" II: IL ~ IJI 21 '" ~ 0 0( 22 z " L&J Q. 23 24 25 .,) i. �) LOGAN, UTAH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1987, 10:08 A.M. 2 -000- 3 MR. WESTON: I waited a few minutes beyond the 4 5 I see more participants than I do audience,but we're still 6 • hour hoping we could get a few more people here. going to proceed. 7 & o We need to make some introductioris. I think I'm Todd N 8 Weston. I'm Commissioner with the Department of 9 Transportation for Utah. I'm going to have a few other 10 people introduce some of their people that are here. 11 purpose of meeting today in this meeting--you are aware 12 that we had a large group here last night in this room. 13 The meeting this morning, all those people were invited 14 to come back if they so cared to, if they hadn't had a chance 15 to make any comments on the study we're doing in Logan Canyon 16 for possible improvements and development. 17 I see here again this morning. 18 Our Some of those This meeting was mainly directed toward government 19 officials, public officials, those who we look to to 20 represent the public in general in their positions. 21 sorry that we don't have more of them here, and we ought 22 to have in my judgment. 23 what their time frames are, and I'm sure they were all 24 invited, maybe just through the newspaper. 25 Individual letters were sent to all city mayors. I'm But each one of those people know I don't know. ) 2. �) (Further comments by Mr. Weston. 2 of officials present were made. 3 Barker. 4 themselves. 5 were projected upon the wall, and Mr. Barker gave a 6 narration. 7 slides.) 9 Mr~ Sheldon Mr. Barker has all other present introduce Further comments by Mr. Weston. Colored slides Mr. Nuffer continued the narration of the MR. NUFFER: 8 Comments by Introductions If anybody didn't· sign, it doesn't mean that you're not going to get to testify here. We will 10 11 Preston representing Rich County. 12 ) begin with this, and the first name on the list is George microphone or if you would prefer to come up to this one. 13 This is a little better mike. 14 leave that up to your discretion. MR. GEORGE PRESTON: 15 You can use either that But that one does work. Thank you. I'll Having made 16 some remarks personally last night, I have talked to the 17 Commissioner, and he indicated to me that he had some remarks 18 that he wanted to be made in behalf of the county. 19 Commissioner Day over there, and that's why the Commissioners 20 aren't here. 21 in it. n asked to speak. It's It's not that they don't have an interest It's that they have business over there, and I was Basically, Rich County consists of 2,000 people 23 24 located along Bear Lake and in the Woodruff and Randolph 25 areas. These people are concerned about getting in and ,J 3• �) out of Bear Lake. 2 If you will recall, the roads in the winter time 3 are extremely difficult and many times impossible. The 4 life blood of that community is a transportation system 5 for the people coming in and coming out of the community. 6 As you know, the oil interests have decreased there. 7 income of the county has decreased. 8 for businesses. The Rich County is looking You can't attract businesses, you can't attract 9 10 11 transportation system. 12 of Rich County do not want a roadway that · is uncontrolled 13 construction, . consists of poor planning, and one which would 14 essentially disrupt the ecosystems that exist along. the 15 ) tourists, you cannot generate income without an adequate highway. 16 On the other hand, .the residents They feel that a critical safety factor is 17 presently in the corners and in the bridges, which must 18 be replaced. < u 19 abdicate our responsibility at this time, leave the roadway IJ 20 where it is, and pass this problem along to our future 21 generations, obviously at a much higher cost both in study 22 time and in construction time. ~ .... .., . It is very easy to do nothing. We can en .... VI .... ~ tr 23 Had our forefathers done this--and they traveled 24 to Bear Lake on a wagon wheel road, it took two days--and 25 had our forefathers been members of the Sierra Club and .J 4. �) other clubs, we probably would still be faced with that 2 same form of transportation. 3 something about it. 4 improvement. 5 This is the time to do This is the time to make a significant With regards specifically to problems existing 6 on the road, you have approximately five to six turns in 7 that road that are of a decreasing radius turn, depending 8 on which way you're traveling upon that turn. 9 decreasing radius, you are going from a shallow turn at By 10 its inception to an increasingly sharper turn throughout 11 the course of the turn. 12 If you follow people, particularly out of state 13 people, on those turns, they overshoot those turns. 14 fail to slow down sufficiently on those turns; and, 15 therefore, it is an extremely dangerous turn, not only for 16 ) the person going down, but also the person coming up. 17 18 19 They The bridges, you have three major bridges that are problems, the Burnt Bridge and the Upper Twin Bridges. I'm on the National Ski Patrol, and every year 20 we go up there and pick up beer cans along the road. 21 Incidentally, there's a lot of them, which means there is 22 alcohol consumed on that road to a great extent. 23 you pick up the beer cans under the bridge and look up, 24 you really have a second thought about whether or not you 25 want to travel that bridge. But when In many instances, those ) 5. �bridges by reason of the salt that the state has kindly 2 furnished to the road has practically eaten away the concrete 3 on the bridge, and they are unsafe. 4 I think they're a hazard right now. 5 They should be replaced. The Burnt Bridge has had two accidents on the 6 Burnt Bridge last weekend as a result of traffic on there. 7 It is so narrow that a pass was not effectuated properly. And if you have tried to pass a Miller truck 8 9 on the Burnt Bridge, you've got some serious problems, 10 11 uphill and downhill are from a curve. 12 that bridge not from a straightaway, where you can kind 13 of get your sights on it. 14 curve, and it makes it an extremely difficult bridge to 15 pass on. 16 that's· pulling a trailer house on that bridge, they want 17 their share right out of the center. 18 < u because both ends of that, both approaches to the bridge, dangerous place. ~ 20 ~ You're approaching it from a If you've tried to pass a person from out of state So it's an extremely Those are examples of the types of things that 19 o z w So you're approaching inhibit travel and which should be looked at. ~ Thirdly, the speed limit. 21 The speed limit is 22 at 35 miles an hour. 23 that speed limit, including the officers that control the 24 canyon. 25 straightaways are reasonable and prudent to go 40 to 45. Why? I do not know of anyone who observes The turns are set for 35, but the ) 6. �) So what are we doing? We're posting the travel 2 in the canyon for the lowest speed limit that is practical 3 on the corners. 4 by reason of the nature of the construction to travel at 5 the higher speeds on the straight, slow down on the corners. And so we are actually inviting people I think that improvements to the corners would 6 7 facilitate travel, increase safety · significantly. The last 8 comment is on bicycles. 9 the canyon in the summer-spring, you will find bikes up If you look at the lower part of 10 and down the canyon. In fact, there. is a lot of bicycle 11 travel up there, a lot of people running on the side of 12 the road. 13 Do you find that in the areas under consideration? 14 No, because you put one bike--I'm talking about pedal bikes-- 15 but one bike on that road, two cars passing, and someone 16 is going to get hurt. Now, we can't do anything about the people that 17 d8 have died before on that road. 19 obligation to look at the people who are yet to die on that 20 road. 21 But .I think we have an Is Mr. Baumgartner present? Has this road 22 actually been designated presently as a Scenic Highway, 23 or is it under consideration for designation? 24 25 MR. DAVE BAUMGARTNER: Under consideration. A decision has been made in our forest plan to manage it as 7. �) a Scenic Highway and then encourage the State to designate it as such. 3 the Forest Service has an option to do it themselves. 4 If the State isn't capable of doing that~ 2 MR. PRESTON: 5 6 ., and dried right now? Is that correct? 7 ell o So that designation is not cut It's still open for some consideration? MR. BAUMGARTNER: Yes and no. Once again, because '" l: a: 8 of .our management policy in the canyon, we are going to 9 o II.. manage it as a Scenic Highway, even though it doesn't have 10 an official designation. MR. PRESTON: 11 Thank you. With those comments, 12 13 tonight. 14 that road with a view towards looking at that road, seeing 15 where damage won't be done, seeing where improvements can 16 be made; and if you decide to drive that road at about 17 ) I would ,like to invite you all to come to Rich County 4 o'clock when the skiers are coming down from the ski area, . 18 < u When you do come to Rich County, please drive you've got one car every 27 seconds approaching you, some 19 of which have been dri.nking, I think you would want some 20 improvements to that road. o Z 1/1 I.J a: II.. .: 1/1 21 a « z " Thank you. 22 I.J ~ MR. NUFFER: (Applause.) Thank you. The next one indicating I.J IL 23 an interest in speaking is Robert Fotheringham, and then 24 we have Bryan Booth. 25 MR. ROBERT FOTHERINGHAM: I'm really not here . I ( 8. �) to recommend any alternatives to CH2M Hill. However, there 2 is only one alternative that may possibly not affect the 3 stream, and that would be the No Alternative solution to 4 the problem. 5 that. I'm not presentjng that I'm for that or against In 1985 the Utah Legislature deemed it necessary 6 7 to amend one of the laws in the state which says that any 8 time you affect a natural stream in any way, you must receive 9 written approval from the State Engineer to do that. If 10 11 other than Alternative A or No Alternative, there is a 12 probability that you will in some reach of your construction 13 ..> you do, or if you approach any alternative to this problem affect the river. 14 approval from the State Engineer, and I will leave a copy 15 of the Code, 73-3-29, with one of the committee, so you 16 can look at that. In doing that, you will require written I don't know at what point in time you would 17 18 want to start informing the State Engineer of any plans, 19 but the earlier those are received the better they can be 20 reviewed. 21 22 23 24 25 That's all I have. MR. NUFFER: (Applause.) Thank you, Robert. Bryan Booth, and then we'll have Richard Denton. MR. BRYAN BOOTH: I didn't dare speak up. I was here last night, but There were too many here. Bryan Booth, of course. My main interest, of 9. �) course, is since I am a Bear Laker by nativity and since 2 3 development. 5 park just north of Garden City for 15 years. 6 people from other areas, other states, that came over that 7 with their trailers behind them, they were shaking like 8 a leaf by the time they got in to my trailer park. 9 ., . of business, I'm interested in this highway and its 4 o ... I'm there a good share of the year now and have a place said they had never driven anything so scary as Logan Canyon. 10 I built and operated an overnight trailer Some of the They They didn't have time to look at the scenery at all. Since selling this overnight trailer park to 11 12 Camper World about 10 years ago, I have built and operate 13 now a mobile home park back of my home, almost adjacent 14 to that same area. Whenever a big mobile home comes in from somewhere 15 16 17 Soda Springs, because they are scared to death, and, of 18. < u they have to generally go around by Evanston or around by course, the Highway Patrol is not too happy to see them 19 go through Logan Canyon, especially if it's a 65 or 70-foot 20 trailer. o Z III W a: ... .... III W ~ 21 Someone mentioned the guardrails. I'm grateful o « z " w 22 to see so many of them installed recently. Of course, where 23 they have been installed on the edge of the bridges, that 24 has narrowed these bridges about 10 to 12 inches. 25 of course, a lot of people are scared to death of those. a.. And, 10. �-> As has been mentioned so many times, it's a hazard to cross 2 them when someone else is coming. Now, as far as the deer being killed, I'm sure 3 4 that if the trees were moved back a little farther, they 5 would be able to see a deer before you hit him. 6 they just appear out of nowhere without any problem at all, 7 so far as they're concerned. But now I would make one suggestion in the interim that 8 9 10 the side of the road that appears about the middle of the 11 summer, the deer sneak out of those in a hurry, and you 12 would be able to see them a little sooner if that were the 13 ) if the Highway Department would cut that high grass along case. I've never counted the times I've traveled Logan 14 15 16 State. 17 .f Canyon from Bear. Lake to Logan. while I was teaching. 18 I got my education at Utah I got my master's degree mostly in the summer schools I taught two years in Cache Valley . I'm sure the people won't slow down whether 19 20 night, the hazards of people passing you on a double line, 21 I've had that happen time and time again. 22 ~lo,..r anything is done or not, because, as someone mentioned last someone with a high speed powerful car whizzed by me on 23 a double line, and 10 24 at almost the same speed, and T had to throw on my brakes 25 to avoid a crash; that is, for him to avoid a crash. On one occasion and behold, another car was coming So 11. �) it's happening all the time on curves and everywhere. People 2 are so · anxious to go places and to go there so quickly, 3 that it's almost an impossible situation to control it. 4 Sometimes these people in Bear Lake who have 5 6 ., a lot of trouble with the deer wish there were more killed ·on the highway, especially the females, with the hay stacks 7 o Of course, we've got one · man in Rich County who will ·take 9 III and elsewhere. 8 .. And I've had a lot of experi'encewi.th that . care of it, if you don't do something about ~ a: o ... 10 that~ So I'm anxious to have something done. I haven't 11 12 recommendations. 13 for the whole thing must be finalized before any portion . 14 of it is done. 15 is done and whatever can be done as the time goes on, I'm 16 for it; and I'm sure that if we vote against anything being 17 done in Bear Lake, the Logan Canyon Road, that that money, 18 whatever is available, will go somewhere else, and I think 19 we want it on this canyon. 20 particularly recently complaining about the first half of 21 Logan Canyon. 22 of screaming about the spoiling of the environment. 23 it's a beautiful road, and I think it's much better now 24 than it was before, and the scenery is better. 25 < u studied the proposal carefully enough to make any specific see the leaves in the fall; and if the trees are too close o I suspect that whatever is done, the plan That is my guess, anyway. And so whatever I don't remember anybody Z !II 101 II: IL Yet, when that was proposed, we heard a lot I think You can ) 12. �to the road, you can't. One other item that hasn't been mentioned. 2 3 Someone mentioned last night that it would be a good idea 4 to move the trees back, but some of them and most of them 5 that are right close to the road are being killed by salt 6 that the snowplows obviously and unavoidably have to plow 7 off, and it hits these trees and eventually some of them 8 die. 9 with a wood stove wouldn't dare cut one or he would be in So many of those trees are very unsightly. A person 10 11 of those that are dead and haul them in for wood for somebody 12 .) trouble, but I wish the Highway Department would cut a few the widows or someone else who needs them. 13 I think that's all I have to say. 14 MR. NUFFER: 15 16 17 · 18 19 . ( Applause. ) After Richard, we'll have Bruce King. MR. RICHARD DENTON: My name is Richard Denton. I'm an environmental scientist with the Bureau of Water Pollution Control. I'm not going to address one of ·the different 20 issues that have been addressed here whether the road should 21 be built or not. 22 concern as far as water quality within the canyon. 23 Logan River is classified in the state system as 2B, which 24 is for water-borne recreation, 3A a cold water fishery, 25 and 4, agriculture and irrigation. I'll try to limit my remarks to our Bureau'~ Presently 13. �Under state law we are required to protect the 2 3 type of thing going on. 7 • probably a limited amount of canoeing, kayaking, and that 6 o agriculture. 5 II mainly as a cold water fishery and aquatic life and for 4 .. Logan River for these three different stream classifications, imagine at campgrounds and things like 8 9 In that section of the river there is I think There is some water contact I this~ The entire Logan River from the mouth of the canyon upstream on the forest is also classified as an 10 antidegradation segment for the State, and as such we are 11 required to protect the stream from any type of activity -12 13 14 wi thin that stream that may degradate the water quality and the aquatic system within the canyon. After talking with our staff and looking at some 15 16 Right Hand Fork to -Ricks Spring, we as a staff feel that 17 very little widening of the road or construction in that 18 area could be done without affecting water quality. 19 Presently in most of those reaches through there there is 20 a good riparian zone, trees and shrubs and what not, that 21 protect the river from the highway and from the use from 22 the highway. 23 < u of the alternatives here, especially in the section from water quality would suffer. o Z III '" ... I[ If any of that area was disturbed, then the 24 One thing the riparian zone does is it acts as 25 a buffer system to protect the stream from such things as ) 14. �) surface runoff of the road, which is extremely high in 2 salts, turbidity from any type of erosion that may occur, 3 affords some protection from any type of gasoline spills. 4 If a tanker turns over, what not, it offers some protection, 5 unless in some places it would go directly into the river. So I think that's where our Bureau is coming 6 7 from. 8 we will be insisting that we review what plans are come 9 up with by the committee or the tech team, and we will have 10 11 We are involved in the NEPA process, and as such to give approval for the different aspects of that. One thing is that if there is any construction 12 13 road alignments, we will have to have turbidi ty waivers 14 for · the stream. 15 affected, those will require sediment control structures, 16 .> involved, whether it's bridges or whether it's anything, different things, to protect water quality. 17 If any section of the stream will be I don't want to say this in picking on the DOT 18 right at the moment, but we have seen some good and some 19 bad things that have happened on road construction within 20 the state in the last few years. 21 seen in the last few years is the new Interstate 80, or 22 70, I guess it is, through Clear Creek Canyon. 23 with everyone to protect water quality and to improve the 24 stream or to reconstruct it, whatever needed to be done, 25 I think we've ended up with a compatible situation there A good example that we've DOT working ") 15. �where the stream runs through a closed canyon and we still 2 have a good trout fishery, we have good water quality, and 3 those things have been met. 4 A situation that's 100 degrees around from that, 5 6 by thousands of tons of sediment a year going into the Weber 8 River. 9 ca o see that we have increased turbidity loads in that canyon 7 · .. though, is the interstate down through Echo Canyon. We Wasatch Front. l: II: o ... The Weber River is a culinary water source for the And now we're going to end up--we have a 10 team put together to try to correct some of those things, 11 and it's probably going to cost hundreds 12 dollars to try to reconstruct that stream and to get - rosion e - 13 14 -15 of thousands of under control and to protect water quality that's going into the Weber River. We have had problems in Little and Big Cottonwood 16 17 I f think we're going to have - to work very closely with you 19 to ensure that we do not see some of these same problems 20 o construction. 18 < u canyons, for example, with erosion because of road in the canyon here. So like I say, I'm not picking on DOT, but Z (/) W II: ... t(/) 21 w ~ o < As I look at the alternatives, and we've studied 22 them with the staff, I think that we as a staff would have 23 to recommend probably Alternative B. 24 go with "A." 25 z " ... and still protect the integrity of the stream. a.. I see no reason to I think things could be done within the canyon But, like ) 16. �) I say, especially on the lower one section in there, as 2 a staff we feel that very little could probably be done 3 and still ensure water quality and protect the state's 4 standards, and that's where we're coming from. I believe those are about all the comments I 5 6 have. We would like to, like I say, be kept informed, and 7 we will be requiring you to put some of these things through 8 as part of the NEPA process. 9 Thank you. MR. NUFFER: 10 Thank you. (Applause.) and then Newel Daines. 11 MR. BRUCE KING: We'll have Bruce King Bruce King representing Cache 12 County Government. 13 commendation to UDOT and the consultant here for the process 14 that's going forward. 15 irreconcilably separated on distant poles, I think a ·great 16 purpose is being accomplished by affording the public this 17 opportunity to be heard. 18 I'd like to comment just briefly by Even if the various interests were There's great value in that. On the second point, I don't think we are 19 irreconcilably disparate on our poles. 20 also by what I see as an ability to get together and carve 21 a compromise here that will preserve important values and 22 still give us a significant benefit by way of facility and 23 improvement in that canyon. 24 25 I am encouraged With regard to the position of public officials and specifically Cache County, I don't have anything to ) 17. �recommend at this point, except to indicate that our new 2 3 that you'll have that. 6 of the council here today. 7 III submit something in writing during the comment period, so 5 ., one section. 4 o ... county council has reviewed this issue preliminarily in presence. Of course, there are two members I want to acknowledge their So something should be forthcoming there . I'm also going to take the initiative in meeting 8 9 I'll encourage them to do so again and to with the Mayors Association a week from Saturday, to take 10 11 them either collectively or individually, and perhaps in 12 . ) copies of your comment sheets and summaries and encourage consultation with individual city councils to give you some 13 written response within the comment period, as well. 14 So, again thanks for the opportunity afforded 15 for us to be involved in this process. 16 something meaningful to you within the period. 17 ( Applause. 18 < u o We hope to have Thank you. ) MR. NUFFER: Mayor Daines is the last one who 19 has indicated an interest. 20 If there is anyone else, we will open that up. Z III W a:: I<. ~ III W ~ TIR. NEWEL DAINES: 21 I was kind of the old timer o « Cl z 22 W in this group until I saw Mr. Booth. Q. I have driven that canyon road since it had no 23 24 asphalt from the mouth of the canyon up. 25 it. I've ridden on I didn't drive it at that time. 18. �) I'm kind of wearing three hats this morning. 2 I would like to wear the hat, the personal hat as an old 3 timer from the 1930's right on through to today. 4 taxpayer and a supporter of Rich County as well as Cache 5 County. 6 boxes along Bear Lake and utilize it a considerable amount 7 of the time, about six months out of the year. 8 that canyon consistently on an average I would imagine 100 9 times a year. I'm a I own one of those what they refer to as cracker I'm a skier. 10 I'm a boater. So I drive I don't have a 11 10-foot-wide boat. 12 wide boats. 13 than about an 8-foot through the canyon without some special 14 permits. 15 an important part of the things that I'd like to talk about. 16 I don't think there are many 10-foot- As far as I know, you can't take anything wider Isn't that correct, Howard? But I think that's No.2, the hat that I would like to put on is 17 my surgical hat. 18 emergency physician in Logan for 3 a years. 19 I've been a physician and the prime I was the first anesthesiologist and intensive 20 care physician in the valley. So I've seen the change in 21 emergency medical services that has come into the valley. 22 I also have relatives that have practiced medicine in 23 Evanston, Montpelier. 24 that has 10,000 clients that use that road for emergency 25 medical services. We really have a medical center here There are about 8,000 people in the Bear .) 19. �Lake County. We are the largest Class 2 medical center 2 that services Star Valley, all of Rich County, Bear Lake 3 County, and even down into the southwestern part of Wyoming, 4 Cokeville and those areas. 5 So I've seen the use of this road as an emergency 6 7 ., III o road for medical services, and I would like to mention that for a minute . OJ 1: II: 8 A n d then I am a Johnnie-Corne-Lately of about o '" 9 five years experience as the mayor of Logan. Both Bruce 10 and I have the same feeling. We will bring these problems 11 to the Cache County Mayors' Association for their input, 12 and I certainly will go to the Municipal Council as we had 13 discussed this in the past for their involvement in 14 recommending to th.isgroup what kind of a road services . 15 we feel we need .. .But I want you to remember that Logan 16 City is about half of the population of Cache County. Back in the sixties, I was aware of the alarm 17 III ,.. OJ 18 miles. 20 < u that attended our community as we upgraded the lower 12 19 en '" I am proud of even the lower 12 miles. o z I have lived in Logan continuously since 1957, and (/I w :z: '" 21 Next week I have a house guest coming from New 22 York City who is the vice president and director of all 23 the travel services for American Express. 24 be proud to show her the whole canyon and take her and her 25 children, and ·my grandchildren are coming out from New York This lady, I'll 20. 'Ie -.. , • ~ .. , " �with them, skiing and show them what we have. I'm proud 2 of all that canyon, and I certainly join with the rest of 3 you in not wanting 4 the Right Hand Fork and Ricks Spring. to rape that five or six miles between But I think that this bottleneck that I look 5 6 at from my medical standpoint and my personal standpoint, 7 I think that bottleneck from the Forks to the Ricks Spring 8 deserves our sensitive attention. 9 and augment the facilities to make this area safely I think we can preserve 10 11 to remember that it is also a conduit for 10,000 residents 12 .> available for all of our citizens. I think that we want over the hill, that we have to be sensitive to their 13 requirements . Now, it's only last Saturday about 10 o'clock 14 15 that we had a IS-year old from Soda Springs receive as he 16 collided with a six-inch Quaker serious injury to his femur, 17 a fracture. 18 This is my third time to ski this winter. 19 my day of skiing to bring him down the canyon in my Ram 20 Charger ambulance, so to speak, because he needed continual 21 traction on that. 22 time with a bare road. 23 accident, as we have had many bad head injuries in the canyon 24 by hikers and especially bikers--I remember the bad one 25 that occurred just below the dugway--if this had occurred He had circulatory impairment of his foot. I interrupted And I was happy that it was in the winter If this had been the type of an 21. �) in the summer, between June and September, I would have 2 had a significant delay as I had tried to negotiate that 3 area between Ricks Spring and the Forks as I tried to bring 4 this patient down the canyon rapidly to put him in a position 5 where we could give him the best of medical care. 6 ~ Our records are replete with instances of 7 transportation time impacting survival of life and limb. 8 And Mr. Booth doesn't know about them, but I could name 9 ca o you within the last five years significant impact of time N 10 transmitting patients from Bear Lake with medical emergencies 11 such as ladies with massive hemorrhages, what we call 12 placenta previa or retained placentas. 13 them here. 14 you look at the tradeoffs in this choke, this choke that 15 I call from Ricks Spring to the Forks. 16 And we have to get So I think you need to keep this in mind as But I think we can come to make some compromises 17 in this area on alignment, bridge repair. 18 ought to really look at having significant areas in this 19 section of the highway that do have adequate passing lanes, 20 especially for emergency vehicles. 21 that happens to people as they drive on areas of roads where 22 they don't get around, and then they start taking 23 And that's what happens as I've seen it over the last 40 24 years that I've been driving the canyon, 45, that I 25 personally have been driving that canyon road, over 45 years. <: u o But I think we z I/) '" "- II: And then the frustration chances~ ) 22. �I think it's a thing that we should try and cut down that 2 frustration. 3 I am sensitive to the water quality. 4 has tried to work and will work and have worked as we have 5 tried to preserve the canyon. 6 that have to be considered as we look at the canyon as a 7 commercial, as a recreational resource, and as a base for 8 the resources of our community; and certainly water quality 9 and recreation are probably very important ·as we look at 10 11 12 13 it. Thank you. Logan City But there are other menus (Applause.) MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? MR. TED WILSON: This is a very impressive group 14 as far as Logan Canyon. 15 quite this strong a group. 16 a resident of Logan and of Bear Lake. 17 developer in Bear Lake. 18 towards the development or the property which is greatly 19 affected by any of these alignments. 20 I didn't think they could gather My name is Ted Wilson. I'm I'm also a real estate My comments are not going to be I have traveled Logan Canyon all my life and 21 very heavily. A couple of things that I kind of see that 22 I feel may be overlooked or a little bit on the soft side, 23 I have just jotted them down here. 24 that states that anticipated growth would .be about 2 percent, 25 I think that's very mild to what the growth can be if the No.1, in the survey 23. �road is improved. 2 Now, I'm for the improvement of the road, and 3 I'm against it in a lot of instances. 4 Daines just mentioned is a very, very critical, touchy area. 5 I think we can go through that area with some mild 6 improvements and some major improvements above. 7 really backs up really bad in the summer time. 8 R.V., recreational vehicles towing other recreational 9 vehicles towing other recreational vehicles, I've seen them The area that Mayor That road Right now 10 hooked on to three. 11 a boat. 12 idea. 13 behind, it, even on the straightaways, where the lines are 14 passable now, they won't pass. 15 and another car and another car. 16 tempers building as people are trying to get to Bear Lake 17 or Yellowstone or wherever. 18 I've seen a motor home, a car, and . Now, how the State even allows that, I have no I mean, that going up Logan Canyon, you get people Then you get another car And you can just see the The first 1.8 miles with mild improvement of 19 a couple of pass lanes, a couple of pulloffs, heavy signing, 20 slower vehicles, you know, if you get four behind you, in 21 some states you have to pull off. 22 have that law. 23 backing up four, you can get a ticket. 24 Legislature ought to look into something like this, because 25 it's terrible. Now, I guess Utah doesn't But I've heard of other states, if you're Maybe the I have counted 20, 30 cars backed up behind .) 24. �) one cautious Midwesterner that hits these mountains and 2 is petrified. 3 Like Bryan said, it's scary to people. If you touch that area carefully where it's 4 critical, come out in what we call the Crookston Flats, 5 improve it more than these maps are, with decent passing 6 lanes where you're back off the river and won't disturb 7 the water quality. 8 pieces of water in the United States. There's just no 9 question about it. We need to watch 10 the water quality. The Logan River is one of the classic So is the canyon. Mr. Denton referred to the salt, or improvement 11 12 of the road making the salt run into the river and possibly 13 a tanker spill. 14 runs into the river. 15 is no place for it to go but into the river. 16 of that road could improve the possible tanker spills. 17 shoulders of that road are so dangerous. All the water and all the salt right now I mean, you get the runoff. There Improvement The Myself--I'm not Dr. Daines--I have helped seven 18 19 to eight very critical accidents in that canyon. 20 one of them has been above the Forks. 21 of them. 22 out of rivers. 23 with an improved road, most of those accidents may have 24 been prevented, because they were almost always on a steep 25 or people passing where they should not have been. Every single one I've pulled babies out of cars. That's my nature. Every I've pulled people I'll stop and help. But Why ') - ~ 25. �) they do that, I don't know. An improved road won't stop 2 that, but it will help it, if you can get traffic around 3 the slower vehicles. 4 My recommendations, then, would just be really 5 6 If you got that so that they can pass there, I think you 8 CII o you've got half the canyon, half the canyon is passable. 7 ., .. careful in the critical areas, but the open flat areas-- would speed up the flow and deter accidents. 9 Mr. King, who, of course, just moved into his 10 position, mentioned that the County hasn't looked at the 11 situation thoroughly yet. 12 look at it. I would recommend that Mr. King 13 17 along the side of the lake. and coming down in, instead of through Cache County. 19 I would strongly suggest Cache County officials really look 20 at the situation very carefully. 21 money. 22 o Lake to get to Bear Lake where they have these shanties 18 < Canyon. 16 U really being hurt because of the flow of traffic in Logan 15 " f Our economy of Cache Valley and Rich County is 14 ) as far as the economy of Cache Valley for that purpose. Many, many of the people now go up through Salt They are going through Randolph So Z III W II: ~ It's economy. It's tax dollars. It's And Logan Canyon needs to be improved The people going to Yellowstone are looking for 23 24 alternate routes. 25 highway. Logan Canyon is a dangerous piece of The deaths that occur in there I think you all " ) 26. �should think of that. Some day it might be one of your 2 kids. I've had friends' kids that have been killed in there 3 senselessly. 4 helped a baby out of a semi-truck that had rolled over. 5 The baby was wrapped in a blanket in a windshield. 6 windshield had collapsed right around the baby. 7 was unconscious, and the father was out wandering around 8 through the field just totally in a daze. 9 the semi-truck, it was upside down. It's got to be improved. The shoulders--I The The mother When I got to The wheels were still 10 11 pulled that baby out of the windshield. 12 in that baby blanket, comforter, a real thick comforter--that 13 baby didn't have a scratch on it. 14 accident was a shoulder of the road. 15 pulled off because another truck was coming by. 16 one wheel off that shoulder, and he went just like that. 17 It was not his fault. 18 fault as far as I'm concerned. 19 It really is. 20 whatever you decide is the best for all. 21 ) turning and everything. an interest that needs to be looked at. 22 That baby started to cry, and I Had it not been But the cause of that That semi driver just He caught It's the Department of Highway's That road is atrocious. It needs to be repaired, fixed, changed, All of you have As far as the people of Garden City. I have 23 a business in Garden City. All those little black dots 24 on this one map, I guess some people say I raped the mountain 25 But that was my choice to do with my land. But the residents ) 27. �) of Rich County and Bear Lake county are being financially 2 3 o by way of Soda Springs. 6 that they manufacture up here,is almost financially not 7 worth it over there, because it costs $1,000 more today 8 than it did five years ago simply because of the route that 9 III a piece of farm equipment to Rich County, they have to go 5 ., restricted the width through here. 4 - handicapped because of this road. they have to take to get a manufactured home into Rich County, .... The State of Utah has If they want to take A home, one of these double wides :l: a: o ... 10 and I guess the width is the reason they are restricted. 11 I appreciate your time, gentlemen. I'm sorry 12 I was unable to be here last night when the public should 13 have spoken, but I appreciate your giving me a moment. 14 (Applause.) MR. NUFFER: 15 16 Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. GORDON LOW: 17 As indicated earlier, I'm Gordon 18 < u o Low. I'm here on behalf of Lyle Hillyard. He didn't ask 19 me to state a position or any recommendations. 20 to him that he ought to consider--not consider--suggest. 21 I have just a couple of comments to make. I suggested Z til W a: ... ...: til w ~ o <t " Z 22 W IL One concern I have is that this projection goes 23 to the year 2010. As I understand it, the improvements 24 may make this an adequate road until that year. 25 is what happens thereafter. My concern 28. �I think everybody doesn't anticipate a four-lane 2 highway through this canyon. 3 going to be adequate for 20 years, perhaps we ought to look 4 at an alternative route. 5 economic development and so on, I think there are some strong 6 feelings on the other side that perhaps people from Salt 7 Lake and Ogden should take alternate routes to Bear Lake 8 and Yellowstone and not use Logan Canyon. 9 are not amenable to the kinds of traffic that some of us 10 My concern is if this is only Contrary to Ted's feelings about Some places simply like to see go up there. I know this hits at the heart of economic 11 12 13 it's time to take a close look at that. 14 what other alternatives have been considered as far as 15 perhaps major roadways, the Blacksmith's Fork area, 16 ) development. But, on the other hand, I think that perhaps Strawberry, by Preston, or whatever. I'm concerned about I'm concerned about restrictions on this road. 17 18 I'm not sure how big of a problem the trucks are. 19 passed them on the bridges also. 20 some restrictions on the use of this highway for that kind 21 of traffic. 22 an alternative consideration. 23 I don't know. I have Perhaps there should be But I hope that that would be I'm concerned about enfoT-cement. Perhaps I've 24 25 .. been on the other side of the counsel table from Jud Preston too many times. But I get a little concerned when we want ) 29. �') to widen the road and increase the speed when one of the -- 2 concerns is alcohol. 3 Frankly, I drive from here to Brigham quite often. 4 5 Garden City. Maybe we need better enforcement and more 7 enforcement. I don't know. 8 III between here and Brigham as I'll ever see between here and 6 " o ... I'll see three or four times as many Highway Patrolmen alternatives. I'm just suggesting these as ~ a: o "- I'm concerned, as I'm sure many are, with respect 9 10 11 concerned about sediment and a second dam right now. 12 suspect that much improvement will present a considerably 13 larger problem with sedimentation both in that dam and in 14 the Third Dam. And I suspect that 15 11.-+ to the alteration of the river. I see Logan City is consideration. Perhaps it has been. I ought to be a I really don't have any strong suggestions or 16 17 18 are strongly considered, with not just 20 years anticipated 20 in the future, probably 40 or 50, and perhaps increased 21 o have already been expressed. 19 < u recommendations. I just have some concerns, most of which enforcement. I hope alternative routes Z IJI 101 a: "- .... IJI 101 ~ o <( u MR. NUFFER: 22 Z Anyone else? Now is your chance. 101 II. 23 Again, let me mention that we will receive written comments 24 up through the 6th of April. 25 to do that. And we would encourage you ) 30. �Yes, sir. 2 3 A VOICE: Where will those comments be directed? I don't see any address or an agency. 4 MR. NUFFER: I believe we have a sheet of paper 5 at the back that is set up for that purpose that has an 6 address at the bottom. 7 8 Anything else that anyone would like to comment on or bring to our attention? 9 Thank you all for being here. 10 appreciate your input. 11 We really the future. 12 ) I believe you were just handed one. 13 14 We will be in touch with you in (At 11:28 a.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1987, the hearing ended.) -000- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .J 31. �" . C E R T I F I e ATE :l ! ! I 3 4 i State of Utah i I County of Salt I I Lake I, Ronald F. Hubbard, do hereby certify that I am 5 I ! a certified shorthand reporter in and for the State of Utah, 6 I' 7 I 8 License No. 32; that I reported in shorthand the foregoing I ! proceedings, and that this transcript is a full, true, and i 9 correct record of said proceedings. to da.y Dated at Salt Lake City, Utah, this " of 1931· 12 13 'I i ___ ~Q"J. ~~__ _ ~ald F. Hubbard 230 Judge Building Sal t L .:} ke Ci ·ty t uta.h 14 .! ,i ·1 15 : ( 801) ! i . 355- 3611 I 16 I i i ! 17 j 18 ! ! 19 1 20 ! 21 I i I 221 23 I 24 ! I I 251 . -- _. _._- -_._---_ - ----- - _._._ - ----_._---._ �/ 1r~~~ I D~ LOGAN-CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS ~ March .~, 1987 - Logan, Utah \ /0 :0-0 -Ma.Gb 4, 1-987 - Galdell City;--Utah-' DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? ) �LOGAN·CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING~NGS i --; \ March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4·, 1987 - Garden City, Utah NAME ) ) . ' ''. · .. h.. , ' ' REPRESENTING DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? � 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/89">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/89</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 1011421546 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 20000735 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 Public scoping meeting for public officials and others Description An account of the resource Public scoping meeting for public officals and others on the Logan Canyon Environmental Study at Logan City Hall on March 4, 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hubbard, Ronald F. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Preston, George Fotheringham, Robert Booth, Bryan Denton, Richard King, Bruce Daines, Newel Wilson, Ted Low, Gordon Nuffer, Stanton S. Weston, Todd Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan (Utah) 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 1987-03-04 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) United States 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 11 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_Fd11_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/967fe14489bf83f439ded681318c2c1c.pdf 8616dafff82f5e2e2ae38aacf0d5796c PDF Text Text LOGAN .CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING March 9, 1987 Attendance: Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Clark Ostergarrd, USFS John Neil, UDOT Larry England, USFWS Jim Naegle, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Society Jack Spence, Sierra Club Howard Richardson, UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES There was only one correction to the minutes of the previous \ meeting. Jack Spence had pointed out that a linear model of 1 0 the past trends traffic projection might be preferable to an exponential model because the standard deviation of the extrapolation was better in the linear model, not the r2 value as reported. ITEM 2 - JOHN L. ENGLAND, U. S. FTSH AND vlILDLIFE ' SERVICE COMMENTS John L. England (Larry) discussed the ~laguire Primrose and the FWS interest in Logan Canyon. In summary his comments inpluded: o The latest status report on the Maguire Primrose prepared by the Utah Native Plant Society is probably as good a source of current information as there is presently available. o The FWS has requested to be a cooperating agency in this study. o The Maguire Primrose exists only in the lower end of Logan Canyon, from Wood Camp to the mouth of the Canyon and it is currently on the "threatened" species list. A threatened species receives the same protection, under law, as does an endangered species. 1 I I~vf 7 c �MEETING NOTES Page 2 o It is possible that some of the alternatives could impact one or more known populations. o It will be necessary to prepare a biological assessment for FWS review. o The Maguire Primrose is apparently sensitive to temperature increases and soil type. Some types of improvements could alter cold air drainage pattern or remove trees that presently provide shelter. o The only population of Maguire Primrose the FWS is concerned about (based upon present alternatives) is near Wood Camp. o The basic alternative descriptions include a turnout near Wood Camp. Larry indicated that it might be better to consider some widening at that point and eliminate the turnout in order to keep the traffic moving and away from a sensitive population. o He would recommend preserving as much vegetation as possible. Steve Flint asked about two other species that had been listed in a letter to CH2M HILL. Larry indicated that there were two species presently under review in the Canyon. Stan Nuffer asked if there were guidlines for preparing biological assessments. Larry named some people who had prepared these assessments. They were Stanley Welsh, a botany professor at BYU and Leila Shultz, the Intermountain Herbarium Curator. ITEM 3 - DISCUSS RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS Stan asked members of the ID Team to give their impressions of the scoping meetings that were held on March 3 and 4. o Duncan Silver felt that after the comment period there should be a "roundtable" meeting with government agencies. He did not feel that those representing agencies gave all of the input that they could or should. Overall Duncan did not feel that there were any new issues or alternatives brought out. o Lynn Zollinger did not feel that there were any new issues brought out, but he would like to review a copy of the transcript to be sure. 2 �, MEETING NOTES Page 3 a Jim Naegle feit that there were some alternatives brought out during the meetings but felt that they were probably covered in the general alternative descriptions. o Howard Richardson wondered if there was some value in one comment about getting a "true cross-section" of opinion from area citizens. After some discussion about the value (and purpose of) polls, it was decided that the purpose of scoping meetings were not to "take a vote" but to be sure the full range of issues and possible alternatives were addressed in the study. Those who are interested will generally make their views known. a Fred LaBar did not think that there were any new alternatives brought up in the meetings. However, he did pOlnt out that alternative routes had been brought up in two of the meetings and that a scientific survey (opinion) should be addressed in the EIS. Fred also asked if it was true that it is the law in Utah that slow moving vehicles with traffic behind them must pull off. Duncan Silver said that it is now the law in Utah and that he is , o'n a committee wi th UDOT that is working on a system to provide better advance warning of passing lanes and turnouts. There should be some information available in time to include in the report. '0 Clark Ostergarrd pointed out that the Citizens for the Preservation of Logan Canyon (CPLC) had presented eight specific recommendations for spot improvements and requested that they be given consideration in the study. The eight recommendationsappear to be included in the general list of spot improvements already identified. Steve Flint felt that it was important that people understand that each spot improvement is to be considered on its own merits and that it is not an "all or nothing" alternative. If this is the approach, the CPLC recommendations would be considered along with other spot improvements and the best would be included in the final "spot improvement" alternative. Clark also pointed out that some people had suggested that the highway be planned and designed as a "scenic highway". There was some discussion about standards for scenic highways. Jack Spence 3 �MEETING NOTES Page 4 asked if there is a separate standard for scenic highways. Duncan Silver indicated that there were none. "Standards" for a given scenic road have more or less evolved and generally just address the local situation. Using National Park Service standards was also discussed. Duncan Silver pointed out that truck routes have been designated throughout the US. This was mandated by Congress because of the number of states ~ that had placed limitations on through roads, that -C ~~~)r~eJ was adversely attecting interstate commerce. US-89 through Logan Canyon has apparently been designated /~ I as a truck route. Continued use of the Canyon by ---- ~ truck traffic should be addressed in the study. 0 o Jim Naegle pointed out that a "standard" for Logan Canyon will have to be one that will fit the conditions and still allow the traffic to flow as smoothly as possible. o Lynn Zollinger said that any "standard" less than the modified one may not give enough added capacity to the roadway to make it worthwhile. Any proposed "standard" for the Canyon should be evaluated on its ability to improve the flow of traffic as well as its impact on the environment. Lynn also asked if anyone was anticipating an increase in traffic because of the scenic highway designation. Stan pointed out that other states are being contacted in an effort to determine what, if any, impact a scenic highway designation might have on traffic volumes. Lynn also pointed out that UDOT has been approached by the local cattleman's association about the possibility of fencing the road in the area where cattle range. There is concern about the number of animals killed on the road. A fencing project would require both Forest Service and private participation. o Jack Spence indicated that some hunters had expressed concern to him that an increase in speed might also increase the number of deer killed on the road. Howard Richardson said that the experience of UDOT has been that, besides speed, it is important to keep the vegetation back away from the road so that motorists can better see deer as they approach the road. 4 �MEETING NOTES Page 5 o Steve Flint observed that there were still some people who did not understand the purpose of the scoping meetings and some still believed that a 4-lane roadway alternative was being considered. Steve also restated the need to have a mechanism for sorting out spot improvements and evaluating their impacts individually. o There was some general discussion on the notification of government agencies. Duncan suggested that a copy of the letter which was sent to agencies be attached to the minutes of this meeting when it is mailed to team members. ITEM 4 - EXPANSION OF THE l.D.TEAM Stan Nuffer told the team that there had been some suggestions made during the scoping meetings that interests from Rich County be included on the 1.0. Team. -The Mayor of Logan had also expressed some interest about having a broader representation on the team. After some discussion it was concluded that the team was primarily dealing with technical issues and that the "technical interests" were represented. - Fred LaBar thought that the biggest problem in Rich County was the lack of information. There · is n~ local newspaper and most people do not take the Herald Journal so there is no local vehicle for getting information out. It was decided to invite both the. Rich County people and Logan people to attend I. D. Team meetings t .O see how they operate, but there was not much to be gained by adding additional members to the team. There will be a work meeting with the Logan City Council (tentatively scheduled for March 19) and any team member who can attend is encourqged to do so. ITEM 5 - DAY-LONG SESSION IN THE CANYON TO DEFINE ALTERNATIVES There was some discussion on the value of spending some time in the Canyon and defining the alternatives on the ground. Most team members were supportive of the idea but felt that some time was needed to study what had been done on large scale maps. Stan will have the information put on 1"=200' maps and copies made for the next meeting. A session in the Canyon will be scheduled at that time. ITEM 6 - TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS There was some brief discussion on the traffic projections. Cliff Forsgren said that calculations, assumptions and methodologies for projecting traffic and estimating highway capacity were being double checked and more information would be forthcoming. SLC-STN/33 5 ·1 � 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/90">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90</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 175515707 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3520186 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 from March 9, 1987 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Review from previous meetings' minutes, discussion of Maguire Primrose and FWS interest in Logan Canyon, discussion of the results of the scoping meetings, expansion of I.D. team, discussion on the value of spending time in Logan Canyon to define alternatives, and discussion of traffic projections. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack England, Larry Flint, Steve Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Richardson, Howard Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Natural resources conservation areas Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1987-03-09 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 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_007.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ff81b0dbc02b987cb1fb95f982b8617f.pdf a5268f5f02e4327c7ab05b5b1b817043 PDF Text Text Forest Service Wasatch-Cache National Forest 8230 Federal Building 125 South State street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Reply to: Date: 1920 October 18, 1988 Rudy Lukez, Conservation Chair Utah Chapter Sierra C_ b PO Box 52 0 2 1~2 Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-0242 Dear Rudy: We appreciate your support of our designation of Logan Canyon as a Scenic Byway. The Forest personnel have made a pr eliminary eval a t i on of the Wasatch Variation, the preferred northern route of the Kern River and Wycal pipeline proposals. It appears that the Forest Plan could be amended with an insignificant amendment to provide for the construct i on of the pipeline. A f ormal evaluation will not be completed nor will a Forest Plan amendment be propos ed unless the route is certified by FERC. If an amendment to the Forest Plan is proposed the public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. We appreciate your interest in the management of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. ~ \. / ~~-1 .//~..../~ ?'ifAfFN. B6~fH ~rest Supervisor ; Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200 -26(7 -82) � 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/91">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/91</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 3550529541 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 404487 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. Mower to Rudy Lukez, October 18, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. L. Mower to Rudy Lukez. Logan Canyon designated as a Scenic Byway. Notes a preliminary evaluation of the Wasatch Variation as the preferred northern route of the Kern River and Wycal pipeline. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mower, J. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available United States. Department of Agriculture Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1988-10-18 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 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_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/d7b106d2885137dc0a64a7ed4d841987.pdf 95ea04e38299147e5e890a6588849f8a PDF Text Text SIERRA CLUB Utah Chapter 93 East 1st South Logan, Utah 84321 November 21, 1979 ( ~O l) 75 J-!J9~ 7 ARCHES NATL. PARK by Karen Vendell M.J. Roberts District Ranger Logan Ranger District 21 West Center Logan, Utah 84321 HE: Proposed construction activities in Logan Canyon Dear Mr. Roberts: I he.ve recently ta.lked with Craig Rayle and others concerning the proposed road construction activities in Logan Canyon. This area is environmentally sensitive, and should receive the attention of public and private organizations before any decisions are made on construction of the highway. The Sierra Club has expended considerable efforts on obtaining information on the project; additional information is requested from your office. As I understand the situation, the Utah Department of Transportation has decided that an Environmental Im• pact statement is Iwt necessary for construction of the highway from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring. Furthermore I understand that the road alignment will be altered considerably in the Ricks Spring area, including placing the highway on the opposite side of the River. Associated with this realignment will be the development of a Forest Service campground and recreation facilities at Ricks Spring. Additionally, I understand that the Forest Service is planning to construct a campgrouni L~ ~iood Camp Hollow. As you may recall the Sierra Club has urged the Forest Service to include Wood Camp Hollow in the Mount Naomi Roadless Area. As I understand the situation fill material from road construction in Logan Canyon will be used in the construction of the road base to the campground and construction of the campground itself. The proposed construction of the highway will include the removal of large amounts of rock and dirt. The disposal of this cut material is of concern to the Sierra Club. Relative to the three paragraphs immediately above, answers to the following inquiries is requested. �M.J. Roberts November 21, 1979 Page two 1. rlicks Spring Campground Development Does, the Forest Service plan to construct a campground and recreation facility at nicks Spring in associaticn with the proposed highway construction? If 50, please provide information on the size of the campground and recreation facility. Information on impacts on the riparian and floodplain resources is requested. 2. Wood Camp Hollow Campground Development Does the Forest Service plan to construct a campground in Woodcamp Hollow in association with the proposed highway construction? Will cntllaterial from the highway construction be used in the campground development? Information on the size of the campground is appreciated. 3. Disposal of Fill Material The Sierra Club would appreciate information on the disposal of cut material. Jpecifically, we would appreciate information on where the cut material is to be placed. Will fill material be placed in Temple Fork, Logan River, -Wood -: Camp Hollow and/or "1tauled out of the canyon! 4. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act How does your office plan to compl~ with the National Environmental Policy Act in construction of the Wood Camp and Rick Springs facilities? If an Environmental Assessment Report is to be prepared,please give the estimated date for preperation of said statements. Due to the tL~ely natur3 of this matter, a reply is requested within ten working days. I look forward to hearino frOM your office in the near future. Sincere ~: President Utah Chapter Sierra Club cc: Craig aayle JoJo Jones Brant Calkin Anthony rtuckel 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/92">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/92</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 2829141562 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2538847 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 M.J. Roberts, November 21, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Brian Beard to M.J. Roberts regarding the camp grounds that are proposed for construction parallel with the road construction and asking what is to be done regarding the disposal of fill material. Also asks how they intend to comply with NEPA and if an Environmental Assessment will be prepared. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Beard, Brian Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Vendell, Karen Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Government agencies Logan Canyon (Utah) Sierra Club. Utah Chapter 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 1979-11-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) 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_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/1297bf5850514952c1c6d2ef72e97e99.pdf f1e47c65c6ced6a3b3f4ef9a79ba3bef PDF Text Text United States Department of ~griculture Forest Service Logan Ranger District 860 N. 1200 E. Logan, UT 84321 Reply to: Date: 1950 June 1, 1988 Tom Lyon 655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 Dear Tom: Thank you for your recent letter, Tom. wha t your concerns are. ' It helped. I think I see more clearly One of the problems I have had with this issue is the fact that people have not clearly understood what we are trying to do. I have struggled with what we should do to better explain our position. Perhaps I am too optimistic to assume that a win win situation is possible. ' I think it is, but all parties of the issue must want to work to that end. ' It will not work otherwise. ' I do not like compromise. 1 In a compromise no one wins. UDOT and the Federal Highway folks think they have compromised.! They expect you to do the same, and do not understand why you cannot. ' In my view, I think they are wrong. Because, if people have a concern it ought to be resolved, even if it takes a long time. Working with people is what we are to do. ' Sometimes we forget this. ' Today the Forest Service is beginning to use mediators to help resolve problems like this. Still, the solution could be a form of compromise assuming the mediator is successful. The consensus is the better solution. Changes to Logan Canyon cannot happen if there is not sound and reasonable purpose for the change. A highway standard taken from some manual is not sufficient reason by itself to justify change. 1 This point will always be a problem between the Forest Service and the highway engineer.1 i Political compromise is a reality. ' But if we ever do that, at the expense of the environment, then we have abdicated our responsibilities as natural resource managers and public land stewards.! The higher up the ladder a decision is made, the more political it becomes.! It is in the best interest of all of us to make the decision as low on the ladder as possible.! This is one reason why I make the point that we need to work for a win win solution if we can, or there is no deal. A no deal means I will make the recommendations as to what I think ought to be done, but someone else will make the eventual decision.! You understand, I think, what the although skeptically.' My problem thought. ' They would like to plow courts decide.1 Sometimes this is win win is all about.1 is, I am not sure UDOT through the issue, and successful, but leaves I think you support it is comfortable with the if necessary, let the bitter enemies.! The person who will stand up and say, "Well we must have made the right decision, nobody is happy with it" misses the real point here. Political decision makers sometimes like to talk like that.1 We are better than that. ' FS-6200-28(7 -82) �~ ~ompromise is a last resort.! But all sides of this issue will force us into a compromise situation if we cannot work towards a reasonable and proper decision.! Tom, your thoughts on validating decisions with solid data are good ones.1 We do not want to draw you into a consensus without a good review of the facts. ' My only hope was, because of the expense of drafting plan after plan, was to at least philosophically agree, so the design people could draft a more accurate plan for review.' This by no means reduces the need for careful study of the results, nor does it lock us into any position.1 It was just a starting point. The draft of the draft EIS is not acceptable to anyone I know of at this time. ' Much work remains to be done on it.! Sometimes, Tom, I sound like I am preaching to you. ' I do not mean to do that. ! But I am confused too. ' As I visit with each of you I hear one thing, but subsequent communication is different. ' You mentioned the bridges.! Are they an issue now? Rudy told me some time ago that he and one or two other examined the bridges and agreed with the engineer's assessment. ! Because of that I haven't worried about the bridges.! UDOT will not build the type of highway they recommended last. ' That is not acceptable to the Forest Service.! The committee of three, are trying to reach consensus on what realistically ought to be done.' The ideas I bounced off of you and others were attempts to resolve the issues you mentioned. ' If they do not, then it is back to the idea arena again.! I think this is a point many do not understand. ! The committee is working for us, you and me.1 Their objective is to design the right highway.! You ideas and my ideas are just as important as the committees.' My fear is that we cannot tear down the walls and work together on this. ' Right now I do not have either you or the State convinced that this is possible.' The walls are very thick and high.1 You fears of a political solution are valid if the walls stay up.! I think we have solved the riparian and fish habitat issues. ' But we have not solved the aesthetic issue yet. 1 At least not totally. ' Your concerns have been passed on to the committee with a note from me supporting your concerns. , The Forest plan is one of the more difficult decisions UDOT must make before they can start work again on the EIS.! If what they eventually propose and agree to is outside the current direction in the Forest plan, those changes, the environmental documentation, and decision must be addressed in this EIS. I If that is not possible, then a separate environmental document must be prepared.1 I do not know which way this will go at this time. We are pushing for them to do it. ' You are right, the Forest plan could become a significant issue. Keep up the good work.! M;;J$~~ BAUMGARTNE~;tt DAVE District Range;~ . FS-6200-28(7 -82) �FS-6200 -28(7 -82) � 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/93">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/93</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 1618082257 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1737509 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, June 1, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dave Baumgartner to Tom Lyon discussing the possibility of compromise on the changes for Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource Department of Transportation--Utah 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 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 200 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_4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/3c945095792013b8da27c949b0787ab4.pdf b80044718ade4f85617d1f58a5c80346 PDF Text Text 1. GENERAL SUMJ1ARY Major' impact on both environmental and visual quality of c anyon. 2. Project contradicts national energy concern. 3. 80-9 ~fo 4. "Waste poses a major engineering problem. II (Project Engineer) "It'll never be worth as much as we've put into it already." (Project Engineer) 5. of project requires cutting. (Remark by Project Engineer) TRAFFIC GROWTH FACTORS 1. UDOT uses an unrealistic exponential model. 2. A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data. 3. Linear model forecasts lower traffic levels than UOOT's projection : 4. Traffic data used by UDOT are limited to one busy section of the highway, yet are used to describe whole road. 5. Need for highway re-alignment not documented by current data. SAFETY FACTORS 1. Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section 111" is not .supported by current data. 2. A major discrepancy exists between accident rate data and traffic volume. 3. 1977 accident r a te figured by Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with UDOT report. 4. Statistical significance of accident data used is suspect. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 1. Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills 2. Silt deposits in river would destroy trout habitat and breeding cycle. . . 3. Loss of riverside vegetation, needed by trout for low light intensi 4. Creation of any culverts would impair spawning success of trout. 5. Loss of vegetative barrier lessens quality of f.ishing experience. 6. Major visual impact would result from the cuts planned, especially the two major cuts at the. Temple Fork area, which would be, by Project Engineer Gary Lindley's report, 75;\'and as much as 150' across. deep _ �I.Critique of Traffic Forecasts The UDOr projects future traffic levels in the section of canyon highway under discussion with a model which assumes expoQential grovth at 4% per year. Based on the UDOT's average daily traffic data (ADT) for Right Hand Fork, a linear traffic growth model fits the data nearly perfectly (r 2 = 0.975). Such a linear model forecasts lower traffic levels in the future than the seemingly unrealistic expon e ntial model. Average daily traffic at lZLght Hand Fork after widening of lower canyon: Year ADT 2225 2300 2450 70 71 72 73 74 75 Linear model Number of vehicles/day - -3817 + (86.43 x year) 2500 2550 2670 ~ We were unable to obtain ADT's from the UDOT for 76,77, or 78; they were said to not be available. The ADT's reported for Right Hand Fork are actually for the Logan River Bridge just below the section of road in question. Between this bridge and the narrowed roadway is the junction with the Right Hand . Fork road, which leads to a youth camp, Forest Service campground, and major hunting and snowmobiling grounds. Our observations on a July weekend afternoon (high volume) suggest that about 5~ of the traffic at the bridge actually comes or goes on this other road. The ADT projections should be scaled down 5:t from those based on ' traffic at the bridge. In the projections of the UDOT, the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is . not a constant ratio of the Peak Hourly Volume (PHV). varying from 1.22 to 1.40, depending on the year. This needs to be explained. j �Critique, p. 2 In summa,ry, we recorrrrnend that the Federal Highway Administration not grant permission for this project before the need for it is first documented via realistic traffic projections. These should embody all recent ADT's (after lower canyon was , widened) and a realistic growth model which takes into account the projected availability of fuel for 1 I motor vehicles. Projections for the highway section in question should be 57. less than those at Logan River Bridge. A constant ratio of DHV to PHV should be used, and its absolute value justified. 1 1 These considerations could well postpone the time at which the capacitj of '1 , the existing alignment (including a new surface on it) would become I inadequate. i \ I r i I 1 i 1 j �]T . / TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LOGAN CANYON, 1970-77 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDT) has concluded the unimproved sections of the Logan Canyon highway are especially dan gerous. This conclusion has b~en advanced as one of the major reasons for undertak i ng an improvement project for section 3 and part of section 4. This conclusion is not supported by an analysis of the currently availabl~ data. Complete data for the period (70-78) has been requested from UDT but not yet received. The UDT decision is based on data published in the report, "Preliminary Proposals and Alternatives. SR-13 (US-89) Logan to Garden City," District one Office, Utah Department of Transportation, February, 1977, and some recent updates (included as inserts for the report). In addition, an independent studY) "Accident Statistics, Logan Canyon and Rich County, 1976-77" by Utah Highway Patrolman L.D. Langford, has been made available(included). The following analysis is based on these reports. I. Errors and Discrepencies ·1. There is a major discrepenci between the accident rate data presented in the UDT report, graph p. 39 insert, and the traffic volume data) dt-athT- 2 p. 2Z. Using the accident rate of 6.1 accidents/million miles for section 3 for the period 1970-77 (graph, p.39 insert) and the length of section 3 (5.1 miles) the average daily traffic (ADT) may be calculated, given the total number of accidents in this section (120): AOT = l2Q x 10 6/ 6.1 x 365 x 7 = 150"9.5 VPO (vehicles per day). From table T-2 of the UOT rep6rt (p.28) ADT for section 3 varies from 2225 VPD (1970) to 2888 VPD 1977 festimated from 1975 by adding 4% increase· per year, as suggested by the UDT). Clearly, the 1509.5 VPD figure does not agree with the data of Table T-2. If, instead of 1509.5 VPO, an aver~ age figure for the period of 2549 VPD~ an accident rate for section 3 may be calculated: Accident rate = 120 x 10 6/ 2549 x 365 x 7 x 5.1 = 3.61 accidents/million miles. This accident rate, 3.61, is lower than the Utah State average for the same period (3.9, as seen on the graph on p. 39 insert). Therefore, either the data of table T-2 is wrong, or the accident rates used by UDT "" in the graph ofp.39 insert are grossly inflated. !f the accident rate for section 3 is, in fact, 3.61, this section : is not dangerous. Since this section has the highest rate, when similar calculations are made for the other sections it appears the Logan Canyon highway is much safer than most roads in Utah. 2. The accident rate for 1977 calculated from the La ngford study is not in agreement with that reported for the same year in the UOT graph (p.39 insert). The Langford report covers a slightly longer section (Zone II) (8.27 miles) and the data must be corrected slightly for this; this correction, however, has no significant effect on the result. Using the Langford data for · Zone II (Right Fork to Cattle Gaurd above Ricks Springs), the accident rate may be calculated (Langford report, p. 16): accident rate = 4.84 x 10 6/ 365 x 2797.6 (ADT) =4.74 accidents/million miles: Clearly, this is considerably lower than tile 7.2' value used by UOT (graph p.39 insert), and gives considerable support to the calculation in 1. above. �/ ,/ ,/ Again, this rate (which is the high est for any Zone of Logan Canyon in the Langford report) indicates Logan Canyon highway is relatively safe. II. Doubtful and Er roneous Conclusions 1. Using the data of UDT graph, p.39 insert, for accident rates for various sections of the Canyon, the question must be asked whether this distribution is si gnificant or is it, in fact, si m ply due to random variation. This question may be answered by a relatively si m ple statistical test, the chi squared test for nonnal distribution in a set of data. If there are no differences betw een sections with respect to accident rates, then all should have the same, or the average for all sections: x: ~'xi/n , xi: accident rate for each ,section, n= number Qf sections(7). x = 4.107 accidents/million miles {/?~ ch i sq ua re (7\ ) / = (( x. 1 - 2 X-) / n- 1 = 3.390 Using a chi sqare table at 6 degrees of freedom, the critical values of chi square are 2.20 at 90 % and3.45 at 75%. The calculated value for the data (3.390) indicates the probability of this distribution being random is between 75 and 90%. In other words, the distribution of the graph on p. 39, UOT report indicates there is only a probability of 10-25% of the apparent differences in accident rates for the various sections being real. The conclusion therefore, that section 3 is significantly more dangerous than section 1 or 2 (already improved) is not valid. To base a decision to improve this section on such unlikely probabilities is , at the very least, highly questionable. ' 2. On p. 40 of the UOT report, it is stated a definite relationship exists between volume of traffic and accident experience. This may be tested statistically by plotting the data of the table on p.23 of the report (traffic volume by month) against the data of of the table on p. 41 (accidents by month). It is assumed the traffic volume data distributions for 74-75 are the same as for 71-75 (since all data are normalized to percentage distributions by month, this assumption seems highly teasona~le): Thi~ plot sh~uld.be a . straight line, and the coef!icient of determlnatlon, r , for thlS llne, lS a meas~re of the correlatlon that does in fact exist between the two variables. This calculation from the UOT data gives: 2 ; , r = O. 37 . 2 2 For a 1/1 correlation, r : 1.00, and for no correlation, r : O. Anything less than about 0.9 is statistically suspect. The actual value, 0.37, is indicative of a very poor correlation at best. The conclusion that traffic volume and accident rates are correlated m ust be regarded as quite unlikely. Since this conclusion is used by uor to justify the project ( wider highway = less congestion by spreading out the traffic of high volume' periods ' = fewer accidents), it app ears UOT is grasping at straws in a desparate attempt to rationalize the constr~ction. A better conclusion would be that the safest time to travel the canyon is during periods of high volume. J �/ / TIle same calculation may be made from the data for 1976-77 from the Langford Report, normalized to percent (Langford Report, p.12), assuming the traffic volume distribution used in the UOT report applies to 1976-77. The result is: r2 = 0.32 Again, a poor correlation between traffic volume and accident frequency ' is found. These results may reflect the fact that road condition in Winter, particularly in the upper canyon (section 3) is more important than traffic volume, a factor not considered in the UOT report. III. Types of Accidents No data is yet available from UOT with respect to typ e of accident in each section. For 1976~77 from the Langford Report, 33% of the accidents in Zone II (section 3 and part of section 4) resulted in personal injury (PI), while 41 % of the accidents in Zone I (sections 1 and 2, improved) resulted in personal injury. This suggests the severity of the accidents in the new sections 1 and 2 is greater than in sections 3 and 4, but more data over a longer period is needed to confirm this. With respect to fatalities and deaths from accidents, the data are (see insert to UOT report): 1970-77 sections 1 and 2 sections 3 and 4 Fatalities 5 4 Deaths 8 4 In view of the small numbers, no statistical conclusions may be drawn; with respect to fatalities and deaths, however, there is no evidence to indicate the improved sections 1 and 2 are any safer than the unimproved sections 3 and 4. IV. Causes of Accidents The single most improtant cause of accidents is speed- traveling too fast for conditions: UOT report (insert) 1970-77 47% Langford report 1976-77 63% While the improved sections 1 and 2 were originally designed for 40mph they are signed for 50 mph. This may account for the higher PI accident rate and number of deaths in .the improved sections. V. Further Analysis UOT officials have promised a complete set of accident sta~istics (available on computer printout) will be furnished shortly. These statistics, covering the period 1970 - 77 will be analyzed with respect to accident rates, type of accidents, road conditions, and other pertinent factors, and the results will be made available as soon as possible, �, / / _III. EFFECTS OF ROAD [3UILD IriG ON THE LOGAN RIVER Utah Departm ent of Transportation personnel have stated that t hey plan to keep the Logan Canyon road as close as possible to the river tom i n i III i ze the s i ze 0 fro a d cut s . This \" ill pro ha b1y res u1tin numerous fills encroaching on the river bank and spillinj into the river. These fills contribute silt to the l' iver via runoff during r a ins to rill s, and bye r 0 s ion 0 f the s lop e b'y the r i ve r its elf. Bot h types are evident on fills created by previous construction at lower elevations in the canyon. Silt in streams creates several problems for the followin~ .re.asons. In general, the larger the size of a particle of soil or rock, ' the hiQher the velocity of water flow required to transport it downstream. Conversely, small particles can be transported by relatively low velocities (see lower curve in FiQure 1). If a silt-sized particle is deposited, because of passing into a region of low velocity or because of bein9 added to the stream during a period of low flow, it will not be picked up again without a velocity of flow above the lower line. If the particle, with others ~hich were deposited with i~ in position so as to becom consolidated, it will take a much e velocity to dislodge it (see upper curve in Figure 1). remains hi~her As can be . . seen the . finest silt and clay materials require rather high velocities to dislodge and transport them once they becom consolidated. e rlonnally in this region the heaviest runoff, and thus m ost erosion, occurs during the spring. Strea ms ap;Jear discolored because of the heavy silt load, hut stream velocities are also hi~h because of �/ - 2./ ./ /" the extra volume of water. Under these conditions silt is nlost apt to be transported downstrRam until · velocity of water flow decreases in a reservoir or marsh. The key to minimum · ~tream damage d~e · to the high transport capability of swiftly flowinQ water. silt is Ourin~ summer and fall volume of stream flO\.; is low, velocity of flO\y is m.inimum for the year, and thus transport capability is low. This is also the season of ·low erosion potential, with fully leaved trees, shrubs, and . grass interce~ting rainfall, and a layer of leaf litter protecting the soil surface in natural or undisturbed areas. Summer storms may cause a small increase in stream volume, but do not add large quantities of silt. Streams remain quite clear. Large road cuts tend to be prone to erosion. vegetative cover sparse. Raindrops from summer storms have a high probability of striking the soil washing them downhill. constructio~ Slopes are steep and surface~ dis10dging particles and Erosion from such areas can besever~. Road or any other activity which produces large expanses of bare earth changes the norn~l pattern of erosion and transoort of silt. The change adds silt to streams at the worst rossible time, during low flow periods. Large, relatively bare slopes \'t'hich result from the t'l'pe of construction being proposed are the source of too much silt to be ·. intercepted and retained by a narrow strip of vegetated land between road and river. If large fills are necessary a broad zone should be left between road and river, but this forces the road into the mountainside, creating additional problems. ~1 uc h oft he bot tom 0 f t r 0ut s t rea n1 sis 9r a vel 0r s ton e s . Invertebrates, upon which the fish feed, reside not only upon the u~per �- ~./ / / / sur f c1 ceo f the bot t 0 flJ but we 11 dis t rib ute din the s pc1 c e s bet \., eens ton e s / to depths of several inches. Young fish, shortly c1fter hatching, \- ill , seek shel ter beneath and betvleen stones on the bottom. Fish eg0s are deposited in shallow nests scooped into gravel bottoms,.and covered wi th gra ve 1 from ups tream. ~~ here s i 1t has been de[)os i ted the spaces between stones are filled, greatly decreasing the supply of food for trout. Hiding and resting places for small fish are also decreased. Silt in gravel decreases the flow of water through the gravel. Trout eggs require a constant supply of oxygen, available only, from flowing water. r-lo,rtalities of 95-100 percent are to be expected ',..,hen water flow through gravel is impeded by silt deposits. As pointed ,out above ' silt deposited during summer may become consolidated, resisting -removal by all but the highest velocity of flow. Such high velocities are not nonn?lly found prior to brown trout sra\'ming season ' in the fall. Another effect of fills encroaching into the river is the destruction of pools. Trout require areas of low velocity flows for resting, and pools next to the stream bank are particularly desirable. Such ' pools are frequently filled in when road fills encroach on a river. A rarticularly damagin9 effect of fill encroachment is the elimination of vegetation which han9s over the river. provides shade, especially in areas of low velocity trout can rest. This vegetation c u rrents~ where Brown trout require low li]ht intensities a~d slow currents for resting areas. ' In shallow rivers, such as the Logan, " low light intensities are usually found along 'banks \<lith abundant, vegetation hangin~ over the water. Elimination of such vegetation will 9reatly decrease the numbe,r of brown trout inhabiting th~ area. �There is a ~rorosal to chan~ e the location of the road ' in the vicinity of Logan Cave by cutting into the mountainside ~cross the river from the present road, crossing the river for a very short distance, and returning to the old roadbed. oblique by crossin~ ~nstalling This will r~quire an of the river . . If such a crossing is accolilplished a culvert, such a long tunnel may create an impediment to fish movement during spavming seasons. Finally, denuding the area between the stream and road to or very nearly to the river creates an undesirable fishermen~ by conditio~ fillin0 i . for , • > One of the reasons for fishing is to get away from the hustle and bustle of the working 0orld, and seek solitude and quiet. .. ..... i' • Without a vegetative barrier between the river and the road, fishermen are exposed to the sight and sound of passing traffic. This converts fishing from an experience in the wild, to a noisy session next to the highway. From the standpoint of erosive slopes, siltation of the river and scenic considerations, a wide roadbed ,is not acceptable in this canyon. • / r ~ ~ :" '~"~\~~;'::i~" I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/94">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/94</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2286995413 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6105925 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Critiques on Logan Canyon construction Description An account of the resource Critiques on Logan Canyon construction with a general summary, critique of traffic forecast, traffic accidents in Logan Canyon from 1970-77, effects of road building on Logan River, and an explanation of how the erosive slopes, siltation of the river and scenic considerations make a wide roadben unacceptable in Logan Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Fishery resources Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century 1980-1989 1990-1999 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/dabd2f58d6ba5114ac75d658061a7dbc.pdf b5c7b3ef5a9ef2049a68619ad604c681 PDF Text Text SIERRA CLUB Utah Chapter 93 East 1st South Logan, Utah 84321 November 21, 1979 (801) 753-1J987 ARCHES NATL. PARK by Karen Vendell Vern Hamre Regional Forester Region IV United States Forest Service 324-25th street Ogden, utah 84401 HE: Road construction activities proposed for Logan Canyon. Dear Mr. Hamre: The Utah Chapter Sierra Club is concerned about recent events in the proposal to widen and realign the Logan Canyon highway. The Sierra Club is interested in Forest Service involvement in the project and would appreciate a reply to the following items: Establishment of Lead encies Section 1501.5 d of the Council _ Environ~ental Quality Regulations for on ing the Procedural Provision of the National Environmental Policy Act reads: 1. ft L~lement­ Any Federal agency, or any state or local agency or private person substantially affected by the absence of lead agency designation, may make a written request to the potential lead agencies that a lead agency be designated." The Sierra Club requests your office to designate a lead agency for construction of the project. Is the Forest Service the lead agency or the Utah Department of Transportation; 2. Project approval!aisapproval authority Information on the Forest Service permit requirements for construction of the highway is needed. Wbat kind of permits will your office issue for construction of the highway? v/ill the public be involved in the decision to issue or deny the permit(s)? Data on how the public may be involved in the permit process is requested. Will the issuance of a permit require preperation of an Environmental Statement, or an Environmental Analysis Report: �Vern Hamre November 21, 1979 Pa6e tiiO 3. EvalUQtion of the environmental issues Section 1506.5 ( b) of the Council on Environmental ,. .:uality n.egula tions for Imp e:nenting the Procedural Pro~isions of the National Environmental Policy Act reads: " Environm3:1tJ.l Assessments. If an agency permits an applicant to prepare an environmental assessment, the agency, besides fulfilling the requirements of paragraphs (a) of this section, shall make its own evaluation of the environmental issues and take responsibility for the scope and conten\:' of the environrnental Ci.ssessment. It As I understand the present situation, the Utch Department of Transportantion has decided that an Environmental Impact statement ~ill not be required for construction activities in Logan Canyon; the decisio n to proceed without an Environ~ental State ~ent included little if any p~blic involveMent; the Sierra Club is planning action to reverse this decision. W hat is your office doing to evaluate the "enviroI1llental issues ••• and content of the environmental assessment'? The environmental assessment will be released by the Utah Department of Transp~ rt Ltion in the spring of 1980 ; we would l Lke to e. couro 6 e your office to evaluate t~e environ.~ental issues at the earlie st date possible , ental assess~ent. The environmental ass and specifically before release of this environr.o essment should include compliance with Executi~e Orders 11990 and _1988 , Protection of '/io etlands and Floodplain t-1anagement , respectively. Any additional information which will help in understandin6 Forest Service involvement be appreciated. in this project will Sierra Club cc: Craig Rayle Jo Jo Jones Brant Calkin Anthony Ruckel 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/95">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/95</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 2714828073 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1220410 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 Vern Hamre, November 21, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Brian Beard to Vern Hamre questioning who is the lead agency - UDOT or the Forest Service - in the road construction activities proposed for Logan Canyon. He also requests an evaluation of the environmental issues. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Beard, Brian Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Vendell, Karen Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Government agencies Logan Canyon (Utah) Sierra Club. Utah Chapter 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 1979-11-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) 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_19.pdf Highway 89;