14 50 1396 https://highway89.org/files/original/34699ded784cda5a3aa7293fb1d47e66.jpg 22cc75936fd38c152aa024632b24fee6 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2754 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3439 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 852528 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/18/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Join the Army road sign in Piute County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Piute County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Piute County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/29/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 97.45 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Piute County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 5. Folder 5. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959005005_1692_JoinTheArmy.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/0661836ea2f4765ef395f2000cd470e4.jpg 6b2bc32998544c15660a927457b5648e Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4344 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6696 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1200 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 016964DCDDFB60DBBF682BF68FE14729 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 24245520 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Epson Expression 10000XL scanner, display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2012-02-27 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/10060">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/100603</a> 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 Junction US 89 and Kaibab Forest Highway, Arizona Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Frasher's Fotos (Pomona, CA); Subject The topic of the resource Dirt roads; Forest and forestry; Signs and signboards; Postcards; Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Gelatin Silver print (black and white) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1925 ca. Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Kaibab National Forest (Ariz.); United States Highway 89 Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Warren Family; Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_151122.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/5de2d2259d82163dab3c4ce5dacc0268.pdf ac50bc34df1618483d5aa30f6a32fbf6 PDF Text Text JUPITER TERRACE, MAMMOTH HOT SPRINGS, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK. �THIS SPAC E FOR W R ITING R-57474 Pi /\('j ; H15 SIDE I~ FOR THE A DD R E5S � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1834">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1834</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2180 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3461 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2062426444 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7954051 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Jupiter Terrace postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912 Description An account of the resource Jupiter Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright by Gifford for N.P.R.R. Co. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Bloom Brothers Company Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 028 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_028 https://highway89.org/files/original/529a85bc397d961c38dd6d9a3c9b072c.jpg 04b83989394f95f8fdf880423b75d9ac Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2746 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3531 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 809561 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/13/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Kanab Canyon Indian Ruins road sign in Kane County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Kane County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Kane County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/16/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 7.76 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Kane County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 3. Folder 3. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959005003_60_IndianRuins.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/275582d83fb45a6868d6733f1315a8f2.jpg 4e5eb36babfec2ff67dd394a2f2a47fd Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2685 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3600 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1038287 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi); display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013-03-18 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Kanab road sign in Kane County Description An account of the resource Kanab tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Kane County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highway signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource Kane County (Utah) United States Highway 89 Roads--Signs Advertising Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1968-02-07 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 2.72 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Kane County (Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 5. Folder 1. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959005001_Kanab Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/7ff09a3de6fced319b4a028b1071a6df.jpg 6befb56ada5685298f5b5cf46b2201e8 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Salt Lake County Archives Conversion Specs Scanned by Salt Lake County Archives using Epson GT-15000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Display file is JPG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies or scans of this item, please contact Salt Lake County Archives at: http://admin.slco.org/archives/resFees.aspx 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 Karl Winter Automotive Jobbers at 662 South State Street in Salt Lake City, UT. Description An account of the resource Karl Winter Automotive Jobbers at 662 South State Street, built in 1926. Image taken on December 1, 1936. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Salt Lake County (Utah). Assessor's Office Subject The topic of the resource State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah)--History Tax Assessment-Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1936-12-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake County (Utah) State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Salt Lake County Archives, Tax Appraisal Cards and Photographs Collection. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://admin.slco.org/archives/resPHtaxAppraisalCards.aspx Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Salt Lake County Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource No copyright is held. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is permissible. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SLCO_1-855.jpg Highway 89 Stores & Shops https://highway89.org/files/original/87f27be5fc4b44715c9e736513b021d3.mp3 4afbeb1cc783da65344622f31dc0babe https://highway89.org/files/original/45987ab74b11c9efbdb8c823a81f8a0c.pdf 52c21a00eb8658d9b61ec2b9c93e8162 PDF Text Text LAND USE MANAGEMENT TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: Katherine Gilbert Place of Interview: 1636 Sunset Drive Logan, UT Date of Interview: 8 April 2008 Interviewer: Recordist: Barbara Middleton Barbara Middleton Recording Equipment: Transcription Equipment used: Transcribed by: Transcript Proofed by: Radio Shack Cassette Recorder: CTR-122 Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Susan Gross Kathy Gilbert [who made some additions] and Barbara Middleton; Randy Williams (29 June 2011) Brief Description of Contents: Katherine Gilbert briefly talks about her childhood in Canada and fond memories of outdoor experiences in her youth. She discusses her college education and subsequent jobs and training, and then speaks about influences as an adult which inspired her to be proactive toward protecting the natural beauties surrounding her residence. She discusses the formation of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon [CPLC] and her role within the organization. She talks about the CPLC’s part in the planning of improvements and expansion of the highway and bridges in Logan Canyon. Reference: BM = Barbara Middleton (Interviewer; Interpretive Specialist, Environment & Society Dept., USU College of Natural Resources) KG = Katherine Gilbert NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as “uh” and starts and stops in conversations are not included in transcribed. All additions to transcript are noted with brackets. TAPE TRANSCRIPTION [Tape 1 of 1: A] BM: This is Barbara Middleton and this is tape one, side one on Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Project. We’re here with Katherine Gilbert at 1636 Sunset Drive in Logan, Utah. And it is Tuesday April 8, 2008. Katherine, would you introduce yourself? KG: Yes. It’s a pleasure to do this Barbara. I’m going to use the cheat sheet here and look at the questions. Did you want to ask me the questions first, or did you want me to just refer to them? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  1   �BM: Go ahead and just refer to them, that’s fine. KG: Okay. [Reading question to self] What is your background and please describe your schooling, training in your field? Well I have a had a love affair with Utah since 1976 when my husband and I and two children returned to Logan after my husband having had the opportunity to spend a year and a half here as a post-doc. When we came here he was in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife in the College of Natural Resources and I was a mom at home. And of course we just absolutely adored having Logan Canyon at our back door, and we partook of many activities in the canyon; whether it was hiking in the fall or in the spring or skiing at Beaver Mountain in the winter, and ultimately cross-country skiing. My background is that I had an undergraduate degree in the hard sciences from Queens University. And by hard science I meant it was mainly chemistry with a little bit of biology. After that training I worked in medical centers; first of all in Montreal – Montreal was where I was born (Quebec, Canada), and for five years at Duke University in an immunology research lab where they were doing some of the first kidney transplants. After I came to Utah and my children were in school I got a master’s degree in School Psychology. I worked for Cache County school district for approximately 20 years after getting my masters degree in school psychology. I just recently retired in June of 2006. [Stop recording] BM: Alright, we’re back on. KG: Okay so Barbara has asked me to say when I was born. It was 1942 in Montreal. I grew up there. And I think that my love of the out of doors was inspired by my wonderful summers in the Laurentian Mountains and at a wonderful lake where we swam and boated and hiked and just literally spent every day outside. The next part she’s asked me to add to was when I got my undergraduate degree, which was in 1963 at Queens University, Kingston, Ontario. And after that I returned to Montreal for a couple of years where I worked at Primary Children’s Hospital in a blood lab, basically just doing standard analysis for medical purposes, which at that time was not automated but was starting to be automated. I came to the United States in 1965 and lived in North Carolina for five years, where my husband was doing a PhD graduate degree. At that time, that’s when I worked in the immunology lab at Duke University Medical Center which was really a booming, growing university with a lot of funding from NIH [National Institutes of Health]. So that was an exciting field to be in. We were looking at the basic immunology of transplants – looking at what caused the tissue to be rejected. We were working with mice strains. I Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  2   �worked for five years in the immunology lab and taught school for one year at Durham Academy, a private school. Have I answered enough of those questions? BM: That’s fine. KG: [Reading question to self] So who were some of the most influential teachers in instructing you in your field and why were they so influential? I can’t say that for this work that I became involved with in Logan Canyon it was teachers, per se, but it was the outdoor experiences growing up – which was in the ‘50s which had to be ideal because one was able to escape to the country and live the simple life relatively easily. And so I had wonderful summers in the Laurentian Mountains. And also being at Queens University which is on the Saint Lawrence River right where Lake Ontario starts; and that was a lovely natural area to be able to look at every day of your life because the university was on the lake. BM: Kathy, a little bit on the Laurentian Mountains – do you think you could tell us where they are like points in between if you wanted to locate those on the map? KG: Yes. We were about 45 miles north of Montreal. You would head up into these rolling hills – they’re much like the Adirondacks, they’re old, old mountains. And they’re developed in the winter for skiing. The towns that I would have been near, close to where our lake was, were Saint Sauveur (and those are paintings of Saint Sauveur on the wall there; old with the horse drawn buggies and 20 years later). BM: We’re looking at two pictures, great winter scenes, are those oils? KG: Yes. And they’re done by a very well-known Canadian artist. I’ve carried those around with me over the years to remind me of Saint Sauveur. BM: Wonderful. Is that somebody skating? KG: It’s just a kid in a toque on the street. BM: In a toque? KG: The red toque. [Knitted hat: beanie.] Houses were very brilliantly colored, painted – it’s French Canadian. Then from Saint Sauveur the next town was Morin Heights and that was actually an English enclave in the Laurentians, and it still is to this day. And then Sixteen Island Lake (which literally had 16 islands) was a beautiful lake; pristine, clear – it had no road down it so when we went down the lake to see our friends or go to the clubhouse, one would go on a boat (which for us was a flat-bottom rowboat with seven horsepower Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  3   �motor on it). We went there every summer. It’s called “Lac des Seize Iles” in French and there are some people who have lived on the lake for generations. It was a physical landscape that you learn as a child and those memories stay with you the rest of your life. BM: Were there other siblings then that were with you, brothers and sisters? KG: Yes, I was the oldest of three so we all went as a family. So that would have been the influence for my enchantment with the West, to come west and to see all these beautiful open lands and running streams and the opportunity to live at the mouth of Logan Canyon. I think when you’ve grown up in a more developed area the opportunity to live in a more natural area is very attractive. Okay, the next question about [reading question to self] What were your family’s land use traditions? Were there special celebrations during the year that you remember and want to share? As far as Logan Canyon goes we certainly enjoyed it for hikes and walks and retreats on the weekend, especially going skiing. It gave the children an excellent opportunity to learn downhill skiing, which I think is a great sport at certain times in your life and a way to meet people and be active. I think people who like the winter find a way to spend time outside. BM: Is that Beaver Mountain then? KG: Yes, we went to Beaver Mountain. BM: What are other places then in the canyon that the kids really enjoyed that you went to specifically. KG: I think as far as going as a family, we just did hiking – short hikes, maybe up to the Wind Caves and that sort of thing. And then I think when the kids were in high school they went on their own – like they could drive up. And I’m sure they had picnics. They didn’t use the canyon a lot. We tended to leave Logan in the summer, so our recreation was back East with our family on the Saint Lawrence River. My hobbies and recreational pursuits are again just outdoor activities. I enjoy getting out. And certainly as I gave up the downhill skiing I really enjoyed going to places like Temple Fork and some of the cross-country ski trails around Beaver, before they came inundated with snowmobilers. Wood Camp Hollow BM: Saint Anne’s? KG: Yes, but what’s the marker on the road? [Stop and start recording] Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  4   �KG: Right Hand Fork was another favorite place, mainly because it was close. (So have we finished, I think I finished that page, yes.) [Reading question to self] To connections to Logan Canyon, what was your earliest memory of Logan Canyon? Well my earliest memory was the early ‘70s, probably 1970 when we actually came to Logan, my husband had a post-doc here and we actually camped in Logan Canyon near the Zanavoo Lodge. There is a name for that campground, but we camped there and looked for a place to live. It’s quite dramatic driving down Logan Canyon for the first time. [Stop and start recording] So it was Bridger Campground. And then of course living near the university and living at the mouth of the canyon, you know, we went up to the lower part quite frequently just for day walks or short walks. BM: And how long did you live there? KG: Live where? BM: At the campground? KG: Oh, we just stayed there a week or something. Yes, we just stayed there a week and looked for housing. BM: Okay. KG: I think it was a week. I wasn’t too impressed camping with a new baby. [Laughing] BM: How old? KG: Oh about four months, I don’t know – I don’t remember. I’m trying to think when we came. It was the end of summer I think. BM: So it was fairly dry. KG: Yes, it was dry. It was cold at night. And we were in a Volkswagen Bug with a roof rack on and, anyway. BM: That’s great! [Laughing] KG: [Reading question to self] So in what areas of Logan Canyon were you most active? Special places? What is your favorite place in the canyon? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  5   �I was most active in Temple Fork, Tony Grove, Right Hand Fork, loved the Summit for skiing in the winter – the Sinks before all the snowmobilers went up there; Beaver Mountain for skiing. BM: I can’t imagine how that area, especially, Beaver Mountain area and that Sinks area has changed. KG: Oh, it’s just remarkably changed; and we can thank Doug Thompson, our Logan mayor, for that who advertised nationally for snowmobiling in that area. And that will be another topic, I think in your interview about the canyon and the policy and the motorized traffic transport; the amount of canyon areas dedicated to that. But that, I think, is probably treated better in the comment about the Forest Service management about the canyon. BM: Can I just ask you one question? KG: Sure. BM: Getting up there, the road has changed, but time wise how long did it take you to drive up to a place like Beaver to go with your kids; and the road conditions at that time --? KG: Were excellent. It was well plowed. We would allow 45 minutes – of course in the spring when the road is bare and dry you could maybe come home faster. When we started using Logan Canyon it had the upgrade of the lower ten miles or whatever it is. When you start at Logan and go up the canyon – that had always been finished when we used it. That was in the ‘60s I think, late ‘60s that they did that. BM: Did the canyon ever close because of bad weather? Was that a fairly frequent-? KG: No. Never. Never that I remember. Let’s see now. What are some of the major influences, obvious needs that helped you make the choice to pursue this connection with Logan Canyon? We obviously used it and got to know it. A turning point for me was coming back from a sabbatical in Australia and we had had a wonderful opportunity to spend a lot of time on the east coast and get out to the Great Barrier Reef. A few people and the beautiful areas in Australia and it was brought home rather quickly that the people that are living in the area are the people that are going to protect it. So part of this project is to document the second upgrading of the road – the higher part of the canyon. And I returned to Logan just at this time when they were making the proposals for what road modifications they were going to make to handle the traffic better. BM: So what year are we talking about? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  6   �KG: Well I think we’re talking about 1995, but you would want – it could be ’94, it could have been started. I’ve had a hard time remembering – there was a lot of talk about this road and what was going to be modified and I don’t know that, again this is the place to talk about that. If you want to get through this questionnaire and then sort of chunk the road development, the influence that the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon had on how that road was so-called “improved” and then about the land management uses -because that all kind of goes together in a bundle. BM: Would the sabbatical year would have been ’94-’95? KG: Yes. BM: Okay, okay. KG: Yes. And I can certainly confirm that. Unfortunately I’ve packed a lot of that information, like pictures from my trip and stuff. I could be off by a year or two. I’m sure that this will come together when you start looking at other people’s data, so I wouldn’t be the only source of information on that. BM: Right. So part of what you’re saying here is that this sabbatical influence was being able to be in a place like eastern Australia and then coming back and being confronted with seeing what changes were about to happen? KG: Yes. Plus it was pretty arbitrary what was going to happen. People wanted to get up to Bear Lake faster – it was hard to trail a boat in the narrow canyon. People in Garden City wanted to get to the hospital faster. So there was quite a push to upgrade the transportation corridor. The tractor transports wanted a shorter route to I-80 and using Logan Canyon accomplishes that. The truckers wanted a safer canyon. These were all rationales for making a wider, straighter highway. But maybe keeping the trucks out of the canyon would make it safer! At the beginning, we weren’t aware of the truck lobby for an upgrade of the canyon to make it safer. However, we won’t digress on that one at this point. [Reading question to self] What are some of the major influences, oh yes, that helped you make the choice. It was the contrast, it was the beauty and the uniqueness of the Great Barrier Reef and it makes you frame again what is unique in your area. And there is no question that Logan Canyon is unique. It is a Scenic Byway; it has not been developed, like many of the canyons in the intermountain west where you have little enclaves of private holdings (so you get little stores and gas stations and conglomeration of cottages or whatever). Logan Canyon is scenic and continues to be scenic. [Reading question to self] Land use changes in Logan Canyon. How have you contributed to Land Use Changes in Logan Canyon? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  7   �Well, basically I haven’t. That is an issue with how you get the Forest Service to look after land use. And we have tried for 15 years to change it and we still have the same status quo. Again, I’d rather talk about that when we talk about the forest plans and of course it was the Wasatch-Cache Forest when I was working on it but now it’s the Wasatch-Cache-Uinta Forest. [Reading question to self] So what is your overall impression how land use policies are determined in Logan Canyon? In the Wasatch-Cache-Uinta National Forest? [Stop and start recording] KG: Okay, are we on here? BM: We are on. KG: Okay. Barbara has asked me to talk a little bit more about the influence in my personal life of what prompted me to become impassioned about Logan Canyon and preserving its natural beauty and integrity and treating it with respect as we would like to see future generations enjoy it as much as we have. I mentioned earlier in the tape that it was coming back from Australia and seeing the beautiful landscapes there, particularly the Great Barrier Reef and how unique it was and how fragile it was, and getting the concept that really even though I love the Great Barrier Reef it’s the people that live there who need to protect it and look after it and be aware of what’s going on. And I was in the Great Barrier Reef in the mid-90s so we weren’t talking about global warming and all the things that are happening to the reefs very quickly around the world. But long before I got involved with Logan Canyon there were a group of people at Utah State who were very concerned about the impact of a road and the impact on the natural beauty of it – back in the ‘60s. (And just as a side, as we started to work on the road and whether it needed to be straightened or bridges needed to be widened, Paul Packer who worked for the Forest Service for years, when he made a comment about the road once. He said, “Those original road builders for Logan Canyon in the ‘30s did a marvelous job of following the natural contours and it is a scenic byway and it should stay that way because you can’t widen it in the narrow parts without destroying it.” So to give Barbara a list of the people who I know worked on the early issues in Logan Canyon were: Tom Lyon (he was in the English Department and he did a lot of nature writing); Bill Helm (was a Fishery Biologist); Jack Spence (was a Chemistry professor); Ron Goede and John Neuhold (Ron is a Fisheries Biologist and so is John. John worked at the university, Ron worked for the state). But when I became involved with Logan Canyon and the issue of the new road, it was Bruce Pendrey and Steve Flint who had carried on the task of monitoring developments in Logan Canyon. Before CPLC formed officially, in other words became incorporated as a non-profit, these two guys who were in the Range Science Department at USU, were writing to or communicating with UDOT Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  8   �(Utah Department of Transportation) and the Forest Service and keeping an eye on what was going on and trying to alert the public about the issues of Logan Canyon and improvement on the road. And before I say anything more about the issues that CPLC worked on, the lower part of the canyon (and I believe it’s the lower seven to 10 miles) was improved in the ‘60s. And it was a Fishery Biologist like Bill Helm who was just dumbfounded what they did to the river because if you want to have a good trout stream you need pools of slow water and you don’t want to force the river in to a narrow channel. When you widen the road you make the river faster and straighter. I remember at one of the public meetings a presenter showing us a picture of the lower canyon before it was widened. And he made the comment, “You think Logan Canyon is beautiful now, you should have seen it before they widened it.” Literally the trees arched right over the whole road. It was literally like driving into the woods, this picture, from the lower – right after you cross the bridge where you enter the canyon. Right there at, is it First Dam? BM: Boy. KG: So, there’s no question that they did some major road revision and I’m not an expert to know specifically what was done but I’m sure it’s there if you want to interview these other people. So the reason that the public – and I say the public – because we were able to fill places like the Logan Middle School auditorium, we were able to fill it with people when UDOT scheduled public meetings to tell us what they were going to do with this road; how they were going to improve it. And you have to remember that it was the consulting companies like C2HMHill [from their website: 6/30/2011: As a global leader in consulting, design, design-build, operations, and program management, CH2M HILL has the human and technical resources, the international footprint, and the depth of knowhow and experience to help clients achieve success in any corner of the world.], who are huge national consulting company, who made very, very thick books on what they were going to do. It was really something to try and convince them they that needed to be more sensitive to the canyon. [Stop and start recording] BM: We’re on again. KG: So I should just add that when they first did the improvement in Logan Canyon there was no NEPA process (which means National Environmental Planning Act) which was passed in the early ‘70s. And that’s something that I won’t go into now. But now when you have national lands, public lands, you have to follow that process. So I would like to start how the citizens in Logan and surrounding areas became more specifically involved with the second project that UDOT was going to do in Logan Canyon. The bridges needed to be replaced and the approaches to the bridges needed to be replaced. So there was a process for that that was a pretty big learning curve for all of us. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  9   �And I’ll stop at that place and let you turn the tape? Or do you want to -- ? BM: That’s good. [Stop and start recording] [Tape 1 of 1: B] BM: We’re starting Tape 1, Side 2 with Kathy Gilbert. Kathy, go ahead. KG: It soon became evident to the people that had been monitoring the proposals for road improvements that it was actually going to happen. And so there was a small group of people, again, that decided that they would try to do something, to find out more about the process. Bruce and Steve no longer had the time; so six of us joined together to take a look at so-called road improvements. And we met regularly and we looked at what we had to do. And I personally remember saying, “Well I will go to the Forest Service and see how they’re going to monitor, how they’re going to look after the forest when the Department of Transportation decides to build a highway through it.” And I didn’t even know there were things like a forest plan. But what I quickly learned was that the Forest Service was just going to stand by and let UDOT or C2HMHill tell them the kind of road to build. The Forest Service might monitor a stream here and there, but that was it. For this road upgrade the NEPA process was in effect. This meant public meetings and an opportunity to comment on plans. The proponents of roads are very good at drawing up these plans and it is difficult for individuals to challenge the system. The proponent usually gets what they want and it was obvious that the Forest Service was not going to be proactive in protecting the forest or the river. Once the Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by the State of Utah, we had a number of challenges. We challenged the amount of road widening needed for the bridges, especially in the lower canyon, how the bridges would be built and how they would take out the old bridge so impact to the river would be minimal. We wanted building materials that integrated with the natural landscape. But to give you an overview, a group of us formed the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC). We incorporated as a non-profit, so we had our bylaws and we had our mode of operation (with the president, and a secretary and a treasurer). We took that Record of Decision, and I have to say that Sean Swaner who was a student at USU in biology lead the charge. He was brilliant and a quick study on many issues. He had great people skills and did an incredible amount of work talking to the engineers about the actual design of the road and why we should have a shorter wide approach to the bridge. CPLC recruited lots of members and got members out to public hearings. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) was willing to listen to the public. They had had a major fiasco with widening Provo Canyon and they wanted to do better. Over a period of Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  10   �about a year we got many changes that reduced the impact of the road and protected the canyon and the river. We did need a safer road; we did need the bridges replaced. And I think it was one of these situations where, no, we didn’t get everything but we got a lot of accommodations that preserved the canyon. And that was good. BM: In terms of feeling positive that UDOT really did make an effort to listen and incorporate some of these – KG: Yes, they did. I mean I’m not saying that they just did it willingly from the beginning. We had a lot of correspondence and had to hire a lawyer to press our case. It was a huge effort on our part. We tried to get the Forest Service involved so that they would stand up for what needed to be done for preservation. We didn’t want a big wide road and I think if you drive it now you’ll see that there isn’t one. I mean there are some wider lanes up by Red Banks campground that we didn’t think were needed, but that is not significant compared to the overall changes. [KG wrote: BM your question is missing here. This following paragraph is about the visitor center that Logan Canyon Coalition worked on to reduce its impact.] Certainly this is a project that took place much later, it’s just recently been finished, is the new Visitors’ Center at the summit. CPLC only negotiated for the road. We didn’t get everything, but there were some people in the group who felt like we should get more and they broke off and formed Logan Canyon Coalition. And the persons that were most involved with that initially were Gordon Steinhoff and Kevin Kobe, and they would certainly be people worth interviewing for that because I didn’t keep up with it at that point. I felt like we’d gotten the best we could and the construction was starting. And that was it, it was finished; it was a done deal. Once the road construction started I took a rest from it. There were volunteers involved in monitoring during the construction but basically CPLC took a rest. Some of us felt that the road was no longer an issue and that it was land management practices that would have a bigger long term effect on the canyon. This is the domain of the Forest Service. So I think I’m going to defer to Barbara here and see if she has any questions; more about the formation of CPLC, and what we did or didn’t do. BM: What year was that when you split? KG: I can’t remember the year we split. The year we incorporated was 1995. And that went on until – as far as the road issue and the bridges and the building of the road – that went on to 2000. We did not get involved in anything from the summit down to Garden City. We felt if they wanted a straight-away, they could have it. It was really the river and the protection of the canyon – the narrow part of the canyon – that we were interested in. BM: So the summit, exactly, what would be a great reference point for people who are in that canyon? Limber Pine trail? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  11   �KG: Yes. BM: Okay. KG: You’re just at the very top and you’re almost looking down on Bear Lake, really, or the new rest stop. BM: You mentioned that in the CPLC you also had students and landscape architecture involved. Because we’re at the university, would you just mention some of those other departments besides Landscape Architecture and Natural Resources? KG: They weren’t any departments involved. It was people like, for instance, Mike Timmons in the Landscape Architecture department and he had been involved with some of those early people with the first road upgrade in the 60’s. He said when he first moved to Logan that was one of the first things he heard about – is this road that they were going to build. This road was always going to happen. The second part of this project was always in the distant future. We knew it was coming and UDOT has its budgets and it replaces bridges and it widens roads as the budgets come up and they’re available. So I think people were stunned at what they did in the lower part of the canyon. I wasn’t because I never saw it before. So that’s just – we were primed! [Laughing] BM: Well and also with that UDOT back run you mentioned with Provo Canyon being – did you say a “failure” or --- KG: Well, I don’t know that it was a failure. It was very expensive for them and they did try to make it into four lanes – and I guess it is four lanes. But it was another very scenic canyon that was a massive construction project. I can’t comment on it, I just know that there were slides and they were over-budget and that sort of thing. So I’m sure it was distressing to all the people involved. BM: In those kinds of influences have got to be part of the history of why things happen at different times – KG: Right. BM: Such as, you know, UDOT maybe listening a little bit better. KG: Right. Right. I know. And again, I did not do that negotiating part. Sean did; he was incredible. BM: Do you think there were other influences in the Cache Valley community during this mid-90s to early 2000 era that were influential besides just land use management? Are there other – can you reflect on any other kind of history or movements that are going on? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  12   �KG: Well, Bridgerland Audubon Society was the people that were the umbrella group for CPLC and the road. They were supportive of us – in other words, I think it’s really important when you’re doing this grassroots work that you have a group that you can connect to. Bridgerland is another 5013C – or a non-profit. They had people, they had the contacts, they had a newsletter that went out once a month. So they were certainly an umbrella group for people who were interested in becoming more active in how the road – you know, the impact of the road. BM: Were there other issues at the time that they were involved with? I know wetlands, right now is a very big issue, and protecting Cutler, and that….. KG: Right. I can’t speak to that because I was not a member of Audubon. I certainly knew of it and had friends who were in Audubon but I wasn’t involved with Audubon, so I couldn’t tell you. BM: Okay. [Stop and start recording] BM: What are the aspects of this projects with policy and with involvement – which I phrase as “participatory democracy” – and is important for all levels of our population to hear is the challenge of involvement and also the joys of being involved with that. And I wonder if you could reflect a little on that, on your role? KG: Well I like the idea of the joys of it because I certainly met a tremendous diversity of people and it was really fun to work with them and to see their passion. And so when you get involved with something like CPLC or protecting Logan Canyon, it is very reinforcing to work with others who have the same passion. And I think if you asked all those people to show their favorite family pictures – we all have pictures standing at Wind Caves on a beautiful fall afternoon, or standing by the river – and the idea that it could be lost is really quite a tragic thought to people. So that is where the initial motivation comes from: to want to protect something that’s in your backyard, that’s in your everyday experience that adds pleasure to your life. And then when you start to work at it and you see the mammoth institutions that you are up against, such as the highway department (“we build roads, we fix bridges we do it the way the engineers tell us to do it”); or the Forest Service (“Traditionally we’ve run cattle on these lands; they’re degraded, we know they’re degraded; we have experts on plant ecology and streams and fish but right now, politically we can’t do anything.”). So that can be a huge stumbling block that you feel you’re up against these institutions or these have agencies that lots of money and power. But at the end of the day, for me as I started to work on it – first of all it was an education process – learning about streams, fish, plants, cattle, whatever; even meeting ranchers that I never would have had the opportunity to meet – is that I was going to try to influence activities (whether it’s road building, cattle running, forest management) Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  13   �because at the end of the day if it wasn’t fixed or it was done, it wouldn’t be for lack of trying. That’s a very roundabout way of saying at the end of the day I gave it a fair shot. And I had lots of people to help. Lots of professionals who were also passionate about it – maybe didn’t have the time, but certainly gave of their professional knowledge. And you work at these things as long as you can work at them and do it at a level that is satisfying to you. And I felt like I had to learn quite a bit before I could write letters to the Forest Service or to UDOT or to whomever I was communicating with. But at the end of the day you just have to say your part. And that’s where it’s at. BM: And you felt like you had a tremendous team working with you at that time? KG: Well yes, everybody had great ideas. Yes, there were a lot of people and they’re out there. They’re out there for everything if you’re willing to seek them out. There are currently people in the valley, like the Bear River Watershed Council, who have continued on. I’m not up on what Audubon is doing these days, but I haven’t been living here so. [Stop and start recording] BM: Kathy, do you have a particular story that you would like to share from your work here in Cache Valley, in Logan Canyon, a particular one that comes to mind? In terms of walking the landscape with some of your colleagues on this, a particular place? KG: Well we did a lot of work up Spawn Creek and I have that documented in a book, where we were looking at the impact of cattle on the land and measuring sediment in the stream. And the Forest Service has had that as sort of their exemplary place. Again, I’m not up to speed on what’s happening right now. But it was fun to go up with John Carter and my husband Barrie, and the few people that came to do those treks – to just walk the stream and see it at different times of year. But I don’t really have any specific story in the canyon, except to be astounded to some of the ugly places due to what the cattle of done. And I mean it’s documented in pictures. I mean it’s just trashed, like beaver dams that are just – well you wouldn’t want to even eat your lunch there. BM: And overgrazing? KG: Yes, well it’s just abuse of the land. It’s just not good management. And I think it’s very sad. BM: What about books or writings that have influenced you? KG: Yes. I mentioned earlier today – Debra Donahue, Revisiting Western Lands [The Western Range Revisited: Removing Livestock from Public Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity (1999)]; Wallace Stegner who writes eloquently about issues in the western landscape. I frankly can’t remember the names and the titles, but I did read books that Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  14   �were recommended by friends and colleagues. And I certainly will get the names of those to you. BM: And why the Donahue book -- Revisiting Western Lands? KG: Well she had such an experience – both from the legal perspective, she’s in the law school in Wyoming. The head of the State Senate tried to get her fired when she came out with her book. You’d have to read Andy Kerr’s review on that website. It’s been a while since I’ve read it; it’s just that she had a great combination of knowledge about the landscape and then the legal part of it. So it was very brave of her to write that book and it was very informative for those who are trying to get the federal agencies to do their job. BM: And that was published about when? KG: I don’t know. I think mid-90s; I can’t tell you. I don’t have the book right now to lay my hands on it. BM: Okay, I can look that up; and then Stegner also? KG: Yes, Wallace Stegner. BM: Um-hmm. KG: He actually came to Utah State in the ‘70s to give seminars to the English Department, if you can believe it! How did I get involved with him? I don’t know, I just like his writings. He did a lot of nature writing – I can’t tell you. I read his biography. He’s eloquent. BM: Was he here with the Western Writers Project with Tom Lyon? KG: I think so. I don’t know. I wasn’t here – I didn’t come until ’76 to Logan. And my understanding he was really here the early ‘70s, but he gave workshops regularly. All his papers are in University of Utah. BM: That must have incredible to see him. KG: Yes, it would be. BM: And hear him. KG: Um-hmm, um-hmm. BM: Okay. Anything else you’d like to add for today’s tape? We’re going to continue at a later date, looking at some of the specific letters and some of the other work that you’ve done with the CPLC. But anything else for today that you’d like to add to culminate our visit? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  15   �KG: I don’t think so; I think that’s just about it. BM: Well thank you very much for today’s interview. KG: You’re welcome! Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  8  April  2008     Page  16   � https://highway89.org/files/original/c94ac092808436836b10ec4a9d32eba5.mp3 de4ab70137316b8395c4a8d8076edb31 https://highway89.org/files/original/f63c793673e7543a4a93195ce22988f9.pdf e69442e9721f537a78e61e144ac97ed0 PDF Text Text LAND USE MANAGEMENT TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: Katherine Gilbert Place of Interview: Katherine Gilbert’s home in Logan, UT Date of Interview: 29 April 2008 Interviewer: Recordist: Barbara Middleton Barbara Middleton Recording Equipment: Transcription Equipment used: Transcribed by: Transcript Proofed by: Radio Shack Cassette Tape Recorder: CTR-122 Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Susan Gross Katherine Gilbert [who added some information] and Barbara Middleton; Randy Williams (30 June 2011) Brief Description of Contents: Kathy speaks about the direction the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon [CPLC] took after the completion of the Logan Highway project; getting involved in land use management issues. She also discusses the differences between the CPLC and the Logan Canyon Coalition [LCC]. She ends the interview with some memories of growing up in Montreal and skiing in the Laurentian Mountains. Reference: BM = Barbara Middleton (Interviewer; Interpretive Specialist, Environment & Society Dept., USU College of Natural Resources) KG = Katherine Gilbert NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as “uh” and starts and stops in conversations are not included in transcribed. All additions to transcript are noted with brackets. TAPE TRANSCRIPTION [Tape 1 of 1: A] BM: We’re here with Kathy Gilbert on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. We’re in her home on Sunset Drive in Logan. And we are here to continue with our discussion with Logan Canyon and the oral histories and some of the activities that Kathy was involved with through the CPLC and some of the other organizations. Okay Kathy. Kathy’s got a map in front of her and is going to talk a little bit about the location of some of the areas – a Logan Canyon map. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  1   �[Speaking directly to Kathy] Why don’t you point out some of the areas that you were involved with. Bear Hodges, or --? KG: Well, first of all I’ll just go over our mission statement for the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon [CPLC] It was to “protect the natural beauty and overall integrity of the canyon.” Now that the road was “fait accompli” in the sense that we’d had our input with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), with road and bridge modifications and it had been built according to the guidelines in the Record of Decision we turned our attention to other issues. The road building took about 5 years beginning to end (19952000). And as we educated ourselves about the issues in Logan Canyon it was no longer the road having a huge impact, but how the lands were managed. And so the Forest Service was redoing the Forest Plan and there were issues that they had to address. And there were procedures, policies that they had to follow. And at the same time that they were redoing the Forest Plan, there was a mandate, I believe, at the federal level that the Forest Service had to do an Environmental Impact Statement (commonly known as an EIS) for every cattle allotment. And of course the Forest Service didn’t have the manpower to do this. And we felt that the first allotment that needed to be looked at (and we needed to look over the shoulder of the Forest Service) was the North Rich cattle allotment because it is one of the largest. It is 27,000 acres along the ridge of the Bear River Range and goes into the sinks of Cache and Rich Counties. And I have a letter here to our membership, dated April 24, 2000, which does a nice job of summarizing what the allotment was – still is – what action was being taken at that time by the U.S. Forest Service, and why this particular allotment was important. And it was important because it had a diversity of species and parts of it had been very much abused by land uses. So that was the beginning of our switch from the road to the land management issues. BM: So basically what you’re saying is that in order to protect the canyon and the kinds of values and aesthetics and conservation concerns with wildlife and water -- the group really formed with the road issue, but with the road issue moving into other areas, it was now becoming the adjacent land management and all that involved. So this was your first --. KG: Right. Yes, and the big impetus of course the Audubon people and there was quite a broad base in Cache Valley – was the increase in motorized traffic (both snowmobiling in the winter and all terrain vehicles in the summer). And they were making many, many inroads – non-legal roads, paths – that they traveled along (this was the summer traffic). And then of course with the winter traffic and these high-powered snowmobiles they were able to go up very steep slopes and that has an impact for the wildlife. In other words, when the snowmobiles pack down the surface of the high terrain, predators such as coyotes start to compete with the lynx. The lynx can travel in deep snow and so its food base is depleted if coyotes get access because of snowmobiles. And then there was also the issue of the Nordic skiers and their yurt in the high country. The skiers would tromp in, taking all day to get there, to stay in the yurt and the snowmobilers would have Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  2   �come in and trampled all the nice powder. So they wanted an area set aside for nonmotorized use. And the two people that you need to talk to about that are Bryan Dixon and Lou Reynolds – who were very active in the new Forest Service Plan in protecting that area for non-motorized traffic in the winter. And they actually had a lawsuit over the Forest Service arbitrarily changing the winter travel plan. They won the first time and then the snowmobilers went back to Rod Bishop, a congressman and had the decision reversed. BM: Now the cross-country ski people, was that Nordic United? KG: I think they formed that group. I’m not up on it. By this time I was out of the valley enough for extended periods of time that I couldn’t keep up with it. BM: I’ll check up on that. KG: And CPLC was essentially dissolved as far as, what you call NGO – Non-Governmental Organization. BM: Like a non-profit? KG: Non-profit, yes. BM: So dissolved as of 2002? KG: Actually just in ’06. We kept it registered with the state for several years, because it’s very expensive to start it up with all the paperwork, but. CPLC began under the auspices of Audubon which gave them, you know, non-profit status and access to the environmental community. They were very supportive and very good. BM: Is Audubon still involved with some of those issues? KG: I wouldn’t say so. BM: No? So between the time that you started under the auspices of Audubon and the organization was dissolved – in that time, the road issues, and then the adjacent land issues involving monitoring with group citizens – there were other people that were becoming involved and going out and helping the Forest Service actually keep track of some of those areas? KG: Well I’m going to be pretty definite here. We never wanted to “help” the Forest Service. We wanted the Forest Service to do their job. And John Carter did a lot of monitoring on his own because he realized that when he was out hiking in the forest – and he did a lot of it – he saw how degraded it was. And he took pictures, and he wrote them and he requested interventions to stop these destructive practices -- there’s a whole literature, a whole background that he can tell you about – he formed his own organization and then he joined with Western Watersheds eventually (which he’s still with). This is a huge Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  3   �issue in the West. It’s not unique to Logan Canyon, nor to the Forest Service; BLM lands have also got the same issues. BM: Um-hmm. KG: So no one man could do it. I think what happened with our group is as we worked more with the Forest Service and we got more involved and educated ourselves, we saw these land use issues that really none of us were aware of. BM: Um-hmm. KG: BM: So I know there were groups that started up in Cache Valley that were interested in monitoring these “illegal roads” and – it’s Dan Miller and his group (and I gave you that contact) – and he would tell you what they’ve done. And they may have had volunteers that went out and saw who was running around the forest on illegal roads – but it’s very, very difficult to manage. And the Forest Service had no staff to manage it. Right. KG: So. BM: Well and there are groups – there is a group that I am familiar with up in the Smithfield area – and it may be Dan Miller’s group – that is actually going out and they have been regularly photographing through photo points to monitor the changes. KG: Yes. We have monitored the forest to death. It has massive destruction – the Forest Service needs to do something about it. But the motorized recreation people are such a force that I don’t think – it’s the same as the issue in Yellowstone about snowmobilers going into the park. We have overwhelming support that the public doesn’t want motorized traffic in the park and they can always find a way to let in a certain number. It’s a huge lobby. So I don’t know what those groups are doing but we don’t need any more monitoring – we need action. BM: And the changes in the canyon, with some of the land sales, the land swaps – when land comes up for private availability, do you see that as an increase in more of the access --? KG: Well, I thought when I was involved with the land swap up there they were very interested in doing it right and protecting the riparian area and Dick Toth and his landscape architecture group drew up a wonderful plan for that area. And there are ways to mitigate – you have development, but you concentrate it and you listen to the experts that can tell you how to preserve the viewscape and how to preserve water quality, and you know? It can be done. It seems that monetary interests trump everything. BM: And the choices get made in that direction? KG: Well, you know, it’s political. It becomes political. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  4   �BM: Um-hmm. [Stop and start recording] BM: Alright, the tape is back on and we are talking a little bit about what the transition of some of these groups, how CPLC had a spin-off with LCC [Logan Canyon Coalition] or a change with LCC and I’d like you to explain that a little bit. KG: BM: Well, I am only going from my cut-outs from the newspaper [laughing]. And on the second page in the Bridgerland Section (which all local people will be familiar with) there’s a byline – April 15, 1999 – where it’s a story about Logan Canyon Coalition, or LCC, wanted to pursue further the designation of Logan River as “wild and scenic.” And I think the thinking was that by getting it designated “wild and scenic” it would then drive guidelines for any further roadwork. And this (oh, I have to look at this and read it because I don’t remember it). Anyway, my memory of what LCC did that I thought was really important, is they cut back on the size and just the look of the Visitors’ Center at the top (the Summit of Logan Canyon.) They downsized the building and made it more environmentally friendly. Okay, and when you say “the top” we’re talking about the top of Logan – KG: The summit – BM: The summit of Logan Canyon. [Overlooking Bear Lake.] KG: The summit of Logan Canyon where they’ve built a little visitors’ center and a washroom, and I think that was really important to have that – I don’t know that we needed a visitors’ center, per se, but it certainly is a beautiful view from up there. And they got things like solar panels so you wouldn’t have power lines. And that was an interest that certainly Gordon Steinhoff pursued. I am very vague on what other roadwork LCC wanted to have a say in. By this time the people that remained in CPLC were quite involved with the new Forest Plan. Informing our members and commenting on the Forest Plan was a full time job. BM: Um-hmm. KG: I have a few letters here that speak to that. BM: But here again is that continuation with LCC really wanting to focus on what they could look at with the forest issues and their interest staying a little bit closer to the road, and CPLC – as you mentioned – is starting look at the adjacent land – KG: Well I don’t remember LCC having anything to do with land management issues. Now I could easily stand corrected on that. BM: Okay. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  5   �KG: I’m sure they came to our meetings and supported us, but I don’t remember them formally as an organization doing that. BM: Okay. KG: But then I wasn’t really very close to it at that point. BM: Okay. KG: I think the road had been done. Essentially UDOT followed the Record of Decision, and there were lots of hearings about that in the early ‘90s. And then we monitored it to make sure that they did it (and Sean Swanner was absolutely critical to that). And I really hope that you’ll be able to follow up with him because he was just brilliant at it. He had a wonderful disposition; he didn’t get angry. Everybody liked him. He was your ultimate negotiator and kept his eye on the ball and didn’t get sidetracked by personalities or emotional issues. And I just thought he was wonderful. BM: And that’s a hard one because for the people I’ve spoken to with Logan Canyon it is an emotional issue. It’s a – KG: Well, it was such a blatant violation of it by this transportation corridor. There’s just no question. And so he was able to work very consistently– just took one step at a time. He could read the technical drawings, that’s what amazed me; and could talk to the engineers and they were receptive to him, so it was great. BM: Okay. [Stop and start recording] BM: Okay, we’re back on with the tape. KG: Alright, so Barbara has asked me if I would like to summarize something for CPLC. I guess – well I don’t guess – this is on a personal note: I think it’s very reinforcing to work on a local level with issues that are very important to you personally; in other words, preserving the value of Logan Canyon from the natural perspective. And I think you can learn so much, you can have great interactions with your neighbors, your friends, people that you meet in the community. And you never know that’s going to happen until you do it and you just have to get out front and do it! And find people who have the same interests as you – and there are always those people out there. And I think in the end, although it was a lot of time and effort for me and I got preoccupied and worried about whether we were doing it right – I took away a lot of information and I learned a lot. That’s about it. BM: Thank you Kathy. [Stop and start recording] Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  6   �BM: Alright, we’re back on. KG: Okay. This part of the tape is really not related directly to CPLC. The people that I have met in the environmental movement in the west have typically been from the east. They are impressed with the amount of open public land. You can walk more than a mile and not run into a fence! When people see how public lands have been abused by vested interests, they want to change policy so these lands can be preserved; these lands are beautiful just as they are. They don’t need to be “used.” I think growing up in the 50’s gave us a sense of place. There was a line between the city and the country. Even though I grew up in a big city I could go to the country just 40 miles away; skiing in the winter, the lake in the summer. We drove on two lane highways to get there. The little village in the pictures is St. Sauveur, 20 years apart, painted by the same artist. We walked around that village, often in our ski boots – not easy! We walked to the ski hills and then walked home at night buying our bread at the bakery and our supper at the local grocery store. We rented a room in a local home and practiced our high school French with the madam of the house. On those lovely sparkling winter nights we went to the pub and drank beer. It’s changed now. They built malls on the edge of town and the little narrow streets are crowded with tourists in the summer and winter. The paintings are painted by Betty Galbraith-Cornell who painted the pictures about 20 years apart. The older one with the horse-drawn sled was a very common scene for me as a kid. That would be a way that people got around; lots and lots of snow. And in the later one is just the streets are plowed and it still had that ambience, but it’s even of course changed dramatically today where they’ve put shopping malls on the outskirts. But this was just a lovely, old French-Canadian town with little colored houses. And a lot of English people would have had cabins there, ski cabins, where we would walk. So that’s about it. But it was a wonderful, magical place because it was little. BM: A lot of time spent outdoors. KG: Yes, we spent, yes we did. We spent all day outdoors. And of course I think that’s the secret to winter, is that you get outside for the day! [Laughing] And that you’re dressed and not cold! BM: KG: Well, thank you. I don’t know if I said the same as last time, but I got the beer in there! BM: Did you say Betty Galbraith-Cornell? KG: Yes. I think they were. Yes. I’m trying to think – yes they were. It was actually a friend of my mother’s who knew this artist as a personal friend. BM: Thank you Kathy. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Katherine  Gilbert,  29  April  2009     Page  7   � Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/104">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/104</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Hosted by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Recording equipment: Radio Shack Cassette Recorder: CTR-122 Transcription equipment: Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2012-01-11 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 Katherine Gilbert interviews, 8 April 2008 & 29 April 2008, and transcriptions Description An account of the resource In her first interview Katherine Gilbert briefly talks about her childhood in Canada and fond memories of outdoor experiences in her youth. She discusses her college education and subsequent jobs and training, and then speaks about influences as an adult which inspired her to be proactive toward protecting the natural beauties surrounding her residence. She discusses the formation of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon [CPLC] and her role within the organization. She talks about the CPLC’s part in the planning of improvements and expansion of the highway and bridges in Logan Canyon. In the second interview Katherine Gilbert speaks about the direction the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon [CPLC] took after the completion of the Logan Highway project getting involved in land use management issues. She also discusses the differences between the CPLC and the Logan Canyon Coalition [LCC]. She ends the interview with some memories of growing up in Montreal and skiing in the Laurentian Mountains. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gilbert, Katherine, 1942- Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Middleton, Barbara Subject The topic of the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Land use--Utah--Logan Canyon Beaver Mountain (Utah) Canyons--Utah--Cache County--Recreational use Queen's University (Kingston, Ont.)--Alumni and alumnae Montreal (Quebec) Laurentian Mountains (Quebec) Wind Caves (Logan Canyon, Utah) Right Hand Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah) Skis and skiing--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Widening--Utah--Logan Canyon--Citizen participation Roads--Environmental aspects--Utah--Logan Canyon Scenic byways--Utah--Logan Canyon United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 United States. Forest Service Utah. Dept. of Transportation CH2M Hill, inc. Logan Canyon Coalition Bridgerland Audubon Society Swanner, Sean Grazing--Cache National Forest (Utah and Idaho) Range Management--Utah--Logan Canyon Allotment of land--Utah--Logan Canyon Natural resources--Utah--Logan Canyon--Management Rangelands--Utah--Cache County Rangelands--Multiple use--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Oral histories Interviews Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Montreal (Quebec) Laurentian Mountains (Quebec) Quebec Canada Wind Caves (Utah) Right Hand Fork (Utah) Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century 2000-2009 21st 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 & Archives, Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection, FOLK COLL 42 Box 2 Fd. 8 & 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection can be found at: <a href="http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php">http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php</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 Fife Folklore Archives Curator, phone (435) 797-3493 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context FolkColl42bx2fd8KatherineGilbert Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 8 April 2008 29 April 2008 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2008-04-08 2008-04-29 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/21e374dc0d350b07d51ec8e341d4aa1f.jpg fb34e9167df2202a38b1cc9b920855d1 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Salt Lake County Archives Conversion Specs Scanned by Salt Lake County Archives using Epson GT-15000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Display file is JPG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies or scans of this item, please contact Salt Lake County Archives at: http://admin.slco.org/archives/resFees.aspx 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 Key Shop/Locksmith at 162 South State Street in Salt Lake City, UT. Description An account of the resource Key Shop/Locksmith at 162 South State Street, built in 1911. Image taken on January 21, 1971. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Salt Lake County (Utah). Assessor's Office Subject The topic of the resource State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah)--History Tax Assessment-Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1971-01-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake County (Utah) State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Salt Lake County Archives, Tax Appraisal Cards and Photographs Collection. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://admin.slco.org/archives/resPHtaxAppraisalCards.aspx Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Salt Lake County Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource No copyright is held. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is permissible. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SLCO_1-2529_30.jpg Highway 89 Locksmiths Stores & Shops https://highway89.org/files/original/85d300700d54e9961c7d7edfb43228e1.jpg 150a0d998a44a7ac882ada9afc0451f3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 3180 Image Width Image Width in pixels 4823 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1200 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum E7D4A99EFFEA5590FF0DC17F5EADFD9C File Size Size of the file in bytes. 27531892 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Epson Expression 10000XL scanner, display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-12-13 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/96959">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/96959</a> 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 Klo-A-Chee Lodge. Cameron, Arizona Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Unknown; Subject The topic of the resource Hotels--Arizona; Automobiles; Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Gelatin Silver print (black and white) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource ca. 1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Cameron (Ariz.);United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. NAU General Photograph Collections; Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_148774.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/724e86bc07116b7b835c82ccf9d2a750.jpg d257e270f167f3e9cb43b2095872fb29 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/124">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/124</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Klondike Mill on Beaver Creek up Logan Canyon, Utah, ca. 1901 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. Sawmills, ca. 1901. Klondike Mill on Beaver Creek, operated by J.A. Montrose. Mill was adjacent to site of Beaver Mountain Ski Resort. Black and white photograph (7.5 x 9.5 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Sawmills--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Klondike Mill (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Beaver Mountain (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A-3008 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. Historical Photoboard Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context A3008 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. ca. 1901 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-03-15 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/346a2750e0f7322cdaf7f713466216de.jpg 482d97a37cdd6248c5dd8ff8775a4c8b Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 5 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Description An account of the resource Colorized postcard of Beautiful Lagoon, Salt Lake City Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1907 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1910; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, p 89 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/photograph/p89.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon022.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/d971bbd45031b15566cea97939aad5f9.jpg 9987267356766667ae70b4533cbbd080 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 5 inches by 7 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Beach Description An account of the resource Young ladies at Lagoon Beach Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon002.jpg Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/d1e8d9eea175249f574e3e330a8c4aab.jpg dd68cf50e18ed61c550aa2a2ca470e48 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 3 inches by 2 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Fun House Description An account of the resource Fun house at Lagoon Park Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon008.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/b7d90e31d5040327274ab2930c213048.jpg f5ae85d452582d0f0a80cf848d68e3a1 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 3 inches by 2 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Grounds Description An account of the resource Lagoon Grounds Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon004.jpg Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/135559b7f1b1ad0ea736c00edfd35ba0.jpg bb64b4af3d1ba8258327c74fd052c4dd Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 3 inches by 2 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Grounds Amusement Park Description An account of the resource Grounds at Lagoon Park Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon009.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/f7fa742b017e54f0f5decd8cb242d34a.jpg 14b786ffb2523aec7cce5c5c001d5067 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 3 inches by 2 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Motor Boats Description An account of the resource Motor Boats at Lagoon Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon010.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/b1359e82b57ac91ce40fd13a36ccf183.jpg a407fb670d322cb4bfbeea881ad6bbb0 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon parking Lot Description An account of the resource Parking near the horse racing track at lgaoon Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon007.jpg Amusement Parks Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/706e13577e9e407caa343e3ac49208ba.jpg f3fbee7cc39b88c5fd3d18aa759178ba Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 5 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon resort Description An account of the resource Black and white postcard of Lagoon resort, near Salt Lake City Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1900-1910 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1910; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, P 89 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/photograph/p89.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon023.jpg Amusement Parks Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/b3ec422a385b062ef34849b949ae29d2.jpg b47568e969d27eae41f5a12cec006b77 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2790 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3552 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1604679 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi); display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013-09-10 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Lagoon road sign in Davis County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Davis County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource Davis County (Utah) United States Highway 89 Roads--Signs Advertising Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1965-12-13 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 360.22 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Davis County (Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 2. Folder 15. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959002015_Lagoon.jpg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant <kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0"><Folder><name>OpenLayers export</name><description>Exported on Mon Sep 16 2013 14:06:45 GMT-0600 (Mountain Standard Time)</description></Folder></kml>||||osm Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/ee30fd4115d7d06ddf59cd84c30a6718.jpg 0a3b37b8600601e18d13ef21000a88e3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Swimming Pools Description An account of the resource Swimming pools and motor boat run at Lagoon Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon006.jpg Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/8b009f40ff687a0146119edd803fa272.jpg f54db9354b325fa4fef0e7ddb8de0a96 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 3 inches by 2 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lagoon Well Description An account of the resource A photograph showing the well on Lagoon grounds Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1920-1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1930; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, MS 364 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/ms364.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon005.jpg Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/0e652634b9bedccfd86a91150c87426c.pdf d4f7a4fabbed4eef57447da28be4c41c PDF Text Text ~, ~ NO. 'SO. LAKE HOTEL COLONIAL~YELLOWSTONE PARK. HA YNES-PHOTO �R-64124 POST CARD [Stamp He re] Domestic, 1c MESSAGE. ADDRESS . fo reign, 2c � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1801">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1801</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2215 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3426 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 889619075 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5780244 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lake Hotel Colonial postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Lake Hotel Colonial, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 180. Haynes, St. Paul offical photographer Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Hotels Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 008 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_008 https://highway89.org/files/original/34eb94eeab42ab99dc5912bea8a85065.jpg 99cda583ef146c0fb05a9a80a64024f5 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2608 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3519 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 791355 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/13/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lake Motors road sign in Davis County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Davis County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Davis County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/13/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 358.62 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Davis County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 2. Folder 15. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959002015_91-38_LakeMotors.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/53b0901b89a4574ee3053522acacb362.jpg d104313f1f47f8ec9b1b1c5b31253ee7 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 2919 Image Width Image Width in pixels 4047 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 0xECFA1573 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 15202.413 KB Conversion Specs jp2 image created using CONTENTdm Acquisition Station version 4.2 JPEG2000 extention software Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2004-07 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/Savage/id/1183">http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/Savage/id/1183</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lake Nettie, Castilla Springs Spanish Fork Canyon, R.G.W.Ry. (Rio Grande Western Railway), C.R. Savage Salt Lake. Description An account of the resource People standing by a lake and a building with a sign for "Castilla Plunge Baths" in Spanish Fork Canyon. Front label- C.R. Savage, Salt Lake City, Utah. Original is albumen 5 x 8 in. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Savage, C. R. (Charles Roscoe), 1832-1909 Subject The topic of the resource Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Castilla Springs (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1891 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Castilla Springs (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1890-1899 19th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, MSS P 24 Item 576 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. <a href="http://lib.byu.edu/EAD/XML/MSSP24.xml">http://lib.byu.edu/EAD/XML/MSSP24.xml</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Courtesy L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Charles R. Savage Photograph Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jp2 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 171331514112005_576_MssP24_B7_F1.jpg 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/4aab167326a2e50dddcd0f4d3d124809.pdf 021b884f7183484b21362be3640c017f PDF Text Text LANDSCAPE MANAGEMEHT FOR ROADSIDES IN LOGAR CANYON The management direction for the visual resource in Logan Canyon is provided in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest "Land and Resource Management Plan." The plan calls for the canyon to be managed for a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Retention. Retention allows man-made activities to occur which are not visually evident. This objective guides the extent of activities which can occur in the canyon. With this in mind, the roadway from Right Fork to Ricks Springs was evaluated to determine the most sensit~ve visual areas. The evaluation was based on possible changes of the existing visual 'condition on both sides of the existing highway. The capacity for the roadside to absorb alternation without losing its visual character is critical. Therefore, developed criterior to identify capacity for rating VQO' if road construction occurs. The criteria were then applied to determine an agg~egate value for sensitivity and capability to meet objectives. The following premises were used to develop the evaluation criteria: PREMISES Retention of roadside visual character Any widening of the existing highway will require cut and/or filIon the edge of the roadway. Cuts will have a greater visual impact than fills. Existing cuts and fills with dense vegetati on (trees and brush) will be more difficult to restore than cuts and fi lls with little or no vegetation. The larger the cuts, the greater the visual impact. Alteration of non-vegetated slopes and raw rock outcrops will not have a major change on the visual character of a 2iven area. Existing vegetation between the edge of the :~ ighway and river is classified as riparian (see Forest Plan, page 4-32) and should not be disturbed. The vegetation provides an impor t:.ant aesthetic unity viith the river as well as providing important Wi ld life habitat. Non-vegetated areas between the road and riv er (rip-rap) are in the riparian zone. These areas are not as visually important as vegetated riparian areas EVALUATI01L ~BITERIA The evaluation is based on the assumption that alterations may occur on either side of the existing road surface. The capacity for the roadside to absorb �these alterations depends on steepness of cuts, type of vegetation, and proximity to the Logan River. A numerical and color system is used to represent the most sensitive visual areas. The higher the number and darker the color, the more sensitive the area. Roadsides with a 0-2 rating can absorb alterations related to road improvement and still meet Retention VQO. f Roadsides with a 3~ rating can absorb alterations but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc.) to meet Retention VQO. Roadsides with a ~ rating cannot absorb alterations and still meet Retention, due to the high sensitive landscape character. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/105">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/105</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 825709449 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1068527 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Landscape management for roadsides in Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Evaluation of criteria for making changes to Logan Canyon according to a Visual Quality Objective and the ability for the landscape to absorb man-made alterations without losing the visual character of the Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 10.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/3de6672309382a89560e88098d318782.jpg 0dae9ece39f3eb2a9533b32d447b78f4 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/156">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/156</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Large rock formation along river in Logan Canyon, Utah Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. Large rock formation along river in Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (12 x 17 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Somers, Ray, 1917- Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Rocks--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1890-1899 19th century 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Raymond C. Somers photograph collection, 1865-1993, P0324 05:01:19 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Raymond C. Somers photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34503">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34503</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. Raymond C. Somers photograph collection, 1865-1993, P0324 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P032450119 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1890 and 1940 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/f6bf5f5943cc41cde53e39ac0bacc159.jpg 73e23ef26ce5327083d435dea67cb3b3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2759 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3498 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 874626 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/27/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Larsen Motel road sign in Sevier County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Sevier County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Sevier County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/8/1967 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 149.42 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Sevier County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 8. Folder 4. Photo x0065. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959008004_x0065_LarsenMotel.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/760a6d0d7c748e01ee632ebcea211f54.pdf 54150f744527fd848721d0471cf82b9e PDF Text Text :.::.:.. :.:::::.::.:... ...... . Dear Audubon Friends, When I was hired to work on the Logan Canyon highway issue as a public awareness coordinator, I had never read the Environmental Impact Statement. The massive, highly technical document is more than a little intimidating, and certainly does not qualify as bedside reading, even for diehards like Steve Flint. When I actually sat down with it I was in for a shock. As the numbing statistics and endless maps began to add up, a picture began to emerge in my mind. The picture I saw horrified me. About that time, Scott Smith and myself were preparing a Logan Canyon slide presentation, and I asked him to get some shots of other Wasatch Front canyons wh ere similar projects had been completed. Actually, we had all of them to choose from. Logan Canyon is the last intact, through canyon on the Wasatch Front. By chance, the canyon he happened to shoot was Provo Canyon. He hit a nerve. I grew up at the mouth of Provo Canyon. That canyon was a place of spiritual wonder and endless adventure. Many mornings I pedaled my bike along its gentle winding road, basking in the fragrance of cottonwoods and pines. At my side a rambunctious river played, and above me, waterfalls cascaded down towering cliffs. As I stared at Scott's slides of Provo Canyon I saw a canyon floor literally devoid of any fonns of life. The cottonwoods and willows that graced the canyon bottom have been buried under cutand-fill material. Rubble and pavement stretch from canyon wall to canyon wall. The once wild river of my childhood lies silent and stale in a freshly bulldozed channel. Huge metal retaining sheets barricade the canyon walls. :Z-t I have not been sleeping well since. Late at night I lie in the dark, aching for a place that is gone and fearing for a place I have come to love, Logan Canyon. I recall all the well-worn phrases being bandied about, phrases like, "This is a new ~ era of road-building. Roads are now built in an E~­ environmentally sensitive manner." The Provo 3 Canyon road is being constructed right now, and ~ that road tells me that there is no such thing as a ~ "sensitive" destruction. As Bruce Pendery said, . "The longer I am in the sciences, the more I realize ~ that we are not God." There is no way to put a ~ two-million-year-old canyon back together \ again after you take it apart. Mitigation can't ~ restore the original creation. ~ I have now joined the long line of people ~ crawling up and down the Logan Canyon road measuring and surveying and feeling sick in the ~ pit of my stomach. There is no way to fit this ~ project into this canyon without carving out a ~ good deal of the canyon. Asljointhehundredsof ~ people who have studied this canyon and meas- ~ ured its resiliancy against the proposed project, I am in the company of some of the most intelJi~ gent, articulate and informed members of our community. These are not knee-jerk rabble rousers. The canyon has been probed and measured and tested by scientists from many disCl- ~ \ plines. The overwhelming consensus they arrive '~ at is that this highway project will destroy biolog- ~ ical eco-systems, reduce safety, harm tourism \ ~ and devastate the canyon's scenic values. The Utah Department of Transportation ~ has come under fire because of the enormous ,S::.5\ sums already spent on the environmental review ~ process. Pressure is mounting to push this project through in order to justify past expenditures, and the final Record of Decision is due in r �early summer. The irony is that the very reason it has been so costly and time-consuming is because it is not proving to be a viable project. Though US Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is considered a minor arterial, this proposed project has generated more controversy than any road in the entire state, with the exception of the Burr Trail. The controversy exists because the project is simply an enormously destructive waste of money. The Utah Department of Transportation initially justified the project based on safety. When a seven-year study conducted by independent scientists concluded that the project would re~ult in a more dangerous road, UDOT changed their tactics. They next advocated the project for efficiency's sake, pointing to a reduced travel time, from 48 minutes to 43 minutes. But the cost of $21 million seemed . a staggering sum to pay for a savings of five minutes, especially since most of the traveling public seemed to enJoy their time spent in the canyon. And destroying an entire canyon for a savings of five minutes seemed absurd. They then pointed to pressures on the canyon from increased traffic. There is irony in this position also, as one of the very reasons that Logan Canyon draws so much traffic is because it offers a beautiful natural experience. Once the, canyon is carved up to make the scenery more accessible, there will not be much scenery left. UDOT emphasizes Logan Canyon's role as an important traffic conduit. A simple road map will disprove the point. Logan Canyon is not a bottleneck between Canada and Mexico, and is not even a direct route to Yellowstone. It is a relatively small, very beautiful byway. Travelers choose to go the longer route through Logan Canyon because of its scenic qualities. Even if the route were five minutes faster, it would be nowhere near as fast as alternative routes. And the notivation for traveling the longer route through Logan Canyon would disappear. A wide, high-speed highway would destroy the canyon's ambiance. Now UDOT lamely pushes the plan, without specifying a clear need or purpose. It is time to put this dinosaur to rest. This road controversy is more than 20 years old. When it was initially planned, these projects were accepted unquestioningly. Any development was good development. Since that time we have experienced a shift in public perceptions. We are in a new era, an era when we are all realizing that the frontier is gone. We are running out of wild rivers and wild canyons. We are looking to our remaining wild places to fulfill spiritual needs, to find escape from the pressures of a world that has speeded up, dirtied up, and filled up past our ancestors' wildest dreams. All over the country there is mounting pressure to preserve the beautiful natural places that remain to us. Projects that have been in the planning stages for 20, 30,50 years are being turned back at the last hour by intense, organized-public opposition. The UDOT officials are our public servants. Our money pays their salaries and buys their bulldozers. We demand a say in these decisions affecting our canyon. Please join us in blanketing every desk between here and Washington with letters condemning this needless, wasteful, destructive project. Help us in our effort to carry a personal appeal to Washington to visit with the agencies that oversee these projects. It is time to make our last stand. It is time to save our canyon. Yours in friendship and purpose, Nadene Steinhoff �' .. TWEL VE REASONS TO OPPOSE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR LOGAN CANYON 1. ECONOMIC The proposed highway project for Logan Canyon will cost $21 million, in a state where funds are desperately needed elsewhere. For example, Utah ranks lowest in the nation for ed ucational funding. 2. TOURISM Tourism is the top private sector industry in Utah, and brings millions of dollars into the local economy. Logan Canyon is the top The tourist attraction in Cache County. , activity rated highest by visitors to Logan Canyon is "viewing the scenery." 3. NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Logan Canyon was proposed as a National Park, has been named a National Scenic Byway, has been listed as one of the 12 most scenic routes through America's national forests, and was listed first in a national magazine promoting Utah's scenic byways. One magazine article referred to Logan Canyon as "spectacular." 4. NEG ATIVE PUBLICITY In a major state-by-state comparison, Utah ranked near the bottom in environmental awareness and protection. Earlier construction in the canyon added to that perception, as national magazine articles condemned the devastation. One article in National Parks Magazine was entitled: "Logan ' Canyon: Standards for Destruction." s. SCENIC BEAUTY DESTROYED The road is due to be re-routed, on average, once every three-quarters of a mile throughout the length of the tanyon. Massive cuts are planned to achieve a straighter alignment and substantially increased road width. Roadside plant communities and forests will be replaced by unsightly gashes in the hillsides. In the lower canyon barren slopes have not re-vegetated -yet, though the cuts. were made 20 to 30 years ago. Clear zones of 22 feet may level the forest on each side of the road, cutting a wide swath through the cottonwood, river birch and box elder trees that line the river canyon. Many of the limber pines that grace the summit will be removed to accommodate passing lanes, wider pavements, clear zones, intersections, and road realignments. In some places the river will be intruded upon, lined by cement retaining walls or "riprap." Logan River's wild and scenic qualities will be drastically reduced. 6. SAFETY A seven-year study of accidents on the lower, already widened stretch of the road documents four times the number of rollovers compared to the middle and upper stretches. Accidents on the widened stretch tend to be more severe, often resulting in serious injury or death. The plan eliminates switchbacks down to Bear Lake, producing a very steep downgrade. High elevations and north-facing slopes will create icy winter conditions and a greatly increased potential for serious accidents in Rich County. Unstable slope cuts have created an excess of loose roadside rubble and rock in other Wasatch Front canyons, leading to hazardous driving conditions. 7. INCONVENIENCE Major road work will block traffic and cause lengthy delays in the canyon for years, with an ad verse effect on recreation, tourism and through-traffic. 8. CANYON DEVALUED The draft Final Environmental Impact Statement justifies the highway project by emphasizing the benefits of a reduction in travel time from 48 minutes to 43 minutes. The time spent traveling the canyon is listed in the DEIS as a negative experience, and our National Scenic Byway is portrayed as merely a traffic conduit. �We believe this is a gross misrepresentafion of Logan Canyon, a canyon which offers spectacular scenery, unsurpassed recreaa tional activities, and " n increasingly important refuge from our crowded cities. Logan Canyon is a destination, not just a line on the map from Point A to Point B. 9. TAXPAYER OPPOSITION In a survey conducted by Utah State Univer- sity, fully 85 percent of Cache County residents were opposed to modifications to the road. The project will be financed, in part, by those same residents. 10. FISH HABITAT A cutthroat trout spawning ground on Beaver Creek will probably be destroyed. Fish populations and habitat downstream of Beaver Creek, Temple Fork, Ricks Spring and other areas will be reduced. WE SUPPORT better maintenance of the existing road widened bridges more pullouts for slow drivers several climbing lanes, turning lanes, and parking areas, and more signs. We support preservation of Logan Canyon truly one of the last, best places in the West. Please write a letter to protect Logan Canyon. If you have already written, please write again. Address your letter to: James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 11. WILDLIFE Big game will lose forage area, potentially reducing their numbers. Numerous species of wildlife dependent on streamside vegetation will be harmed. Collisions with cars will be more deadly to both animals and drivers due to higher speeds. 12. QUESTIONABLE LEGALITY The highway project will necessitate excessive changes "to the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan, which is a legally binding document. Major revision of the forest plan technically requires an entirely new environmental review process, along with extensive public involvement. These conditions have not been met. The' project rests on very shaky " legal ground in other areas as well. A letter to the editor would help too! Bring a copy of your letter to HANDS ACROSS THE CANYON, or mail it to: Protect Logan Canyon 198 South 300 West Logan, Utah 84321 Copies will be mailed to every official and agency with potential influence in this decision, and will be collected for a personal appeal in Washington. If you can enclose 20 stamps (or a cash contribution for copying and postage expenses) it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON �HANDS ACROSS THE CANYON It is time to protect one of the last, best canyons in the West. On Saturday, April 25, at 11 a.m., there will be a silent vigil held at the top of Logan Canyon. We will form a human chain across one of the most beautiful limber pine canyons along the road. This heavily forested canyon, bordered by spectacular views of the Bear River Mountains and Bear Lake, is slated to be buried under cut-and -fill rubble. We must not allow this project. The short vigil will include songs and a period of silence. Each individ ual who is moved to speak on behalf of our canyon will be given a c~ance to add his or her thoughts to the gathenng. Local, state and national media will be invited. A syndicated article and photo of the .event will be released to all major ne:wspapers and news magazines. According to an extensive comparison study, Utah is rated almost rock bottom in environmental awareness and protection. It is time to change that, and to demonstrate that people in Utah respect this earth. The vigil is sched u1ed the same week as Earth Day, Arbor Day, and the birthdays of John Audubon and John Muir. Let us walk in the vision of these individuals and prepare to make our last stand for the canyon. The vigil site is located just past the Limber Pine trailhead, at mile post 405.1. Please enter the canyon by 9:30 a.m. and driye slowly in single file through the canyon. Parking will begin at the jeep trail off to the right side, just past the Middle Sinks (mile post 404) and will extend over the summit to the Bear Lake overlook (mile post 406). Parking is limited, so you will need to share rides. Please utilize every passenger space in your car, and carefully conserve parking space. Plan on arriving at the summit an hour early, as you may have to walk a mile or be ferried to the site. Wear bright colors and stay carefully to the inside shoulder. There will be safety monitors, slow si~, ferries, and parking lot escorts to help you orIent yourself. The parking lot nearest to the site will be reserved for media vehicles, post-vigil refreshments, and" green" music (Irish, that is). BRING A COpy OF YOUR LETTER TO UDOT. Have your children bring hand-painted pictures of Logan Canyon. This vigil will take place regardless of the weather. We welcome any rain, snow, wind or sun Mother Earth wants to send us. Please contact as many people as possible about this event, so that everyone who wants to can participate. Please RSVP by April 15 to Nadene or Bruce. For safety reasons, we must have anidea of how many will attend. If you or your group would like a tour of the canyon, o Logan Canyon slide show a presentation, or information, please call: Nadene Steinhoff 753-0497 Bruce Pendery 750-0253 (answering machine) ,. . GIVE A MILE We intend to carry our quest to the highest levels. We will visit each overseer agency and press for a reversal on this project decision. It is 4,000 miles to Washington, D.C. and back. Our trip will cost 20 cents for every mile traveled. Can you help u·s with'our appeal? Each mile you sponsor may save a mile in our canyon. A suggested donation is listed below, although any amount is appreciated. All donations are tax deductible. . Child .... 10 miles ($2) Adult. ... 100-500 miles ($20-$100) Business. ~ . .250-500 miles ($50-$100) All . donors, along with all ~ °Eroes and l heroines involved in our canyon effort, will be listed in the next issue of The Stilt. Please send your donation to: Sue Robertson, Treasurer Bridgerland Audubon Society 1780 East 1400 North Logan, Utah 84321 �CANYON TASK.FORCE TO MEET ON APRIL 8 A Canyon Task Force is being organized. We will need massive amounts of time, energy and talent to save our canyon. Meet us at The Bluebird Restaurant on Wednesday, April 8 at 7:30 p.m. Please come ready to work., and with some idea of which committee you would like to help with. Specific "how to" information and details will be provided to . . each coordinator. Appeal In WashIngton 3-5 Page Position Paper and Summary of Flaws in EIS 1 Page Summary Hands Across the Canyon a. Impact on Fisheries Community Publicity b. Impact on Wildlife Habitat Phone Tree Coordinator Refreshments Coordinator Business People for the Canyon Trash Coordinator Supporters Needed to Organize Appeal Parking Coordinator Safety Coordinator Media Support Services Coordination With Other Local and State Environmental Groups SUMMARY OF PREFERRED AL TERNATIVE Current road width through all sections is 26 feet. Clear zone requirements through Sections 1B, 2 and 3 are 18-22 feet each side of road. Section 1A Begins at Right Hand Fork (4 miles) Width: 26 feet Curve cuts: 2 possible Section 1B Begins just past Logan cave (4 miles) Width: 34 feet Curve cuts: 6 Intersections: 2 Section 2 Begins just past Ricks Springs (13 miles) Width: 6.5 miles at 40 feet 6.5 miles at 47 feet Curve cuts or realignments: 6 Intersections: 7 Sections 3A and 3B Summit to Garden City (6 miles) Width: 47 feet Curve cuts or realignments: 20 Intersections: 2 or 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/100">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/100</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 2362989080 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5907995 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 Last Chance for Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Information regarding a vigil being held in Logan Canyon, donation opportuinites, twelve reasons to oppose the preferred alternative for Logan Canyon, and a summary of the preferred alternative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Steinhoff, Nadene Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Pendery, Bruce Subject The topic of the resource Natural resources conservation areas Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/a91edc05a3a15d62f5a9dfb01cb57c7b.jpg 21d2ee5395551e0afd674be80224b10e Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 5 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lawn Scene Description An account of the resource Postcard showing a lawn scene in Lagoon Park Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1900-1920 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1920; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, P 89 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/photograph/p89.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon019.jpg Amusement Parks Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/a75135a8406fc05d9a679bf8e84d529a.jpg b67d504b29a5f9d1b404a2948c8a4924 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Weber State University, Stewart Library Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 5 inches by 3 inches Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Conversion Specs Scanned by Weber State University, Stewart Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi), display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2014-01-23 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 contact Weber State University at specialcollections@weber.edu 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 Lawn Scene 2 Description An account of the resource Postcard showing a lawn scene in Lagoon Park Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Lagoon (Farmington, Utah) ; recreation areas--Utah; Amusement Parks--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs; Black and white photographs; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1900-1920 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah); Davis County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1920; 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections, P 89 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://library.weber.edu/asc/speccoll/registers/photograph/p89.cfm Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Weber State University, Stewart Library, Special Collections 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 WSU Special Collections Curator, phone (801) 626-6337. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image;StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context wsu_lagoon020.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/5648eb7ddce2ddbd23e27460a9516347.pdf 6fd070b4998cb8fd497208e5a190afdd PDF Text Text • ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION for Logan Canyon Coalition Article I NAME The name of this corporation is Logan Canyon Coalition. Article II DURATION The period of duration of this corporation is perpetual. Article III PURPOSE (a) Logan Canyon Coalition will act and operate exclusively as a nonprofit corporation pursuant to the laws of the state of Uta h, an d will act and opera te as an educational organization, seeking to increase public awareness of the aesthetic and environmental r esources of Logan Canyon, and will act as an advocate for the preservation-of Logan Canyon. (b) This corporation ma y engage in any or all activities and pursuits, and may support or assist other organiza tions, that are reasonably related to the foregoing purposes. (c) This corporation may engage in an y and all other lawful purposes, activities and pursuits, which are substantially similar to the foregoing purpose and which are or may hereafter be authorized by Section SOl(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and are consistent with those powers described in the Utah Nonprofit Corporation and Cooperation Association Act, as amended and supp lemented. (d) This corporation may solicit and receive contributions, may make contracts, may spend corporate funds for co rporate purposes, and may engage in any activity in fu r therance of, incidental to, or connected with any of the foregoing purposes. 1 �No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to, its members, trustees, officers, or other persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered to the corporation and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth herein. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office except as authorized under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. The corporation shall not carryon any other activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or the corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue law. Article IV MEMBERS/OBLIGA TIONS Membership is open to all interested individuals or parties. No special requirements or obligations are attached to membership. Trustees, officers and/or members are not individually or personally liable for the debts or obligations of the corporation. Article V BYLAWS Name, Purpose and Location The name of this nonprofit organization is Logan Canyon Coalition. The purpose for which the program is organized is to seek to increase public awareness of the aesthetic and environmental resources of Logan Canyon, and to act as an advocate for the preservation of Logan Canyon. The central office of the Logan Canyon Coalition is 505 South 200 West, Logan, Utah. 2 �Membership Participation by interested parties or individuals is voluntary and shall be open to all qualified persons willing to further the organization's purposes, without regard to race, gender, handicap, national origin and/or religious affiliation. Board of Directors The Logan Canyon Coalition Board of Directors, hereafter called the board, will be the governing body of the Logan Canyon Coalition, providing a system of checks and balances, to include, but not be limited to the following: (a) the board will set policy and direction, and oversee all coalition activities and projects, (b) the board will approve all budgets and expenditures, (c) the board will be responsible for the hiring of staff, or the contracting of projects out to independent parties or individuals, and (d) the board will oversee an annual financial audit and project evaluation. Board Members and Officers The board shall consist of a minimum of five members, who will represent coalition members at large and vote on official actions. The number of members will be determined by the board, with no upward limit. To become a member of the board, an individual's name must be approved by a twothirds majority of the board at a regularly scheduled, publicized meeting. Procedure for Election of Board Officers Any board member is eligible for any board office. Officers will be appointed by a two-thirds majority vote of the active board membership at a regularly scheduled, publicized board meeting. Board officers and members require annual ratification by a two-thirds majority of the board, and otherwise may serve on the board or as an officer for an indefinite period of time. New officers will be appointed as needed, and will assume their office and duties at the adjournment of the meeting at which they were appointed. The names of all board members and their positions will be made available to all coalition members upon request. Positions and Duties of Board Officers 1) The President will: (a) preSide over and conduct board meetings and coalition meetings for members at large, in coordination with coalition officers and members at large, (b) serve as the official spokesperson for the coalition, (c) set the agenda for board meetings, in coordination with and respecting the input of coalition 3 �officers and members at large, and (d) serve as an ex-officio member of all committees. 2) The Vice President will: (a) assume the duties of the president upon the president's request or absence, and (b) assist the preSident and coalition members with special projects and sub-committees. 3) The Treasurer will: (a) prepare an annua l (or special projects) budge t for board approval, (b) manage all revenues and expenditures of the coalition, (c) keep an accurate account of assets, revenues and expenditures, (d) prepare quarterly financial reports for board review, and (e) assume responsibility for contracting out and assisting with legally required external audits, in cooperation with the president, and present the results of external audits to the board for review. 4) The Secretary wi ll: (a) keep an accurate account of all board meetings and special meetings, and (b) prepare and disseminate minutes of the prior meeting at or before each board meeting. Meetings and Official Actions The board will meet as needed, generally at least once a month. All official actions shall require the approval of a two-thirds majority of active members of the board. Amendments Amendments to the bylaws shall require an affirmative vote by a two-thirds majority of board members at a publicized meeting of the board. Ethical Standards Board membership shall be on a voluntary basis. No board member will be remunerated for their services on the board, benefit financially from membership, or serve with another board, committee, or organization that may be construed as conflict of interest. Procedures for Resignation or Removal Board members or board officers who fail to carry out the responsibilities associated with membership or with their appointed or elected position, ~ be removed by a two-thirds majority vote of the board membership at a reg ularly scheduled, publicized board meeting. 4 �Article VI TRUSTEES Logan Canyon Coalition will have three trustees, who will serve in perpe tuity . In the event of death, inca pacity, or resigna tion of a trustee, a successor will be appointed by a two- thirds maj ority . Removal of a trustee will require a unanimous decision of all trustees with the exception of the trustee in ques tion . The names and addresses of the individuals who will serve as trustees are: Kevin Kobe, 45 North 400 West, Logan, UT 84321 Don Hickman, 505 South 200 West, Logan, UT 84321 Dan Miller, 1265 Island Drive, Logan, UT 84321 Article VII INCORPORATORS The names and addresses of the incorporators are: Kevin Kobe, 45 North 400 West, Logan, UT 84321 Don Hickman, 505 South 200 West, Logan, UT 84321 Dan Miller, 1265 Island Drive, Logan, UT 84321 Article VIII REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT The address of the corporation's initial registered office shall be: 505 So uth 200 Wes t, Logan, Utah 84321 The co rporation's initial registered agent at such address shall be: Don Hickman I hereby acknowledge and accept appointment as co rp orate registered agent. Sig nature Date Such office may be changed at any time by the board of directors without amendment of the Articles of Incorpora tion. 5 �Article IX PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS The principal place of business of the Logan Canyon Coalition shall be 505 South 200 West, Logan, Utah. Article X DISTRIBUTIONS No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to its trustees, officers, or other private persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Article ill hereof. The corporation shall not attempt to influence legislation, and shall not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political ca mpaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles of Incorporation, the corporation shall not carryon any other activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended or supplemented, or by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended or supplemented. Article XI DISSOLUTION In case the need for the program ceases, or human or financial resources are insufficient to carry out formulated objectives, the program may be dissolved by a two-thirds majority vote of the board. Upon the dissolution of the corporation, assets shall be distributed for one or m o re exempt purposes within the guidelines of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended or supplemented, preferably to local educational or environmental organizations that pursue similar objectives. Any such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the District Court of Cache County, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations, as said court shall determine, which are organized and operated exclusively for similar purposes. 6 �• In witness whereof, we, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ have executed these Articles of Incorporation in duplicate this,______ day of , and say that we are all incorporators herein, that we have read the above and foregoing Articles of Incorporation, know the contents thereof, and that the information contained is true to the best of our knowledge and belief. 7 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 3323 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2602 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/671">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/671</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 1742615322 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource LCC Articles of Incorporation Description An account of the resource Eleven articles of incorporation for Logan Canyon Coalition Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Logan Canyon Coalition Subject The topic of the resource Nonprofit organizations Logan Canyon Coalition Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd6 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/c2426fa2e227f35a667fc7101ded784e.pdf c9f2681871dc67d47bca3d7ce872f5be PDF Text Text · /: , Pete Morton, Ph.D. Environmental Consultant 9390 W. 14th Avenue Lakewood, CO 80215 (303) 202-0442 pmorton@du.edu February 27, 1996 Peggy Wood 67 1/ 2 S. 500 West Logan, UT 84321 Dear Peggy: Thanks for your phone call, I was hoping you would find me, as I had lost your number and address. Jill and I hope to close on our new home soon -- at which time our address and phone number will change -- so e - mail may be the best form of communication until then. As I mentioned on the phone I thought the Appeal to the Chief was excellent and raised some important and valid points. had some time to pull together environmental audit of t h e FEIS. the following pages. my initial I thoughts finally for an I will briefly outline them on If the Coalition would like me to expand the analYSis , I will have some time later this spring, but my summer and fall schedule is filling up quickly. Let me know. t1: re , Pete Morton P.S. Have you been able to obtain the Environmental Grant book from Island Press? �PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY Prepared by Pete Morton, Ph.D. 1. page 9-1 1. (9.3.2.12) . The cost-benefi t analysis was deleted in the FEIS because of the difficulty of assigning costs and benefits of aesthetic values. Although t he se non-market costs and benefits are difficult to estimate, there are many economic studies published in peer-reviewed journal s that estimate recreation, environmental and aesthetic va lues. People may also be willing to pay to insure that Logan Canyon will exist in its present form for future generations to enjoy. Such non-use, intangible benefits have also been recogn i zed in the economic literature and are included in es timates of total economic value . Some discussi on on n on-use benefits and total economic value of recreation in Logan Canyon seems warranted . 2. page 9-12 (9.3 .2.13) The traffic growth rates should be carefully examine. Do these rates take into cons ideration transportation imp'rovements planned elsewhere in the regi on? Are individual projects double counting? The r-squared may be too low and there may be other problems with the regression. How many years o f data were u sed to calibrate the regression used for the projections? 3. page 9- 1 2 (9 . 3.2.14) Forest Plan compli ance . Is this based on compliance with t h e old forest plan? The forest plans developed during the fir st round of forest planning t h at I have reviewed need serious revisions . A better question to ask is whet her the planned construction is conSistent with ecosystem management and the new concepts (e . g. landscape analysis, etc.) that should be used to develop new forest pl ans. 4. The FEIS makes assurances that a revegetation plan will be prepared and implemented to mitigate the direct and indire ct impacts to wildlife . How much will the revegetation plan cost? Where will the money come from ? What budget constrai nt s exist that will prevent full implementation of the plan? In the past , federal agencies have ignored budget constraints in planning. This failure should be a concern in these times of s h rin king federal a nd state budgets. Logan Ca nyon FEIS Morton Page 1 �5. page 9-39. The DEIS stated that mining and logging were major use s along the project area. Although this was revised in the FEIS, did this statement impact the Forest Service decision to approve the project? 6. page 9 -4 2 . The issue of noise was raised a nd its impact on recreation experiences. How did they evaluate noise impacts to determine they were less than 3 dBA? Construction projects involving heavy equipment will decrease the quality of the recreational experience . Even if temporary, the decline in recreation experiences during construction should be included as an economic cost in the benefit-cost analysis. 7. page 9-42. One of the important facto rs contribut ing to a quality recreationa l experience (whet her fishing, hiking or driving for pleasure) is scenic beauty, or visual quality . Scenic beauty should be an important management consideration because of the steep slopes in Logan Canyon. Steep slopes are c l assified by landscape architects as "visually vulnerable", meaning they have an inherent resistance or susceptibili ty to degrading visual impacts. The steeper the slope, the greater its visible surface and the greater the potential for increased visual disruption. 8. page 9-43. Conunent pl23. The FEIS states that UDOT ' s deCision not to undertake visual quality improvements for the Conservationist's alternative was because the improvements did not justify the costs. This decision cannot be made without a benefit-cost analysis -- which was dropped from the FEIS. If a B-C analysis was completed, what benefits were attributed to improvements in visual quality? The improved visual quality in the Conservationist's alternative should be counted as a benefit in a B-C ana l ysis, while the costs of decreased visual quality in the preferred a lte r native shou ld be counted as a cost. 9. page 9-45. The short term loss of Class II fisheries is a cost that should be counted as such in a B- C analysis . Will budget constraints prevent full rehabilitation of the fisheries: There is also some risk that the mitigation and rehabilitation efforts will fail . If rehabilitation efforts incl ud e the replacement of native fish with stocked fish there may be some loss of genetic diversity and some long-te rm costs in terms of a potential decline in the health of native fish populations. Page 2 Morton Logan Canyon FEIS �10. page 9-65. As pointed out by the Mayor will be significant economic impacts construction. How long is the proposed Will the Conservation Alternative be a of Garden City , there during the proposed construction project? shorter project? I did not see much discussion of the economic impacts on local communities. These impacts may be very significant for small businesses unable to survive the con s tru c ti o n-indu ced recession . The discussion of employment impacts should focus on net j ob change -- job creation l ess potential job losses . Also, not all jobs are equal. Small business owners and employees that live and spend money in a community are more important to a local economy ( may have a higher multiplier) than temporary, non-local construction workers that live and spend their paychecks elsewhere -- and who may move on after the project is completed . 11. page 9-75. Dr . Wilson points out the potential long-term impacts on fish populations from channelization, etc. Once again, these impacts represent economic costs that should be included in the benefit-cost analysis . 12. page 9-79 . Although the B-C was not included in the FEIS, Ken Theis points out that it undervalued the recreation time spent in the canyon and overesti mates the benefits of speed. This is probably correct. Researchers have estimated the benefits of recreation and an economic analysis of those recreation benefits in Logan Canyon could be completed . One method u sed is the travel cost method where recreation benefits are partially based on travel time . Typically travel time is multipli ed by a percentage of hourly wage to estimate the recreation benefits from travel . A decrease in travel time as a result of the construction may actually represent an economic cost from a recreation standpoint. In addition, if the construction increases speed, and if "speed kills", than there may be a safety cost associated with the construction. Accidents at higher speeds can be more severe and frequent. Are there any studies that contrast the safety records of wider, faster highways with slower highways with pullouts through canyons? Logan Canyon FEIS Morton Page 3 �13 . page 9-87. Comments from Brad Lengas , a doctoral student at Utah State, indicate that the FEIS ignored the impacts of the large -scale highway con s truction di s turbances o n populations of 9 different bat species. This could be significant as bats provide an ins ect control service to humans -- a service with potentially significant economic benefits. HBats consume all type s of insects, including those which are obnoxi ous to humans (one Little Brown bat can con sume 600 mosquito s per hour) and tho s e which can cause crop damag e (various beetles and bugs)." Sc ientists note that predation plays an important role i n ending pest e pidemics and in lengt hening the periods between pes t outbreaks. If the bat populations decline, insect infestations may be longe r, more frequent and mor e intense. In a ddition to increased crop damage, increased insect populations will decrease the quality o f all forms of n onwinter recreation, with a r esulting l oss of benefits. The FEIS should address the impact of constru ction on b at populations, the potential benefits of sustaining ba t s and t h e ir habita t , and the costs of not doing so. 14. page 9-89 . Scott George provides an e x ce lle n t critique of the DE IS . He raises an interesting alternative of build i ng a n add iti onal medical facility rather than extensive highway improveme nt s . How g reat is the emergency med ica l n eed of Rich County res idents? Can a small satellite c lini c or h ospital handle this n eed? What are the costs of bu ildi ng such a fac ili ty and how do they compare to the additional hi g hway constr uction costs of the chosen alterna ti ve? Potential benefits of the hospital construction al t ernative include: 1) short term con stru ction jobs ; 2) long-term, hi g h paying me dic a l jobs and residentiary se r vice jobs; and 3) improved i nfrastruc ture a nd health serv i ces that will enhance future economic development potential in Rich County. 15. page 9 -1 30 . Comme nt s by Ken Theis poi nt o u t t h e appa ren t bias in the benef it- cost calcu lus. His observations seems to be correct . Miti gat ion costs should be incl u ded in the B/C, and the recreation benefits shou l d be f ully accounted for. Page 4 Morton Logan Canyon FEIS �,I May 10, 1995 Mr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 96090 Washington, D.C. 20090-6090 Re: Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Record of Decision U.S. Higbway 89, Logan Canyon Wasatcb-Cacbe National Forest Dear Mr. Thomas, Pursuant to 36 CFR part 215, the Logan Canyon Coalition and the Utah Rivers Conservation Council hereby appeals the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Record of Decision concerning U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This decision was signed on March 31 , 1995 by Dale N. Bosworth, Regional Forester. This decision amends the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan so that it is consistent with the Utah Department of Transponation's (UDOn modified Preferred Alternative, as described in UDOT' s Record of Decision. The Forest Service is also granting a transportation easement across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to UDOT for the sake of this project. Appellants base their appeal of this decision on the reasons included herein. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, enclosure Kevin Kobe, President Logan Canyon Coalition (801) 753-5031 �NOTICE OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF REASONS Pursuant to 36 C.F.R., Part 215 Appellants: Logan Canyon Coalition U.S.U. Box 1674 Logan, UT 84322-0199 (801) 753-5031 (80 I) 753-0497 Kevin Kobe, President Jaynan Chancellor, Treasurer Dr. Gordon Steinhoff Tim Wagner, Vice-President Dan Miller, Secretary Dr. Thomas J. Lyon Steve Flint Don R. Hickman Utah Rivers Conservation Council 1471 South llOO East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 (80 I) 486-3161 Zachary Frankel, Director Counsel for Appellants: Ms. Kate Zimmerman 1320 Claremont Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 494-1706 Decision Document: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Record of Decision, March 31, 1995 U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon Wasatch-Cache National Forest Deciding Officer: Dale N. Bosworth, Regional Forester, Intermountain Region 2 �Decision Appealed: We appeal the decision to: (i.) amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan so that it is consistent with the Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT) modified Preferred Alternative, as described in UDOT's Record of Decision, and, (ii.) grant a transportation easement across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to UDOT for the purpose of implementing the modified Preferred Alternative. We seek the reversal of this decision until UDOT provides a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in which they better document the need for, and the environmental and economic impacts of, the modified Preferred Alternative. Also, we seek the reversal of this decision until UOOT scales down its construction proposal so as to present a genuine compromise between desired Level of Service and environmental constraints. UDOT should reconsider the Conservationists' Alternative, as described in Appendix A of this appeal. Finally, we seek the reversal of this decision until the Forest Service has reevaluated the segment of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek for Wild and Scenic River status. Reasons for Objecting: Appellants believe that UDOT has not adequately justified the need for its modified Preferred Alternative through considerations of safety, AASHTO design standards, traffic flow, or Level of Service. UDOT has not adequately assessed impacts to wildlife, the fishery, wetlands, or water quality in Logan River. Negative economic impacts have not been evaluated. UOOT's Record of Decision introduces aspects of road construction, such as batch plants and haul roads, which were not evaluated in the FEIS. Visual quality will be impaired in a manner inconsistent with guidelines contained in the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Furthermore, the Forest Service has agreed that the segment of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek might be eligible for Wild and Scenic River status, and that it should be reevaluated. A segment of the Logan River has been identified as having, potentially, more outstandingly remarkable values than any other river in the Wasatch-Cache Forest. Appellants are concerned that construction of UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, with its associated impacts to the river and to the scenery, will degrade this river segment enough that it will no longer qualify for Wild and Scenic status. The Conservationists' Alternative improves the highway to an adequate extent, while minimizing environmental and economic impacts. UDOT's modified Preferred 3 �Alternative is, therefore, neither reasonable nor necessary. Appellants believe that the Forest Service's Record of Decision violates guidelines within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan concerning wildlife, fisheries habitat, road construction, water quality, and economic impacts. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of the National Forest Management Act. The Forest Service is also in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act Antidegredation Policy that protects water quality and designated uses of Logan River. With its dec ision to allow extensive construction before Logan River is reevaluated for Wild and Scenic River status, the Forest Service is in violation of the 5(d) planning requirements of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Forest Service is also violating guidelines and objectives within its Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Finally, with its inadequate designation of 4(f) sites within Logan Canyon, the Forest Service is in violation of the National Transportation Act. Appellant's objections and reasons are described in more detail below. On January 11 , 1995, representatives of the Logan Canyon Coalition, appellants, met with Mr. Reese Pope, Forest Planner for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. We handed Mr. Pope a copy of our agenda for the meeting that outlined our concerns with UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative. We told Mr. Pope that UDOT's safety discussions in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) appear to be based upon flawed traffic and accident data. Mr. Pope told us that traffic and accident data is "not our province," referring to the Forest Service. Appellants believe, however, that ensuring the accuracy of traffic and accident data;s within the province of the Forest Service when a citizen's group that can document serious study of this data indicates that this data is problematic. Our concern is that the Fores t Service is permitting an extensive construction project in the National Forest that is unnecessary. We also told Mr. Pope of our concern that UDOT' s assessment of fishery impacts is inadequate. We told him that we are worried, for example, that UDOT has underestimated fish mortality by providing a simplistic account of the effects of increased sedimentation. Mr. Pope replied that the predicted decrease in HCI value appears to be within acceptable limits. Appellants still believe, however, that UDOT's fishery discussion, induding its analysis of HCI, is inadequate. Finally, we told Mr. Pope of our concern that proposed road construction will hann the scenic and free-flowing characteristics of the Logan River enough that it will not qualify for Wild and Scenic status when it is reevaluated. Mr. Pope expressed his opinion th at proposed construction will not hann the eligibility of this river. 4 �Appellants respectfully disagree, and will argue in this appeal that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that the Logan River receive interim protection until it is reevaluated. Several individual appellants, Dr. Thomas J. Lyon, Steve Flint, and Dr. Gordon Steinhoff, can document long-standing interest in UDOT's construction plans in Logan Canyon. We have been involved in early scoping hearings and on a UDOT interdisciplinary team. We have written many letters to UDOT and other agencies concerning UDOT' s DEIS, FEIS, and its Record of Decision. The Utah Rivers Conservation Council, an appellant, is a non-profit organization dedicated to achieving Wild and Scenic status for those rivers in Utah that qualify. The long-standing interest of this organization in Logan River is documented within the book A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah, written and researched by Zachary Frankel, Director of the Utah Rivers Conservation Council. STATEMENT OF REASONS This Statement consists of the following sections: I. History and Background, 2. Safety Issues, 3. AASHTO Standards and Highway Design, 4. Wild and Scenic Rivers Issues, 5. Fishery Impacts, 6. Wildlife Impacts and Sensitive Species, 7. Visual Retention, 8. Economic Impacts, 9. Wetlands, 10. Water Quality, 11. Construction Impacts Not Evaluated in the FEIS, 12. 4(f) Sites. There is also an Appendix that contains: A. a map of Logan Canyon Highway 89, B. a description of the Conservationists' Alternative, C. photos of the sensitive areas discussed in this appeal. 1. WSTQRY AND BACKGROUND The Logan Canyon project was originally envisioned as a bridge replacement project, and has gradually evolved into a more extensive, 15 to 20 year construction project. The scale of the project has generated massive opposition by area residents, as evidenced by 309 letters in support of a lesser alternative, as opposed to 21 in support of the Modified Standard, an alternative similar to the Preferred Alternative (FEIS, Table 9-1). Hundreds of additional opposing letters were sent to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) in response to UDOT's adoption of the Preferred Alternative as described in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (on file with Nadene Steinhoff, Bridgerland Audubon Society). Numerous letters to the editor and local 5 �newspaper editorials opposing the Preferred Alternative have been published (Herald JourfUJl, Cache Citizen, The Statesman, 1988-95). Four hundred protesters rallied in the canyon in 1992 (Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News , Herald Journal, Cache Citizen, KTVX Channel 4 News (ABC), KUTV Channel 2 News (NBC), April 25 and 26, 1992; High Country News, June 1, 1992). UDOT received 682 signatures supporting a lesser alternative prior to 1993, and hundreds of petition signatures after the release of the FEIS, including petitions from Business People for the Canyon, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, Logan Environmental Action Force, the Cache Sierra Club, and Bridgerland Audubon Society (FEIS, Table 9-1). Early in the process, citizens groups submitted their own highway improvement alternative. The Conservationists' Alternative is described in Appendix B. Appellants believe that the Utah Department of Transportation has never justified the need for a project as extensive as the Preferred Alternative. even as it has been modified in UDOT's Record of Decision. In the "Purpose and Need" section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), UDOT relied heavily on the need for a reduction in travel time, pointing to the economic benefits of travelers being able to cut 4 to 8 minutes off their trip. Their costlbenefit analysis was based on inappropriate assumptions that undervalued the time spent in the canyon and overvalued the speed with which travelers moved through the canyon (DElS, Table 47). Logan Canyon has been recognized in numerous national magazines, for example, the recent Audubon magazine (Bass, 1994). It was one of the first designated Forest Service Scenic Byways. It is not merely a traffic conduit. After an extensive barrage of public criticism at the idea of trading serious environmental impacts for a 4 to 8 minute reduction in travel time, UDOT abandoned its rhetoric about the time savings (FEIS, pages 9-3 to 9-151). Travel time is not mentioned in the FEIS as a justification for this project. Rather, UDOT relies on considerations of safety and Level of Service (FEIS, 1-3 to 1-18). The DEIS clearly stated, however, that "safety is not a primary reason for this project" (DEIS, page 1-22). Less than two pages were devoted to safety in the DEIS. Appellants believe that this shift in attempts to justify the project between the DEIS and FEIS is evidence that this project is not clearly justified. The modified Preferred Alternative is, literally, a construction project in search of a justification. UDOT's traffic and accident data is seriously flawed, and yet the Forest Service has accepted this construction project even after being informed of these flaws (Bridgerland Audubon Society letter to the Forest Service dated May 2, 1993; Logan Canyon Coalition meeting with Reese Pope, Jan. 11 , 1995). UDOT's accident severity data show a correlation between high speeds and high numbers of fatalities and serious accidents on the already widened and straightened section of highway in the Lower 6 �Canyon. Appellants are concerned that the Forest Service is permitting UDOT to build a more dangerous highway. The gain in Level of Service with the modified Preferred Alternative over the Conservationists' Alternative is marginal. and comes at the cost of greater environmental destruction (FEIS, Table 2-1). UDOT and the Forest Service are not taking advantage of flexibility allowed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and by the Federal Highway Administration, in order to protect scenic and environmental resources. UDOT and the Forest Service also ignore recommendations from the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), caUing for greater emphasis on public involvement in highway design, preservation of scenic beauty, recognition and preservation of Scenic Byways, and prevention of adverse effects on water quality and wetlands. UDOT has attempted to portray the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway, classified as a minor arterial, as a critical link in the nation 's highway system. This attempt to justify the project is dishonest. The FEIS displays maps portraying U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon as a critical undeveloped link in a highway system connecting Mexico with Canada (FEIS, Figure I-I). Logan Canyon is actually a small mountain highway that will never provide a critical link due to its mountainous, steep terrain and the fact that it has already been bypassed by alternative routes. 1- 15 is the highway that is of primary importance in the area, connecting all points south, including Provo, Salt Lake City and Ogden, with all points north, including Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Butte and Helena. 1-80 is the major east to west route for commerce, not Logan Canyon (see Appendix A). As a route from Salt Lake City and Ogden to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, Idaho State Highway 34 will always be faster than the Logan Canyon highway due to the more rugged terrain of Logan Canyon. Garden City, at the other end of the Logan Canyon highway, is a small town of 193 people (1990 census), down from a 1980 population of 259. UDOT is proposing extensive widening and straightening of a highway that has already been bypassed by faster, alternative routes, and that serves a town of 193 residents, with a population that has declined by 25% over the past ten years. The entire population of Rich County (in which Garden City is located) has been declining over the past ten years. The 1990 population was 1,725, down from the 1980 population of 2,100, a reduction of almost 18 %, with several key industries moving away from Rich County in recent years (Bureau of the Census 1994; Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 1993). Appellants believe that this steady population decline is a good indication that High way 89 does not require the extensive modifications UDOT is proposing. By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, without adequate justification, the Forest Service is in violation of guidelines in the Wasatch-Cache 7 �National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan concerning unnecessary road construction (1985, page IV-44). Much attention has focused on the modifications UDOT has introduced into the Preferred Alternative as it is described in UDOT's Record of Decision. We believe that these modifications don't go far enough when viewed in tenns of the countervailing requirements of the Management Plan and federal laws. Literature Cited Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec. Bitton, M. 1992. Partisans of Logan Canyon protest a widened road. High Country News, June I, 1992. Lyon, Dr. Thomas J. 1992. The road gang wants to wreck Logan Canyon. High Country News, June I, 1992. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89. United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the Census. 1994. Utah Department of Transportation (UDO"D. 1990. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation (UOO"D. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. Utah Governor' s Office of Planning and Budget. 1993. Utah Demographic Report. 2. SAFETY 1SSUF.5 1. The Forest Service has adopted the FEIS, as is mentioned on page 1 of its Record of Decision. The FEIS, in its purpose and need section, uses a clearly flawed safety analysis (in violation of the requirement for agencies to insure scientific integrity of analyses as stated in 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1502.24). Thus the Forest Service's decision to 8 �• adopt the FEIS is arbitrary and capricious, as the FEIS does not meet the "standards for an adequate statement" (40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1506.3a). 2. We have evidence that the proposed construction will result in a more dangerous road, thus violating the requirements of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan that "public safety needs" be considered regarding the Logan Canyon highway (1985, page IV-311) . The Management Plan says about the Logan Canyon highway, "The road will not be raised to a higher standard than existing" (1985a, page 236; FEIS, page 9-88). Thus the only true justifications for highway modifications are improvements necessary for safety and replacement of deteriorated structural elements. However, the Forest Service has blindly accepted the UDOT safety analysis, despite the fact that the public had openly disputed UDOT's analysis of safety literally for two decades. The current UDOT analysis utilizes artificially inflated and manipulated traffic volumes, inconsistent with UDOT's own traffic counts, in an attempt to make the previously widened portion of the road (Lower Canyon) appear safer than the unwidened sections. In addition, UDOT has refused to make any reasonable comparisons of accident severity, although these data are available in the technical memorandums. Citizens have long contended that the type of highway modifications proposed here will make the roadway less safe. Our analysis supports this position. Accident rates are simply accidents per million vehicle miles. Only elementary arithmetic is needed for their calculation. What is being questioned here is not the method of calculation but the numbers used in these calculations. In 1986, the Interdisciplinary Team was presented with accident rate data in the fann of computer printouts. These printouts contained accident rates for specific sections, and also the section length, traffic flow, and accident numbers--all the infonnation necessary to calculate accident rates. The representatives of the environmental community on the tearn at that time (Rudy Lukez, Jack Spence, Bill Helm, and Steve Flint) discovered that the printed accident rates could not be derived from the accompanying data. The consultants, CH2M Hill, were informed of this, but presented the flawed data at the September 1986 public meeting in Logan. Rudy Lukez had to interrupt the presentation to remind the consultants of the problems with the data. At that time, UDOT and their consultants withdrew the accident rate data since they found the errors intractable. Subsequently, accident rates were never mentioned for over six and one half years. During this time the December 1990 DEIS stated, " .. . safety is not a primary reason for the project ... " (DEIS, page 1-22). Accident rates were not mentioned in the DEIS, but they suddenly appeared in Table 1-2 of the March 1993 FEIS. 9 �, It appears that the accident rates were introduced into the FEIS for two reasons. One was an attempt to make the Lower Canyon look like the safest part of the road. This was done by manipulating the traffic volumes in the Lower Canyon upward, thus reducing the calculated accident rates (the higbway here was widened in the 1960's). The second use of accident rates was to make it look like the road was quickly becoming much more dangerous. This was done by drastically reducing traffic flows in recent years along the rest of the highway. This caused the accident rates to rise, giving the appearance of a much more dangerous road in recent years. UDOT claimed a 44% increase in the accident rate as one went from the 1980-'85 period to the 1986-'90 period (page 1- 10 of the FEIS). It is a straightforward procedure to backcalculate the traffic flows (average annual daily traffic, abbreviated as ADT or AADlj used in calculating the accident rates in Table 1-2 of the FEIS. These data are shown in our Table I for each section of the highway, and the percent change in traffic flow is calculated. Clearly, if one could believe these data, there are massive reductions in traffic in Logan Canyon in recent years. In one section of the Middle Canyon, for example, the reduction in recent years is supposedly almost 80%! Since such massive reductions is clearly not the case (measured traffic flow is discussed below), the UDOT safety argument based on these accident rates is meaningless. The response of UDOT to the presentation of tbese ADT derived from their table was to issue the statement, "The ADT presented in Revised Table 1-2 are estimates made by UDOT and are used to calculate the accident rates in segments. However, estimates are changed periodically as additional information concerning census and other data is made available. The two periods shown on the table may be misinterpreted to indicate that there has been a decrease in traffic in the canyon between the two periods studied. To determine actual usage of the canyon you should examine the actual traffic count information measured in the canyon. Year to year counts should also be examined to determine the trends since variations in traffic usage occurs each year." (October 15, 1993 UDOT press release, distributed at the meeting of the State Transportation Commission). Why UDOT believes it should be able to take measured traffic counts for past years and adjust them according to census and other information is beyond belief. Clearly, they do not know wbat they are doing. At the time they issued the above statement, they issued a revision of Table 1-2, correcting some of the grossest errors for the 1980-'85 period. In examining our Table I, you will note that there appear to be periodic massive infusions and deletions of traffic from the highway. These are clearly spurious since only unpaved roads 10 �intersect this highway between Logan and Garden City. Their revised Table 1-2 corrects this, but still shows decreases in more recent years. We show this in our Table 2. Since UDOT provided ADT in the revised table, we did not need to backcalculate it from the accident rates. Actual traffic flow can be found in Figure 1-4 of the FEIS . While the FEIS does not provide a location in the canyon where these traffic volumes are reported to occur, referring to the 1987 Technical Memorandums makes it absolutely clear that these numbers represent traffic at Card Canyon (within the mp 378-383.3 section). For all other Iccations in the canyon, this number is scaled either up or down by a factor. UDOT has never provided these factors to the public, however they can be backcalculated from the traffic flow data used in the accident rate calculations. We have found that these factors vary in a curious manner from table to table. For example, in the traffic flow projections figure (FEIS, Table 1-5), the decrease in traffic flow as one goes "up" the canyon (to higher milepost numbers) is much less than is evident from the accident rate data. Thus UDOT is using vastly different factors at different times. When they want low traffic in the unwidened portion of the canyon (to make accident rates high), they use large factors. When they want high traffic in the unwidened portions of the canyon (to justify highway widening) they use small factors . Taking averages for Card Canyon, from Figure 1-4, gives 1812 cars per day for 1980-'85 and 1844 for 1986-'90. This shows a small increase of 1.8 % in the measured average annual traffic flow between these two periods, rather than the decrease shown by UDOT's accident rate data (our Tables I and 2) . It also shows that UDOT is using a traffic flow value in its accident rate calculation for the mp 378-383.3 section that is 1.6 times the measured value in Figure 1-4. There is no logical reason for this discrepancy. This high traffic flow very effectively decreases the accident rate in this section. It is blatant fabrication of data that cannot be ignored. The distortion for the section immediately below, the lower Lower Canyon, mp 374.64-378, is even greater. (UDOT has never produced a method we consider reasonable for detennining traffic flow in the lower Lower Canyon .) UDOT claims to have calculated this traffic flow using a method described on page 5 of the Appendix to their Record of Decision. A traffic flow of 14,000 cars per day is reported for the section of Highway 89 that lies below Logan Canyon, south of Utah State University (page 5 of the Appendix to the ROD, mp 373 approximately). Although this section is well outside Logan Canyon, the traffic flow for this section, representing heavy University traffic, is artificially "extended" up the canyon to increase the traffic flow in the lower Lower Canyon, mp 374.64-378 . The rate of 14,000 cars per day is averaged using a weighting method with a traffic flow of 3,000 cars per day claimed for the Lower Canyon. This calculation is reported by UDOT to yield a weighted 11 �traffic flow for the lower Lower Canyon, mp 374.64-378, of 7500 cars per day. However, adhering strictly to the formula for this calculation presented on page 5 of the Appendix actually produces a value of 4,015 cars per day. UDOT is not only "extending" University traffic up the canyon to artificially inflate the traffic flow in the lower Lower Canyon, it has also miscalculated this traffic flow to obtain a value nearly twice what the formula actually provides. We would expect to see this number, 4,015 cars per day, in subsequent tables, yet it never appears. Values of over 6 and 7 thousand cars per day are given in revised Table 1-2,4510 is used in the accident severity table (page 7 of the Appendix), and 3367 is used in the new accident rate table (page 3 of the Appendix). Part of the problem is that the milepost section shown on page 5 of the Appendix coincides with the milepost section in Table 1-2, but does not coincide with section designations in the other tables. Rather than attempting to guess how these errors occurred, we will argue that all of the traffic flows provided by UDOT for the lower Lower Canyon are excessive. The calculation method presented on page 5 of the Appendix (ROD) has no basis in reality. What it has done is take a "commuter roadway" outside of Logan Canyon (U.S. 89 south of Utah State University) and use that traffic flow for the first 0.31 miles of Logan Canyon--an area with DO intersecting roads. The only realistic traffic flow for the lower Lower Canyon would be something slightly greater than the traffic flow reported in Figure 1-4 of the FEIS. Despite ten years of time to do this, UDOT has instead fabricated elaborate methods designed to intimidate the reader (for example, the material on page 5 of the Appendix to the ROD). Their data showing literally thousands of cars daily driving into the canyon and turning around in the first few miles (there are no intersecting roads here) is blatantly absurd to anyone familiar with the location. In UDOT's Record of Decision, another attempt is made to analyze accident rates. This was done because of our repeated questioning of both the original and revised accident rate data in Table 1-2. (During negotiations with UDOT in 1994, Dave Berg ofUDOT admitted that UDOT's traffic flow data was literally "garbage," hence this additional effort to salvage the safety argument in order to show purpose and need). This new analysis is conducted for a more recent period, 1989-'93 (ROD, Appendix, page 3). This new analysis appears to be based on one day's traffic count in 1994, and gives a value of 3367 cars per day for the Lower Canyon where the counter is located. This is greatly in excess of the 1869 cars per day (1990 data) shown in Figure 1-4 of the FEIS. Clearly, one day cannot be selected to represent a 5 year period of traffic flow, because both absolute numbers of cars and the proportional change in traffic through the canyon differs during different seasons. To further complicate any reasonable comparison of data, this new analysis subdivides the road 12 �< into different segments than we find in Table 1-2 (which was retained in the ROD). How can any comparisons be made with the 1980's data? Clearly, given UDOT's inability to count cars accurately over this ten year period, we question whether any UDOT traffic flow data can legitimately be used in this EIS. Accident severity is a much more important parameter than simple accident rate. (Refer to the minutes of the interdisciplinary team meeting of August II, 1986, item #6, review of accident data. From page 3: "Duncan Silver (FHW A) said that a goal should be statistical reliance and that the number of accidents was not as important as the severity of the accidents.") In their Record of Decision, UDOT presents accident severity data for the first time since the 1987 Technical Memorandums (UDOT's ROD, Appendix, page 7). Their analysis is flawed in two ways. One flaw is that only fatalities are analyzed. Fatalities are fortunately so infrequent in Logan Canyon (8 fatal accidents for the period UDOT analyzed) that their distribution is statistically random. The second flaw is that UDOT attempted again to tie them to traffic flow, calculating a fatal accident rate. Again, the traffic volumes are inflated for the Lower Canyon (4,510 cars per day for a section with a measured traffic flow of scarcely over 1,800 cars per day). It is clear that UDOT is unable to provide any consistency in traffic flow data collection, and thus safety cannot be evaluated by any technique requiring traffic flow data. This continual manipulation of data has made a mockery of the directive for agencies to use "scientific integrity" in the process outlined in the National Environmental Protection Act, 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1502.24. Thus, this FEIS does not meet the "standards for an adequate document" which 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1506.3a requires for an agency to adopt an EIS. Hence, the Forest Service's adoption of this FEIS is arbitrary and capricious. We propose average accident severity as a measure of highway safety. This comparison is numerically independent of traffic flow. UDOT made these calculations in the 1987 Safety Technical Memorandum, in Table 3-7. The greatest accident severity was found in the widened section of the highway. (However, it is not clear how these calculations were done; attempting to repeat them by averaging the data in Table 3-8 of the Technical Memorandum does not produce the same average accident severity values as given by UDOT in Table 3-7.) One could argue that the more severe the accident, the greater the "weighting" it should be given. Of course these weightings are arbitrary, but it appears that the method UDOT used was strictly incremental. We have used a method of increasing the "weight" given a more severe accident in our Table 3. Again, the widened section of the highway has the most severe accidents. Clearly, driving at a speed inappropriate for a section of highway is the 13 �overriding cause of accidents (1987, Table 3-4). Widening and straightening a highway, without a large concomitant commitment to speed limit enforcement, simply increases the speed at which it is traveled. It is no surprise the severity of accidents increases. The issue of speed limit enforcement as a means of improving safety was raised during the EIS process, but UDOT ignored it. The construction alternative endorsed by the Forest Service will produce a more dangerous highway, and as a consequence, the Forest Services' s Record of Decision violates the stipulation of the Management Plan requiring that safety needs be considered for the Logan Canyon highway (page IV-3111). Literature Cited USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6. Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. Utah Department of Transportation. 1993 . (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda. Prepared by CH2M Hill. 14 �• Table 1 . Average daily traffic (ADT) bacKcalculated from Table 1-2 in th e FEIS , and the percent change as one goes from the early ' 80 ' 5 to the late '80's . sections and mileposts Lower 3 7 4. 6 4 378 . 00 Middle 383.00 384.40 387.00 388.40 Upper 39 1. 60 392.70 395 . 60 399.40 Rich 404. 75 408.20 410.10 ADT ' 80 - '8 5 from Tab 1 - 2 ADT '8 6 -' 90 from Tab 1 - 2 5710 2820 4693 2969 -17.8 5.3 2004 1815 8323 2990 2372 1815 1742 1781 18 . 4 - 0.0 - 79.1 - 40.4 5239 1840 1979 122 5 1811 1631 1614 1259 - 65.4 -11.4 - 1 8.4 2.8 1383 2247 1277 1164 1292 1228 - 15.8 - 42.5 -3. 8 Percent Change canyon - 378.00 - 383.30 - Canyon 384 . 40 387.00 388.40 391.60 Canyon 392 ;70 - 395.60 399.40 - 404.75 - County 408.20 410 . 10 - 411.87 - - �• Table 2. Percent change from the early to late 1980's using UDOT's revised average daily tra ffic (ADT) as contained in their revised Ta ble 1-2 of t he October '93 press release and (except for values with *) in their Janu a ry ' 95 ROD. The percent change for the values changed in the ROD are given in parentheses. section and '80-'85 mileposts ADT ' 86 -' 90 Percent Change ADT Lower 374.64 378.00 Canyon 378.00 383.30 6865 2824 7417* 3019 Middle 383.00 384.40 387.00 388.40 Canyon 384.40 387.00 388.40 391. 60 2824 1888 1847 1847 3019 1864 1809 1809 6.9 - 1. 3 - 2.1 -2.1 Upper 391. 60 392.70 395 . 60 399.40 Canyon 392.70 1809 16 80 1613 1257 -2.1 399.40 404.75 1847 1826 1815 1351 - 11.1 - 7.0 Rich 404.75 408.20 410.10 County 408.20 410 . 10 411.87 1299 1298 13 96* 1246 1292 1295 -4.1 - 0.4 -7. 2 395.60 8.0 6.9 (5.3) - 8.0 (-1. 8) �Table 3. An index of average accident severity using data from Table 3-8 of the 1986 Safety Technical Memorandum (the Technical Memorandums, all from about 1986, are considered the "backbone" of the EIS). We have used an increasing scale for accident severity, weighting "property damage only" as 1 , "possible injury" as 3, "nonincapacitating injury " as 7, "incapacitating injury" as 15, and "fatality" as 31. Average Accident Severity Widened roadway: Lower Canyon (section 0) 6.03 Middle Canyon (section 1) 5.00 Upper canyon (section 2) 4.07 Rich county (section 3) 3.89 Unmodified roadway: �3, AASHfO STANDARDS AND IDGHWAY DESIGN UDOT argues that they must widen and straighten the Logan Canyon Highway, and add passing lanes, in order to accomplish four major goals. They argue that they must enhance safety, satisfy AASHIO standards, improve traffic flow, and improve the capacity of the road to accommodate projected future traffic volumes (FEIS, page 1-3). We have dealt with safety issues in the previous section of this appeal. In this section we will discuss the other three goals. By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, the Forest Service is accepting a road design that allows for unnecessary and unjustified construction in environmentally sensitive areas of the canyon. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan specifies, as a guideline, that design speeds allowed on roads in this Forest shall be a "compromise" between desired travel speed and constraints imposed by the environment (page IV-44). Road design in the Forest must, therefore, also be a compromise between desired travel speed and environmental constraints. We shall argue that the road design the Forest Service is accepting in Logan Canyon, with its decision in favor of the modified Preferred Alternative, does not represent such a compromise. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of its Management Plan. Guidelines within this plan are to be "applied in all situations unless some overriding reason to abandon" them is supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary analysis (page IV -24). AASHTO Standards UDOT attempts to justify the modified Preferred Alternative by appeal to safety standards that have been devised by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHIO). AASHTO standards are environmentally friendlier than UDOT admits. AASHTO recommends flexibility in the design of arterial roads in mountainous areas where the terrain limits road design. Our first criticism of UDOT's use of AASHIO standards is that UDOT is not taking advantage of the flexibility in road design that is allowed by AASHIO. In the FEIS, UDOT claims that the recommended minimum design speed for a minor arterial road is 50 miles per hour. Based on this claim, UDOT condemns the entire Logan Canyon highway, asserting that " the existing highway is therefore substandard" (FEIS, page 1-8). In the special circumstances of mountainous terrain, however, AASHTO relaxes the minimum design speed for a minor arterial to 40 miles per hour, down from 50 miles per hour, when, as in Logan Canyon, the daily hourly volume is over 400 (UDOT 1987, page 7-12; Claire Hendrickson, FHWA, personal 15 �communication), The current design speed for the section of highway through the Upper Canyon, 40 to 55 miles per hour, actually complies with standards allowed by AASHTO for mountainous terrain. UDOT has set the design speed from the Beaver Mountain intersection to over the canyon's summit at 50 miles per hour. By AASHTO standards, this design speed makes necessary a wider. straighter road. UDOT is insisting on a design speed, however, which is higher than the minimum allowed by AASHTO for mountainous terrain. In this section of highway the conditions are not appropriate for a uniform design speed of 50 miles per hour. This is particularly true at the summit, where UDOT plans to widen the road to 40 flo, and put in a passing lane and 22 ft. "clear zones" on either side of the highway. There is a beautiful grove of mature Douglas Fir at the summit. The road now winds through this grove, which has appropriately been called a "cathedral" (Bass 1994). As UDOT plans it now, in its legally-binding FEIS and ROD, a side canyon will be filled, and roughly one half of these mature trees will be torn out to make room for the widening and a big curve-cut at the summit. (please see the photo of the summit we have included in the appendix of this appeaL) The resulting destruction to the side canyon, the trees and the views at the summit strongly suggests, we believe, that conditions in the Upper Canyon do not warrant using the 50 miles per hour design speed, plus a passing lane, through this area. UDOT is using AASHTO standards inflexibly, when AASHTO allows flexibility in design in special circumstances such as these. Our second criticism of UDOT's use of AASHTO standards is that they use these standards in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. For example, UDOT plans to widen the highway in the Upper Canyon, from the Beaver Mountain intersection to over the summit, to 40 flo The design speed is set at 50 miles per hour. Below this intersection, for about eight miles, UDOT is planning a design speed of 50 miles per hour, but they intend to widen the road to only 34 flo For this design speed, a road width of 34 ft. is below AASHTO standards (Roy Nelson, FHW A, personal communication). Exemptions from AASHTO standards are occasionally granted by the Federal Highway Administration. Why does UDOT apply AASHTO standards in this flexible fashion in the lower Upper Canyon, but insist on strictly applying full AASHTO standards above Beaver Mountain? UDOT's ROD includes an internal memo from a UDOT safety engineer, who asserts that a 34 flo road width at this design speed is adequately safe. He cites studies that report "little change on accident rate when going from 5 to 8 foot shoulder," in other words, when going from a 34 flo road width to a 40 ft. width. This safety engineer concludes that while keeping to a 34 ft. width may be substandard, "for this project" 16 �, this width "would be acceptable" (UDOT 1995, Appendix A, pages 9 and 10). We have included a copy of this memo at the end of this section of our appeal. In its 1987 Technical Memoranda, UDOT further defends the use of the 34 ft. width. They write, "A reduction from the standard 8-foot shoulder to the 5-foot shoulder can be justified in that while the 8-foot width is desirable for parking, a distressed vehicle can get out of the traffic stream yet remain on the paved surface with a 5-foot shoulder. The narrower shoulder also provides enough room for cyclists and pedestrians, with minimal interference with motorized vehicles." (1987, page 7-7) UDOT is arguing here that a 34 ft. road width is adequately safe and acceptable. In the FEIS, UDOT praises the safety record of the already "improved" highway in the Lower Canyon. As UDOT points out, this section of highway has a safety record that exceeds expectations (FEIS, page 1-9). This section of highway is 34 ft. wide. As we have described above, the summit of Logan Canyon is particularly beautiful; the road winds through magnificent old Douglas Fir. Roughly one-half of these trees will be lost if UDOT widens the road here to 40 ft. and puts in the planned passing lane and 22 ft. "clear wnes," following the alignment specified in the FEIS and the ROD. UDOT is relaxing AASHTO standards in order to use the 34 ft. width in the lower Upper Canyon, below Beaver Mountain. A UDOT safety engineer has argued that a 34 ft . width is "acceptable" from a safety standpoint, citing studies that show this. The "improved" highway in the Lower Canyon, which is 34 ft. wide, exceeds safety expectations. Exemptions from strict AASHTO standards are granted. It seems the most arbitrary and capricious of decisions to end the 34 ft. width at Beaver Mountain, and insist upon a 40 ft. width above Beaver Mountain, with the resulting unacceptable destruction to a side canyon, trees and scenery at the summit. Another example of UDOT's arbitrary and capricious use of AASHTO standards is in their plans for the highway in the Middle Canyon. In the lower Middle Canyon, up to Lower Twin Bridge, UDOT intends to maintain the current design speed of 25 miles per hour, and the current width of 26 ft. They intend to widen the road above Lower Twin Bridge to 34 ft. , increasing the design speed to a uniform 35 miles per hour. A design speed of 35 miles per hour is below AASHTO standards for a minor arterial highway, but, UDOT argues, this design speed is closer to design speeds recommended by AASHTO. UDOT attempts to justify ending the 26 ft. road width at Lower Twin Bridge by saying that "the roadway begins to move further away from the river at this point" (UDOT 1995a). This statement is patently false. The highway closely follows the river throughout much of the Middle Canyon above Lower Twin Bridge, particularly 17 �along the Dugway and at Temple Fork intersection, where the highway closely parallels the river, rising ahove the river on a very steep slope. (Please see the photos we have provided in the Appendix to this appeal.) Widening the highway in this section of Logan Canyon will negatively affect the scenery, water quality, and the fishery. These impacts could be quite serious. UDOT plans to cut 4 to 8 feet into the mountain at the Dugway for 3/4 of a mile, with extensive widening and curve cuts at and below the Temple Fork intersection. They plan to place a retaining wall in one section of the Dugway. There is the risk of extensive retaining walls being placed throughout the Middle Canyon. UDOT has told us that whenever they cannot revegetate a slope, they must install retaining walls (Lynn Zollinger, UDOT engineer, personal communication) . Located just below Lower Twin Bridge is a documented brown trout spawning area. Good conditions for trout spawning are relatively rare in Logan River. Fisheries biologists have informed us that road widening in the Middle Canyon, with associated curve cuts, will possibly increase the level of sedimentation below Lower Twin Bridge to the point that there will be significant loss of trout eggs, a sharp decline in food production for trout, and loss of juvenile brown and cutthroat trout due to clogged gills. UDOT has refused to do a quantitative analysis of sediment-related impacts, even when publicly asked to do so by the Forest Service. The possibility of serious impacts to the scenery and the fishery can be minimized by extending the 26 ft. width another four miles up to ahove the Temple Fork intersection. This would mean leaving the upper Middle Canyon at its current design speed of 25 to 35 miles per hour. Considering that the highway closely parallels the river in the Middle Canyon above Lower Twin Bridge, and considering the possibility of serious negative impacts in this narrow section of the canyon if the road is widened and straightened, it is arbitrary and capricious to end the 26 ft. section at Lower Twin Bridge. Let us summarize our concerns so far with UDOT's use of AASIITO standards. UDOT insists upon using full AASIITO standards in an area where unacceptable environmental destruction will result, even though AASIITO allows flexibility when designing a road in mountainous areas where the terrain limits what can be done. It is not the intent of AASHTO to sanction unnecessary environmental destruction (Amy Steiner, AASIITO, personal communication). Also, UDOT applies AASHTO standards in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, without good justification for decisions to apply these standards in a stricter rather than in a more flexible fashion. UDOT portrays the curves in the upper Middle Canyon section of highway, ahove the Lower Twin Bridge, as being unsafe according to AASHTO standards. On page 2-23 in the FEIS, UDOT criticizes the Conservationists' Alternative for failing to 18 �bring these curves up to AASHTO standards for the posted speed. In Utah, however, a highway' s posted speed is often a compromise between design speed and the speed that drivers actually attain. When not federally mandated, posted speed is determined by calculating the speed that 85 percent of drivers are going. UDOT's proposed design speed for the upper Middle Canyon is a uniform 35 miles per hour, with extensive widening and straightening of the road. Drivers would very likely feel comfortable driving at speeds higher than 35 miles per hour on this widened and straightened stretch of highway. After all, the current posted speed is 35 miles per hour. Following standard practice in Utah, the posted speed may again inch up above design speed, as posted speed is brought more in line with the speed that drivers actually attain. After UDOT's "improvement" of this highway, these curves would still fail to satisfy AASHTO standards for the posted speed. Even if UDOT were to keep to a 35 mile per hour posted speed, as they say they will do in their ROD, the curves in the upper Middle Canyon would fail to meet AASHTO standards for the speeds that drivers will very likely be doing through this section of highway. The problem UDOT points to in its criticism of the Conservationists' Alternative, that the curves are unsafe according to AASHTO standards, will not really be solved by the modified Preferred Alternative. The real problem, of course, is that drivers tend to exceed the speed a road is designed for. This problem will likely only be made worse as UDOT widens and straightens this section of highway. Improve Capacity of tbe Higbway to Accommodate Projected Traffic Volumes UDOT uses a range of projected traffic volumes to argue, for example, that the present highway, without improvements, will provide a dangerously low level of service by the year 2010, and that continuous passing lanes are justified throughout the canyon above Right Hand Fork (1987, page 7-11). UDOT obtains its projections of traffic volumes by fitting a linear equation to past measurements of traffic volumes on the Logan Canyon highway, and by fitting a linear equation to past measurements of the population in northern Utah, in Cache, Box Elder, and Rich Counties. UDOT obtains a range of projected traffic volumes through the year 2010 by using these linear equations to project into the future. UDOT argues that linear equations should be used, rather than exponential, logarithmic and power equations, because linear equations have been found to best fit the data (1987, pages 4- 6 through 4-11). UDOT's projections are of future swnmer traffic volumes. Since 1973, annual traffic volumes have remained constant (FEIS, Figure 1-4). UDOT is designing the canyon highway purely for anticipated summer traffic, and more exactly, for anticipated summer weekend traffic. UDOT reports that summer weekend traffic is currently double that of weekday traffic (FEIS, page 1-16). 19 �We have fit a quadratic equation to the summer traffic data UDOT provides in the FEIS, Figure 1-4, and have found that a quadratic equation fits this data slightly better than does a linear equation. According to the quadratic equation, summer traffic volumes level off over time to values that are significantly lower in 20 10 than the values predicted by a linear equation. UDOT chooses a linear equation based upon its better fit to the data over exponential, logarithmic and power equations. Consistent with this method, UDOT should choose to use a quadratic equation, with its significantly lower predictions, based upon the better fit this equation provides to the data. We have made this point in a letter to UDOT from the Bridgerland Audubon Society, dated May 2, 1993 (UDOT's ROD 1995, Appendix, Response to Comments on FEIS, page 18). In response, UDOT says, "A linear model is an accepted and reasonable model used to project traffic." We are not arguing this claim. Our statistical results show, however, that in the case of Logan Canyon. a quadratic equation is the most reasonable equation to use, based on the better fit it provides to the data. There are other indications that summer traffic volumes in Logan Canyon are leveling off over time. We have run regression analyses on the summer traffic data UDOT provides in the FEIS, Figure 1-4, dividing the data into two categories, 1980 to 1985, and 1986 to 1990. From 1980 to 1985, there is a significant increase in traffic volume with time (r2=.82, P=.02). From 1986 to 1990, on the other hand, there is not a significant correlation between traffic volume and time (r2=.46, P=.21). This means that while in the early 1980's summer traffic increased with time, since 1986 there has been no significant increase in summer traffic volume with time. This is a good indication that summer traffic volumes are leveling off. We have also made this point in a letter to UDOT. They have replied that in predicting traffic volumes it is invalid to divide the data into small sets of "selected years" (Response to-Comments on FEIS, page 17). We are not suggesting, however, that UDOT use five years of data to predict traffic volumes. Our point is, rather, that we have here another indication that summer traffic volumes are leveling off with time, and that UOOT's use of a linear equation to predict summer traffic volumes is therefore invalid, yielding predictions that are too high. The trend shown by the later traffic data suggests that UDOT is planning to build a highway that is too big for actual future needs. The fact that a quadratic equation better fits the entire data set also supports this suggestion. Finally, from Bureau of the Census reports we have found that the population in Rich County, on the other side of the canyon, has been declining over the past ten years. In 1990, the population was 1725 in the entire county, down from the 1980 population of 2100. This is a decline of 17.9%. The population of Garden City, at the 20 �other end of the canyon highway, was 193 in 1990, down from 259 in 1980, a decline of 25.5% (Bureau of the Census 1994). The population of Rich County is probably a good indicator of demand on the Logan Canyon highway, as fewer people in Rich County mean fewer reasons for people to travel back and forth along the highway between Logan and Rich County. It is unfortunate that UDOT has not provided data that shows the percentage of vehicles moving through Logan Canyon that end their journey in Rich County, and the percentage that continue past Rich County into Idaho or Wyoming. Utah motorists moving to and from more northerly destinations such as Montpelier and Yellowstone have several alternate routes, including Idaho highways 34 and 36. Salt Lake and Ogden area motorists moving to and from destinations in Wyoming such as Evanston and Rock Springs have an alternate and more direct route on Interstate 80. Most traffic through Logan Canyon is likely local traffic between Cache and perhaps Box Elder Counties, and Rich County. With the population of Rich County declining over the past ten years, the demand on the Logan Canyon highway should at least level off over time, as the 1986 to 1990 data suggests is happening. This means, again, that UDOT is planning to build a highway based on predictions of traffic volumes that are too high. UDOT uses its projections of summer traffic volumes to determine future Level of Service values for the alternative construction proposals it considers in the FEIS. UDOT argues that the Preferred Alternative would improve the future Level of Service "to a much greater extent" than would the Conservationists' Alternative (FEIS, page 99). This argument is flawed, however, given the above indications that UDOT's predictions of summer traffic volumes are too high. Likely, the highway will not have to bear the burden of traffic UDOT is predicting. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept UDOT's predictions, it isn' t the case that the Preferred Alternative would provide a "much greater" Level of Service (LOS) than would the Conservationists' Alternative. In the Upper Canyon, the Preferred Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of C/O in the year 2010. C/O means something between C and D. The Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of D. Please see Table I. The Preferred Alternative provides only an incremental increase in LOS over the Conservationists' Alternative. For the upper Middle Canyon, by the year 2010 the Preferred Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of D, while the Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of DIE. The gain in Level of Service with the Preferred Alternative is again quite marginal. According to UDOT's descriptions of Levels of Service, in the Upper Canyon the Preferred Alternative is expected to bring about "noticeable increases in platoon formation" and "platoon size," with passing being something between "significantly reduced" and "extremely difficult" (FEIS, page 1-18). With the Conservationists' Alternative, passing is expected to be "extremely difficult." How much better off will . 21 �we be to have passing that is slightly better than "extremely difficult," as opposed to being simply "extremely difficult"? In the upper Middle Canyon, the Preferred Alternative is expected to result in "unstable traffic flow," with passing being "extremely difficult." The Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide passing that is something between "extremely difficult" and "virtually impossible." How much better off will we be with passing that is still "extremely difficult"? It is expected that by the year 2010, both alternatives will provide Levels of Service that fall below the va lue that is professionally acceptable. "LOS C is the minimum desirable LOS for a rural highway" (page 1-19). The marginal gains with the modified Preferred Alternative, with Levels of Service that are still below the "minimum desirable,'" are not worth the much greater cost and environmental destruction. Table 1 Projected LOS by year 2010 (from FElS, Table 2-1) Preferred Alternative Conservationists' Alternative Middle Canyon (lower) Rt. Hand Fork to Lower Twin Bridge (upper) Lower Twin Bridge to Cattle Guard (MP 391.6) DIE DIE D DIE Upper Canyon C/O D We have made this point to UDOT in several letters. Their response is that the difference between the LOS values C/O and D, for example, represents a significant improvement (UDOT's ROD, Response to Comments on FEIS, page 80). This claim is unbelievable, especially given the fact that both alternatives fall below the "minimum desirable" LOS. UDOT adds that we must evaluate construction alternatives on a "corridor-wide" basis (page 22). Considering the environmental impacts of the modified Preferred Alternative in the Middle and Upper sections of the canyon, however, and considering that the gains in LOS with the modified Preferred Alternative are quite marginal in these sections of the canyon, there is good reason for UDOT to scale back its plans in these sections. The corridor-wide LOS would still be enhanced. We are not protesting UDOT's proposals for the Rich County section of highway, past the Bear Lake overlook, for example. UDOT should minimize environmental destruction in the most sensitive areas of the canyon, given the fact that less destructive, yet practicable, alternatives are available in these areas. It is likely, however, that neither alternative will bring about the reduced LOS that UDOT is predicting. since, according to severa l indications, summer traffic 22 �volumes are leveling off over time. For these reasons, flawed traffic projections, and only marginal gains in predicted Levels of Service, UDOT has not justified its choice of the modified Preferred Alternative on the basis of its traffic projections. Improve Traffic Flow According to UDOT, factors that influence traffic flow include speed and travel time, passing ability, and "traffic interruptions" (UDOT 1987, page 6-2). These factors are used to derme the qualitative measure, Level of Service. Level of Service is a slightly broader concept than traffic flow , also taking into account safety, and driver "comfort and convenience." We will briefly compare the modified Preferred Alternative and the Conservationists' Ahemative with respect to the individual factors that enter into traffic flow. While the modified Preferred Alternative raises design speeds and increases opportunities for passing, overall traffic flow is enhanced only marginally when compared to the Conservationists' Alternative, and at the cost of unnecessary environmental destruction. The Conservationists' Alternative represents a good compromise between improving traffic flow and protecting environmentally sensitive areas of the canyon. In the FEIS, UDOT does not compare the Preferred Alternative and the Conservationists ' Alternative with respect to travel time through th e canyon (Table 21). This is unfortunate, since the difference in travel time between the two alternatives is strikingly minimal. In response to letters, UDOT has admitted that the difference is !O minutes or less (FEIS, page 9-9). Proposed design speeds for the highway are generally higher in the modified Preferred Alternative than the Conservationists' Alternative. AASHTO standards detertOine the width and curvature of a road once a design speed is chosen (Amy Steiner, AASHTO, personal communication). With a lower design speed, environmental impacts are lessened. UDOT insists upon a unifortO 50 mile per hour design speed in the Upper Canyon, even though designing for this speed will result in destruction at the summit to a side canyon, the mature trees and the scenic views. UDOT has the alternative, allowed by AASHTO standards, of leaving the design speed at its present 40 to 55 miles per hour. In the upper Middle Canyon, UDOT insists upon a unifortO 35 mile per hour design speed, even though designing for this speed will mean extensive widening and curve cuts , with a retaining wall. The fishery is placed at risk through the possibility of significantly increased sedimentation and turbidity, a risk which has not been adequately analyzed. These impacts and possible impacts are simply not necessary. As they are doing in the lower Middle Canyon, UDOT has the option of maintaining the current design speed, and so designing a less destructive road. With an increase in travel time through the canyon of less than 10 minutes, the environmental impacts to the Middle and Upper Canyons are not necessary. 23 �In their Technical Memoranda, UDOT claims that "the imposition of the lower speed limits onto the sections which can easily accommodate higher speeds would increase travel time and driver irritation" (1987, page 7-13). This is, in fact, UDOT's only defense of the higher design speeds they have chosen, other than their misleading claim that the AASHTO standard for a minor arterial road is 50 miles per hour (FEIS, page 1-8). Since the improvement in travel time is minimal, UDOT' s defense comes down to "driver irritation." UDOT is designing this highway purely for the sake of drivers being able to "go fast," regardless of the minimal savings in travel time, and regardless of the environmental destruction. The modified Preferred Alternative proposes a little over 6.5 miles of new passing lanes in the Upper Canyon, along half of the highway in the Upper Canyon. Below the Beaver Mountain intersection, UDOT is proposing over 3 miles of new passing lanes. UDOT claims that below the Beaver Mountain intersection, in the Upper Canyon, the highway will be widened to 34 ft. , rather than to the originally proposed 40 ft. They label the 34 ft. width a "compromise" for the sake of protecting wetlands (UDOT 1995a). Their claim that the highway in this section will be widened to 34 ft. is misleading, however, since for over 3 miles of this 8 mile section UDOT is proposing passing lanes that will extend the width of the road to 44 ft. UDOT plans to place the 3 miles of passing lanes proposed for below Beaver Mountain in wetlands along Red Banks and below the Tony Grove intersection. Through these wetlands, UDOT's "compromise" widens the highway to 44 ft. , rather than 47 ft. The Conservationists' Alternative proposes 1.6 miles of new passing lanes in the entire Upper Canyon, avoiding impacts to wetlands. With the minimal improvement in travel time achieved with the modified Preferred Alternative, the extensive passing lanes UOOT is proposing are not worth the extra cost and environmental impact. UDOT argues that construction alternatives cannot be judged by travel time alone, but must be evaluated in terms of the wider concept, Level of Service (LOS). As we have argued, however, by UDOT's own estimate the future LOS we achieve with the modified Preferred Alternative is only an incremental improvement over the LOS provided by the Conservationists' Alternative. Considering both travel time and Level of Service, the marginal improvement we achieve with the modified Preferred Alternative does not warrant either the high design speeds or the extensive passing lanes proposed in this alternative. We have asked UDOT to consider using slow vehicle turnouts, along with a single, more modest passing lane, in the section of highway along Red Banks and below the Tony Grove intersection, for the sake of protecting wetlands. UDOT refuses to propose slow vehicle turnouts. In their Technical Memorandum, UDOT admits that turnouts are "safe when properly used," and that, "A series of turnouts at regular 24 �intervals can provide considerable delay reduction" (1987, page 7-30). UDOT acknowledges that slow vehicle turnouts are used in other western states along highways in mountainous terrain. UDOT writes that, "Turnouts are not a substitute for a passing or climbing lane of adequate length." This may be true, in the proper circumstances. Along Red Banks and below the Tony Grove intersection , however, one or two adequately placed slow vehicle turnouts, with a more modest passing lane, would be a good compromise for the sake of protecting wetlands. Considering the minimal gain in travel time and Level of Service that would be achieved by placing passing lanes along half of the highway in the Upper Canyon, there is room here for a genuine compromise for the sake of environmental protection. By "traffic interruptions," we assume that UDOT is referring to such control measures as stop and yield signs, and traffic lights. Neither the modified Preferred Alternative nor the Conservationists' Alternative propose that such measures be used along this highway. UDOT has chosen the modified Preferred Alternative, in part, because, they say, it better improves driver "comfort and convenience.'" It appears that the modified Preferred Alternative is motivated simply by the desire to build a big highway on which drivers can "go fast," without the "irritation" of having to drive at lower speeds in some areas of the canyon, and without the "inconvenience" of having to adjust speeds slightly when negotiating some curves, perhaps having to shift gears. We are arguing that, given the minimal improvements in traffic flow provided by the modified Preferred Alternative, genuine compromise can and should be made for the sake of protecting the scenery, wetlands, the fishery, and wildlife. The Forest Service has designated Logan Canyon a National Scenic Byway. Logan Canyon was once proposed as a National Park. It has received national attention, for example, in the recent Audubon magazine article by Rick Bass (1994). Given the tremendous beauty and recreational value of this canyon, compromise can and should be reached, even if drivers are constrained from rocketing through the canyon to save fewer than 10 minutes, and even though drivers may be constrained to adjust speeds slightly through some curves. Logan Canyon is uniquely splendid, and irreplaceable. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan includes several guidelines that call for a compromise in road design in this Forest. One guideline states, "Design speed must be a compromise between the travel speed desired and that which the terrain will permit within the environmental constraints" (page IV-44). This means that road design must also be a compromise between desired travel speed and environmental constraints. Design speeds proposed by UDOT, and highway design in general, throughout the Middle and Upper Canyons, is not a good compromise with environmental constraints. UDOT has designed the highway in accordance with projections of future traffic volumes that appear to be arbitrarily high. There are 25 �several indications that summer traffic volumes are leveling off in Logan Canyon. In defense of its design, UDOT often appeals to AASHTO safety standards. In a sensitive area of the canyon, however, UDOT is using AASHTO standards in an inappropriately strict fashion, counter to allowa."ces made by AASHTO for mountainous regions. UDOT has designed this highway in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, without good justification for decisions to apply AASHTO standards in a stricter rather than in a more flexible manner, for example, at the summit and through the upper Middle Canyon. Design speeds have been chosen by UDOT, it seems, purely for the sake of drivers being able to attain high speeds through the canyon, without a significant improvement in travel time or Level of Service. By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, without good justification for the proposed construction, the Forest Service is violating the above guideline in its Management Plan. Another guideline states, "The alignment shall lay light on the land ... Except for necessary stream crossings, riparian areas shall not be disturbed" (page IV-44). The modified Preferred Alternative cannot be said to lay "light" on the land. A 47 ft. wide swath through the mature trees and a side canyon at the summit, with 22 ft. wide "clear zones" on either side, for a total "affected" width of 80 ft. , does not count as laying "light" on the land. Extensive widening and curve cuts through the upper Middle Canyon, with hillside excavations and a 4-8 ft. cut into the mountain along the Dugway for 3/4 of a mile, complete with a retaining wall, will not produce a road that lays "light" on the land. UDOT plans 1,740 ft. of retaining walls that will be anchored in riparian areas along Beaver Creek. Such destruction of riparian areas is not necessary. The Conservationists' Alternative improves traffic flow to an adequate extent, without such unacceptable impacts upon the canyon and river. By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative when an adequate alternative design is available, the Forest Service is violating the above guideline in its Management Plan concerning unnecessary impacts of a road on the landscape and riparian areas. The modified Preferred Alternative is neither reasonable nor necessary. It is not reasonable, because this highway design has not been adequately justified. It is not necessary, because there is an adequate and less damaging alternative, the Conservationists' Alternative. By violating the two guidelines quoted above, the Forest Service is in violation of the National Forest Management Act. These guidelines are not to be violated "unless some overriding reason to abandon" them is supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary analysis (page IV-24). Such an interdisciplinary analysis for the purpose of abandoning these guidelines has not been done. Finally, in a response to a comment on its Management Plan, the Forest Service stated, "Improvements to Logan Canyon Highway will be only minor. There is a need to provide safe bridges and some passing lanes. The road will not be raised to a higher 26 �standard than existing" (Forest Service 1985a, p.236). In violating this commitment to the public, the Forest Service is acting in bad faith . We urge the Forest Service to insist that UDOT scale down its proposal to achieve a genuine compromise between the requirements of traffic flow and Level of Service, and environmental constraints. A scaled-down proposal should be submitted before the Forest Service amends the Management Plan and grants the required easement allowing highway construction in Logan Canyon. We also urge the Forest Service to insist that UDOT reconsider the Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon highway. Literature Cited Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6. United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the Census. 1994. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOD. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. Utah Department of Transportation. 1995a. U.S. 89 in Logan Canyon (pamphlet describing the Preferred Alternative). Utah Department of Transportation . 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CHZM Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda. Prepared by CHZM Hill. 27 �Service, and environmental constraints. A scaled-down proposal should be submitted before the Forest Service amends the Management Plan and grants the required easement aUowing highway construction in Logan Canyon. We also urge the Forest Service to insist that UDOT reconsider the Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon highway. Literature Cited Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan . USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6. United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the Census. 1994. Utah Department of Transportation (UD01). 1995. Through Logan Canyon. (RO~) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Utah Department of Transportation. 1995a. U.S. 89 in Logan Canyon (pamphlet describing the Preferred Alternative). Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M HiU. Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda. CH2M Hill. 4. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLANNING Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 16 U.S.C., 127 1 !:UJ;g.) requires all federal agencies to consider potential national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas in all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources. The planning responsibility imposed by 5(d) plainly requires the Forest Service to assess the values of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers on National Forest lands during the preparation of land and resource management plans pursuant 28 �to the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C., 1600 ~.). Section 1924 of the Forest Management Act recognizes the Forest Service's responsibility in this regard: "Consideration of potential wild and scenic rivers is an inherent part of the ongoing land and resource management planning process." According to Chapter 8 of the Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook, rivers are identified for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by several means, including the land management planning process. The Forest Service has elected to conduct wild and scenic river inventories as a part of its Forest Management Plan revision process. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is currently being revised. Forest Service precedent is to complete the eligibility stage of the wild and scenic river inventory in a separate document prior to completion of the Management Plan revision. The suitability stage of the inventory is completed and included in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Management Plan revision. In November of 1993, the Wasatch-Cache Forest issued an inventory document identifying eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This Inventory identified the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River as being eligible for stream wild and scenic river status. Appellants are concerned that, initially, only on the entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River, was .found to eligible for interim protection until a suitability study was performed. Appellants were involved with studying the Logan River and Beaver Creek, using the eligibility requirements from the Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook. Even though over 50 pages of information was provided to the Inventory Team (Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1993), no reference was made to this material in the Inventory except a footnote. = Appellants found that certain segments of the Logan River might possess the free-flowing characteristics and outstandingly remarkable qualities for eligibility if the evaluation was corrected to use current evaluation techniques. These techniques were detailed in two letters to the Forest Supervisor (J. Logan, in a 3 page, single-spaced letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor, 18 January 1994; also D. Parkin, in a 23 page, single-spaced letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino, 18 February 1994). These letters concurred in the opinion that the forest planners used an honest and systematic approach in preparing the Inventory. However, the main thrust of these letters was that there were "significant flaws in both the methodology and interpretation of policy guidelines" (Parkin, 1994). In response, the Wasatch-Cache Forest issued a supplemental report entitled LMP Revision Planning Record Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Evaluation. This 29 �• Supplement amended portions of the November 1993 inventory. Departing from planning criteria set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (p.L. 90-542, 81 Stat. 906, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271 (Note), 1271-1287), the USDA-USDI Guidelines for implementing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (USDA-USDI 1982), Forest Service Manual 1924, and Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook (Ch. 8), the Wasatch-Cache Forest included an amendment to Appendix D which identified river segments that were "Likely to be Outstandingly Remarkable." The Forest identification team denoted with an "M" rivers that might possess outstandingly remarkable values and that require subsequent study. In this Supplement, the Logan River was resegmented into two segments, Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek and Beaver Creek to its source. The segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek was given five out of nine "might possess outstandingly remarkable values." This segment lies within the Utah Department of Transportation' s (UDOT) Highway 89 expansion project. This segment was identified for further study due to outstanding geologic and hydrologic, scenic, general recreational, fishery and ecological values. Eighty-two rivers andlor river segments were identified in the Supplement's reevaluation, and the only river segment that comes close in score to the Logan River segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek is the East Fork of the Smith's Fork, which scored only three "might possess outstandingly remarkable values" (Supplement 1994). Although no precedent has been set for rivers that "might possess outstandingly remarkable values," the Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook provides interim protection guidelines for river segments examined in this Supplement. According to section 8.12 of this Handbook: "Interim Managment of Study Rivers. Management prescriptions for river corridors identified in the National River Inventory, or otherwise identified for study [emphasis added] should provide protection in the following ways: 1. To the extent the Forest Service is authorized under Jaw to control stream impoundments and diversions, the free-flowing characteristics of the identified river cannot be modified. 2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area must be protected and, to the extent practicable, enhanced. 3. Management and development of the identified river and its corridor cannot be modified to the degree that eligibility or classification would be affected (i.e. classification cannot be changed from wild to scenic, or scenic to recreational). 30 �• Specific management guidelines for each of the river classifications can be found in the revised USDA-USDI Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas, and in the additional standards for study river assessment and management in section 8.2 of this chapter. These management guidelines should be followed, to the extent of Forest Service authority, for all identified study rivers. The protection requirements specified above must be documented in the forest plan prescriptions and continued until a decision is made as to the future use of the river and adjacent lands." The segment of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek has been "otherwise identified for study" by the Forest Service in its Supplement. It therefore qualifies for interim protection under the Management Planning Handbook. L Tbe Forest Service's Record of Decision violates Interim Protection Requirements to Maintain tbe Free-Flowing Nature of tbe Eligible Logan River. According to section 8.21(b) of the Forest Service Management Planning Handbook, free-flowing is defined as: "existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening. rip-rapping. or other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System does not automatically disqualify it for designation, but future construction of such structures is not allowed" (emphasis added). The FEIS indicates that cement retaining walls will be used in riparian areas at Beaver Creek, and that riprap may be required wherever the river is adjacent to highway expansion. These modifications are in direct conflict with the interim protection mandated by the Management Planning Handbook. U. Tbe Record of Decision Violates tbe Forest Service's Interim Protection Requirements to Maintain tbe Outstandingly Remarkable Values of tbe Logan River. A. One of the values identified for the Logan River is its outstandingly remarkable fishery . According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Logan River fishery is a Class I and II fishery that is ranked as being in the top 5% of all stream fisheries in the state. This fishery is also considered by the Utah Division of Water Rights to be one of four major fisheries in the state (Greg Mladenka, Utah Division of Water Rights, personal communication). According to the FEIS, between 4.4 and 7.6% of brown and cutthroat trout will be lost in the Middle and Upper Canyons through streambank vegetation removal. Where stream bank vegetation is 31 �• removed, the FEIS estimates a 40 to 70% loss of brown and cutthroat trout. As discussed in the fishery impacts section of this appeal, however, fish mortality will likely be greater than this. UDOT has not adequately addressed sediment-related impacts on this fishery. It is obvious that UDOT's construction project will decrease the quality of this outstanding fishery. The Forest Service Management Planning Handbook clearly mandates maintenance, if not improvement of, all outstandingly remarkable values. Unless, subsequent to this appeal, the Wasatch-Cache Forest finds the Logan River ineligible, unsuitable, or Congress formally elects not to designate the Logan River a wild and scenic river, the Forest Service has a statutory requirement to ensure that the outstandingly remarkable fishery value of the Logan River is maintained in its existing state. B. Another value identified for the Logan River is its outstandingly remarkable ecological value. The FEIS states, "The single most important wildlife habitat type within the project area is woody riparian habitat consisting of forested and scrub/shrub wetlands and riparian communities that occur along the river and streams." According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 80% of all wildife species are dependant upon riparian zones for at least a portion of their life cycles. Riparian zones thus fulfill an important function in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The FEIS estimates that highway construction will require the removal of 3.5 acres, which equals 1.8 miles, of riparian habitat. An additional 11.2 acres of associated wetlands will be impacted. Riparian zones will be destroyed through canopy removal, the addition of fill, and rip rap or retaining walls placed throughout the eligible wild and scenic Logan River segment. This expected 1.8 miles of riparian habitat removal represents roughly 20% of the eligible wild and scenic section of the Logan River. The FEIS summarizes these impacts as follows: "The permanent loss of riparian and wetland habitat has one of the greatest impacts on wildlife. Most of the habitat loss that occurs as a result of ongoing highway maintenance activities or that would result from construction of one of the aIternatives will be permanent. Roadway surfaces along with retaining walls, parking areas, flattened curves, new alignments, etc., all permanently eliminate wildlife habitat." The FEIS further estimates that 149.3 acres of upland habitat will be impacted. This could lead to "habitat fagmentation [that] can be a significant problem for songbirds, amphibians, or small mammals." In summary, with its decision to permit proposed highway construction, the 32 �Forest Service is not managing identified outstandingly remarkable ecological values of the Logan River in the interim period as required by the Management Planning Handbook and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, pending suitability studies or Congressional decision. C. The Logan River was also identified as requiring further study for its outstandingly remarkable scenic values. The FEIS estimates that construction will destroy 38 % and 9 % of the most visually sensitive areas within the eligible wild and scenic river segment, and 58% and 71 % of the moderately visually sensitive areas. UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative will not comply with the Visual Quality Objectives established in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Management Plan. If construction proceeds as planned, the Logan River will no longer possess the outstandingly remarkable scenic values needed to qualify for Wild and Scenic status. The "Dugway" will be excavated up to 8 ft. into the mountain, creating a huge road cut and the need for at least one planned retaining wall. Up canyon from the Dugway, the curve will be flattened and realignment will start for the replacement of the Upper Twin Bridge, producing another large road cut. Other road cuts will be made just below the Temple Fork intersection. The 8 miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to the Beaver Mountain intersection) will be widened to 34 ft., and areas with passing lanes, up to 3 miles in length, will be widened to 44 ft. These construction segments will produce large amounts of cut and fill and a large road base, further degrading the scenic value. Although the supplemental study indicated that the eligible Logan River segment was considered outstandingly scenic because it "Contain[s) a National Scenic Byway where the river conidor contributes significantly to the road's designation," the Forest Service is not managing the segment of the Logan River in the interim period to maintain its existing outstandingly remarkable scenic value. DL Tbe Record of Decision Violates tbe Forest Service's Interim Protection Requirements to Protect the Current Classification Status of the Eligible Logan River. In the Supplement to the Inventory released by the Wasatch-Cache Forest, no classification scheme was recommended for either stretch of the Logan River. It is the contention of the Utah Rivers Conservation Council, appellants, that the Logan River should be classified as a SCENIC river under the Wild and Scenic River System. According to the WiJd and Scenic Rivers Act, classification defmitions are as follows: 33 �• "Scenic river areas--Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of . impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Recreational river areas--Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past." The USDA-USDI NWSRS Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, CFR 39458, discusses interpretation of development by stating: "Existing low dams , diversion works, rip-rap. and other minor structures will not bar recreational classification, provided the watetway remains generally natural and riverine in appearance." Appellants are concerned that the Logan River segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek, which "might possess outstandingly remarkable values" as indicated in the Supplement, will be exposed to inappropriate levels of disturbance by UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative highway proposal. This Logan River segment is eligible for Wild and Scenic status, and, therefore, until an adequate evaluation is complete, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act mandates no degradation of values. UDOT's Record of Decision states, "The FEIS recognizes that some screening vegetation along the river may be disturbed, but again this is estimated in the EIS to be minor and mostly temporary in nature ... the road reconstruction project will not affect the potential eligibility or classification of the Logan River" (page 38). "The FEIS also evaluated the effects of the alternatives on the resources and characteristics affecting the scenic, historic, recreation, wildlife and fish, cultural and other values associated with the river and river corridor ... there will be either no or only minor effects from the Preferred Alternative on these values" (page 37). Appellants beHeve, however, that there are numerous construction components in the Preferred Alternative that will result in significant depreciation of wild and scenic values and will in fact jeopardize the potential classification of the Logan River and Beaver Creek. Some of these construction components are described above. Appellants are concerned that UDOT's "minor effects" will be enough to change the existing classification from scenic to recreational, or from recreational to ineligibility. This is explicitly contrary to requirements specified in the Forest Service Management Planning Handbook and in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. IV_ The Forest Service's Record of Decision Violates The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Forest Service Administrative Direction for Compliance with that Act. 34 �With its Record of Decision, the Forest Service is in general failing to grant interim protection to the Logan River segment that has been found eligible for Wild and Scenic River status. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and its Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 8. Appellants are also concerned that the planning team did not assess all resource values that would qualify the Logan River for inclusion as an eligible Wild and Scenic River. Most notably, there is ample evidence to indicate that the Logan River possesses outstandingly remarkable water oriented recreation, botanical, and wildlife values (CPLC, 1993). Appellants are concerned that the Supplement does not evaluate significant tributaries of the Logan River, most notably Beaver Creek. Study and protection of tributary streams is an important component of the wild and scenic planning process because such streams and creeks are integral components of river systems. The goals of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can best be achieved through preservation and recognition of river systems as integral wholes, with full recognition of the contribution of tributary steams. Also, management of such tributaries as Wild and Scenic Rivers will enhance the Forest Service's ability to maintain and enhance downstream riverine values. V. Tbe Forest Service Failed to Adequately Involve tbe Concerned Public in tbe Inventory Process. Although Logan Canyon is of high local and national interest, the original Inventory received a very limited distribution (Bass 1994). Even so, of those interested parties who responded, the overwhelming majority were critical of the Inventory. Of those who responded, none were notified of the subsequent reevaluation or the changes incorporated in the Table of Appendix D in the 1994 Supplement. The Forest Service has not provided sufficient documentation required for the concerned public to evaluate the criteria used to draw conclusions in the original Inventory. The Inventory refers to "detailed field surveys' (1993, pages A-19). In the Supplement we find the statement, "documentalion used to facilitate judging the merits of further study have been incorporated in this supplement...· (pages 1-10). Yet when appellants requested access to this "documentation," all that was forthcoming were copies of maps with largely unintelligible notations. Apparently, there exists no clear documentation that can be reviewed by the concerned pUblic. It is irresponsible for the Forest Service to agree to any depreciation of wild and scenic values without full involvement of the concerned public. 35 �The Utah Rivers Conservation Council has recommended that the entire Utah portion of the Logan River conidor be designated as a Scenic river under the NWSRS. This recommendation was made through A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah, published by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. The WasatchCache Forest has not responded to this recommendation, other than by violating its (5d) Wild and Scenic River Act planning requirements through issuing its Record of Decision. Literature Cited Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. 1993. Letter of October 7, 1993, with numerous attachments containing information about Logan River, Logan Canyon and Beaver Creek. Logan, J. 1994. Letter of January 18 to Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Parkin, D. 1994. Letter of February 18 to Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Supplement to Inventory of Rivers on the WasatchCache National Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Inventory of Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the WasatchCache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. Utah Rivers Conservation Council. A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah, published by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 36 �S. FlSHERY IMPACTS The Utah Department of Transportation and the Forest Service are accepting an analysis of fishery impacts that is inadequate. There is no scientific justification whatsoever for claims in UDOT's FEIS that trout populations will be reduced 4 to 8%, and that the effects of increased sedimentation will be "relatively minor and short term." From the FEIS and supporting documentation, we have no idea what impact UDOT's Preferred Alternative will have upon fish populations in Logan River. The Forest Service is also in violation of its Management Plan in not obtaining adequate analyses of required habitat indices. According to a guideline in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan, the Forest Service must monitor BCI and HCI indices for Logan River to ensure the continuing quality of fish habitat. As amended in the Forest Service' s Record of Decision (1995), this guideline states,"ln all streams maintain the existing HCI and BCI where they exceed the minimum of 42 and 75 respectively. Allow decreases not exceeding 5% of existing condition ... " (page IV-3(0). (These indices are described in Appendix 0 of the Plan.) No BCI analysis has been done by the Forest Service or by UDOT, predicting the effect of UDOT's construction upon this index for Logan River. No macroinvertibrate baseline data is reported for Logan River. An HCI analysis is briefly reported in the FEIS, but it is, as we shall show, inadequate. By failing to obtain adequate analyses of BCI and HCI habitat indices, and by failing to commit to proper monitoring of these indices, the Forest Service is in violation of its Management Plan. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of the National Forest Management Act. The Logan River has been designated a Class I and Class II waterway on the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources' Unique Streams List. As such, the fishery in Logan River is among the top 5% of stream fisheries in the state of Utah. This fishery is considered by the Utah Division of Water Rights to be one of four major fisheries in the state (Greg Mladenka, Division of Water Rights, personal communication). The Logan River supports naturally-reproducing populations of brown and cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. Logan River riparian habitat is considered among the "best preserved in the state" (FEIS, page 9-59). Due to the quality of its fishery, the quality of the fishing experience in relatively pristine conditions, and accessibility, the Logan River is a favorite with anglers throughout northern Utah. Anglers who fish the Logan bring $4 million annually into the local economy (estimate for 1990, UDOT 1987, Table 7, page 18). UDOT's analysis of fish loss due to construction begins with an estimate of the length of stream bank that will be impacted by the removal of vegetation. From studies by the Division of Wildlife Resources, we have available the number of fish that are located along each foot of stream bank. This value is multiplied by the 35 ., ~ e- r ~ ~".;it ( Ci rL. c f (' .. -r\"r.N~1;., ~ <.r<.-j �number of feet of stream bank that will be impacted. We now have the number of fish that are located along the length of impacted stream bank. This number is multiplied by 40% and by 70% to obtain a range of numbers of fish that will be lost in the impacted areas. The 40% and 70 % are fish mortality rates that have been borrowed from a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources study done in 1973 on the effects of the removal of stream bank vegetation. The numbers of fish lost in the impacted areas are divided by the total number of fish in the river, to give us a range of percentages of fish lost through construction. The FEIS concludes that in the Middle Canyon, 4.4 to 7.6% of brown trout will be lost, and the same percentages of cutthroat trout will be lost. In the Upper Canyon, again 4.4 to 7.6 % of each population will be lost (FEIS, Table 4.8, pages 4-43 through 4-45). The Forest Service has asked UDOT for a more extensive analysis. In a letter to UDOT, Regional Forester J .S. Tilder noted that the analysis UDOT provides in the DEIS considers only the impact of vegetation removal, ignoring the effects on the fishery of increased sedimentation due to construction (FEIS, page 9-49). He recommended that UDOT contact Forest Service fisheries biologists for help with quantitatively estimating effects of sedimentation. He supplied names and phone numbers. (Tixier's letter is attached at the end of this section of our appeal.) The quantitative analysis of fish loss in the FEIS is identical in method to that in the DEIS, without a quantitative analysis of sedimentation. In its response to Tixier, UDOT writes that the effects of increased sedimentation are "difficult to predict" (FEIS, pages 9-15,9- 16). In an internal memo, (included at the end of this section), Forest Service fisheries biologist Jill Dufour (1989) expressed her concern that UDOT is underestimating the effects of construction upon fish by neglecting turbidity in its quantitative analysis. The discussion of fishery iropacts in the FEIS is simplistic because UDOT refuses to quantitatively predict the increase in sedimentation and turbidity due to construction. Beyond saying that such an analysis is "difficult," UDOT claims that such an analysis "would greatly oversimplify and probably overestimate sediment related effects." They add that a quantitative analysis would not properly account for UDOT's use of "best management practices" during construction (FEIS, page 4-49). Several fisheries biologists have informed us that, in fact, the models that are used to predict sediment-related effects allow biologists to factor into their analysis the use of practices that limit the sediments entering a river. "Best management practices" are accounted for in the models used by the Forest Service and others. Rather than "overestimating" iropacts, as UDOT claims, such models allow biologists to realistically evaluate the impacts of the disturbance of riparian habitat. By refusing to do a quantitative analysis of sedimentation and turbidity, UDOT is building a "best case" scenario geared, it seems, to make the effects of their construction proposal 36 �• appear palatable--only a 4 to 8% loss of fish . In reality, considering sediment-related effects, the loss will likely be greater than this. In its recent Record of Decision, the Forest Service states categorically that "the environmental effects were adequately disclosed" in UOOT's FEIS (1995, page 2). In saying this, the Forest Service is ignoring the fact that UDOT has refused to provide a quantitative analysis of sedimentation, even after being publicly asked to do so by Regional Forester Tixier. In his request, Tixier cited the "significan ce" of the Logan River fishery. The Forest Service is also ignoring Jill Dufour' s memo, available in th e files in the Regional office, expressing her professional opinion that UDOT is underestimating the effects of increased turbidity by ignoring turbidity in its quantitative analysis. The Forest Service does not indicate why they have ignored the reservations expressed by these Forest Service personnel. For this reason, the Forest Service' s decision to accept UDOT's FEIS appears arbitrary and capricious. It appears to rest upon political expediency rather than good science. UDOT provides a qualitative, and very brief, discussion of sedimentation and turbidity. They write that, "The potential increase in turbidity and possibly siltation will be expected to have a relatively minor and short-term impact on water quality, benthic invertebrates, and fish populations" (FEIS, page 4-48). They support this claim by saying that "only" 10% of Logan River's banks will be impacted through construction, that not all of the affected stream banks will be impacted at the same time, and that measures will be used to control sediments entering the river during and after construction. For example, ground cover will be reestablished along stream banks, they claim, and construction will be limited to the drier months of the year "to the extent practicable." On the other hand, UDOT admits that mature riparian vegetation, with overhanging cover for fish, "will take considerably longer" to reestablish, up to 10 to 40 years (FEIS, pages 4-31 and 4-48). Growth of new cottonwoods and other deciduous trees, "could require 30 to 50 years or might never occur again" (page 43 1) . Since mature riparian plant communities take "considerably longer" to reestablish, the loss of these communities, especially on steep slopes, will likely have some long term impact on the fishery with respect to erosion control. In an undated report, "Effects of Road Building on the Logan River," the late professor of fisheries biology, William Helm, explains that in the drier months runoff into a river during construction can be especially damaging to a fishery. In riparian areas that have had vegetation removed, runoff from summer slonns canies a large load of sediment that, in the lowered flow of the river, is not canied downstream . In the drier mon ths , sediment tends to be deposited in the areas under construction or just downstream. If those areas are critical to fish, providing spawning or feeding grounds, 37 �the effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity can be severe. Helm writes that increased sedimentation can be expected to kill 95-100% of fish eggs. Sediments fill the spaces between gravel and stones, "greatly decreasing the supply of food for trout." Juvenile cutthroat trout are found in Logan River throughout the summer season, and are highly susceptible to sediments clogging their gills. UDOT claims that it will limit construction to the drier months of the year, but, according to Helm, this is actually "the worst possible time" to add sediment to rivers. Helm's assessment has been confirmed by a fisheries biologist with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (personal communication). UDOT has not established its claim that increased sedimentation and turbidity due to construction will have a "relatively minor and short-term impact." As Helm argues, sediment entering a river during the drier months is especially damaging to a fishery, and UDOT has admitted that mature riparian plant communities take from 10 to 40 years to reestablish. Furthermore, UDOT is planning extensive construction just beyond the riparian zone. Six curve cuts are planned along the highway through the Middle Canyon. UDOT is planning to widen the road in the Middle and Upper Canyons, just beyond, and in some places within, the riparian zone. At the Dugway, UDOT is planning to carve 4 to 8 feet into the rock and dirt wall on the mountain side of the highway, for a distance of about 3/4 of a mile. Upstream, Temple Fork intersection is to be widened, with a turning lane installed. Within the narrow riparian area between the road and the river, a retaining wall has been proposed to help stabilize the steep slope. Considering the extent of planned construction along Logan River, UDOT's claim that increased sedimentation and turbidity will have a "relatively minor and short-term impact" is unbelievable. With the loss of 10% of the riparian vegetation, and with extensive road construction in and just beyond the riparian zone, sediment-related effects will likely be major and long term. In fact, at one point in the FEIS, UDOT contradicts its conclusion by admitting that effects of increased sedimentation will be "short- and long-term" (page 4-2). A quantitative discussion of sediment-related effects would help us detennine how serious these effects will be on the fishery. Let us return to UDOT's quantitative analysis of fish mortality. It is simplistic in that it ignores effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity due to construction. It is simplistic, as well, in that it assumes that every length of stream bank is equivalent, with respect to fish spawning and feeding, to every other length of stream bank. If extensive construction takes place adjacent to sections of the river that are of critical importance to trout spawning and feeding, the impacts could exceed the estimated 4 to 8 % mortality. In a letter to CH2M Hill, preparers of the FEIS, Professor Helm (1987) reported that the river just downstream of Lower Twin Bridge in the Middle Canyon is an 38 �important spawning area for brown trout. This area features good pools and substrate, moderate water velocities and good overhanging cover. Helm discovered a relatively high number of brown trout "redds" or nests in this area, 9 redds in a . 15 mile stretch, as compared to 2 redds per mile in the river below this point. Two biologists have looked at this section of the river with us and have confinned that this area may be important for trout spawning. The extensive construction planned along the Dugway will be just above and upstream of Lower Twin Bridge. Sediments in runoff from this construction site will likely enter the river just upstream of the spawning area discovered by Helm, the sediments possibly killing eggs, damaging food production, and clogging the gills of juveniles. This would lead to a greater loss to the fishery than UDOT predicts. Jill Dufour of the Forest Service worries about the impacts construction at the Temple Fork intersection will have on juvenile cutthroat trout, and upon any spawning cutthroat trout, below the intersection. Juvenile cutthroat are found in Logan River throughout the summer, and Dufour has emphasized to us that these juveniles are highly susceptible to clogged gills from sediments (personal communication). Another fisheries biologist, Thomas Pettengill of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, has told us that, in his opinion, the gradient of the river at the Temple Fork intersection is steep enough that sediments from construction here will likely be carried further downstream, settling out where the gradient is less steep and the river slows, at and below Lower Twin Bridge (personal communication). Sediments from construction at the Temple Fork intersec tion would co mbine with sediments from construction at the Dugway, all dumping into critical brown trout spawning and feeding areas in the lower Middle Canyon. Helm ' s data on brown trout spawning is from 1987. We do not have recent data on trout spawning in the Logan River. We also do not have recent data on fish habitat. We need a better indication of the number and distribution of good quality pools in the river, and the amount and distribution of good substrates for spawning. If good quality pools and good substrates are rare in the Logan River, as has been reported, then extensive construction adjacent to these resources could have an impact on the fishery that is disproportionate to the length of stream bank affected. The single study that UDOT relies upon for habitat information was done by Adams in 1966 (FEIS, Table 3-8, page 3-30). This study is almost 30 years old! In her memo within the Forest Service, Jill Dufour (1989) wrote concerning this study, "I question whether data from 1966 is applicable to conditions in the Logan River today." In spite of Dufour's memo, neither UDOT nor the Forest Service have provided us with any documentation showing that the habitat data Adams gathered in 1966 is relevant today. Let us return to UOOT's quantitative analysis of fish mortality. UOOT relies 39 �heavily upon a study done in 1973 by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. It is from this study that UDOT gets the trout mortality rates of 40 to 70%. This study has not been published. A brief description of methods and results are included within an internal UDOT memo of 1974. This study is twenty-two years old! A copy of the table reporting the data from this study has been included at the end of this section . The blanks or dashes in the table mean, it seems, that no effort was made to catch fish at that station during that "electrofishing effort." Apparently, the stations were sampled unevenly. The Right Hand Fork Station was sampled only once, while the Brachiopod Station was sampled four times. This renders suspect any range of trout reduction values generated in this study, since sampling effort varies considerably from station to station. From the data presented, we cannot conclude, with the authors of this study, that riparian habitat loss will result in a 40 to 70% reduction in numbers of brown and cutthroat trout. At the stations sampled, cutthroat and brown trout numbers were actually reduced by 47 to 80%. At the Brachiopod station, the reported numbers of cutthroat are lOin the unaltered site and 2 in the altered site, a difference of 8 fish, which is an 80% reduction in the number of fish in the altered site. No station had a reduction lower than 47 %. The average percent reduction in brown and cutthroat trout, considered together, is 65 %. Using a paired-data statistical technique for estimating the reduction of trout in the population, with a=.05, we have obtained a range of 58 to 73%. We know of no statistical technique that will provide an estimate for the population of 40 to 70%, given this data with an average reduction of 65%. Unfortunately, the authors of this study do not tell us how they obtained their estimate. Our inquiries to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and to CH2M Hill, have produced no information on who did this study or how they obtained their estimate. Another difficulty with this 1973 study is that it does not accurately indicate effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity due to construction. UDOT argues that by providing an estimate of trout reduction in areas that have been altered by the removal of riparian vegetation during construction, this study automatically accounts for sediment-related effects on fish . UDOT bases its refusal to do a separate quantitative analysis of sediment-related effects, in part, on their claim that this study already indicates such effects. This study cannot, however, indicate effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity during and just after construction. It was conducted in the Lower Canyon, where the highway was widened and straightened in 1968. This study was conducted five years later, in 1973. It cannot, then, indicate effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity during and just after the removal of riparian vegetation. when these effects are greatest. 40 �• The most serious problem with this 1973 study, however, is that it is the wrong kind of srudy for the use UDOT makes of it. This srudy is simply a comparison of fish numbers at each sampling station. The number of fish is determined along a length of stream bank with narural vegetation and along an adjacent length of stream bank that has had the vegetation removed. The results are, not surprisingly, that fish prefer to spend time in those areas with natural vegetation. This is actually a preference study. investigating where fish prefer to spend time when there is a choice between adjacent lengths of stream bank. This srudy does not address the question of how many fish will actually be lost to the fishery with the loss of riparian vegetation to road construction. The range of values obtained in this study is not an indication of trout mortality, but rather an indication of where fish prefer to spend time between adjacent lengths of stream bank. The kind of srudy we need to estimate actual loss of fish is a study that measures fish densities along a river prior to and after extensive loss of riparian vegetation to construction. We require an actual alteration study. There is no good reason to base an assessment of fish mortality in' Logan River exclusively on a study that is not designed to answer questions about acrual fish loss. Basing a quantitative analysis of fish mortality upon this 1973 srudy is not "the best we can do." Fisheries biologists have informed us that in the fisheries literature it is common to fmd studies that measure actual fish losses in rivers that have been altered through road construction. Such alteration studies have been done in Montana and in Colorado. We have learned that these srudies can easily be located by the Forest Service through an Internet service. No such srudies are cited by UDOT in its FEIS or in supporting documentation, yet such srudies are relevant. Also, it would be helpful to have a quantitative analysis of the sediment-related effects of construction in the Logan River. It would be helpful to have in hand a recent srudy of fish habitat, with an indication of the use of the habitat by fish, so that we know where cutthroat and brown trout are spawning and feeding in relation to planned construction. By relying exclusively upon this 1973 UDWR srudy in its quantitative analysis, UDOT has provided a simplistic and inaccurate prediction of fish loss. Let us sum up our concerns with UDOT's discussion of fish mortality. UDOT's quantitative analysis incorporates mortality values that are taken from a study that is 22 years old, and is not designed for the use UDOT makes of it. This srudy does not accurately indicate effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity. Reported values of trout reduction are apparently incorrect, and so UDOT's analysis based upon these values appears to be inaccurate. UDOT fails to consider relevant studies of the actual impacts of road construction upon fisheries. UDOT has refused to predict the effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity using models that are widely used for this purpose, even after being publicly asked to do so by the Forest Service, and even after the Forest Service offered to provide help in generating the predictions. UDOT' s claim that sediment-related effects will be "minor and short-term" is contradicted by the fact 41 �that UDOT is planning extensive construction in and just beyond the riparian zone, and by the fact that mature riparian plant communities may take up to 40 years to reestablish, with a longer time for trees. Professor Helm has found that the drier season, when UOOT plans to do most of the construction, is actually the "worst possible time" to add sediment to a river. Those areas of the river that are adjacent to planned major construction may be of vital importance to the fish . Professor Helm has documented an important brown trout spawning area just below Lower Twin Bridge. UDOT is relying upon a study of fish habitat that is almost 30 years old, and, according to one fisheries biologist, is of doubtful relevance today. We do not have current information on fish habitat or fish spawning in Logan River. UDOT will respond that our concerns are no longer as valid as they might have been, since, in its Record of Decision, UDOT has modified the Preferred Alternative so that it is less environmentally destructive. Unfortunately, UDOT is still planning extensive road widening and curve cuts adjacent to, and just upstream of those sections of the river that are believed to be of vital importance to the fishery, especially through the Middle Canyon. The general problem with UDOT's assessment of fishery impacts is that, even with the proposed modifications to the Preferred Alternative, there are too many unknowns, such as sediment-related effects, that are not adequately addressed in this FEIS and supporting documentation. There is still too much potential for unacceptable destruction of this fishery . As it now stands, there is no scientific justification whatsoever for the prediction UDOT has provided of a 4 to 8 % loss of trout. In its Record of Decision (1995), the Forest Service claims that "the environmental effects were adequately disclosed" in the FEIS. Considering fish mortality, this claim is false. The Forest Service is accepting an analysis of losses to this fishery that is scientifically unjustified. A guideline in the Management Plan calls for monitoring the BCI and HCI habitat indices for Logan River. As amended by the Forest Service in its Record of Decision (ROD), this guideline states, "In all streams maintain the existing HCI and BCI where they exceed the minimum of 42 and 75 respectively. Allow decreases not exceeding 5% of existing condition where this decrease is temporary and will not reduce the HCI or BCI below the established minimums" (page IV-3(0). There has been no analysis of the effect of the Preferred Alternative upon the BCI index. No macroinvertibrate baseline data is reported for Logan River. We have no idea what the present BCI value is, so we can have no idea what would constitute a "temporary" 5% decrease in BCI value. The Forest Service's ROD includes no mention of monitoring the components of BCI either before or during construction. By ignoring analysis and monitoring of BCI, the Forest Service is in violation of this guideline in its Management Plan. Guidelines are to be "applied in all situations unless some 42 �• overriding reason to abandon" them is supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary analysis (page IV -24). Such an analysis for the sake of abandoning guidelines has not been done. On the other hand, the FEIS briefly reports an analysis of the effect of the modified Preferred Alternative upon the HCI index for Logan River (pages 4-2 and 43). This analysis is inadequate. UDOT claims that the predicted decrease in the value of HCI is due to "removal of vegetation and short- and long-term sedimentation" (page 4-2). In fact, the calculated decrease in HCI reflects only an estimation of the amount of riparian vegetation that will be removed (Lynn Foster, CH2M Hill, personal communication). Stream environment is the only component of this index which has been recently estimated to take into account the impact of road construction. Values for the other components were borrowed from the Adams 1966 habitat study. Again there is absolutely no indication of the relevance of this 1966 study to conditions in the river today. There has been no estimation of the effect of construction upon the quality of substrate in the river, and no estimation of the effect upon the number and quality of pools. These components of HCl may be affected by increased sedimentation during and after construction (Forest Service, personal communication). There is no estimation of the effect upon stream bank stability. This is not a genuine analysis of the effect of construction upon the full HCI index. It would have been much less misleading if UDOT had simply reported their fmdings as the percentage of stream bank vegetation that will be lost. In its ROD, the Forest Service states that an analysis of changes in the HCI index "'is included in the FEIS." This statement is false. The Forest Service is accepting an HCI analysis that is based on data of questionable relevance, and which involves an estimation of the effects of construction on only a single component, ignoring effects upon those components that may indicate increased sedimentation and serious loss of fish habitat. The Forest Service is allowing a decrease of 5% in the present HCI value for Logan River. Yet, in its Record of Decision, the Forest Service does not mention any monitoring it will do of HCI. We do not know what the present He] value is, and the Forest Service has made no commitment to monitor Her to ensure compliance. By accepting this inadequate HCI analysis, and by not committing to effective monitoring, the Forest Service is violating a guideline in its Management Plan (page lV-3(0). In the section of the Management Plan, "Desired Future Condition of the Forest," the Forest Service states, "All MIS habitat will be maintained at levels that exceed requirements for minimum viable populations" (page IV-57). Cutthroat trout are listed as an MIS species (page 1I-33). The cutthroat in Logan River may actually be Bonneville Cutthroat, a species listed as "sensitive" by the Regional Forester (paul Cowley, Forest Service, personal communication). In their Record of Decision, the 43 �• • Forest Service states that UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative "will not adversely affect the viability of any Forest Service listed sensitive species" (page 8). In the case of cutthroat in Logan River, the Forest Service has no grounds for saying this. The 1973 UDWR study that UDOT is relyin.g upon for its fish mortality values presents a special difficulty in the case of cutthroat trout. This study was done in the Lower Canyon, well below the upper reaches of Logan River in which most of the cutthroat populations are found and in which they spawn. The cutthroat in Logan River are possibly genetically disposed to prefer the colder temperatures of the upper reaches (Forest Service, personal communication), Cutthroat are found in the Lower Canyon in relatively small numbers. We must question conclusions reached about cutthroat in a "habitat" study that has been conducted well below the primary range and primary habitat of cutthroat, and well below their spawning grounds. We cannot simply assume that the removal of vegetation in the upper reaches will affect cutthroat numbers in the same way that it might in the Lower Canyon. Given this problem, and the other problems with UDOT's analysis of fish mortality, such as the lack of infonnation concerning sedimentation and turbidity, we cannot conclude that only 4 to 8 % of cutthroat will be lost to construction. By accepting UDOT's flawed prediction of fish loss and its inadequate HCI analysis, by ignoring the required BCI analysis, and by failing to commit to proper monitoring of these habitat indices, the Forest Service is abrogating its responsibility for this MIS, and possibly sensitive, species. From UDOT's assessment, we have no idea what impact the modified Preferred Alternative will actually have upon cutthroat habitat or the number of cutthroat. With its decision to permit UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, the Forest Service is in violation of a guideline in its Management Plan, and in violation of a directive in its Management Plan concerning an MIS species. The Forest Service is also in violation of its policies for sensitive species in the National Forests as outlined in the Forest Service Manual, Title 2600 (1991), section 2672.42, since they have reached a determination of "no adverse affects" based on inadequate analyses. With these violations, the Forest Service is in violation of the National Forest Management Act. We request that before it agrees to amend its Management Plan and grant the required easement allowing UDOT to construct the modified Preferred Alternative, the Forest Service insist that UDOT provide an adequate discussion of impacts to fish numbers and fish habitat in an SEIS. We further request the Forest Service to insist that UDOT maintain the current 26 ft. road width from Lower Twin Bridge to above Ricks Spring. In other words, the 26 ft. width should be maintained throughout the entire Middle Canyon. Also, there should be no curve cuts around the Temple Fork intersection. These changes would protect from construction those stretches of the 44 �., river that are most essential to the fishery in Logan River. We request that the Forest Service insist that UDOT consider again the Conservationists' Alternative for Highway 89 in Logan Canyon. This alternative satisfies traffic needs in the canyon, as we discuss in an earlier section of this appeal, and it better protects the fishery in Logan River. Again, the fishery in Logan River is ranked among the top 5% of stream fisheries in the state. It is considered by the Utah Division of Water Rights to be one of four major fisheries in the state. We urge the Forest Service to abide by its policies in giving this fishery careful attention and adequate protection. Literature Cited Adams, J.K. 1966. Memorandum to B. Reese concerning aquatic habitat quality in Logan Canyon. U.S Forest Service, Cache National Forest. Dufour, J. 1989. Memorandum to D. Baumgartner of January 18. U.S. Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Helm, W. 1987. Letter to Stan Nuffer of May 28. Helm reprints collection, Quinney Library, Utah State University. Helm, W. undated. "Effects of Road Building on the Logan River." Helm reprints collection, Quinney Library, Utah State University. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual, Title 2600, Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Washington. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOl). 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1974. Memorandum from L.A. Abbey to L.R. Jester of June 17. 45 �6. wn,DLIFE IMPACTS AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 1.) UDOT's FEIS and ROD violate the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan. a) UDOT's FEIS and ROD violate Goal #16 of the Management Plan (page IV8) and directives within the Plan concerning wildlife (Plan Responses to Issues, Issue 9, page 1lI-2; Desired Future Condition of the Forest, page IV-56). The current productivity level of wildlife habitat will not be maintained or improved. The current capacity of big game winter range will not be maintained or increased, but will be diminished or adversely impacted. These results violate Management Plan provisions cited above. With the modified Preferred Alternative, 149.3 acres of upland plant communities will be impacted by construction, compared to 6.9 acres for the Conservationists' Alternative, over 2100% more impacted areas for the chosen alternative. According to the FEIS, upland habitat loss and the consequent impacts during construction activity will affect summer big game range and ruffed and blue grouse brood rearing areas. The FEIS states that "habitat loss is especially significant in the case of forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands and riparian communities (i.e., upland communities) that are of high value to many species of wildlife" and that "habitat fragmentation can be a significant problem for songbirds, amphibians, and small mammals." There is no mention as to which species of songbirds, amphibians, or small mammals may be affected by upland habitat loss or to what extent they may be affected, which prevents informed public participation, and leads to arbitrary and capricious decision making. No mitigation for negative impacts is proposed. , According to the Management Plan, the Wasatch-Cache ranks as the most important wildlife and fisheries Forest in the state (page 1I-3 I). Hunter days use of all key game species except elk ranks first, while the percentage of statewide habitat ranks first or second for all species except mule deer. In addition, the highest proportion of the statewide population of mule deer, moose, and mountain goat inhabits this Forest. The Wasatch-Cache mule deer population is the largest in the National Forest system. The FEIS states, "Loss of (winter range) habitat for (mule deer and moose) is especiaUy critical during severe winters when suitable mule deer winter range covers only a small area compared to the area occupied during normal winters" (page 4-40). In a letter to CH2M Hill, preparers of the FEIS, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) expressed real concern with impacts to winter range, saying, "Loss of these 46 �ranges are particularly critical, and the limiting factor in maintaining viable populations" (George Wilson, UDWR, 13 February 1987). The National Forest Management Act specifically mandates that "habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of existing ... vertebrate species in the planning area" (36 C.F.R., 219.19). Yet, the loss of mule deer and moose wintering range for the chosen Preferred Alternative is 134 acres compared to the loss of 2.3 acres with the Conservationists' Alternative, over 5800% more impacted acres with the chosen alternative. Additionally, illustration of big game winter range in the FEIS includes only Rich County, less than 30% of the entire study area. Another negative impact given only cursory attention in the FEIS involves increased highway mortality to wildlife, especially big game. Risk associated with proximity to the highway increases with vehicle speed, effectively diminishing usable habitat. The FEIS neglects to reveal that increases in highway speeds correlate positively with increased animal-vehicle collision frequency (Puglisi et al. 1974; Arnold 1981; Reed et al. 1982; National Safety Council 1984). The FEIS claims that the mitigation cattle fencing proposed in the modified Preferred Alternative, extending from the Tony Grove intersection to Franklin Basin, 'will likely reduce ... vehicle-deer accidents" (page 4- 13). Research demonstrates, however, that deer readily jump fencing less than 2 meters in height (Feldhammer et al. 1986; Ludwig and Bremicker 1983; Reed et al. 1982), rendering UDOT's claim about the effectiveness of cattle fencing unfounded and unrealistic. The estimated impact on big game species due to increased vehicle collision frequency is not mentioned or compared for the alternatives, nor is any mitigation proposed. b) The FEIS violates Goal #17 of the Management Plan (page IV-8) and a directive in the Desired Future Condition of the Forest section of the Plan (page IV-56). The FEIS also violates National Forest Management Act regulations 16 U.S.C., 1604(g) and 36 C.F.R., 219. 19, and National Environmental Protection Act regulation 40 C.F.R., 1500.I(b). The status of classified species will not be enhanced. Maintenance of several sensitive plant species is not insured . The FEIS neglects to mention or evaluate the potential impact on numerous species of special concern and includes no provision for the description or maintenance of biological diversity. The information in the FEIS does not allow informed public participation or decision making. The FEIS mentions six species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or are listed as 'sensitive" by the Forest Service: Bald Eagle (e) 47 �... Peregrine Falcon (e) Maquire' s Primrose (t) Cronquist Daisy (s) Rydberg Musineon (s) Cache Beardtongue (s) Numerous Forest Service sensitive species receive no mention in the FEIS: Boreal Owl Flammulated Owl Great Gray Owl Northern Goshawk Three-toed Woodpecker Spotted Bat Western Big-eared Bat Wolverine North American Lynx Spotted Frog Maguire Draba Logan Buckwheat Aster kineii var. kingii Many of these sensitive species were mentioned in UDOT's ROD, but at that point, when virtually the whole process was complete, very few people saw the infonnation, so in essence the public has never been presented with meaningful information on th ese species. Waiting until the ROD is published to provide information excludes the public from participation in the process. Western or Townsend's big-eared bat is abundant in Logan Cave and has been captured elsewhere in Logan Canyon; however, throughout its range in the western United States populations are declining (Brad Lengas, unpublished report to WasatchCache Ranger District 1993); Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). The declining status of this bat warrants consideration, particularl y given its high vulnerability to human disturbance (Schmidly 1991 ; Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993), including disturbance to riparian habitat. Loss of riparian habitat, and the noise and pollution from construction, could lead to the disappearance of this bat from Logan Canyon. If recommended management guidelines do not halt the decline of this bat, it may qualify for federally threatened status (Brad Lengas, personal communication). Evidence supporting the possibility of wolverines in Logan Canyon prompted the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to grant funding to the Fisheries and Wildlife 48 �Cooperative Unit at Utah State University to investigate this possibility. Researchers have installed automatic photographic equipment to identify which mustelid species is making observed tracks where it is thought wolverine may occur (John Bissonnette, personal communication). Published Forest Service information indicates there are wolverines in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and cites an observation in Logan Canyon (Forest Service 1994). ~ kingii var. kin2ii. a Forest Service sensitive species, was found in Cache County during a general botanical survey carried out in conjunction with surveys for other sensitive plant species (Franklin 1990a). The discovery of this sensitive species in Cache County never appeared in any UOOT document. Only the Record of Decision even mentioned the aster, but listed its distribution in four counties, not including Cache, making any conclusion by the Forest Service that minimum viable populations will be preserved without a basis in fact, and arbitrary and capricious. A previously undescribed species of Viola. upon discovery named Viola franksmithii, was also found in Logan Canyon during the same general botanical survey (Franklin I990a). This Logan Canyon endemic species was later described in detail (Holmgren 1992). However, it is not mentioned in any UDOT document. It is the fifth known plant species endemic to Logan Canyon, including Maquire's primrose, Cronquist Daisy, Rydberg musineon, and Cache beard tongue. It is considered possible there are other undiscovered endemics occurring in Logan Canyon (Frank Smith, personal communication). The following Fish and Wildlife Service C2 candidate species are not mentioned in the FEIS. Are these listed as sensitive by the Forest Service? Western Small-footed Myotis Long-legged Myotis Long-eared Myotis Fringed Myotis Boreal Toad Discus shemeki cockerelli Oreohelix haydeni haydeni Oreohelix haydeni cQrrugata Oreohelix peripherica wasatchensis All four Myotis species have been captured in Logan Canyon (Brad Lengas, unpublished report submitted to the Logan Ranger District). All depend on the riparian areas adjacent to the river and thus adjacent to the road. These bats are not mentioned in the FEIS, making any claim by the Forest Service that minimum viable populations will be maintained arbitrary and capricious. 49 �... An undescribed snail species, genus PyrgulQPsis. was discovered along the highway at Spring Hollow by Dr. Robert Hershler of the Smithsonian Institution (Hershler 1990). Information on this discovery was provided to UDOT, along with a recommendation for further investigation prior to road construction activities. The habitat in which this and several other C2 snail species are found indicates that any of these species could occur along the highway project site (peter Hovingh, personal communication), The FEIS states, "The undescribed snail species has not been nominated as a candidate species. The species is located down canyon of the project area and will not be affected by construction activities" (page 9-14). There are 20 species of PyrgulQPsis in the western United States listed C2 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Federal Register, Part IV; 50 C.F.R., Part 17, November 15,1994). The species identity of this PyrgulQPsis is not known. Therefore, it is not known whether this one is a candidate species. Nevertheless, minimum viable populations must be preserved, and with no analysis there is no factual basis to claim that viable populations will be preserved. No surveys along the project site were conducted. Therefore, it is not known whether this snail species occurs within the project area, or whether it will be affected by construction activities. Pyrgulopsis is the sixth species endemic to Logan Canyon. This suggests an unusually high rate of endemism in this area. The diversity provision of the National Forest Management Act requires that national forest planning "provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area" (16 U.S.C.,1604(g)(3)(B». The National Forest Management Act requires inventory data on wildlife populations and distribution (id, 1604(g)(2)(B»; on identification of hazards to various resources (id, 1604(g)(2)(C»; and research on the effects of each management system (id, 1604(g)(3)(C». Likewise, in providing for diversity, "inventories shall include quantitative data making possible the eva luation of diversity in terms of its prior and present condition" (36 C.F.R., 219.26 (1984». None of these Management Indicator Species (MIS) from the Management Plan, which probably occur in Logan Canyon, received mention in the FEIS or ROD: Gray Jay Hairy Woodpecker Pine Siskin Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Warbling Vireo Mountain Bluebird Water Pipit 50 �MacGilvary's Warbler Green-tailed Towhee Vesper Sparrow Identification of Management Indicator Species is required by th e National Forest Management Act (36 C.F.R., 219. 19(a)). This regulation also specifies that "fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area." A viable population for planning purposes is defined as "one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued exis tence is well distributed in the planning area. " Regulations further provide that "population trends of the management indictor species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined" (id, 219.19(a)(6)). But with no analysis of these MIS indicator species in the FEIS or ROD, there is no basis for claiming these provisions will be met. The FEIS makes assertions of no impact when no ground surveys were conducted to collect baseline data for the majority of all aforementioned species. Without further information to describe Logan Canyon's biological diversity, the significance of this diversity, and the potential impacts to the stability of this di versity, compliance with the National Forest Management Act's diversity mandates or the National Environmental Protection Act's assessment mandates is not achieved. 2.) The FEIS violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. a) The FEIS violates Section 7(a)(2) and 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, and directives in the Management Plan concerning wildlife (plan Responses to Issues, Issue 9, page III-2; Desired Future Condition of the Fores t, page IV-56). The potential impact to the only federally threatened species in the project area (Primula maguireO was not thoroughly identified using the best scientific and commercial data available. A Biological Opinion was not written by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response to a Biological Assessment provided by the project proponent, as required by Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act. Information transferred between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and UDOTIFHW A does not reveal compliance with the Endangered Species Act requirement for a biological assessment and subsequent issuance of a biological opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is not clear why th e Fish and Wildlife Service eventually concurred with the "no effect" detennination in the absence of an adequate biological assess ment. The following discussion chronologically 51 �summarizes correspondence between the Service and UDOTIFHW A. In March 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated to FHW A that Section 7 consultation would be required if the highway project would affect the primrose (Robert Ruesink, State Supervisor USFWS, to Duncan Silver, FHW A, March 4, 1987). Subsequently, Daniel Dake (UDOT, July 7, 1987) supplied the Fish and Wildlife Service with a report (Welsh 1987) in order to comply with 50 C.F.R., 402. 12(j). Ruesink replied to Mr. Dake (July 21 , 1987) that the Service was unable to prepare a biological opinion at that time, that mOTe information was necessary, and that any significant reduction of the buffering and road encroachment on the cliff at Wood Camp may have a deleterious effect on that population of primrose due to micro-climate changes, to which Maguire's primrose is sensitive. In August 1989, Ruesink again wrote, this time to Margaret Johnson of CH2M Hill, preparers of the FEIS, that a project proponent must submit a biological assessment so that the Fish and Wildlife Service could prepare a biological opinion in response to the potential impacts to the primrose. UDOT replied with a proposal to eliminate the slow vehicle turnout near Wood Camp Campground to remove the Service's concerns about the project's potential impacts on the primrose (Donald Steinke, UDOT, to Clark Johnson, USFWS, March I, 1990). In April of 1990, Clark Johnson (Assistant Field Supervisor, USFWS) wrote the FHW A and recognized UDOT's proposal to eliminate the slow vehicle turnout. However, the Service again recommended "that the FHW A submit a biological assessment on the preferred alternative of the U.S. 89 Logan Canyon DEIS when the alternative is selected and request formal Section 7 consultation at that time." In February of 1991 , Jonathan Deason (Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of the Interior) wrote the FHW A to clarify that the Fish and Wildlife Service had advised the Office of Environmental Affairs of the possibility of the highway project adversely affecting a federally threatened plant, and that, if so, Section 7 consultation would be necessary in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Deason's letter goes on to say, "Biological opinions are prepared by the FWS in response to formal consultation requests by the Federal Agency. The botanical reports relating to Primula Maeuire and other rare plant species prepared for this project do not constitute a biological opinion as defmed by the act." Eventually, in April of 1992, without further information indicated, Clark Johnson (USFWS) wrote to R. James Naegle (UDOn and concurred with UDOT's determination of no effect to the primrose. This, Johnson wrote, was based on the information which occurs in the FEIS. The only reference cited in the FEIS is Welsh 1987, which had been the basis for prior unfavorable responses by the Fish and 52 �Wildlife Service. Clark lohnson ' s 1992 letter is the fIrst and only correspondence from the Fish and Wildlife Service which concurs with UDOT's no effect determination. In 1987, Welsh' s report did not suffIce for the Fi. h and Wildlife Service to respond with a s biological opinion, and in 1990, the Service recommended the FHW A submit a biological assessment when an alternative was selected and requested formal Section 7 consultation at that time. Deason's 1991 lener from the Office of Environmental Affairs to FHW A reiterated that no report submitted up until that time constituted a biological opinion. A more current and comprehensive survey report (Franklin 1990b) was not utilized by UDOT, in spite of references to this report in a letter from the Bridgerland Audubon Society to UDOT, Feb. 12, 1991. This report systematically surveyed potential habitat in the Bear River Range and made determinations as to whether the primrose's distribution extended beyond the known locations in Logan and Right Fork Canyons. Known locations were derived from Beedlow et al. 1980, Moseley and Mancuso 1990, Padgett 1986, USFWS 1990, and Welsh 1987. One new occurrence was located north of the highway approximately . 1 mile beyond the fIrst river crossing above Wood Camp on a limestone cliff face in the narrow gorge. Franklin' s report states, "This restricted range, its rarity within that range, and the lack of detailed demographic and disturbance information on each occurrence of Maguire primrose indicate that all Logan Canyon occurrences should, at this time, be considered essential habitat. When more detailed demographic and disturbance information is available it will be possible to more defInitely ... ' identify essential habitat and those populations (occurrences) which may best ensure the long term survival of the species .. .' (FWS 1990)." Welsh (1987) states, "If the recommendations cited above are followed there should be minimal or no impact to the Maguire primrose population 4 (and no effect on the other populations)." Welsh's survey covered 2,000 feet on either side of MP 385, in the vicini ty of Wood Camp. In his report, Welsh referen ced data provided in an earlier report (Padgett 1986). Padgett surveyed Logan Canyon from the mouth to 0.7 miles south of the USU Forestry Field Station, and concluded, "Because of their proximity to Highway 89 in Logan Canyon, population numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and the lower portion of population I could possibly be impacted by highway expansion." The FElS provides no basis to conclude that an adequate biological assessment was ever conducted. Recommendations repeated by the Fish and Wildlife Service and most surveys suggested further study. Franklin (I990b) and FWS (1990) both recommend an inventory and census of the Logan Canyon populations of primrose to "yield precise locations and extent of all P. maguirei populations ... ", yet UDOT 53 �• ignored this information in selecting its modified Preferred Alternative. It is recognized that the primrose is vulnerable to micro-climate alterations, changes in temperature and relative humidity of the atmosphere in the plant's habitat, and that construction-related production of dust particulates could impede stomate functioning on the primrose (Franklin 1990b; FWS 1990; Padgett 1986; Welsh 1986; Beedlow et.al. 1980). In addition, however, recent information suggests that removal of vegetation within the construction corridor could negatively affect primrose pollination by eliminating essential host plants visited by the primrose-pollinating bees (Wolf and Sinclair, unpublished data) . The primrose supplies small quantities of nectar, making it necessary for pollinating bees to derive supplemental nectar from other plants. Removal of vegetation in the vicinity of primrose populations may cause primrose-pollinating bees to move elsewhere, resulting in previously unforeseen negative impacts on the long-term viability of those primrose populations. Clearly, information is lacking in the FEIS, in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act, 1502. 16 and 1502.22. No recognized biological assessment was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the project proponent in accordance with 50 C.F.R., 402.12(j). The Endangered Species Act states, "Each Federal agency shall ... insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such threatened species which is determined to be critical ... In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available" (16 U.S.C., 1536 (a)(2)), with "species" including plants (id, 1532(16». CEQ regulations provide that impacts in an EIS shall be discussed in proportion to their significance (40 C.F.R., 1502.2 (b» and that "data and analysis ... shall be commensurate with their importance" (40 C.F.R. , 1502.15). The National Forest Management Act states that the plan must "provide for diversity of plant and animal communities ... " (16 U.S.C., 1604 (g)(3)(B)) and requires planners to "preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities" so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest (36 C.F.R., 219.27 (g». The National Forest Management Act further specifies: "Habitat determined to be critical for threatened and endangered species shall be identified, and measures shall be prescribed to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of such habitat. Objectives shall be determined for threatened and endangered species that shall provide for, where possible, their removal from listing as threatened and endangered through appropriate conservation measures, including the designation of special areas to meet the protection and management needs of such species" 54 �(36 C.F.R.,219.19(a)(7)). Literature Cited Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Bats of Arizona. Arizona Wildlife Views 36(8) :23 . Arnold, D.A. 1979. Deer on the highway . Traffic Safety 79(5):8- 10. Beedlow, P.A., J.G. Carter, and FJ. Smith . 1980. Primula ma~\Iirei L. Wms. (primulaceae), a preliminary report on th e population biology of an endemic plant. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah . Feldhammer, G.A., J.E. Gates, D.M. Harman, AJ. Loranger, and K.R. Dixon. 1986. Effects of interstate fencing on white-tailed deer activity. 1. Wildt. Manage. 50:497-503. Forest Service. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-254. 184 pp. Franklin, M.A. I 99Oa. Report for 1989 chaUenge cost-share project Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Target species: Eri~eron cronQu istii (Cronquist daisy), Musineon lineare (Rydberg musineon) , and Penstemon cyananthus var. compactus (Cache beardtongue). Utah Natural Heritage Program. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. 16 pp. Franklin, M.A. I 990b. Report for 1990 challenge cos t-share project Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Target species: Primula maguire i L.O. Williams (Maguire primrose). Utah Natural Heritage Program. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake C ity, Utah. 10 pp. Hershler, R. 1990. Field survey and preliminary taxonomy of Great Basin Springsnails. Final Report for Cooperative Agreement P 852-A I-0035 between U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the Smithsonian Institution. Holmgren, N. 1992. Two new species of Viola (Violaceae) from the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Brittonia 44(3):300-305. Ludwig, J., and T. Bremicker. 1983. Evaluation of 2.4 m fences and one-way gates 55 �for reducing deer-vehicle collisions in Minnesota. Transportation Research Record 913:19-22. Mosely, R.K., and M. Mancuso. 1990. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant inventory of the Bear River Range, Caribou National Forest. Unpublished report by the Idaho Natural Heritage Program, on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. National Safety Council. 1984. Warning: AnimaUvehicle crossing. National Safety News 130(4) :60. Padgett, W.G. 1986. Maguire primrose summary report. Utah Native Plant Society, Cache Valley Chapter. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. Puglisi, M.J., J.S. Londzey, and E.D. Bellis. 1974. Factors associated with highway mortality of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:799-807. Reed, D.F., T.D. Beck, and T.N. Woodard. 1982. Methods of reducing deer/vehicle accidents: Benefit-cost analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:349-354. Schmidly, David J. 1991. The Bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, TX. pp. 137-141. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Maguire primrose (Primula maeuirei) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. pp. 1-13. Welsh, S. 1987. Logan Canyon, U.S. 89 study, Biological Assessment. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. 7. VISUAL RETENTION The primary problems associated with the Forest Service's decision to penn it widening and reconstruction of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, in relation to visual quality, stem from the idea that it is alright to destroy that which we are attempting to preserve. In essence, the Forest Service's decision allows for the destruction of the scenic quality that it is attempting to manage as a highly protected resource within Logan Canyon. This decision is not only arbitrary and capricious, but represents a significant change in the amount of Forest Service land managed for scenic quality. 56 �Scenic Byway Designation In 1987 the U.S. Congress created a National Scenic Byways Program to preserve and to enhance scenic byways for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a scenic road is "a road having roadsides or corridors of high natural beauty and cultural or historical value. It gives the traveler glimpses of nature, history, geology, landscaping, and cultural activities along the road. Campgrounds, picnic areas, or other recreational sites may be built within the scenic corridor, or the road may provide a pleasant access to such facilities" (FHW A 1988). A scenic route "gives the driver the opportunity to leave a high-speed Interstate highway or arterial route for a scenic byway that permits safe, leisurely dri ving" (FHWA 1988). The Utah Travel Council, in cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies, has developed the Utah Scenic Byways and Backways publication which provides a description of Utah's scenic road system offering outstanding scenic beauty to the traveler. This publication offers the following: "The beaten path. It gets you there. But for those to whom the reward is in the journey, there are paths less trodden. Panoramas reserved for the adventurous, worlds away from the mainstream. Utah's Scenic Byways and Backways ... These Scenic Byways are all major roads which are regularly traveled. Some routes feature sharp curves and steep grades. Actual travel speeds are generally less than the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit. As with all motor vehicle travel, personal discretion is the key to a safe driving experience." The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (CMP) (Forest Service 1994), sets forth the management of the scenic corridor through Logan Canyon. Item #1 under the management plan's mission statement provides for "protect(ion of the) scenic values of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway through planning and cooperation between all agencies and government entities that have jurisdiction within the byway view shed" (CMP, page 3). One of the "overall objectives" o f the management plan is "to continue developing a consensus between federal agencies. state agencies, county and city governments and private land owners charged with the protection of Logan Canyon to identify equitable means for protecting and improving the scenic and environmental values of Logan Canyon" (CMP, page 3). One of the "overall actions" provided in the management plan for the "protection of scenic qualities" is "to include provisions in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan [that] emphasize the protection of scenic value and enhancement of recreation opportunities" (CMP, page 4). It has been estimated that the modified Preferred Alternative will destroy 38 % and 9 % of the most visually sensitive areas , sensitivity levels 6 and 7 , wi thin the 57 �• • canyon, respectively (FEIS, page 4-63, Table 4-12). In addition, the modified Preferred Alternative will destroy 58% and 71 % of the moderately visually sensitive areas, sensitivity levels 4 and 5, within the canyon, respectively (FEIS, page 4-63, Table 4-12). The modified Preferred Alternative does not, therefore, protect the scenic values of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway. It also does not identify equitable means for protecting and improving the scenic and environmental values of the canyon, nor does it reflect provisions in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Management Plan that emphasize protection of scenic values and enhancement of recreational opportunities. The selection of the modified Preferred Alternative is therefore in direct conflict with the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (Forest Service 1994). Lack of Forest Plan Consistency The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1985) sets forth management of Forest Service lands through Management Area designations. The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is contained in the Logan Canyon Management Area (MA 13) of the Management Plan. The emphasis for this area is to manage the highway as a Scenic Byway and to protect scenic landscape qualities (Forest Service 1985, pages IV-29 I and IV-297). According to the Management Plan, this area is to be managed for the visual quality objective (VQO) of "retention" (page IV-293) . This objective provides for management activities which are not visually evident. Under "retention," activities may only repeat fann, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should not be evident (Forest Service 1974). The Forest Service's Record of Decision proposes to amend the Management Plan VQO ' s in MA 13 from "retention" to "modification" for nearly the entire route. A "modification" VQO would allow for management activities that visually dominate the characteristic landscape (Forest Service 1974). The Logan Canyon Management Area encompasses approx imately 12,877 acres of Forest Service land. This corresponds to approximately one percent of Forest Service land within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. However, the Logan Canyon Management Area makes up approximately eight percent of the area managed as "retention" within the Forest. Compromising eight percent of the area within the Forest managed for retention is particularly significant when one considers that only eleven percent of the Forest is managed for retention (Forest Service 1985, page IV60). Although the Logan Canyon Management Area is a relatively small portion of the Forest, the second largest concentration of developed recreational sites within the entire Forest can be found within this area. The only other area within the Forest with a higher concentration is the Mirror Lake Highway Management Area, which includes 58 �• the only other Scenic Byway within the Forest. Within the Logan Canyon Management Area, the Forest Service administers 12 developed campgrounds, 4 picnic areas, and 3 organizational camps (CMP, page 13). The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway provides access to Beaver Mountain Ski Area, which offers downhill skiing with a lodge, restaurant and shops. It offers access to commercial outfitters offering horseback rides, snowmobile tours, and lodging. This Scenic Byway also provides access to over 300 miles of hiking trails, the Mount Naomi Wilderness area, the Great Western Trail, and miles of scenic back country auto tours (CMP, page 13). The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is truly unique, offering some of the most outstanding recreational opportunities in the state. Implementation of the modified Preferred Alternative through Logan Canyon will be in direct conflict with the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan. Since the most visually sensitive areas of the canyon, and the most accessible views, will be impacted an average of 15% (FEIS, Table 4- 16, page 4-77) and cannot be mitigated, a visual quality objective of retention will not be maintained. The highway will not conform to management standards for a Scenic Byway. Altering primary management emphasis of an area, especially an emphasis as critical as scenic retention on a Scenic Byway, is not a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan, but a highly significant change. Cumulative bnpacts The cumulative impacts discussion in the FEIS (Chapter 4) does not disclose the impacts associated with implementation of the ten projects proposed as part of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (Forest Service 1994). In some cases, these projects will have a substantial impact upon the existing environment of their respective project areas. Seven of the ten projects proposed involve clearing and grubbing existing vegetation andlor site grading activities. Five of the ten projects proposed involve the construction of paved parking areas. Four "Romtec" restrooms will be installed at four of the ten proposed project sites. Several of the projects include each of the above impacts combined. Although NEPA documents will be prepared for each of the proposed projects, the FEIS does not disclose the cwnulative impacts associated with highway construction i1l conjunction with the ten projects described in the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. This is a serious oversight on the part of UDOT and the Forest Service, especially considering that the projects proposed under the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan have been planned since early 1993, and that a planning committee was formed in late 1991 which included a representative from UDOT. 59 �• Literature Cited Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Scenic Byways '88: A National Conference to Map the Future of America's Scenic Roads and Highways. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan: Portraits in Time. Logan Ranger District, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests. Logan, UT. USDA Forest Service. 1974. (VQO Management Discussion ?????) Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impac t Statement (FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. 8. ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Fores t Service has violated Goal #53 of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan which states that the Forest Service must "[i]nform the public about National Forest resource management as related to the ... local economy" (page IV-2!J . The local economy is closely tied to recreation and tourism, with Logan Canyon being recognized as one of the area's most valuable economic assets (Cooper 1989) . The unspoiled landscape of the canyon and its outstanding scenic and recreational opportunities have been featured in numerous national magazines and travel guides, including National Parks, National Geographic, Audubon, Glamour Magazine, Scenic America, and America from the Road. It is not only a draw for visitors, but a draw for industry and people who are relocating. The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the CMP) states, "Logan Canyon is the focal point for many people who live in the Cache and Bear Lake Valleys. The scenic and spiritual amenities it provides ... are a big reason people choose to live here" (page 21). Efforts are currently underway to enhance the area economy by capitalizing on the scenic assets of Logan Canyon. Chip Sibbemsen, acting District Ranger with the Logan office of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, is spearheading a major recreation enhancement project with the Bridgerland Travel Region, the Cache Chamber of Commerce, Cache County, Box Elder County, Utah State University, Bear River Association of Governments, and individual city governments, businesses and 60 . �• ; organizations. This project, described in the CMP, emphasizes increased marketing of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway's recreational and scenic opportunities, devoting five full pages to "Marketing and Promotion" (CMP, Appendix A) Howeve~, UDOT's extensive construction plans may interfere with the promotion of Logan Canyon, and negate the economic benefits of the Scenic Byway project. The CMP records concerns about proposed construction activities: UDOT's construction project "has been extremely controversial and there is concern the improvements may degrade the quality of the environment and the traveling experience" (page 20). A 1989 study of tourism in the area concluded with a strong recommendation that Logan Canyon's scenic assets be preserved intact because of the economic benefits that accrue to the area from its scenic attributes (Cooper, 1989). Appellants believe that the Forest Service's acceptance of the modified Preferred Alternative will degrade one of the primary economic resources of Cache and Rich Counties. UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision, and the Forest Service' s Record of Decision, neglect to acknowledge any long or short tenn negative economic impacts of proposed construction, including des truction of irreplaceable scenic values, monetary losses caused by disruption of road service, impacts on big game habitat, and harm to a fishery that brings in over $4 million annually (estimate for 1990, UDOT 1987, Table 7, page 18). The Forest Service also neglects to address the postconstruction viability of the area as a tourist destination. National surveys bear out the fact that tourists and recreationists value scenery, especially scenery that is relatively unspoiled. Tourists and recreationists across the country rate "driving for pleasure" and "sightseeing" among the top three recreation activities, out of 37 ranked activities (Report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987; Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1986; and Outdoor Recreation in a Nation of Communities, 1988). These surveys indicate that protection of natural environments is a critical issue for tourists and recreationists. Driving for pleasure and sightseeing are hardly as pleasurable when the view consists of concrete retaining walls, exposed slopes and c1ear zones, rather than lush forests and wild rivers . Surveys conducted in northern Utah find that the most popular recreation activity in Logan Canyon is "viewing the scenery." The third most popular activity, out of 2 1 ranked activities, is "photography" (Hunt and Cadez 1977; Hunsaker 1969). Clearly, the scenic assets of the canyon are of primary importance to its users, who inc1ude local residents and tourists. There is a c10se connection between scenic values in the canyon and the local 61 �• economy, yet UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision, and the Forest Service's Record of Decision, fail to make any assessment of how permanent degradation of the canyon's scenic values will negatively impact the local economy. The Forest Service has therefore violated Goal /153 of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which states that the Forest Service must "[ilnform the public about National Forest resource management as related to the ... local economy" (page IV-21). The Forest Service has selected an alternative which may have extremely detrimental impacts to recreation, on a Scenic Byway where data shows that recreation is the primary use. The Forest Service has also neglected to address over 300 letters from forest users and business people who voiced concerns about impacts to scenery and the economy (FEIS, pages 9-3 to 9- 151). Literature Cited Cooper, EJ. 1989. Characteristics of Recreational Visitors in the Bridgerland Area. Hunsaker, L.M . 1969. Tourist recreation interests in Logan, Utah and the surrounding area. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State University, College of Education. Hunt, J.D. and Cadez, G. 1977. Bridgerland profile: From non-resident motor vehicle data 1974-75 (Report /128). Logan, Utah: Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University. Logan Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 1994. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Prepared by Chip Sibbernsen. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1986. Report. President's Commission. 1987. The report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C. Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Resources and Opportunities. 1988. Outdoor Recreation in a Nation of Communities. Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89. Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1991111. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill . Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. 62 ., • �• . .. Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 9, WETLANDS ISSUFS \.) In regards to existing wetlands within Logan Canyon, the Forest Service has violated the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan by issuing a Record of Decision approving UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision. a) The FEIS states that there will be 11 .2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the Preferred Alternative (Table S- I). UDOT's Record of Decision states that this impact may be reduced by as much as 30% (page 34). Proposed wetlands impacts is in direct conflict with the goal as outlined in the Management Plan, Logan Canyon Management Area, Watershed MIH code F04(G), which clearly states, "Avoid soil disturbing activities on steep, erosive, or unstable slopes, and in wetlands, floodplains , and meadows." This goal is supported by the Federal Register which states, "A record of decision for a National Forest System proposed action must display consistency with the relevant forest plan" (Federal Register, V.57, No. 182, page 43207). This appears to be binding language in terms of preserving existing wetlands within the scope of UDOT's construction project. The Forest Service has amended their own management guidelines concerning visual qualities and fisheries habitat for Logan Canyon, according to the Forest Services' Record of Decision. But there is no mention of amending the Management Plan pertaining to the management of wetlands. For the Forest Service to approve the FEIS and UDOT's Record of Decision, an amendment to the management goal concerning wetlands is required, with allowable period for public comment per requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act. b) Management goals are further violated by the Forest Service's decision to 63 �.. grant a transportation easement for UDOT's highway project. The Forest Service states that the modified Preferred Alternative considers "avoiding and minimizing hann to sensitive resources and maintaining the character of the Logan Canyon" (ROD, page 3). They go on to say, "As a result, minimal construction will occur in the ecologically sensitive middle canyon .. ." (page 3). Maps contained within the FEIS indicate 17 separate areas of jurisdictional wetlands (approximately 1.3 acres) within the Middle Canyon (mp 384 to 391) that will be permanently lost to road construction under the Preferred Alternative. There are 47 areas (approximately 7 acres) within the Upper Canyon (mp 391 to 400) that will be lost. This wou ld suggest that in terms of wetlands impacts, the Upper Canyon is more ecologically sensitive on an acre per mile basis than the Middle Canyon. If environmental concerns are indeed the limiting factors for the upper Middle Canyon, as UDOT claims, then it would seem consistent to keep to that intent throughout the Upper Canyon. In terms of type and the number of wetland areas in the Upper Canyon, and the fact that permanent wetland loss results in "one of the greatest impacts on wildlife," it seems appropriate that the Upper Canyon should receive equal consideration (FEIS, page 4-33). Appellants believe it is commendable that UDOT has agreed to reduce the highway width from 40 ft. to 34 ft. in the Upper Canyon, below the Beaver Mountain intersection. UDOT's Record of Decision states, "This reduces the impact on wetland and riparian areas" (page l). It goes on to say, "It is anticipated that the wetland impacts in this section will be reduced by approximately 30%" (page 34). But as the same document points out, 3.3 miles (41 %) of those first eight miles in the Upper Canyon will be 44 ft. wide to accommodate proposed passing lanes. This is only three feet narrower than the originally planned 47 ft. Without detailed surveys, it is not possible to accurately determine a 30% reduction in wetland impacts in the Upper Canyon. Appellants wonder how UDOT arrived at this 30% value. The method of calculating this has not been disclosed. Does this 30% value take into account the proposed passing lanes that will be constructed in wetlands? 2.) By approving UDOT's Record of Decision, the Forest Service has violated the National Forest Management Act. a) The National Forest Management Act specifically mandates, "Forest Planning shall provide for adoption of measures, as directed in applicable Executive orders, to minimize risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve floodplain values, and to protect wetlands" (36 CFR 2l9.23(1)). Appellants believe that "protect" is strong language requiring the agency to do just that. Appellants believe that this protection 64 • �• clause takes precedence over mitigation. The goal should be avoidance or loss of exi s tin~ wetlands. The Conservationists' Alternative, with its recommendation of slow vehicle turnouts and a smaller number of shorter passing lanes, comes closer to compliance with 36 CFR 219.23(f) . 3.) The Forest Service and UDOT are potentially in violation of section 404 requiremen Is of the Clean Water Act. a) As the Act states, " ... no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem ... " (40 CFR 230. lOa). UDOT and the Forest Service both state that the Conservationists' Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the project (FEIS, page 4-25, the Forest Service' s ROD, page 12). They are claiming that there is no practicable alternative to construction in wetlands as is proposed in the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS, page 4-28). Appellants believe that slow vehicle turnouts in the Upper Canyon is a practicable alternative. Appellants believe the Forest Service should reverse its decision to allow construction of the modified Preferred Alternative, un til UDOT seriously considers the option of slow vehicle turnouts below th e Beaver Mountain in tersection , combined with one passing lane in lieu of two. This option has been proposed by many within the environmental community, citing that slow vehicle turnouts have been used successfu lly in other states (pendery 1994). The Forest Service should require UDOT to consider slow vehicle turnouts, along with a smaller number of passing lanes, as a practical alternative in order to minimize impacts to wetlands. The Clean Water Act further states, ..... for activities which are not water dependent, practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise ... " (40 CFR 230. lOa. 1). Neither the FEIS nor UDOT's Record of Decision present evidence that "clearly demonstrates otherwise." Literature Cited Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Code of Federal RegUlations. Pendery, Bruce. 1994. Letter of August 12 to Dave Berg, Utah Department of Transportation. USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. 65 �.. USDA Forest Service. 1992. National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Register, V. 57, No. 182. USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. 11, CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT EVALUATED IN TIlE FEIS UDOT's Record of Decision introduces new construction impacts that were never mentioned in the FEIS. Thus the Forest Service has adopted an FEIS which does not meet the "standards for an adequate statement" required by 40 CFR 1506.3a for the adoption of an FEIS. Rubble and Spoil: UDOT's Record of Decision states, "Excess materials that are not used in roadway construction or restoration of the borrow area near Bear Lake Summi~ will be disposed of in locations determined on a case-by-case basis by the CAT team and approved by the USFS. Excess materials may be ... stock piled (sic) for future use ... " (page 23). Neither the DEIS nor the FEIS ever mentioned the stockpiling of rubble for future use. It was assumed that, for any given section under construction, there would be more than enough material excavated (see FEIS, Table 4-15) and hence no need to store material in the canyon. Storage piles will act as sediment sources that will impact streams, they will directly destroy habitat, and their presence will violate visual quality requirements. Permanent disposal of rubble became a major issue upon release of the DEIS, and was addressed specifically in the FEIS (pages 4-70 and 4-71). The FEIS referred to only one disposal site in the Canyon, the abandoned borrow area near the summit. Other than this one site, it specifically stated, "The balance of surplus material will be deposited outside of the canyon area." Rubble and spoil disposal was a major issue because highway construction in the Lower Canyon in the 1960 's left a large spoil pile that has not yet revegetated to a natural appearance. As with the storage piles, rubble disposal in the canyon will be a sediment source (how can one revegetate this 66 • �• subsoil material effectivel y?), will permanently destroy habitat, and will violate visual quality requirements. None of these impacts were disclosed in the FEIS . Borrow Pits: UDOT's Record of Decis ion mentions "material sources," in other words, borrow pits (page 33). These features were never mentioned in the FEIS, yet they will have undeniable impacts. The wording in the FEIS, such as, "Spoil material will be generated during excavation. Some of this spoil material will be used for embankments and other construction related uses" (page 4-70), implies that excavation for curve cuts, etc. , will be the source of thi s type of construction material. Borrow pits and their attendant haul roads will destroy hab itat, violate visual quality requirements, and be sources of sediment-laden runoff that will impact streams. None of this was disclosed in the EIS process. Further, it appears that UDOT is still trying to suppress this information in th e Record of Decision, since th e "Construction Impacts" section makes no mention of either borrow pits or material sources (pages 23-24). Haul Roads: Haul roads are mentioned for the first time in the EIS process in UDOT's Record of Decision. They are mentioned on page 23 and also on page 33, in relation to borrow pits. There was no reason for the public to suspect their presence in past discussions, since there were no plans for borrow pits or material stockpiles. They represent a new impact with concerns as stated above. Staging Areas: UDOT' s Record of Decision reveals that there will be staging areas needed for construction (page 24). These large areas will destroy habitat, be sources of sediment and pollutant-laden runoff, and violate visual quality requirements. Never in the EIS process were staging areas mentioned. Batch Plants: The potential need for batch plants located in the canyon was never discussed during the EIS process, but is revealed on page 24 of UDOT's Record of Decis ion. In addition to the concerns listed for staging areas, batch plants raise air quality concerns. This should have been dis cussed during the EIS process. General: These issues should have been discussed by UDOT in the EIS process, since technical topics such as batch plants, material sources, etc., are not items which the general public is necessarily informed about. It appears that these technical details were purposely withheld from the public. The Forest Service has therefore adopted an FEIS which does not meet the "standards for an adequate statement" required by 40 CFR 1506.3a for the adoption of an FEIS. Literature Cited Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89 Through Logan Canyon. 67 �• Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Utah Department of Transportation. 1990. (DEIS). Draft Environmental Impact Statement, U.S . Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill. APPENDIX A Maps of area APPENDIX B Conservationists' Alternative APPENDIX C Photos of Affected Areas 68 �United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Washington Office File Code: Date: Kevin Kobe, President Logan Canyon Coalition U.S.U. Box 1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 14 th & Independence SW P . O. Box 96090 Washington. DC 20090-6090 1570-1 (L) NF S# 9S-13-00-0018-A21S JUN 2 9 1995 CERTIFIED MAIL -R.R.R. Dear Mr. Kobe: W have completed our revie w of your May 15, 1995, appeal of Regional Forester e Dale Bosworth 's decision to amend the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan and to consent to issuing an easement to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), in coordination with t he Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to enable them to perform needed reconstruction and safety work on Nati onal Forest System land associated wi th rehabilitation o f u.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. The Regional Forester's decision is documented in his March 31, 1995, Record of Deci s i o n (ROD) o n the FHWA's Final Environmental Impac t Statement (EI S) for the project. My review of your appeal has been conducted pursuant to 36 CFR 215 o f the Secretary's Appeal Regulations. Whereas your appeal challenges the adequacy of the FHWA 's environmental impact reports, I have limited my review to the Regional Forester's decision. In accordance with 36 CFR 215. 19, the ' Appeal Reviewing Officer has reviewed the appeal record and his wri tten recommendation on the disposition of the appeal is enclosed. As the Reg i onal Forester stat es i n h is Record of Decision, the Forest Service is not (emphasis added) making a decision to improve or how to improve U.S. 89. The FHWA and UOOT have already made the decision to improve the r oadway. See FHWA 's ROD for U.S . Highway 89, project # F -021(7). The bases for the project, as well as known and anticipated environmental effects, are ide nt ified and discussed in the associated Nat ional Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl documents. Mitigation measures have been prescribed for potential and known adve rse environmental impact, including those concerns identified by the Forest Service. In my review of the record, I find that Appellant has actively participated in the NEPA process and that Appellant's concerns have been considered in the formulation of the FHWA 's Fi ••al EIS and ROD. In fact, it appears Appellant's members were involved in a special citizen group formed to advise the FHWA and others on how best t o achieve this project in an environmentally sensitive manner. See faxed letter dated May 31, 1995, from Lauren M. Keller, Chairperson, Citizens for the Protection o f Logan Canyon. The FHWA 's ROD contains many of the reco mmendations proposed by that group (Citi zens f o r the Protection of Logan Canyon). My finding is re i nforced further by Douglas E. Thompson, President of the Cache Chamber of Commerce. In his l ette r as an inte r ested party dated May 31, 1995, Mr . Thompson gives a detailed description of the how the project was developed and the Chamber's opposition to Appellant's current assertions. Cari n g for the Land and Serving People Pnn:eo on Aecyc!ecI Paper FS-6200·28Q (12/93) ."'i .... �Kevin Kobe, President 2 Reasonable people can be expected to disagree, even when given the similar facts . We have carefully examined the decisions and mitigation measures taken by the Regional Forester and find them reasonable and supportable. It is fully appropriate that use and occupancy of National Forest System land be authorized by an easement. It is also required that changes in Forest Plan direction be documented through amendment to the Forest Plan. In this case, the adjustments are minor, thus, the Regional Forester is correct to provide for a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan. Accordingly, Regional Forester Bosworth's March 31, 1995, decision for the U.S. Highway 89 rehabilitation project is affirmed. My decision on your appeal constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture (36 eFR 215.18). Sincerely, c;2~:1I~XW~~ Appeal Deciding Officer Associate Deputy Chief National Forest System Enc l osures cc: Regional Forester, R- 4 Zachary Frankel, Director, URce Caring for th e Land and Serving P eo p le ?tlnted on Recycled Paper "5-6200·280 {12193) .#f!:a ." �united States Department o f Agriculture Pile Code : Route To: Subject: To: Fores t Serv ice 1570 14th & Independence SW P. O. Box 96090 Washington. DC 20090·6090 Washington Office Date: June 15, 1995 Appea l Reviewing Officer Recommendation Appeal No. 95-13-QQ - Q018-A215 Appeal Deciding Officer This is my review of the substantive quality of the March 31, 1995, decision made by Regional Forester Dale Bosworth to amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP ) to be cons i stent with the Fe deral Highway Administration's (FHWA) and the Utah Department of Transportation's (UOOT ) deci si o n to construct improvements to U . S. Highway 89 from Logan to Garden City . This decision adopts the UDOT and FHA U,S, Highway 89 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The Forest Service was a cooperating agency for the development of this EIS. The Regional Forester 's decision changes the visual quality objectives from retention to parcial re tenti o n for the highway easement near Logan Cave and to modification for the remainder o f the r o ute. It also changes t he guidel ine s for fisheries habitat indices to permit decreases not e xceeding 5 percent of the existing popUlation when the decreases are temporary and the resulti n g index exceeds established minimum standards. This decision will grant a transportation easement over approximately 72 additional ac r es of the Wasatch· Cache National Fo rest whi ch is required for expansion of the highway corridor . As part of my revi e w, I have 'considered the arguments presented in the appeal by the Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC ) and the Utah Rivers Conservation Council. Addi t ional ly, I have revie wed the comments submitted by UDOT, Cit izens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC l. the Cache Chamber of Commerce. Appeal Summary (al Appellant objections The appellants have raised the following issues : lack of demonstrated purpose ane need, safety, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Of f icials (ASSHTO) standards and highway design, wild and scenic river planning. fishery impacts and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, wildlife impacts and sensitive species, sensitive plants. visual retention, economic impacts, wetlands, water quality, lack of disclosure of construction impacts, and the application of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. �Appeal Deciding Officer page 2 (b) Informal meeting results There was no resolution to the issues discussed at the ~~y 30, 1995, informal disposition meeting with LCC. Appeal points discussed were safety, highway design, wild and scenic rivers planning, and impacts to fish including the 80nneville Cutthroat Trout. (c) Intere sted Party comments In their comments, UDOT states the issues raised by the appellants were addressed in the EIS and its Record Of Decision (ROD). They also state the resource requirement s (mitigation ) imposed by the coope rating Federal agencies have been met. In the comments received from CPLC, this group explained that the modifications to the Preferred Alternative for the FHWA ROD was a result of hours of negotiations with UOOT. They also state the LCC was formed from members of CPLC "who felt the compromise did n ot go far enough to protect the canyon. " The Cache Chamber of Commerce provided specific comments on the issues. They stated no new issues are raised by the appellants and the Chamber's fundamental reason for supporting the project is traffic safety. They emphasi zed every writte n opinion by elected officials representing Cache and Rich Counties supports the project. Findinas (a) Clarity of the decision and rationale I find the clarity of the decision and its rationale meets agency standards. The nature of the action under the Regional Forester's decision (FS ROD) is clearly stated. He states the limits of his decision and informs the reader that he is "not making a decision to improve or how to improve u.s. B9" as t~at decision was already made by FHWA and UDOT with Forest Service parti cipation (FS ROD page 1) The FS ROD clearly discloses the logic and rationale for this decision. Comments from both the public and cooperat ing agencies were considered in making the decis i on. Required mitigation measures are disclosed. (b) Comprehension of benefits and purpose of proposal The purpose and need for the project is found in Section 1.2 of the £IS. The need and scope of the Regional Forester's decision is found in the introduction to the fS ROD. This decision reflects the determination found in t~e FHWA ROD {p o 15l that an amendment to the LRMP is necessary to implement the modified Preferred Alternative. The No Action Alternati ve was given full consideration. �Appeal Deciding Officer page 3 This proposal was generated by FHWA and UDQT, and the decision to amend the L~1P will make the proposal consist ent with agency policy and direction. Gr~~ting the transportation easement is an appropriate use of National Forest System Lands. (c ) Consistency of the decision with policy, direction and supporting information Contrary to the appellants concerns that environmental and procedural laws have not been met, I find that the Regional Forester's decision is consistent with agency policy, direction, the EIS, and its supporting documentation. Therefore, I do not believe his decision is arbitrary or capricious. I have not found any violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl, the National Forest Management Act, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield ACt, the Endangered Species Act, the National Hist oric Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Department of Transportation Act, or any other law. Of particular interest was the appellants' statement tha t the "Forest Service management policy for Logan Canyon is inconsistent from document to document" (Appeal p . 4 ) . In reviewing and comparing the Regional Forester's decision , the FHWA ROD, EIS and LRMP, I find no inconsistency. Plans like the appellants mentioned Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan are analysis and evaluation tools and are not part of the Forest Service's two levels of decisionmaking process. The determinat ion that this is a non-significant amendment to the W asatch-Cache National Forest LRMP is appropriate. The decision reflects site-specific amendment needs related to the implementation of the project and not s weeping changes to the Forest-wide standards and guidelines. (d) Effectiveness of public participation activities and use of comments There has been an extensive public participation process for this project. Not o nly were the minimum NEPA scoping and notification requirements met, additional public information meetings were held, a "Citizens Review Committee" was used to determine whether the Draft EI S addressed the issues in an understandable and appropriate manner, and any person who commented on the Draft EIS received a brochure explaining the Preferred Alternative. Comments were taken on concerns raised by the Preferred Alternative prior to the release of the Final EIS. Before making their decision, FHWA and UDOT modified their preferred alternative through nego tiati ons with CPLC to address and mitigate concerns. A£ter the FWHA decision and prior to issuing his own decision, the Regional Forester met with members of the LCC to discuss their concerns over the project . In his decision, the Regional Forester states "these concerns were considered in formulation" of his decision (FS ROD p. 10 ) . The EIS demonstrates other agencies with jurisdiction, the Fish and Wildlife Se~ice and the Army Corps o f Engineers, were contacted and they provided �Appeal Deciding Officer page 4 information for the development of the EIS and its alternatives. State agencies, elected officials, various organizations, and the media were all contacted about the project . (e) Requested changes and objections of the appellants The appellants are very knowledgeable about the project and its environmental consequences . However, mOGt of the appeal points raised by the appellants are outside of the scope of the Regional Forester's decision to amend che LRMP and to grant an easement. In their appeal, the appellants have provided specific information which they believe contradicts the conclusions of the EIS. They have put forth an extensive, site-specific argument for the implementation of ~a less damaging alternative" (Appeal p. 4). Specifically, they believe a reduction of the designated speed for the road would more adequately meet the safety issue without the environmental loss due to construction . Their issues were raised early in the NEPA process and alternatives with appropriate mitigation measures were developed to address their concerns. However, they claim the FHWA ROD ~introduces new construction impacts that were never mentioned" in the EIS (Appeal p. 86). These construction impacts include rubble and spoil disposal, material sources, haul roads, staging areas, and batch plants. Construction impacts are discussed in section 4.25 of the EIS, and were raised as comments to the Draft £IS. Reco1lU!lendation I recommend that the Regional Forester's decision be affirmed. As a result my review, I find the Forest Service was an active cooperating agency in the developmen~ of the EIS, the Regional Forester correctly limited the scope of the decision' to within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, there was extensive public participation in trying to resolve the environmental issues, and the required mitigation measures are appropriate for the minimizing of environmental impacts while meeting the purpose and need for the project. Furthermore, I find that the issues raised by the appellants were adequately addressed in either the decision or its supporting documents. Atd!/c/ DAVID L. HESSEL Director Timber Management �.' " CPLC Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P. O . Box 3608, Logan, Utah 84323 - 3608 USDA-FS Appeals Reviewing Officer P.O . Box 96090 Washington, D .C . 20090-6090 Re: Statement of Appeal for Logan Canyon U .S . 89, Logan, Utah. Dear Sir: In the Forest Service Appeal, submitted by the Logan Canyon Coalition and othen, there is no reference to how the Modified Preferred Alternative was created. Members of Qur orgtlnization. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, spent countless hours in negotiations with the Utah Department of Transportation. The Modified Preferred Altcmatlve is the result of those negotiations. Logan Canyon Coalition was fonned from members of our group who felt the compromise did not go far enough to protect the canyon. rfyou have any questions please feel free to contact me at 801 - 752-0706. __ tcrdY~~ Lauren M . Keller Chairperson �655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 July 14, 1995 Lauren M. Keller, Chairperson QlLC P.O. Box 3608 Logan, UT 84323-3608 Dear Lauren, I think you'd better take me off the CPLC Steering Committee. I haven't ever done much for the organization, to justify a leadership position, even nominal, and now I am experiencing a certain undeniable discomfort. Given recent events. maybe it's better if I give up the idea of trying to be a bridge between CPLC and LCC. I wasn't consulted about the idea of writing an interestedparty letter to the Forest Service, but if I had been , I would have argued strongly against it. First, the official position of CPLC, the one voted on in October, stated that if the Forest Plan were violated, there could be an appeal. The Forest Plan, quite clearly, is violated several different ways by the ROD. So, even though it's a different group who made the appeal to the Forest Service, CPLC (I would have argued) should at least remain silent. Second is the moral dimension . CPLC's letter to the Appeals Reviewing Officer aligns CPLC with the Modified Preferred Alternative and says, in effect, that LCC is illegitimate. I am afraid this indicates that CPLC may be more interested in political turf than in protecting the Canyon. Why should CPLC have feared a successful LCC appeal? In the appeal, LCC produced the most comprehensive, accurate, detailed, and devastating analysis yet done on the proposed construction . Anyone dedicated to protecting the Canyon should respect its thoroughness, and be gratefu l for the work of the compilers. Nothing better -- nothing even close -- has been done on Logan Canyon . CPLC should not have given the Forest Service any help in this matter, and certainly should not have undercut a fellow environmental organization. That is not simply bad manners -- it denies the whole morality of environmentalism, which is that the environment comes first. Sincerely, Thomas J. Lyon �r r om : (eche Chfimberl Brid e riend FaH phone: B01 153 ~ , ue lity : me CACHE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE /""-160?'\ORTH YiAC-: • LOG.'\.'\ . L"TA H S-B11 • (80 11751-11 6 1· FAX (801 ) 75:--?>. U6 May 3 1. 1995 USDA-Forest Service Appeals Reviewi ng Officer P.O. Box 96090 Washington. D.C. 20090-6090 FAX 202-205-1758 [Eight tQ[al pages including this one] Response to Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons From Logan Canyon Coalition Regarding the Re cord of Decision . U.S . Highway 89 . Logan Canyon Wasatch-Cache National Forest I am Douglas E . Thompson. president of the Cache Chamber of Commerce . a 600-member chamber for all Cache County. and supervisor of the Bridgerland Travel Region Board . which promotes tourism for Cache and Rich Counties . As a party interested in the Logan Canyon Highway Project. I am compelled to make comment on the appeal.. Because time constraints and board meeting schedules precluded getting formal approval of thi s statement from the respective board s. this statement is my own . It. however.. is based on past discussions and statements formally approved by both boards . Appellants' appeal is very well written and documented . On the surface . it appears to be forceful and mo tivatin g . However. careful analysis by those familiar with the project and the process that led to the compromise Record of Decision shows many critical flaws in fact and logic in appellants' document.. No matter how good appellants' rhetoric is . simply saying it does not make it so . Errors and misleading sta tements in appellants· document will be deli neated roughly fo11m\/ing the outline they used in the app~al. Introduction Appellants' basic assertions lack foundation in fact.. The record o f public hearings . discu ssio ns. and public input clearly shows that there has been full and earnest compliance with NEPA requirements. The construction project has already been sca led down from the Preferred Alternative recognizing the needs of the Logan Canyon environment. The Conservationists' Alternative has been honestly and straightforwardly considt!red time and again . The compromise represen ted by the ROD leans heavily in favo r of the Conserva tionists' Alternative bu t still provides an acceptable level of service and safety. This project is the best and most complete attempt at compliance with NEPA requirements of any project in UDOT's hi story. It is the apparent opi ni on of o.ppeJl:mts that until eve ry square inch of affected soil.. water and air affected has been analysed and considered . applying only methodologies accepted by appellant s . the project is not in absolute compliance with NEPA reqUirements . That level of proof is infeasible and impractical.. Reaso n should rule. The ROD represents a finely craned compromise that reasonably but not absolu tely protects the environment. On the other hand . it reasonably protects lives anu safery o f the people whtl use the highway . �Cache Chamber ofComme:rce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal Page 2 Extreme views have no place in the process now. Extreme views for protection should have no more right to be heard at this time than the extreme views for development. The ROD does not satisfy those who favor greater development but the process does not :lUOW the pro·development extreme to reiterate their positions. The process gives ear only to those who want les~ than the ROD. The group presenting the appeal is a minority within a minority. The large r environmental community that participated in the discussions and the negotia tions that led to the compromise could never document that they represented more than a few thousand people. The appellants are a very small splinter group of a vocal but well orga nized minority. The clear majority of the citizens of Cache and Rich Counties suppo rted the Preferred Alterna ti ve. EVERY. REPEAT EVERY. ELECTED OFFICIAL REPRESENTING CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES W HO HAS WRITTEN AN OPINION SUPPORTS THE PROJECT. The largest local repre se ntative elected bodies. the Cache Counry Council. the Rich County Commission. and the Cache Mayo rs Association. have repeatedly stated their support of UDOT project plans. The vote o f approval of the ROD by the Cache County Council was not unanimous because some council members felt the ROD did not improve the highway eno ugh . I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND From the very beginning. those most closely associated with tourism in Logan Canyon have had significant input to the project. The proposals for National Scenic Byway status and the recent successfullSTEA grant for Byway Enhancement were carefully coordinated among the Forest Service. UDOT. and the Bridgerland Tra vel Board. Nothing in the ROD will significantly reduce scenic tourism. in fact. the project will improve the safety of and access for tourists. That the scale of the project received "massive opposition" is an exaggeration. The opposition was vocal, media savvy, and very well organized. but it was never very large. Its largest demonstration claimed only 400 participants: I was there and counted about 250. And its petitions were critically flawed. One was so misrepresented that one mayor. to hi s profound embarrassment. signed it t hin~ng it was for the project. On seve ral occasions. the Chamber polled its members regarding th'e project and the plurality for the projec t never dipped below 70 percent. Lack of Demonstr ated Purpose and Need 1 am not a safety engineer and do not feel adequate to respond to the technical questions of safety. However. I drive the canyon often and can speak as a user. When no one else is o n the road. it is safe enough and the travel time from Logan to Garden Cil)' is acceptable. That is why the travel speeds have no t been a major issue with proponents. But no o ne driving the Canyon on a summer weekend would say the canyon highway was safe o r that travel times were acceptable. To completely alleviate delays during peak traffic would reqUire a project acceptable to only a very few. But to leave it essentially as it is. with a few rurnouts. as the Conservationists' Alternative suggests. is neither safe nor reasonable. Bear Lake and Logan Canyon are the region's two most popular tOUlist attractions. dra\\'ing large numbers from the populous Wasatch Front (Sal t Lake City. Ogden and ProvO). The traffic studies do not show the increase in numbers and size o f recreational vehicles and boats traveling to Bear Lake. Without passing lanes to relieve their length. vehicle convoys on summer weekends and holidays become accidents waiting to happen. In the opinion of the Chamb;;!f. the �C ache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal Page3 ROD is inadequate [0 alleviate heavy ho liday traffic pressure but it will hdp. On oth e: r days. passin g lanes. wider pavement and safer turn s that the ROD sug gests 3re accept3ble. [h~ When it comes to commerce and demographics. the appeal is wro ng and misleading. 1-80 is n ot the east access road for commerce out of C ache County: Logan Canyon is. The map in the Appeal 's Appendix A is extremely mi sleading becau se it eliminates the criti cal connec ting road between Kemmerer and Little America. where commercial traffic joins 1-80. The following companies (representing ove r 5.000 employees in Cac he Valley ) have weekly and often daily shlpments in and o ut of Cac he Valley using Logan Canyon: Presto Products (plastic bag products. headqu3rters in Wi sconsin ) Cache Valley Cheese (heavy distribution to the east. strong supplie s in the east) Gossner Foods (dairy foods. strong distribution to the east) E.A .Mille r (meat packer. strong distribution to th e east. supplies from eaSL). WeatherShield (window manufactu rer and di stributio n center with \Visconsi n headquarters) L.W . Miller (custom freight) Miller Transportation (custom freight) Pe pperidge Farms (cookies. strong distribution to the east ) LeG rand Johnson (road construction and cement) Jack Parson (construction and cement) Logan Coach (horse trailers. strong midwest distribution) Logan Manufacturing (strong midwest and eas tern distribution) Simplor Dairy Products (custom cheese wrapping. strong eastern distribution ) Schreiber Foods (processed cheese. supplies grocery stories and fast foods from the Mississippi west) These are only the largest. There are many other Cache Valley businesses that depend on a passable and safe Logan Canyon fo r their livelihood. To ask the se businesses to use 1-80 for their eastern based commerce would cost millions of dollars every year in increased miles and delivery time. Logan Canyon is promoted locally. statewide and nationally as the best and most sce ni c route from Salt Lake City to Yello,,:,stone. It is promoted locally by Blidge rland Travel Region. statewide by the Utah Travel Council. and na tio nally by Heart of the Rockie s and the American Automobile Association (AAA). Even tho ugh it is slightly longer in time than 1- 15 and mile s than Idaho 34. and higher elevation than either. Logan Canyon is the ro ute recommended by AAA for Yellowstone to Salt Lake City. not 1- 15 or Idaho 34. The appeal takes pains to poi nt to the 1980-90 decline in Rich County permanent population. It does not reveal the reason for the dec line was the boornlbust o f the sou thweste rn Wyoming oil fields. The 1980 census figures were artificially high because of the boom. The: 1990 figures show a slow but steady grow th from 1970. The se are permanent po pulation numbers. T he primary industry of Rich County has shifted to tourism and Garden City is becoming a resort community with a very high part-time resident population. Now. there are about as many parrtime residents as full-time. Tourism is in creasin g rapidly . Unemployment is running near two percent and assessed property valuati ons have increased dramatically . While not in a boom. Rich County's economy is improving steadily. In summary. :.t si mple analysi s o f Rich County ce nsus figures is misleading when used to predict lower traffi c volumes. Cit ing the decreasing rale of gro\.vth fo r ca nyon tr:.tffic vol umes is al so misle:::tdi ng because thaI analysi s does not consider the underlying rea so ns. Su mmer traffic in LC'gan Canyon will always �',om, :" Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltioo Appeal Page4 have a hil.!h correlation to (he water level of Bear Lake. The mid-1980's repre se nt near· record high water levels and consequential higher traffic volumes. The latter years of the study period represent near-record low lake levels. During those years reliable access to the lake was available only on the east side of the lake. persuading Wasatc h Front traffic to go through Wyoming to Laketown. The summer of 1994 was the first year in the last five that large sail boats CQuid be safelY launched. As the lake level increases. as it has alway s done in its historical cycles. Logan Canyon traffic volumes will undoubtedly also increase . Other non-demographic factors will increase Canyon traffic . The improvements and promotion s financed by the ISTEA Byway Enhancement Grant will draw more tourists. The Forest Service 's own Great Western Trail promotions will attract more. And the first new commercial tourism property on Bear Lake in two decades. Harbor Village. will bring even more. With growth in commerce in Cache Valley. in parr-time Rich County residents, and in touri sm at Bear Lake and in Logan Canyon. UDOT traffic volume projections will be low. 2. SAFET Y ISSUES The fundamental reason that the Chamber supports the ROD is safety. As traffic volume increases. and the Chamber firmly believes it will. safety becomes the only reason to improve the highway. C urrent travel time for commerce is acceptable. especially when compared to the 1-80 and Idaho 34 alternatives. But already safety is an issue . It is difficult for semi-trailers to negotiate the tighter turns in the Middle Canyon without having back wheels run off thl! road. It is possible for two commercial vehicles to pass on Burnt Bridge and the T win Bridges but both vehicles will likely lose side mirrors. It is not safe for bicyclists to travel in Logan Canyon past Right Hand Fork because the hard surface shoulder literally disappears for seve ral miles through the middle canyon. With bicycle touring growing in popularity. it is unfair to not allow safe bicycle use of the canyon highway. It is important to note that the majority of the people in Cache Valley re mained publicly silent in this whole processes. The best way to gauge their feeli ngs is by the people whom th ey elected to repre sen t th em. Witho ut exception. at every public hearing and in every written respons.e fro m e lected officials . they unequivocally supP0rled the need for a safe r hi gh way. Regarding the safery o f the lower. improved section of highway and the greater number of accidents: it is qUite Si mple . There is su bstantially more traffic in the lower canyon. that 's where the largest campgrounds are and where the larger fishing facilities are . With more traffic and more frequent entries and exi ts on the highway. there will be more accidents. We accept UDOT safety and accident analysi s and numbers. Appellants do not. If one were to disregard UDOT traffic figures and look only at Forest Service records of usage for lower campgrounds compared to higher ones in relation to accide nts. accidents per camper wou ld be higher in the upper canyon. 3. AASHTO STANDARDS AND HIGHWAY DESIGN Fundame ntal to appellants' arguments is the "arhitrary anll capricious" applicati on of AASHTO standards. 1 can nN speak to ASSHTO stanllards but I can say thOot nothing in thi s ROn is "a rbitrary or capricious." Th e environmental community has see n to that. Although tht> �Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal Page5 Chamber and extreme environmentalists often disagreed. particularly in the early stages of the process. anyone associated with the process will agree that the environmental community has been te naci ous. Th ey forced UDOT and their consultants to exami ne and reexamine their analysis and conclusions. Working close ly with UDOT. and other State and Federal age ncie s associated with the process. I vouch for the earnestness and sincerity of the. bureaucra ts trying to respond to the questions of the environmentalists. To say that any of the ROD is "arbitrary and capricious" denies the very material and effective role that the environmental community has played in the process. Improve Level of Service of the Highway to Accommodate Projected Traffic Volumes Once again. in their rush to analyse the appellants did not consider why traffic level gro\vth has slowed. Undoubtedly . commerce. real esta te. and tourism will cause traffi c levels to increase. Already. tourism is the greatest contributor to annual cyclica l increases. As promotion increase. so will tourism volumes. Impr ove Traffic Flow On page 27. appellants claim that UDOT has not adequately considered the Conservationists' Altema(ive and have not compromised "for the sake of environmental protection." From the view of the Chamber and Travel Region Board. most of the compromises have come from UDOT. Only in the latest stage s of negoti:ltion did CPLC compromise mu ch. Before that time. all of the changes in the project had been in the direction of the Conservationists' Alternative. So much so. that the Chamber was beginning to wonder when and where it would stop. Until the ROD. Chamber members readily supported UDOT 's proposals. Many Chamber members. particularly commercial truckers had to be persuaded to approve the ROD . In essence. they said. "Not one more inch of reductions." They had compromised their positions enough. To say that UDOT has not genuinely compromised is absurd to anyone who has observed the process. 4. WILD AND SCENIC R{VERS Lacking expe rtise in thi s field: we have little to say excep t that it appears to us thaI bringing up this issue at this late date is only a stalling tactic. If appellants had been sincere in their concern for the status of the river. they should have brought the issue to the table long ago. They had ample opportunity . Furthe r. it is my observation that every precaution is being taken to protect the river. The bridges will be constructed with no piers in the river and the bridges with pi ers in the river will be removed . The ROD should actually improve the free flow of the river. 5. FISHERY IMPACTS AND BONNEVILLE CUTTHROAT TROUT Again. every pre caution is being taken to protect the river. Sedime.nt:ltion will be ke pt to a minimum in volume and duration. Concern about sedimentation from work along the dugway borders on the ludicrous. Th e work along the dugway will be at least dozens of feet away from the liver anu as far away a~ ~ quarter of a mile . �CacheCbamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coa ltion Appeal Page6 T he disturbing aspect of the appeal is that it clearly places a greater yalue on fish and flowers m than it does on hum:: life and safety. Because of compromise to protect fish habitat. Ihe Temple Fork intersection has been downgraded 10 the point that it will still be da ngerous by design to make a lef! tum going down canyon. The fish and thl! river are being protecteu at the expense of huma n safety . 6. WILDLIFE IMPACTS AND SENSITIVE SPECIES and 7. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS WITH SENSITIVE PLANTS The requests for studies a re for species increasingly obscure and further down the evolutionary chain. In the May 30. 1995. Forest Service hearing. appe ll an ts req uested studies of macroinve rtabrates. Will subseq uent studies be asked for bacteria and vi ru s? T he studies have been reasonably complete. certainly acce ptable fo r NEPA. 8. VISUAL RETENTION Of all the affected groups. the Bridgerland T ravel Region shou ld be the most concerned with the scenic visual aspects of the canyon. The Region has repeatedly voiced its support of the canyon project and has not changed its positio n in the Slightest. 9. ECONOMIC IMPACTS It is the o pinion of the Cache Chamber of Commerce. the BridgerJa nd Travel Region. the Rich Coun£)' Commission. the Bear Lake C hamber of Comme rce (Garden City). the Cache Coun£)' Council and every local governme ntal body that has writte n an opi nion. that the Logan Canyon highway project will have only positive economic impacts. T he on ly possible negati ve impacts may be during actual construction because travelers may :lvoid th e canyon. But that can be minimized by keeping the highway o pe n throughout construction . AAA has indicated they will continue to recommend travel through the canyon during construction. 10. WETLAND ISSUES One of the major compromise~ from the Prefe rred Altemalive 10 the ROD is narrowing (he pavement from (he "cattle guard" to Beaver Mountain to red uce the amo unt of wetlands affecteu by the project. Along with the concern for wetlands demonstrated in the FEIS. the ROD takes great care to avoid damage to wetlands. The concerns of appe llants have been heard at every public hearing on [he proj ect. W etlands conce rns have been more [han adequately addressed. 11. WATER QUALITY AND DESIGNATED USES Concern for Logan River and the quality of wate r have been one o f the d tiving forces for the design of the highway project. The re may be mino r. localized. very short tenn damage done durin g construction but the entire project has been modified to protect the river and irs W:lter quality. Appellants' description of damage a re from the FEIS for the Preferred Allernative. The ROD will subs[antially reduce eve n the short tenn impacts. 12. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT EVALUATED IN THE FEIS Beca use the very nature of highway cons truction precluues prellicting every possible impact. several prec':lUtions have been taken to adjust Ihe.: projt::ct to elimi nate or minimize unfor..:seen impacts. The project e nvironme ntal engineer anll rhe Coope rative Advi sory T:;!am will \\'::atch for �Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal Page 7 immediate problems. Design review of each phase will also reduce pOtential impacts. Even though LCC was not given a position on the CAT. legitimate concerns brought to the CAT will surely be acted on. 13 . 4(f) SITES To include the highway and rights-of-way as protected recreation is a stretch in any reasonable person 's imagination. The Forest Service respected the letter and the intent o f secti on 4(f) when it designated the 154(0 sites. -len SUMMARY Appellants have had access to the Environmental Impact Study process from the very beginnin g of the Logan Canyon Highway project. Their concerns have been heard and have had a profound affect on the ROD . Appellants had complete and unfettered access to the process. To alter the project now to suit the appellants is unfair to the cooperators from all sides who worked so hard within the syste m developing the ROD. Appellants had the opporruni ty (0 speak. they were heard . and their concerns we re acted upon. What more can citizens ask of the system unle ss it is their intention to bring process to its knees thro ugh stalling practices. The EIS process panders to an intellecrual elite while it appears to disre gard the wishes of elec ted official and long es tablished community organizations. A very small group. armed with a thorough knowledge of statistics and the willingness to spend the time to analyse each set of data. could effectively stall a project by challenging the methodologie s used to arrive at the data in the E IS. That is happening now . Appellants are abusing the system because their personal agendas for the project have not been mel. Once a group or an individual agrees with an E IS for a project. they no longe r have a place in the process. There is no way to defend a position. After accepting an EIS. aU one can do is watch his position erode away as disagreeing parties are given continued access to the system. As you review the appeaL please bear in mind th at literally thousands of reasonable people of good will have acted in good faith to produce the project represented in the ROD. The !a\VS h:lve been satisfied. The public has been heard. A super-majority represen ted by elected officials. and establi shed civic organizations support the ROD . Now is the time 10 move forward with :l project that will save human lives while it more (han adequate ly protects a canyon that we all love. Sincerely. Douglas E. Thompson_ President Cache Chamber of Commerce cc: Senator Orrin Hatch Congressman James Han sen Marsha BaiT. US Forest Service Regional Appeals CoonJinator �United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401-2310 File Code : 1950 Date : March 31, 1995 Dear Reviewer: In January, most of you received notification of the Utah Department of Transpor tation (UDOT) and Federal Highway Administration's decision to r econstruct portions of U.S. Highway 89 t hrough Logan Canyon . For the next step of t he process, it was necessary that decisions be made pertaining to National Forest System lands. My decis ion and amendment for the Wasatch· Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are enclosed. This has been a long and arduous task for all parties involved and many of you have participated for several years. I first became familiar with this project as Forest Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest . Now several years and many improvements later, I believe the decision made by UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration will protec t the valuable re sources in Logan Canyon yet allow for r oad improvements to be made. Throughout the environmental analys is, the Forest Service wo rked close ly with these agencies. If you have any que st ions about this decision, please contact Chip Sibbernsen, Acting Logan District Ranger, at (801) 755·3620 . Sincerely, - V1 . 6-...... ..----DALE N. BOSWORTH Regional Forester Enclosure Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on R«:vcIecI Paper F5-62O).28b (f2/93) G �• RECORD OF DECISION us HIGHWAY 89 LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY - CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES, UTAH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) AMENDMENT OF THE WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONSENT TO GRANT A TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT ACROSS THE WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST USDA FOREST SERVICE, INTERMOUNTAIN REGION I. Introduction Th i s document contains my decision to amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management plan (Forest Plan) to be consistent with the Fe deral Highway Administration's (FHWA) and the Utah Department of Tra nsportation's (UDOT) decision to construct reasonable and necessary improvements to U . S. 89 from Logan to Garden City. This document also contains my decision to consent to grant a transportation easement over approximately seve nty-two additional acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest required for the project. It is important to clarify that I am not making a decision to imp rove o r how to improve u.s . 89; FHWA and UDOT, with our participation, haVE' al ready made the decision to improve the roadway. II. My Decis ion and Rationale Base d on the environmental analysis contained in the FE IS and FHWA's Record of Dec i si on, I have decided t o amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Re sourc e Management Plan to be consistent with the decision of FHWA and UDOT t.o cons truct reasonable and necessary improvements on u.s. 89 across National Fore s t lands in Logan Canyon . This non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan is attached as appendix to this Record of Decision. This amendment cha nge s the Visual Quality Objective from retention to partial retention for t he highway easement near Logan Cave and to modification for the remainder of t he r oute . It also changes the guidelines for fisheries habitat indiciee to pe rm i t decreases not exceeding 5 percent of the existing when the decreases al·e tempo rary and the resulting index exceeds est~lished minimum standards set in the 19 85 Forest Plan. Because the project will result in expansion of the highway corridor in some a re as I have also decided to consent to the FHWA's issuance of a Highway Eas ement Deed, or series of deeds, to the Utah Department of Transportation fCor t he phased construction of reasonable and necessary improvements on U.S. 89 . The de cision for which I am amending the Plan is described in the FElS as the Pre f e rred Alternative as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision for this FEIS . To se rve as a basis for this decision, I am adopting the FElS as it relates to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This is pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. FHWA a nd UDOT issued a Record of Decision on January 18, 1995, to implement the Pr e ferred Alternative as refined in their Record of Decision. The FEIS was pr e pared by FHWA and UDOT with the full participation of the Forest Service a s a cooperating agency ,. The effects on and associated with National Forest �System lands, including consistency with the Forest Plan and meeting transportation needs, are disclosed in the FEIS and further addressed in FHWA's Record of Decision. I concur with their decision that the Preferred Alternative, as refined and described in their Record of Decision, represents t he best approach. As a cooperating agency throughout the analysis process, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest was closely involved in ensuring National Forest needs were met. Of particular importance to the Forest is to protect sensitive and endangered species, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat capability; to maintain the scenic values of Logan Canyon; to maintain the overall character and values of Logan River and Beaver Creek; and to maintain the potential for undeveloped recreation along these water courses. Because of the mitigation measures incorporated into the decision, many of the impacts to the Logan River and Beaver Creek fisheries will be minimized. Most potential impacts to water quality will be effective ly mitigated. Furthermore, impacts to visual quality will be minimized to the extent practical while still allowing for alterations to the existing roadway. Mitigation measures relating to Forest Service decisions are highlighted in the next section. Throughout the drafting of the planning documents for this project both FHWA and UDOT have been sensitive to the concerns of both the Forest Service and the public that Logan Canyon's natural resources and character be preserved. Numerous suggestions for environmental improvement s to the project design and monitoring to ensure environmental protection were incorporated into the FEIS and FHWA's Record of Decision. The Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision, is the only alternative which represents a significant improvement in highway function and service without seriously impacting visua1 resources and water quality in Logan Canyon. The Forest Service staff of resource specialists reviewed the FEIS and determined that the environmental affects were adequately disclosed. In reviewing the Environmental Consequences in Chapter IV of the FEIS and the refinements to the preferred alternative and responses to comments in FHWA's Record of Decision, I have determined that all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts within my authority, have been adopted. It is clear that some impacts will occur, but taking into account the extensive mitigation and the improvement in design and safety of the road, I concur with the decision of FHWA and UOOT that the Preferred Alternative, as refined in their Record of Decision, will best serve the needs of all concerned. III. Mitigation Measure s The Forest Service participated as a cooperating agency in development of the FEIS. In cooperating with FHWA and UDOT, the Forest Service participated in developing the extensive mitigation described in the FEIS. In addition the mitigation measures described in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, FHWA incorporated additional mitigation measures in their Record of Decision. I have reviewed these and concur with these. The measures highlighted be low relate to issues pertinent to the decisions I am making as described in Section I of this Record of Decision. These measures are described in detail in the FEI S as further refined in FHWA 's Record of 2 • �Decision. Numerous other mitigation measures were a lso incorporated into the decision of ODOT and FHWA. These are descri bed in their Record of Decision. In addition to these measures, I am also including some additional measures to protect the environment. These are identified with an asterik (*). consenting to arant a transportation easement: Throughout development of the Preferred Alternative, and subsequent refinements as described in FHWA's Record of Decision, consideration was given to avoiding and minimizing harm to sensitive resources and maintaining the character of Logan Canyon. Protection of the river and surrounding wetland/riparian edge, avoidance of threatened and sensitive species, avoidance and minimizing harm to wetland/riparian habitat, visual and recreational resources of the canyon played an important role in its development and selection. As a result, minimal construction will occur in the ecologically sensitive middle canyon, bridges will clear-span the river. retaining walls will be minimized but employed where needed t o limit encroachment into sensitive areas, and treatment of clearzones will be modified from AASHTO recommendations . All practicable measures to avoid impacts and minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into the conceptual design described in the FEIS as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision. The specific measures are described for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and further expanded in FHWA's Record of Decision. The Forest Service will participate in the detailed final design phase emphasizing avoidance of impacts and minimization of environmental harm. Horizontal and vertical alignments will be manipulatE:d to provide a "best fit". The Forest Service will participate and coordinate with ODOT in accordanCE: with the terms of the two Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service, UDOT and FHWA that are applicable to this project (see appendix to this Record of Decision for the general state-wide MOO and the appendix to FHWA's Record of Decision for the supplemental MOU specific to us 89 in Logan Canyon). In addition, the Forest Service will work and coordinate with ODOT and FHWA in the final design, construction and monitoring of specific projects: 1. As a member of the Cooperating Advisory Team in the final design phase for individual projects, the Forest Service will emphasize avoidance of impacts and minimization of environmental harm. 2. In development and subsequent approval of revegetation plan s. construction/post-construction monitoring plans for individual projects. 3. In development of other plans (e . g., Wetlands Mitigation Plan) as described in the FEIS and the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of FHWA's Record of Decision. 4. By approving on-Forest staging, batch plant, and wetland mitigation areas. 3 �5. ··The mitigation measures prescribed in the F£I5 and this Record of Decision will be monitored and e nforced as described in the "Moni toring or Enforcemen t Program " section of FHWA's Record of Decision. Through its representation on the CAT, the Forest Service will identify contractual measures prior to construction to ensure the measures prescribed in the FEIS and FHWA's and this Records of Decision are implemented. If and where necessary and in accordance with Forest Service Policy. the Forest Service will specify easement stipulations prior to construction to ensure the measures prescribed in the FErs and in this Record of Decision are implemented.** Amending the Fisheries Habita t Requirements in the Forest Plan ; The portions of the Logan River within this project area have been rated by the State as a Class 2 fishery (of great importance to the State) . The river and its tributaries provide habitat for cutthroat trout (possibly Bonneville cutthroat, a USFS sens itive species) and numerous other aquatic species. Issues pertinent to this decision include wetland, water quality and fisheries impacts. Mitigation measures include all those listed in and incorporated by reference f r om the "Water Quality ImpactS", ~ Permits ", "Wet lands and Botanical Resources", and "Water Body Modifications and wil dlife Impacts" parts of the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of FHWA's Record of Decision. The following mitigation measures, which correspond to other mitigation requirements in FHWA's Record of Decision, provide additional fisheries mitigation: 6. Best Management Practices and UDOT's Standard Erosion Control plans will be employed to control sedimentation and siltation, minimize water quality and habitat degradation, minimize vegetative removal , and minimize cut and fill. Detailed Best Management Practices will be developed during design for each project. 7. A construction/post· construction monitoring plan will be developed and implemented by UDOT and approved by the Forest Service during design of individual projects in order to identify sensitive areas where monitoring is needed. Monitoring required will be identified in the project plans and specifications for each project. B. The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic and ecological features to the extent possible while considering safety. The prime directive will be to minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat without jeopardizing safety. 9. All work will be conducted on the inland side of the highway where possible to avoid in· channel activities and minimize riparian habitat and riverbank disturbance. Road widths described in the FEIS as further reduced in FHWA's Record of Decision were incorporated to avoid or minimize impacts. Use of retaining walls or guardrails will be considered where needed to reduce harm to wetlands and related resources. This includes work on the Dugway, Temple Fork, in the lower Upper Canyon, near Rick Springs and other segments described in the FEIS and FHWA ' o Recor d of Deci sio n. , �10. The design o f passing and turn lanes ' will be evaluated further during detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimiz e harm to wetlands. Use of retaining walls or guardrails will be c o nsidered where needed to reduce impacts. This includes work in lower Upper Canyon, culverts near Amazon and Stump Hollows. intersections at Tony Grove, Beaver Mountain and Franklin Basin; and othe r segments described in the FEIS and FHWA's Record of Decision . 11 . A revegetat ion plan will be d e ve l oped by UDOT and approved by the Fore s t Servi ce during design of individual projects to ensure that critical habitat and disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated . 12. Bridge and culvert openings will be sized so that floodplain e levati ons will not be increased . 13. Construction staging sites identified during design and approved by the Forest Service will be kept out of aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat. The contractor will be limited to the use of the identified staging sites. 14. Construct i on work zones will be delineated through the use of fen c ing in sensitive areas to ensu r e contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations. 15. Curbing will be considered at Rick Springs to minimize vehicular off-pavement impacts to vegetation near and along the riverbanks . 16. Prior to the wet season all disturbed areas ··which could contribute sediment into the river·· will be revegetated or reseeded and ··erosion matting installed . ·· 17. Rock and debris generated during the construction will not be indiscriminately placed along the river banks . ··1£ locations with excessive erosion are identified where some of the rock may be beneficial, Forest Service approval will be obtained and the appropriate permits acquired prior to placing the material .•• 18. ··In - river piers will be removed or partially removed where possible with minimal streambed disturbance.·· 19 . ··During design phase and prior to any in-river activities, the Fo rest and UDWR staff will identify when it is necessary for one or both agencies to be contacted and on-site to assist UDOT in minimizing aquatic impacts.·· 20 . ··All concrete work on the bridges being replaced will be designed and completed to minimize any leaks of liquid cement into the river. No washing of cement trucks will take place in locations where the material could wash into the river.·· 5 �Amending the Visual Quality Objectives in the Forest Plan: US 89 through Logan Canyon i s both a Natio nal Fo rest Scen i c Byway and a State of Utah Scenic Byway. I n addition, thi s area li es within the Logan Canyon Management Area . The Forest Plan presc ription for this management area e mphasizes pro te c tion of scenic qua l i tie s . Issue s pertinent t o the de c i sion to amend the VQO ' s include vegetative recovery, road and clearing de sign featur e s and direct visual impacts. Mitigation meaaures include all t hose liste d i n and incorporated by reference from the "Visual Impacts, Batch Plant Locations, and Section 4(£ )" parts of the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of FHWA ' s Record of Decision. The f ol lowing mitigation measures, whi c h correspond to other mit i gation requirements in FHWA's Re c ord of Deci s ion, provide additional v i~ual mitigation: 21 . Design o f t he Pre ferred Al ternative as refined in FHWA's Record of Decisi on pl aced a strong emphasis on minimizing visual impacts. Road alignments were designed to minimize the amount of visual impact to the e xtent prac t ical wh i le s t ill p roviding f o r reasonable and necessary impro ve ments. Aestheti c impacts will be reduced by manipUlat i ng the horizontal and/or vertical alignment, and by moving the alignme nt away from the river. This includes the work described in the nDesign Considerations " part of the nMeasures to Minimize Harm " section of FHWA's Record of Decision. 22. The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic and ecol ogical features to the extent possible while considering safety . No clearzo ne will be provided in the first four miles of the middle canyon; however, substantial hazards within this area will be considered for protection. 23. A revegetation plan will be devel oped by UDOT and approved by the Forest Service during design of individual projects to ensure that areas of high visual quality are a voided, where practicable, and that disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated. 24 . A constructi on / post-construction monitoring plan will be developed and implemented by UDOT and approved by the Forest Service during de sign of individual projects in order to identify sensitive areas where monitoring is needed. These areas and types of monitoring required will be ide ntified in the project plans and specifications for each project. 25 . Best Management Practices will be used to minimize water quality degradation, minimize vegetative removal, and minimize cut and fill. 26. Dust suppression measures will be implemented during construction. These measures will include water sprinkling, speed limits on haul road, and use of environmentally safe stabilization chemicals . 27 . Construction staging sites identified during design and approved by the Fo rest Service will be ke pt o u t o f sens i tive visual areas . The contrac tor will be limited to the u se of the identified staging sites . 28. Construc tio n wor k zone s will be d e lineate d and sensitive areas fenced to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations . 6 �29. Burnt Bridge will be construc~ed in stages, with widening occurring on the upstream side, eliminating the detour presented in the FEIS. 30. In additi on to the reduced width presented in the FEIS f or the Middle Canyon, the previously proposed nominal roadway width of 40 feet for the first 8 miles of the Upper Canyon section has been reduced to 34 feet to further minimize impacts to wetlands , visual and other resources. (NOTE: this is nominal roadway width .. . passing lanes on 3.3 miles increase roadway width to 44 feet where they are present). 31. The amount and necessity of riprap required f or erosion control at bridges will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during final design. Riprap will be used only where required to stabilize the streambank and will not exceed 100 feet along both banks up and downstream from each bridge. Although it is possible this could total as much as 1,000 feet of the river's length, it is anticipated that riprap will not be required at each of these locations and the actual use of riprap will be minimal. Existing rive r and c reek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of required riprap into the channels . 32. Fill slopes will not be steeper than 2:1 to promote bank stability and reclamation. 33. Riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever possible. 34. Larger mature trees and their root systems will be protected where it. does not conflict with vehicles and passenger safety. 35 . Prior to the start of the next wet season, disturbed areas, where possible will be stabilized, reseeded and revegetated. 36 . Rock and debris generated during the construction will not be indiscriminately placed along the river banks. ··1£ locations with excessive erosion are identified where some of the rock may be beneficial, Forest Service approval will be obtained and the appropriate permits acquired prior to placing the material .• • Th reatened. Endangered and Sensitive Species; In addition to the mitigation described above, the Forest Service has special concern over impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive species of fauna and flora. During preparation of the FEIS, UDOT and FHWA consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Utah Division of Natural Resources concerni ng potential impacts to these species. Consultation is documented in the Appendix "Letter From US Fish and Wildlife Service" section of FHWA's Record of Decision . This correspondence documents the US Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that the Preferred Alternative as refined in FHWA's Record of Decisi on and mitigated through measures described in the "Threatened and Endangered speci es" part of the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of FHWA's Record of Decision would not affect Federally listed threatened and endangered species. This includes the Maguire primrose (Primula maquirei) . These mitigation measures are incorporated by reference into this Record of Decision. 7 �In addition to federally threatened and endangered species, the Forest Service recognizes other sensitive species. The effects of the alternatives on these species were evaluated. Forest Service policy requi r es preparation of a biological assessment and biological evaluation prior to the Forest Service offic ial signing of a decision document. These scientific documents describing impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive species have been prepared. The original assessment completed in September of 1993 was recently supplemented to include the most current information. The original assessment (included in the appendix to FHWA's Record of Decision) and supplement are included in the project record. These document that the Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision, will not adversely affect the viability of any Forest Service l isted sensitive species. Wild and Scenic Rivers: Consideration of potential wild and Scenic RiverE is an inherent part of the ongoing land and resource management planning process (Forest Service Manual 1924). Forests must eva l uate each river to identify rivers meeting the eligibility crite ria specified in section lib) and 2(b) of the wild and Scenic Rivers Act and determine the river's potential classification (wild, scenic, recreational, or a combination thereof) for those found eligible. wild and Scenic Rivers were evaluated during preparation of the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan approved in 1985 and it did not propose any rivers for further study as National wild and Scenic Rivers (FE I S for the 1985 Forest Plan, page IV-55). Since t he time period when the Forest Plarl was approved the philosophy for river eligibi li ty assessment has evolved. The Forest determined a re-assessment was appropriate and in December of 1993, the rivers on the Forest were inventoried to identify those eligible for inclusion in the National wild and Scenic Rivers System. Both Beaver Creek and the Logan River were inventoried. Neither were found to be eligible f or inclusion in the National wild and Scenic Rive rs System, though the Logan River upstream of Temple Fork was f o und to possess values significant within the State. Regardless of the 1985 and 1993 Inventory · findings; the effects of the project, should Beaver Creek and/or the Logan River ever be determined eligible, were considered. Forest Service policy (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Section 8.14) requires the Forest Plan to provide for protection of a river area considered eligible but where the suitabil ity determination has not been made, until a decis ion is made as to the future use of the river and adjacent lands. For eligible rivers, the Forest has to make a determination whether projected will affect the eligibility or classification of the reaches of the stream influenced by the project. This requires determining if: - the "free-flowing" characteristics of the river are mOdified; - the potential outstandingly remarkable values for the r iver area al·e modified; and - the potential classification of the stream has changed. The effects of the project on river characteristics which affect its free-flowing nature, potential outstandingly remarkable values and potential classification are thoroughly described in the FEIS: 8 �The effects of the alternatives described in Section 4.15 . 1, Water Body Modification, of the FBIS show some minor rip-rapping near bridges may occur where necessary to stabilize the streambank. This would not extend over 100 feet along ' both banks up- and down-stream from each new bridge, It is anticipated that riprap will not be required at each of these locations and the actual use of riprap will be minimal . Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of required riprap and/or retaining walls into the channels. Therefore, the existing river and stream characteristics pertaining to free-flowing character would not be altered from the present status . The FEIS thoroughly evaluated the effects of the alternatives on the resources and characteristics affecting the scenic, historic, recreational, wildlife and fish, cultural and other values associated with the river and river corridor. As clearly summarized in Table S - 2 and as described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the FEIS, there will either be no or only minor effects from the Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision, on these values . In addition, the FEIS notes that many of the minor effects created will be either temporary in nature or may possibly be mitigated during final design. Consequently, no potential outstandingly remarkable values will be eliminat ed. Highway 89 currently parallels the river for much of its length. As described in the FEIS, no additional · river crossings will be built nor will additional stretches of the river be followed. The FEIS recognizes that some screening vegetation along the river may be disturbed, but again this is estimated in the BIS to be minor and mostly temporary in nature. Therefore, the potential wild and Scenic River classification would not change. Based on the environmental effects summarized above, the road recons t ruction project will not affect the eligibility or classification potentials of the Logan River and therefore, the opportunity for designating these reaches of Logan River and/or Beaver Creek as a recreational river(s) in the future is not foreclosed by allowing the highway improvements described in the Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision. IV. Public Involvement A no tice of intent initiated by FHWA was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1987. To initiate the scoping process and solicit input, a mailing list containing nearly 100 entries was compiled to include governmental agencies, associations, the media, and interested individuals . Entries on the mailing list received a public involvement pl~ which coordinated public and agency activities. Public information meetings were held in Logan, Utah on September 23, 1986, and in Garden City, Utah on November 3, 1986 . 9 �An Interdisciplinary (10) Team composed of transportation planners. civil and environmental engineers. envi ronmental advocates and recreation and wildlife s pecialists met frequently in 1986 and 1987 to review technical aspects of the project and provide insight and perspectives on issues germane to the project . UDOT used a Citizens Review Committee to review the final Draft Bnvironmental Impact Statement (OEIS) to determine whether the document addressed the issues in an understandable and appropriate fashion. The Committee was composed of representatives of various city and county governments in the project area. Three formal Beoping meetings were held in March, 1987, to identify major concerns and re ceive public comments. The meetings were attended by 333 individuals, 64 of whom offered comments. Nearly 200 letters, commenting o n the proj ect, were received from the public, advocacy groups and government agencies. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project was issued in November, 1990 . UDOT received 457 comments letters expressing various ideas and sentiments about the Logan Canyon project. Some issues addressed in the comment letters included: safety, travel time through the canyon, scenic values, bicycle traffic, fisheries, alternative routes, wetlands, water and quality and threatened and endangered species. These issues and comments were addressed i n the DEIS and/or the FSIS. The Preferred Alternative was presented to the public in a brochure which was sen t to those who commented on the DEIS . In response to this brochure, a pproximately 400 letters were received prior to release of the FEIS. These comments were reviewed and a determination made that they were addressed in tt.e FEIS or FHWA's Record of Decision. The FEIS for the project was completed in February of 1993 and made available to the public for comment. In response, approximately 200 letters were received . Individual responses to these letters were provided where addresses were available. Detailed comments were not directly answered, but the commenter was informed that they would be considered and where appropriate responded to in FHWA's Record of Decision . In FHWA's Record of Decision, a summary of comments and responses was provided. The comment letters and responses are maintained in the UDOT's project record. All comments received on the FEIS were reviewed and given consideration during development of FHWA's and this Record(s) of Decision. Between issuance of the FEIS and issuance of FHWA's Record of Decision, numerous coordination meetings, field reviews, discussions and correspondence were held. This effort led to the refinements in the Preferred Alternative described in FHWA's Record of Decision and referenced in this Record of Decision. A summary of the comments received on the FEIS and responses is contained on pages 28 through 43 of FHWA's Record of Decision. Since FHWA's Record of Decision was iSBued, members of Logan Canyon Coalition have met and or conversed with Fore st Service representatives regarding concerns over the project. These concern s were c onsidered in formulation of this Record of Decision. 10 �• V. Alternatives Considered The following four alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Final ~nvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for U.S. Highway Route 89, Logan Canyon Highway. Preferred Alternative: The Preferred Alternative as described in the FEIS has been refined in response to comments received. A detailed description of this alternative is contained in FHWA's Record of Decision and is incorporated by reference here . In general, this alternative will replace bridges. make minor alignment adjustments, maintain no clearzone and maintain the existing 26 foot roadway in the first 4 . 1 miles of the project area (lower Middle Canyon sectionl. In the 4 miles of upper Middle Canyon the roadway width will be 34 feet, a clearzone provided, bridges and culverts replaced, Temple Fork intersection improved, and minor alignment adjustments made. In lower upper Canyon a 34 feet wide roadway will be maintained (except as modified by passing and turn lanes), a clear zone provided, bridges and culverts replaced, intersections improved, and the range fenced where appropriate. In the remainder of Upper Canyon the roadway will widen to 40 feet (except as modified by passing and turn lanes), intersections improved, a clearzone provided, and alignment adjustments made. From the Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland subdivision intersection a 47 feet wide roadway (including a continuous passing lane) will be established, clear zone provided, numerous alignment adjustments made, intersections improved, and one landslide area stabilized. From Bridgerland subdivision to Garden City a 40 feet wide roadway width (47 feet where there are passing lanes) will be established, clearzone provided, intersection and access points improved, and several alignment adjustments made. The Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision, would cause a decline in the Habitat Condition Index for the Logan River and Beaver Creek. The refined Preferred Alternative would also result in a Visual Quality Objective of partial retention for the highway easement near Logan Cave and modification for the remainder of the route. The refined Preferred Alternative thus does not comply with the Forest Plan . The Forest Service would consent to grant a transportation easement for approximately 72 additional acres. No Action Alternative: The existing roadway width would be maintained although considerable road maintenance, including improved signing and replacement of bridges and pavement would be necessary. The No Action Alternative complies with the Forest Plan. Transportation easements covering additional lands would not be required. Standard Arterial Alternative: Improve the highway to current national highway standards for a minor arterial road with the construction of passing lanes throughout much of the route and recovery areas resulting in a roadway width of forty to forty· seven feet and a typical improved area of sixty·six to ninety·eight feet. The Standard Arterial Alternative would cause a decline in the Habitat Condition Index for the Logan River and Beaver Creek and would achieve a Visual ~ality Objective of Modification rather than Retention. The Standard Arterial Alternative would therefore not comply with the Forest Plan . The Forest Service would consent to grant transportation easements for approximately 83 additional acres. 11 �Conservationi sts' Alternative: Spot improvements such as improved signing. replacement of bridges, slow vehicle turnouts, climbing lanes and paving and plowing of parking areas . Existing roadway widths would be maintained in most instance s. with a roadway width of forty · three feet for climbing lanes. The Conservationists' Alternative would fail to comply with the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objective in the vicinity of Burnt Bridge. The Conservationists' Alternative would result in a change of the Visual Quality Objective of the Burnt Bridge area from Retention to Partial retention . The Forest Servi ce would consent t o grant transportation easements covering about 11 additional acres . The following alternatives were considered in the OEIS but not advanced in the FEIS. Corridor Alternatives: The Corridor Alternatives considered other potential rout es connecting Cache and Rich Counties. The Corridor Alternatives were dropped because there is no projected need for the additional r outes for the next twenty years, the environmental consequences of additiona l highway construction, and the duplicate spending of operational and maintenance funds for the new route and the existing highway in Logan Canyon . Modified Standard Alternative: The Modified Alterna tive proposed a modified standard along the existing alignment for the road width in the Middle Canyon section only. It was intended to reduce the impacts of the Standard Alternative in the Middle Canyon section. The Modified Alternative was dropped because of unacceptable environmental impacts in the M iddl e Canyon, especially the alternative's impacts on wild trout populations in the Logan River. Spot Improvements: The Spot Improvements Alternative provided a small , incremental modification of the No Action Alternative. The notable difference between the two alternatives was the inclusion of 7.5 miles of climbing lanes in the Spot Improvements Alternative. The Spot Improvements Alternative was not included i n the FEIS because it resulted in no improvement in traffic-carrying capacity or safety and thus did not meet the purposes of the project. Rich County Alte rnative Alignments: Several alternative corridors in the Rich County section of the project were proposed. These alternative alignments would have resulted impacts on ·winter habitat for deer and elk, and disruptions to existing real estate development. Rich County strongly opposed the alternative alignments . Thus, t he Rich County Alternative Alignments were not considered in the FEIS. VI . Findings Required by other Laws The Wasatch-Cache has begun preliminary efforts directed towards the Forest Plan revision scheduled to be completed in 1996 . However, Forest Service policy and regulations provide for implementation of existing Forest Plan decisions until amended or revised and do not mandate retention of future management options. This means the Management Area direction for Management Area 13, as amended, will continue to be imp lemented until the Forest Plan revis ion is finalized. 12 �The Wa satch-Cache Forest Plan has been reviewed and a determination made that while the overall direction and intent of the plan will not be affected, this decision contains inconsistencies with the Forest Plan which will require amendment. The actions in this project comply fully with the goa ls of the Forest Plan, the Management Area Direction, and the Forest-wide standards and guidelines (See Chapter IV of the Wasatch-Cache Land and Resource Management Plan) except for the Visual Quality Objective and the fisheries habitat i ndicies for the Logan River and Beaver Creek. The Visual Quality Objectives will be changed to Partial Retention in one spot in Middle Canyon and modi ficati on throughout the remainder of the highway easement. The Habitat Quality Index for the Logan River and Beaver Creek will be changed to allow temporary minor decreases provided minimum index l eve ls are still exceeded. ~ FEIS 4 - 2. Specific changes are documented in the attached plan amendment . Analysis of these changes is included in the FEIS . I conclude that this is a non - significant amendment to the Forest Plan as defined in 36 CFR 219.10(e) in that it does not significantly alter the multiple use goals and objectives for long term land and resource management for the Forest. VII. Environmenta l ly Preferable Alternative The No Act i on Alternative has been identified as the environmental ly preferable alternative. VIII. Implementation Date and Appeal Opportunities This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215 . 7. A written NotiCEof Appeal must be postmarked within 45 days after the date this notice is published in the Ogden Standard Examiner, Ogden, Utah. The Notice of Appeal should be sent to: Chief, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, washington, D. C. 20090-6090 Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 . For further inf orma tion on this decision, contact Reese Pope at Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138 or by phone at (801) 524-5188. If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date of appea l disposition. - trlAH , I 1995 , Date DALE N. BOSWORTH Regional Forester Intermountain Region 324 25th Street Ogde n, UT 84403 13 �(2 I. ~ot:> Is Y 01::' 1> ,fGlt tiff . C 17tf1 jill '2-. (001::> 6-at--:; ( c-- . "3 'If • To ttt-/WA- M otVTH$ , ~'tl.Ji) y) -; • R0 p lr-f'i:1If . 6-dt:-s 7/0 U.rPS _ g o ~ D cAtV AMpvf) 17{--c t=fjyLPV!t-tlI· {IV H 4V't' [YO n-{-AT I iD OW r-./ ~o-o 1 \ I 5'1 ( :> r r/E I/-f-f:( r( - AtlfDTM::~ ? MONtH'? ') $0: WE M{u-Hi tf41£ {O /fA. (I,1/Ttis - �r;.r{), ~ &+-e.t,,~ I "I'i? So ~oo I.N 1..--0 a""', U\ ------ --To"" L.y un G ::,-s- CAr-.~o 1\ p. Q. UT 'iN 3;J.., I �Dec. 7, 1994 Dear Tenacious member of the Logan Canyon Coalition, I have enclosed a rough draft of some proposed changes to UDOT's ROD. I've spoken with some of you about this proposal, and I've incorporated many of your ideas, including some ideas from the Conservationists' Alternative. I've tentatively called this new proposal the "Citizens' Alternative." Catchy title, right? It seems to me that the sooner we decide on the changes we wish to see through our Forest Service appeal, the more focused and efficient our work will be. Anyway, we will have to declare, in our appeal, exactly the changes we wish to see. Please look over this draft, and let me know what you think. I'd like to discuss this further at our next meeting. In this proposal we should indicate the changes we want, and also briefly discuss our reasons for requesting each change. Further, indepth, discussions will come in the body of the appeal. This is not a final draft! It is for the sake of discussion at our next meeting. Please feel free to make suggestions that will reflect your own point-of-view. I strongly believe, however, that we should present a proposal to the Forest Service that is not too "radical," rejecting all improvements to the road except for bridge replacement. We should allow for further changes that really might improve safety. We should try, in other words, to appear reasonable, while still defending what needs to be defended. We should, rt we can, reflect concerns that the Forest Service and other agencies might themselves have with UDOT's ROD, for example, UDOT's proposed extensive changes at Temple Fork. With this approach, we might have a good chance of success with our appeal. In our proposal, we should not try to shut down everything UDOT wants to do. If we do, we will likely be dismissed too easily by Forest Service administrators. On the other hand, I do not want us to agree with UDOT's plans rt we really believe they will unnecessarily harm the canyon. Please let me know what you think. I would like to reach a good consensus. Yours in Tenacious Defense of our Canyon, Go rQM S'{-e..I!\\...oqf 753-0497 �Citizens' Alternative Proposal for Improvement of the Logan Canyon Highway 89 Our alternative is identical to the revised Preferred Alternative proposed by UDOT in their recent ROD, with the following changes. 1. Keep the 26' road width up to just beyond Ricks Spring. Extend section 1b, described in the FEIS as remaining at 26', up to just beyond Ricks Spring. This would prevent unnecessary damage to the river, which runs very close to the road along this stretch. This change helps protect the river and its fishery at the lower Twin Bridge and the Temple Fork intersection. 2. At the Temple Fork intersection, keep the road to only two travel lanes, without a right hand or left hand turning lane. The river along this intersection probably provides very good spawning grounds for cutthroat trout. Along the entire river, there are very few good spawning grounds for cutthroat or for brown trout, making this section of the river at Temple Fork extremely valuable to the fishery in the Logan river. The road at Temple Fork passes very close to the river. Widening this section of road to accomodate turning lanes would seriously damage these spawning grounds and so the fishery in the entire river. UDOT presents no data on the number of vehicles that turn into the Temple Fori< road, and emerge from the road. This is an unimproved, dirt road that meanders into an unimproved recreation area. UDOT has not justified the severe damage to this fishery that would occur here with widening and with turning lanes. 3. Do not flatten curves at and around the Temple Fork area. Curves 39 and 40, at milepost 388.8, and curves 43 and 45, at mileposts 389.4 and 390.1, should be left on their present alignments. The road gradually curves along this section as it follows the river. These curves are gradual. They are not sharp, so they are not particularly dangerous at a reasonable speed. UDOT has presented no data showing that these curves are particularly dangerous. The scenery through here is spectacular. There is no loss in "driver comfort" as one negotiates these gentle curves and enjoys the views of the river and canyon walls. The only reason for flattening these curves is to achieve a straighter road so that drivers can "go fast." The resulting slopes may not be revegetated successfully. The run-off from construction would have to enter the river at some point, and the increased sedimentation may seriously damage this sensitive cutthroat spawn· ing area. There would be loss of recreational and scenic values here, with no good justification of the loss. , �4. At Logan Cave, as the road is elevated, use a retaining wall to keep fill out of the river. There should be no more encroachment into the river. This is consistent with the ROD, in which UDOT agrees to maintain the '1ree flowing" nature of the Logan River. (The Conservationists' Alternative called for the road to be "moved away from the rive~' as it is elevated. This would mean that the mountain on one side of the road would have to be carved out to create room for the road as it is shifted away from the river. Is this preferable to use of a retaining wall?) 5. Maintain the 34' road width past the Beaver Mountain intersection and over the summit to just past the Bear Lake overlook. Do not increase the width in the upper canyon to 40'. 6. Do not construct a climbing lane over the summit. End the proposed climbing lane below the summit. Changes 4 and 5 will possibly allow the road to be kept in its present alignment, without too much damage to the old-growth forest. If the road is increased to 40', and a climbing lane over the summit is constructed, the road will need to be moved to a different alignment in order to avoid severe damage to the forest. But this will involve a huge amount of fill in a side canyon, with destruction of deer forage and mountain mahogany. The older road would probably never be completely removed. It would be much less damaging to keep to the original alignment, with a narrower road. Furthermore, a wide, straight highway at the summit, complete with a climbing lane, would encourage drivers to increase speeds to dangerous levels. This is a north· facing slope at about 8000 feet. The grade of the road may approach 10%. In the winter, with ice and snow on the road , higher speeds could be especially deadly. At the summit there is the popular Umber Pine trailhead turnOff, and just past the summit is the Sunrise Campground turnoff. The road would be safer ~ drivers were not rocketing over the summit, past these intersections, at excessive speeds, especially in the ice and snow. 7. Do not construct a passing lane just past the cattle guard. Instead, construct a slowvehicle pullout, and put up a sign informing drivers that a passing lane will begin in a mile. This would eliminate unnecessary destruction of wetlands along the road. The sign would help encourage drivers to be patient until they reach the passing lane. �8. Maintain a 26' road width along Beaver Creek. Do not increase the width here to 34'. The road from Ricks Spring to Beaver Creek will be widened to 34', but through the corridor along Beaver Creek the road will be kept at its current 26', wrth possibly a slightly lower posted speed. Widening this road to 34' would involve unacceptable impacts to the creek and aSSOCiated wetlands. The road is simply too close to the creek and wetlands, on both sides of the road. UDOT claims that it would work in only a narrow construction zone, but any construction here would seriously damage riparian habitat and probably wetlands. Beaver Creek contains important spawning grounds for cutthroat trout, and it contains a population of beaver that have only recently returned after being driven out by road construction 60 years ago. Any slight gain in "driver comfort" by widening here is not worth destruction of the cutthroat trout fishery and important wildlde habitat. UDOT will object to the "bottleneck" in traffic flow that would be created here d our proposal is implemented. In our proposal, there are two "bottlenecks," one in the middle canyon and one at Beaver Creek, with a narrower road and slightly lower posted speeds in each. Possibly, two bottlenecks will better protect the future health of both of these areas. 9. Insist that no new riprap be used in the canyon. UDOT should be required to stabilize all damaged riverbanks using natural vegetation, and UDOT should be required to expend the time and money necessary after construction to ensure that all revegetation efforts are successful. The Logan Canyon has great recreational and scenic values. These values would be harmed with the "easy solution" of riprap. If UDOT goes into the canyon to widen and straighten some sections of the road, and replace bridges, UDOT should be required to mitigate in a manner fully consistent with the recreational and scenic values of this canyon. This means use of natural vegetation that is carefully maintained at UDOTs expense well after construction. 10. UDOT should specdy more explicitly the measures it will take to minimize harm to the river, to fisheries, and to the scenic value of the canyon. It should also specdy more explicitly measures rt will take to mrtigate damage from construction. Too often UDOT simply says that it will use "best management practioes" This is too vague. UDOT wishes to leave detailed discussion of the exact measures it will use to minimize harm to "deSign phase." This does not give the public and appropriate agencies sufficient information to properly evaluate UDOTs proposal before approval of the project is given by the state transportation commission and the federal highway administration. Evaluation of the impacts of proposed construction must include consideration of the exact measures UDOT intends to use to minimize harm and mitigate damage. Especially when construction will seriously impact particular sites, such as Temple Fork, Logan Cave and the lower Twin Bridge and Burnt Bridge, UDOT �should be required to give a site-specdic discussion of exact measures that will be used. When culverts are replaced, does UDOT intend to use culverts that are graded and baffled, allowing fish to move through culverts during high water flows? UDOT mentions that ~ will use' sediment basins to collect sediment from run-off, but does UDOT intend to change the filters in these basins at appropriate times after construction is completed? In the FEIS, UDOT provides no discussion of how revegetation will be accomplished after construction, and no estimates of how successful revegetation efforts will be on the slopes that will be left after curve-cuts. Will UDOT carefully maintain new vegetation after construction is completed? UDOT should be required to speedy and discuss exact measures ~ will use. These discussions should be in an EIS, appearing before approval and funding of the project. �United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Uinta and Wasatch-Cache Nationa l Forests 8236 Federal Building 125 South State Street Sa l t Lake City, UT 841 38 (801) 524-5030 Reply to : Date: 1950 December 7 , 1994 Dear Interested Forest User , The Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, Ashley National Forest and Bureau of Land Management have begun t he process of preparing a Suppl ement to the North Slope Oil and Gas Leas ing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The original analysis examined non-Wilderness Federal lands wi t h Federal mineral righ ts that should or should not be made available for oil and gas expl oration, development, and production on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. A decision on the EIS was appealed which l ed to the roadle ss a r ea being removed from l easing until further analysis could be completed. This Supplement will focus only on t he issue of roadless areas. Comments and suggestions concerning this ana l ysis will be accepted through January 12. 199~ . Comments should be concise and specific to the fo cus of this Supplement. Please mail comments to Evanston Ranger District. P.O. Box 1880, Evanston, WY 82930. The Draft Supplement is expected to be available fo r publ ic r eview in early February 1995. A 45 day comment period will follow release of the Draft. Upon analysis and consideration of these comments. the Fi nal Supplement and a new Decision will be prepared and released. If you have any questions or concerns. please contact Liz Schuppert at (307) 789-3194 . Sincerely. 0?~","~ P. k.J;.." ~d' PETER W. KARP Forest Supervisor �> • Supplement to North Slope Leasing Environmental Impact Statement Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests Summit and Daggett Counties THE APRIL 94 LEASING DECISIONBeginning in the fall of 1991, the Wasatch· Cache and Ashley National Forests began the analysis to determine whi ch lands across the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains should be administratively available for leasing and if they were to be made available for leasing, what stipulations should be appli ed. A final decision was made in April of 1994 to allow leasing on 219,000 acres and to not allow leasing on about 23,000 acres. Four valid appeals were received on thi s decision. As part of the appeals process the Forest Supervisors met with appellants to discuss resolution of their appeal issues. One of the primary appeal points was whether or not leasing should be allowed in the "road less area" portion of the study area. As the Forest Supervisors took a hard look at the decision made in April and some of the issues raised in the appeals, they determined better information was needed about the "roadless" portion to make a well informed decision since oil and gas leasing cou ld influence the area for a long time. This led to a August 18 decision to withdraw the decision for the "roadless area" portion of the study area (about 80,000 acres). The remaining 160,000 acres within the study area will be leased as determined in the April decision. A BETTER LOOK IN A SUPPLEMENTThe North Slope Leasing EIS analyzed effects for roadless acres across the North Slope and cumulative effects for all roadless acres contiguous with the High Vintas Wilderness. As the Forest Supervisors studied their decision and analysis what they found lacking was a description of the unique roadless characteristics of the major drainages within the study area. For example, what is the solitude of the Middle Fork Blacks Fork drainage? What is the natural integrity of the Beaver Creek drainage? Are there other acti vities ongoing or planned for the future that need to be considered? In other words, they felt there were enough differences in the road less characteristics in each major drainage to warrant a more detailed look in a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. Once these characteristics are described , new alternatives will be considered if the 7 alternatives in the EIS do not provide an adequate mix of leasing scenarios. Peter W. Karp, Forest Supervisor of the Uinta and Wasatch· Cache National Forest and Brent McBeth, Acting Forest Supervisor of the Ashley National Forests are the responsible officials for this action. THE SIX ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICSThe following roadless characteristics will be considered in each major drainage across the North Slope: �1 > Natura l int eg r ity is the extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating. Impacts to natural integrity are measured by the presence and magnitude of human induced change to an area. Such impacts include physical developments (e.g roads, utilityrights-of way, fences, lookouts, cabins), recreation developments, domestic livestock grazing, mineral developments, wildlife/fisheries management activities, vegetative manipulation, and fire suppression activities. Appare nt n at u raln ess means that the environment looks natural to most people using the area. It is a measure of importance of visitors' perceptions of human impacts to the area. Even though some of the long-term ecological processes of an area may have been interrupted, the landscape of the area generally appears to be affected by the forces of nature. If the landscape has been modified by human activity, the evidence is not obvious to the casua l observer, or it is disappearing due to natural processes. R em o t e n ess is a perceived condition of being secluded, inaccessible, and out of the way. The physical factors that can create "remote" settings include topography, vegetative screening, distance from human impacts such as roads and logging operations (s ight and sound), and difficulty of travel. A user's sense of remoteness in an area is also influenced by the presence or absence of roads, thei r condition, and whether they are open to motorized vehicles. Solit u d e is a personal, subjective value defined as isolation from the sights, sound and presence of others, and the developments of man. Common indicators of solitude are numbers of individuals or parties one may expect to encounter in an area during a day, or the number of parties camped within sight and sound of other visitors. Impacts related to primitive recreation experiences are normally expressed in changes to t he physical setting, activities occurring in the area, of to the social experiences of users. Spec ia l features are those uni que geological, biological, ecological, cultural, or scenic features that may be located in roadless areas. Unique fis h and wildlife species, un ique plants or plant communities, outstandi ng landscape feat ures such as unique rock formations, and sign ificant cultu ral resource sites are some examples of the items Th e M a n ageability/ B ound ari es elem ent relates to the abili ty of the Forest Service to manage an area to meet size criteria and the five elements discussed above. Changes in the shape of an area influence how it can be managed. If broken into narrow corridors or small islands interspersed with areas of non-conforming management practices, many of the 6 elements may be compromised. WHAT WE NEED FROM YOUTo be most helpful in this analysis, please submit specific comments related to the 6 roadless characteristics within the major drainages (see attached map). Please submit written comments to Liz Schuppert, Evanston Ranger District, Box 1880, Evanston WY 82930 by January 12, 1995 . T he draft supplement is expected in February 1995. If you have any questions or concerns call Liz Schuppert at (307) 789-3194. �Wasatch-Cache &Ashley NatWl1flt forests • . - u~s USFS Regian Faur NORTH SLOPE OIL AND GAS Svpple?l!ntal Analysis • - - - •• •• •• ~ ~ , ·SliIIwater/Heydan 2·Eul Fork Bear 3-Wesl Fork Blackl 4-Middle Fork Blecks 5-E. Fork Blacks Fork S.W. Fork Smith Fork 7-Gilbart Creek 8-e. FOlk Smith Fork 9-Hen'Y' FOlk 10-Belver Creek Mil e s o 6 12 18 11·Burnt Fork{Thomp.onIKabeli 12·No. Fork Sheep Creek 13-Mehogany/Oeath VaJley Ceneral area. Legend ~!ll1l'Tlf ~ Area \4 -----Yf ? ,...,.... Ir IoU ..,. ,"""" J,. r ...., ...... ,.. �To: Keller, lauren 18-5-94 4:45p. FrOll: OCT~-l994 15:34 FRD1 TO ENiItEERIi'I:i SERVICES 918e17536139 p. 1 of l P .01 October 5, 1994 PACSIMD..B TRANSMlTl'AL COVER SHlllIT TIllS TRANSMl'ITAL CONTAINS 3 PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) SENT BY: LORRAlNB RICHARDS UDOT HNVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 4$01 S 2700 W, SLC, UT 84119 PHONE t: (SOl) 965-4159 FAX I: (SOl) 965-4796 SENT TO: LAUREN KEIJJ<I! FAX #: 753-6139 , COMMBNTSfINSTRUcnONS: Attacbed is • clean copy of the revisions you ...:elved yesterday and the changes we c:U.scuSKd in yCSlCIday's mec:d.n, fur yuur ~view. Pk::a:io::il!lC that Shawn and Paul .mccive a copy. Thanbl ............ PlBASB NQ'IUlY RECIPIENT AS SOON AS POSSmLB •••••••• �18-5-94 4:45p. To: Keller , Lauren OCT-ffi-l994 15:34 FR01 EN3It-EERIt-t3 SERVICES 910017536139 TO p. Z of 3 P.02 PROPOSIW LilNGUAGB CHANGRS TO 9 - 27 REVISION U9-89 LOGAN CANYON Page 2, Last Paragraph. 4th Sentence~ Since the roadway already serves ae a US Higbway and was designated as such in accordance with previous legislation, the determination has been made that this action would not change the use of the highway. Page 6, Insert new p~ragraph "l"h.:I.. :a.eeds JIIOre work, after second paragraph. pu1l some lULgua.ge ~rOJD. previou.s :z paragraphs and add the ~ollowing* A new intersection providing ace... to the sridgerland Subdivision will be constructed~ Intersection improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered. Page 21. Second Paragr5ph . A band at riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever possible to provide overhanging cover tor fish and to filter surface runoff. Page 21, Seventh Paragraph. Fishery studies will be conducted for individual projects which have the potential to ~ct tisheries. Prior to construction, available UDWR fish@ries studies will be assessed and it necessary updated to provide baseline data to dete~ine project impacts to fisheries. Post construction fishery studies wil1 be conducted. It study results show additional mitigation measures are warranted as a result of project activities, mitigation directed at wild fish stocks will be carried out under the direction ot USFS & UDWR biologists as explained in the PBIS on pg 5-6. �To : Ke ller, lauren 18-S-94 4:46p. OCT-05- 1994 15:35 FRD'1 ENitt-EERlt-I:i SERVICES TO 910017536139 p. 3 of 1 P. 03 US-89 LOGAN CANYON RDD REVISION. CHANGES AS PBR 10-3 - 94 MTG Page 12, 2nd Paragraph Replace 5th sentence. This team will participate in the development ot all aspects of design and 1n the resolution of unforeseen problems that ariss during construction and post construction. MOr. inoluded ' on page 26 ( ••• below) . page 24, Batch plant Locations * The traffic, safety. recreatioD, and air quality tmpactB associated with hauling material from the city versus setting up a batch plant in the canyon will be identified on a project by project basis in design. The affect o~ these t.pacta on both the canyon environment and the city environment will be considered. Th. a •••• ~t will inclu~. u.p.ats OD the LoWer Canyon lUlc:l compat1bility with future proj.ct.. The .c.t suitabl. location will be i~entifled in the project -.peoifioatioaB and the contractor wd11 be required to conduct hi. batch plant operations in accordance with the•• ~.QlflQatiOD •• Page 26, 1st paragraph MOnitoring and enforcement of the above proposed measur~s to minimize har.m will be accomplishe~ in accordance with the Memorandum of understandi.ng (MaU) between ut>OT, PHWA, an(l VSFS. The MOU is included in the Appendix of this ROD. It identifies how the individual projects wll1 be selected, identified and managed, and how coordination wi1l be accomplished. The MOU takes each project through design, construction, and postconetruction periods. It commits to the deve10pment of a revegetation plan, wetland mitigation plan, and a construction/post-construction monitoring plan, and commits to the development of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAT) which consists o~ var~ous agencies and indiv1duals. This team w111 provide recommendations of regulatory and permit requirements, input on enhancement opportunities, mitigative treatments and overal l content of the design of the project, ~th tinal decisions being UDOT's responsibility. Th. CAT t.am. will be invo1ved. throughout the development of: all aspeets o~ de.iSPl, inc1uding' review o~ .lignment options and other d_lgn featur.s. During construction aDd po.t construction, the CAT team will be Coordinated with ~o r.so1v. unEoreseeD eDviroamantal problem. to ensure that ~t1gative e~~ort8 are succe.s~u1. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 3323 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2602 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/294">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/294</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 2543550165 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource LCC correspondence Description An account of the resource Multiple correspondences from members of the Logan Canyon Coalition including a notice of appeal and statement of reasons, and discussion of the modifications proposed for Logan Canyon. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Morton, Pete Kobe, Kevin Wilcox, Sterling Hessel, David L. Lyon, Tom Thompson, Douglas E. Bosworth, Dale Steinhoff, Gordon Karp, Peter W. Richards, Lorraine Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Environmental policy Department of Transportation--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 1995 1996 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 7 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd7 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/bbc336c4d786ce0afeeab578fa822d63.pdf d7d1fd3e2fee41b388b1906bbdcba57f PDF Text Text ..--- --------- -------- -- -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- --- --- --- ------ -- - -- -- - --- ------- - - - - -------- - - -- .-. - - - -____T __T -.7" . . .r .... __T....,. • ---- --- --- A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION Vol. 1 No.1 March 1, 1995 LCC IS FORMED If the Utah Depart"Until UDOT has lived up to the ment of Transportati on has its way, the na tural law of the land and provided beauty of Logan Canyon truthful analysis and documentaas we know it may soon be just a picture on a tion, we (LCC) will be persistent postcard. Instead of a in our demands for justice," serene mountain byway, - Kevin Kobe, LCC President U.S. Highway 89 will be a high-speed traffic corri dor Hned by scarred hill - spectacular scenery. and along the Dugway to We believe that the sides, reta ining walls, stem erosion problems. and c1earzones. UOOT recent compromise made • Vague wording about would like to begin work beh¥een Citizens for the how c1earzones will be as early as this summer. Protection of Logan treated , with c1earzone Canyon and UOOT is That's why we have a reas compri sing up to unacceptab le. It is merely 22 feet on either side of formed the Logan Canyon Coa lition. LCC is a slightly watered down the road, and the removal of "su bstantial version of the Preferred mad e up of "old timers" Alternative. haza rds" within the midwho have been involved The extent of the con- dle canyon. with the Logan Canyon/ UDOT issue almost from struction planned will • Revegetation of mature the beginning, as well as still necessitate 15-20 trees and shrubs that newcomers who advoyears of work, and will "could require 30 to 50 completely change the years or might never ca te a common sense ambiance of the canyon. occur aga in." approach to road Some of our priority • A potentially devastatimprovement-one that ing impact on cutthroat combines safety, efficien- concerns are: and brown trout popula . Eight curve cuts cy and environmental planned for the middle tions due to extensive sensitivity. LCC is dediriprap nea r the bridges, canyon, along with cated to keeping Logan retaining walls in some River a wild, free flowing UOOT's suggestion that locations, and permanent use of cement retaining river, preserving wildlife walls would be appropri- problems with sedimenhabitat, and protecting tation near ate in the middle canyon Logan Canyon's steep curve cuts. -Two-hundred year-old Douglas Fir at the summit replaced by a mini mum of 47 feet of pave. ment, a nd realignment that will necessitate filling a small side canyon with debris. • Extensive widening, with half of the middle canyon widened from 26 feet to 34 feet, and the remaining 24 miles widened to 40-47 feet to accomodate higher design speeds. • No specifics as far as mitigation plans, with a vague promise to use UOOT's "best management practices." LCC has pledged its resources towards pursuring every available legal op tion. If we pursue litigation, we will need your support. Volunteers are needed . Money will also be needed-litigati on is very costl y. Please plan on donating generously! This is our last opportunity for action. �LCC Prepares for Forest Appeal In its effort to per- suade UDOT to take another look at the Conservationist's Altema tive, the Logan Canyon Coalition is working hard in preparation for the Forest Appeal. After the recent approval of the Record of Decision (ROD) by both UOOT and the Federal Highway Administration, the last phase of the process currently rests with the Forest Service. This agency's approval is widely expected, followed by a 45-day comment period for public input. Lee plans to exercise its legal right by appea ling the Forest Service's decision. The Forest Service is required by the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan to retain the aesthetic and environmental qualities of the canyon. The Plan will need to be revised due to excessive impacts which would result from the Preferred Alternative. A Forest Plan revision will require public input as manda ted by the NEPA process. Lee Logan Canyon Coalition plans to exercise its legal right by appealing the Forest Service's decision. will base its appea l on the expected Forest Service decision and key concerns not adequately addressed by the FEIS. as federally threatened or endangered species. Neither the Forest Service nor UDOT have s urveyed to identify the presence or absence of these species. These points include the following: 1) UOOT has never clearly demonstrated the purpose and need for the project, as required by NEPA. 4) UOOT's analysis of the safety data is admittedly flawed . 5) UOOT has more flexibility in AASHTO highway design recommendations than it acknowledges. 2) The Logan River is among the top 5% of all stream fisheries in the state, yet the FEIS seriously underestimates the impact to fisheries. 6) The canyon is the number one tourist attraction in the Bridgerland area, yet the FEIS fails to address long-term negative economic impacts resulting from 20 years of construction and loss of scenic values. 3) There are several species which may occur in the canyon. These species are either listed as sensitive by the Forest Service or are candi dates for classification 2 1) The Forest Service plan mandates retention of the canyon's visual and aesthetic qualities. Under the Preferred Alternative this mandate would be violated. These and other concerns represent a legitimate foundation on which to base our appeal. If you have any additional concerns which warrant consideration, please contact Lee ASAP. Thank you. �=-= = ------- _ _ _ _ '=-"'I'" - :-- Economic Benefits or Disaster? Utah's wide geographical diversity and expansive open spaces have filled a void in a time when many of o ur wild places are rap idly falling prey to u rban and economic sprawl. This is resulting in a boom in tourism. Tourism revenues for Cache and Rich Cou nties alone amounted to well over $64 million in 1993. This success can be pa rtly attributed to p romotional efforts by the Cache Chamber of Commerce, which recognizes Logan Canyon as the number one attraction in Bridgerland. The Chamber's 1994 Cache Valley Utah publica tio n mentions Logan Canyon no less than 20 times in the firs t nine pages. In addition, the Bridgerland Travel Region recently received a $436,000 federal grant to promote Logan Canyon and educate visitors about its characteristics. Clearly the canyon has a wide base of support and aCknowledgement in terms of value to the region. "We look at it as a real asset to the community," says Marty Spicer, real estate broker fo r Coldwell Banker. But will the canyon lose its d raw as it undergoes 15 to 20 years of construction, destructio n, and transformation of its natural character? How many moto rists will p refer the Idaho route to Yellowstone versus waiting in d usty traffic for heavy equipment to pass? Will pe0ple still want to d rive to Garden City to view Bear Lake and enjoy a raspberry shake? Mo re importantly, will the increase in con- gestion and traffic speeds after completion of construction have a d etri mental effect on the canyon's appeal? The stark reality may be yes! But still the FEIS provides no assessment of negative economic impacts resulting fro m the highway project. We need more proof, not vagueness and ambig ui- Volunteers Needed 1- Research for Forest Service Appeal 2- Networking 3- Fundraising 4- Education 5- Mailings 6- Letter writing 7- Events 8- Media relations 9- Passing the word 10- Lega l assistance 11- SLC contacts 12- HELP! ty. These are all legitimate concerns which need to be add ressed without prej udice and assumptions. Wha t may look like a road to economic boom may become a path to economic disaster. Equipment Needed 1- Offi ce space 2- Voice mail 3- FAX machine 4- Copier 5- Postage stamps 6- Copy paper 1- Envelopes 8- MONEY' r------------------------, YES! I THE WANT TO JOIN LOGAN CANYON COALITION and receive a subSCription to CANYON WIND $20.00 Annual Membership I would like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more I would like to volunteer. I'm broke! Here's five bucks. Name ______________________________ Street ______________________________ City _ _ _ _ State _ _ _ Zip_ _ Phone * _____________ _ Plnse make check payable and mail to: Logan Canyon Coalition USU Box 1674 L ________ ________ .J �,..----------,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . -.. -=...... . ...... ., ..... _ . . . __ Iii. _ _ .... Iii. iiaiii . . . . . . _iii -------- c: «» .&. L :J: 'T :J: «» :N' , , , , L __________ ..I Wor k l n . f o r th . Pr o te " ti .n of Lo. a " C . " yo " USU Boxll1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 '=' Recycled Recycle �...-- ----.-.-- iiiii_iii_ iiiiiiiiiia. .,. __,. _.T____,. ....r ... __,...... .---- -- - - - --- -- - -- ---- -- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- - --- - - - - ---- - - ----- - ----- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- -- - --- - - - -- ---A NEWS B ULLET I N FROM LO G AN CANYON COALITION Vol. 1 No.2 A ugust 1, 1995 USFS Abandons Logan Canyon LCC Appeal Denied The Loga n Canyon Coal itio n (LeC) recent ly appealed the Forest Service's decision to allow the Uta h Department of Transporta tion (UDOT) to construct its "modified" Prefer red "This unfortunat e decision by the Forest Seroice has left us with only one alternative . .. litigation" - Tom Lyotl , LCC A lternative in Logan Canyon. We were joined in our appeal by the Utah Rivers Co nservation Co uncil. OUT ex tensive ap pea l was 187 pages long, and cove red a ll aspects of UOOT's proposal. V\e arg ued that UDOT has not demonstrated the purpose and need fo r its construction p roject, and that they have not ade- quately disclosed the environmenta l impacts of their project. In June the Forest Service denied o ur ap peal. Comments agai nst our appeal, and in favor of UOOT's project, were submitted to the Forest Service by UDOT, the Cache Chamber o f Co mmerce, a nd Citizens for the Protection of Loga n Canyon. The letter from the chamber emphasized the value of Logan Canyon as a major trucking ro ute. It is remarkab le that, given the many poin ts we raise in ou r appeal, the Fo rest Service up held none of them. Their review of our appea l is brief and superficia l, with inad equate respo nses to critical issues. Without due consid eration, the Forest Service has ru bber-stamped implementaton of an unnecessa ri ly ex pensive and destruc tive h ighway p roject. The Forest Service is in fact responsi ble fo r ensuring tha t p urpose and need fo r construction have been demonstra ted. They are also responsib le fo r ens uring that enviro nmenta l impacts have been adequately assessed, incl uding d amge to scenery, fis heries, wildli fe, wet1 nds, and the potentia 1 a Wi ld a nd Scenic status of the river. This responsibility is cl ea rly stated in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan and in federal law. In shirking its responsibility for Logan Canyon, the Forest Service is v iolating its mand ate and acting iIIega ll): LCC is cu rrently ga thering fund s for our lega l d efense of Logan Canyon. All co ntributio ns are welco me a nd w ill be used for legal costs. All who are interested in helping in ou r effort to save Loga n Can yon are invited to contact us. A pp eal H igh lig h ts LCe's appen l is avni/able in the Lognn City Library nnd USU's Merrill Library. (1) UDOT's highway sa fety analysis utilizes arti ficially infla ted and manipulated traffi c volumes, inconsistent with UOOT's own traffic (continued nexl " age) �Appeal ("", Unu"') counts, in an attempt to make the previously widened portion of the road, the Lower Canyon, appear safer than the unwidened sections. UDOT's proposed construction will in fact make the highway less safe. (2) The difference in average travel time between UOOT's Preferred Alternative and the Conservationists' Alternative is, by UDOT's admi ssio n, less than 10 minutes! We question the much grea ter cost and enviro nmental impact of the Preferred Alternative given such a minimal difference in travel time. (3) In its highway design for the Upper Canyon, UDOT is not taking advantage of the fl exibility in road design allowed by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). Throughout the canyon, UDOT has designed the highway in an arbitrary and capricious fashi on, with little environmental sensitivity. (4) The Forest Service has agreed that the segment of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek might possess mo re "outstandingly remarkable values" than any other river in the Wasatch-Ca che Forest. The Forest Service has agreed that this segment should be reevaluated. for protected Wild and Scenic River status. We are concerned that construction of UOOr's Preferred Alternative will degrade this river segment enough that its classification will be lowered. It may no longer qualify for Wild and Scenic status. (5) There is no scientific justification whatsoever for UOOT's claims that trout pop ulations in Logan River will be reduced only 4 to 8%, and that the effects of increased sedimentation in the river will be "relatively minor and short term." UDOT's claims represen t uneducated "guesstimates" of fi sheries impacts because of the lack of adequate data . (6) The WasatchCache Forest Plan mandates that negative economic impacts of highway construction be eva luated. This has not been done. (7) The Forest Servi ce's assessments of impacts to sensi tive species often rest on inadequate surveys and bald assertions that are either patently false or in need of substantiation. (8) Vi sual quality in Logan Canyon will be impaired in a manner inconsistent with guid elines contained in the Fo rest Service's Logan Canyo n Scenic Byway Corrido r Management Plan. USFS management policy for Logan Canyon is inconsistent from document to document. (9) In its selectio n of specially-protected 4(f) properties, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act, the Forest Service has acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. No rationale is provided for why some sites were selected while others of equal recreational value were not. We Request: Logan Canyon Coalition is not trying to stop all construction in Logan Canyon. (1) There must be honest and straightforward NEPA d ocumentation of the need for, and the environmental and economic impacts of, any proposed highway constructio n. UooT has not provided this. UDOT has in fact admitted that their safety data is "garbage" and that it "may be problematic." (2) The construction proposal should be scaled down so as to proteet the sensitive areas of the canyon and river, particularly throug h the upper Midd le Canyon, Beaver Creek, and the summit. (3) UDOT has never fairly eva luated the Conservationist's Alternative. This Alternative should be honestly and straightforwardly reconsidered . 2 The Conservationists' Alternative is far less expensive and environmentally destructive, while improving safety and level of service of the highway. (4) The Forest Service must reevaluate the eligible segment of the Logan River, from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek, for protected Wild and Scenic River status, befo re constructio n is allowed. Thi s request is in compliance with 5(d) planning requirements of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . �August ] , ]995 Lee Fundraiser a Success By Kevin Kobe The Logan Can yon Coali tion would like to thank all those who were involved with our fund rai ser weekend with Rick Bass and Terry Tempest William s. \Ilk would specificall y like to thank The Grapevine Restaurant, Slanting Rain Graphic Design, A Book Store, the Utah Rivers Conservation Council and Director Zacha ry Frankel, Scott Smith Photography, mu sicians Nadene Steinhoff, Chris Carlson and Joe Farmer, and of course, nationally renown authors Rick Bass and Terry Tempest Williams. Rick was kind enough to travel from northern Montana. O ur thanks also goes to the many vo lunteers who spent countless hours working to make the weekend a success, espe- dally Don Hickman and Dan Miller. For those who couldn't make the weekend events, which were May 11-14, here is a rundown. Rick Bass spoke in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah Fine Arts Auditorium sponsored by the Utah Rivers Conservation Council. Rick spoke about the signifi cance of Logan Canyon and the absurdity of the current UOOT highway proposal. Following Rick, the audience clapped and sang to the music of Nadene Steinhoff, Chris Carlson and Joe Farmer. Despi te the rain and unseasonably cool weather, Rick Bass and Tom Lyon jo ined some LCC board members o n a field trip up Logan Canyon on Saturday where film makers were doing a documentary on the canyon. This documentary will be shown on the local cable channel. Rick also managed to squeeze in time to speak with local high school students and to do a radiO interview. But the night everyone was wa iting for was Sa turday night, May 13, when over 300 people packed the Eccles Conference Center. Longtime canyon advocate Tom Lyon emceed the event with inspiring introductions and words of wisdom. Rick Bass was humorous but eloquent as he talked about his years in Logan. Two Logan Canyon so ngs from Nadene Steinhoff and friends hit home, especially "U.S. 89 Blues" in which the crowd erupted with hand clapping, si ngi ng and shouting. Terry Tempest Williams brought the evening full circle with words to motivate people into action. She recognized Tom Lyon for hi s efforts, which range from teaching to advocating. She recalled conversations with environme nta l activists that continue to provide inspiration for her work. The night ended with a raffle, great homemade cooki es and refreshments, book signings, and a T-shirt and book sale. Sunday morning the Grapevine Restaurant lived up to its reputation for excellence at ou r fund raiser brunch. Chef Bill Oblock o utdid himself at the sold -out event, and LCC vol unteers worked hand in hand with the gracious staff of the restaurant to make the brunch successful. It was a "stay as long as you want" kind of morning . . 130 Nonh 100 East Logan UT 84321 753-9089 100% for Logan Canyon �The History of a Highway Editors note: This information was compiled by Nadene Steinhoff and Steve Flint. ---1959--- Chamber of Commerce. The State Department of Fish and Game launched a formal protest against the plan. Their protest was later modified. ject. The Forest Service insisted on additional modifications. UOOT abandoned the project for the time being, hoping the Chamber of Commerce and construction interests would continue the fight for public support. 1960--- The Utah Department Bulldozers began of Transportation work. The first section (UDOT) completed called for widening of "improvement" plans for the road, passing lanes the first section of the 39- and stream channelizamile highway from tion. Construction was Logan to Bear Lake. completed up to the Engineering standards of Malibu Campground. the time dictated that the 1961 route be as straight and Plans to reconstruct direct as possible. It was the section from Malibu also felt that it was too Campground to Right expensive to avoid the Hand Fork were Logan River. At that released. After seeing time, most highway the destruction in the departments didn't feel first phase, the public justified spending public was much more responmoney to protect aesthet- sive, writing a barrage of ic values or environmen- letters to the editor and tal resources. to UDOT. During the first The Forest Service phase, Logan residents and the Utah State were silent. Public hear- University (USU) College ings were poorly attendof Natural Resources ed" except by supporters issued position stateof the project such as the ments opposing the pro- calling for extensive straightening and eightfoot shoulders. An article in National Parks magazine condemned previous construction in the canyon and the new design proposal. 1970 - - - - - - - 1963 - - - - Twelve USU professors formed the zine advocated protecNorthern Utah tion of the canyon in an Environmental Advisory Committee. The group, article. ---1968--led by fisheries biologist UOOT decided to William Helm, was conaccept the Forest Service cerned about additional requirements, and came impacts. At their suggesback to finish the first tion, UOOT incorporated phase, but when the bull- an Environmental dozers moved in it Steering Committee, looked like the same "cut gave scenic consideraand fill" job. The intitions higher priority, and brought a landscape mate, gently winding road under arching trees . architect onto the project. became a fast, wide UOOT still lacked asphalt highway. permission from the 1969--Forest Service, but A public hearing was attempted to rush the held for road reconstruc- project through before they lost available fundtion from Right Hand ing. Fork to Ricks Spring, National Parks maga- Adventure 1 Sports 4 �August 1, 1995 Their assertions that the project was necessary for hig hway effici ency and safety were refu ted by the USU co mmittee, which claimed that the safety data was inadequate. - - - 1971 - - - The USU co mmittee succeeded in d elayi ng the project, ci ting the need for more information on traffic, tourism and fisheri es. There was discussion of the need fo r an Environme ntal Impact Statement (EIS) under the new Na tional Environmental Pol icy Act (NEPAl. UDOT presented a second proposal. This was also co nsid ered u nacceptable by the USU g roup. The plan called for extensive cu rve cutti ng through the middle canyon, elimination o f picnic and campground areas, and retaining walls al ong large sections of the river. The Forest Service 1987 The Interdisciplinary Team was dis solved by UDOT officials, who were uncomfortable with public input. issued an Enviro nmental Analysis Report on the project, outlining 20 requirements UDOT must comply with . In the face of strong public o ppositi on a nd new Forest Service req uirements, UDOT scrapped their plans. They shifted thei r focu s, and funds to Provo Canyon. - - - 1974 - - - UDOT set up a trai ler in Logan Canyon and Ga rden City to distribute informatio n about their eventual plans. 1976 - - - UOOT issued a Route Analysis Statement, indicating a need for reconstructio n. It included eight different alternatives. UDOT's recom- mended action included shoulders a nd passing lanes in the middle canyon, and correctio n of "substand ard" curves. Sharp publiC criticism was directed at UDOT, wi th Bridgerland Audubo n Society, Ci tizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC), and the Cache Sierra Club questioning UOOT's stati stical analysis. UDOT pushed ahead. Analysi s was begun for an (E IS). - - - 1979 - -- UOOT presented their latest proposal for reconstruction of the road from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring. They claimed that the massive p roject would require minimal enviro n- mental ana lysis, saying that a less d etailed Environmental Analysis would be sufficient, rather than an EIS. CPLC, a group that had begun in opposition to development plans in Stump Hollow, revived to fight the road d evelopment. Gunn McKay, Rep . for Utah's Di strict 1, went to bat for preservation of the ca nyon. Tom Lyon and Dianne Siegfreid visited w ith regional Federal Highway Admini stration (FHWA) offi cials in Denver to press the argument that the project required more ex tensive analysis. The FHWA agreed and informed UDOT that it must prepare an EIS in accordance with new NEPA requirements. UDOT was not financially prepa red to take on a full-b lown environmental analYSiS, and retrea ted . Between 1980 (continued nat page) �History (,on lin,"') and 1986, UDOT made periodic visits to Logan offering modifi cations, but community activists still believed the plans were too excessive. - - - 1986 - - - Funding for an EIS was authorized . CH2M Hill was hired to do the analysis. An Interdiscip lina ry (10) Team began meeting. Env ironmental interests were re presented by Steve Fl int, Bill Helm, Rudy Lukez, Tom Lyon and Jack Spence. - - - 1981 - - - before UDOT dissolved the group. Action Force. - - - 1990 - - - Steve, Bruce and Shawn Swaner began meeting.. again, with UDOT to forge a compromise and avert lega l action. Steve and Bruce felt the need to move on. A new steering committee was appointed fo r CPLC. The new steeri ng committee held additional meetings with UODT. Audubon magazine gave coverage to the controversy in a feature article by nationall y re nown autho r Rick Bass. - - - 1994 - - - UOOT issued their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Letters in the OEIS ran 21 in favor of the Modified Standard, similar to the Preferred Alternative, as opposed to 309 in favo r of the Conservationists' Alternative. - - - 1991 - - - Steve a nd Bruce continued to amass technical experti se on the project. They hired enviro nm ental lawyer Jeff Appel. Jeff's co rrespondence with UDOT bro ught a more conciliatory stance. Negotiations began. A public relations effort was begun, with ten thousand brochures sent by local activists. - - - 1995 - - - UOOT released its Reco rd of Decision (ROD) favo ri ng the "mod ified" Preferred Alternative. CPLC and UOOT declared the ROD a compromise. A new highway design advisory team was formed, with CPLC rep resentation . Logan Canyon Scoping meetings held by UOOT drew 400 citizens, with many attendees leaving due to lack of room. Project planners received 200 let- - - 1992 - ters from an aroused Nadene Steinhoff and public. The 10 Team was dis- other volu nteers organized a Hands Across solved by UOOT offiThe Canyon rally. The cials, who were uncomevent, attended by over fo rtable with public 400 people, was covered input. by regional and state Area citizens submitmedia. ted the Conservatio nists' The following week, Alternative, a proposa l calling for wider bridges, UOOT approached Bridgerland Audubon reconstruction of cu lwith a proposal for verts, three passi ng lanes renewed negotiations. in the Upper Canyon, 1993 paved parking areas, UDOT released their road rea lignment at the Lower Twin Bridge, slow Final Enviro nme ntal Impact Statement (FEIS). vehicle turnouts, raised Hundreds of letters were road beds in nood areas, sent protesting the excesimproved intersectio ns sive plans. Petitions and increased signage. were sent by the - - - 1989 Audubon Society, Steve Flint and Bruce Business People for the Pendery were appointed Canyon, CPLC, the to a Citizen's Advi so ry Cache Sierra Club, and Team formed by UDOT. the Loga n Environmental Two meetings were held 6 Coalition (LCC), spearheaded by Kevin Kobe, was formed to seek further modifications through the Forest Service appeal process. The Forest Service released their ROD supporting UOOT. LCC and the Utah Rivers Conserva tion Council submitted a 187page appeal to the Forest Service. The appea 1 was researched and authored by a dozen people, and edited by Gordo n Steinhoff. Requested relief included adequate NEPA documentation, and further protection for the Middle Canyon, Beaver Creek and the s ummit. The Forest Service denied LCe's appea l, refUSing to add ress critical issues. Logan Canyon Coalition is curren tly making plans to take legal action. �Au g u s t 1 , 199 5 Westwater Canyon Run the Rapids with LCC It's true Logan Canyon CoaJition membershi p can be fun. We don' t believe in all work and no play. Frida y, August 18 th rough Sunday, Aug ust 20, we will r un the Westwater section of the Colorado River, locatednorth of Moab. O Uf fea rless Lee leader /p resident, Kevin Kobe, has said that Westwater has "some of the best w hite water in the state." Kevi n and his sister Bri dget are organizing the trip. Kevin feels that Lee shou ld be more than a group that works together, but can be a grou p that "has a fee li ng of commun ity and fri ends hi p." A WORLD Or: A RT A tJD Lee plans to fl oat willing to make the drive, please let us know when you register. On receipt of your registration fee, a confirmation will be sent which will incl ud e the date, time and location of the pretrip meeting. All participants will be asked to help in meal and camp preparation, and, of course, everyone needs to know how to swim! Westwater early Saturday morning, set up camp', and hike and exp lo re the side canyons around the campsite. Sunday the rapids should be rambunctio us. The cost is $30 for LCC members and $50 for non-members (making thi s a perfect time to join!). The trip will be limited to 20 individuals, and oars are being fill ed rapidly. The cost includes food o n the river, the permit and g roup equipment. It does not include transportation, food for the trip to and fro m the river or personal gear. Ca r pooling w ill be arranged during a planning meeting. If you are Registration: Please send you r registration money to Logan Canyo n Coa lition, USU Box #1674, Loga n, UT 84322-0199. ComcTlo tJ IUIAl: vcents 7SS·S497 11·6 7 Volunteers Needed 1- Networking 2- Fundraising 3- Education 4- Mailings 5- Letter writing 6- Events 7- Media relations 8- Passing the word 9- SLC contacts 10- HELP! Equipment Needed 1- Offi ce space 2- Voice mail 3- FAX machine 4- Copier 5- Postage stamps 6- MONEY! �r------------------------, YES! I THE WANT TO JOIN LOGAN CANYON COALITION and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND o $20.00 Annual Membership o I would like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more o I would like to voulnteer. o Here's $12.00 for a great T-Shirt. o I'm broke! Here's five bucks. Name,__________________________________ 5Ireel_______________________________ City _ _ __ _ _ _Zip _ _ __ Phone#'_ _ _ __ PlUM make check payable and mail to: Logan Canyon Coalition U5U Box *1674 L ________________________ J Logan, UT 84322-0199 LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 (three colod m.. Re;rcled BULK RATE u.s. POSTJlGe Paid COA.LJl:TJl:ON Workl", fo r Ih' of Lo,a" Ca n yo n USU Box #1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 """'" UT I'tnrril N'JJJ �- -- -- -- --- --------.- --- ----- -- - ------ - --- --- ----- - - - - - -- - -- ---- - --- - --.-. - - - - - - - .,. --.aT __ -.-.w--.aT • -- ----- ---------- --- ------- ___ ..- -.----.aT ____ - - -- - - ---- A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION August 1, 1996 Vol. 1 No.3 FEI S Violated UDOT Unveils Plans The Utah Depa rtment of Transportation (UOOT) has u nveiled its d esign plans for Bu rnt and Lower Twin Bridges in Logan Canyon. With these plans, UOOT is already in v iolation of its Final Envirorunental Impact Statement (PElS) and its Record of Decision. UOOT is now planning extensive w idening, cuts into the mountainsides, and retaining wa lls that were not disclosed in these environmenta l documents. The brid ges and app roaches to the bridges have not been d esigned in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. A strong response has been sent to UOOT by our attorney, Kate Zimmerman. UOOT is now applying for the construction permits it needs from the state Division of Water Rights and the Corps of Engineers. The Logan Canyon Coalitio n (LCq will submit comments to these agencies and to the Design changes at this late date, after opportunities for public input have closed, is a v iolation of the letter and the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Lee Altornty, Kau ZinrmernuHI Environmental Protection Agency. We are asking for a less d amaging construction proposal, one that allows for needed highway improvemen ts w hile p rotecting the canyon's scenic and environmenta l resou rces. We continue to raise funds for the lega l action we believe is inevitable. The Record of Decision sta tes that "design and posted speeds wiJI be 35 miles per hour" in the upper middle canyon (from Lower Twin Bridge to above Ricks Spring). Yet, at the bridge d esign workshop in February, Rod Terry, UDOT project manager, ind ica ted tha t the brid ges and approaches in this area have been designed for 40 miles per ho ur. Apparent ly, driv ing time throug h the canyon has been a major factor in the perceived need to reconstruct the high way, even thoug h estima ted savings in travel time are quite minimal. "Changing design speeds at this late date, after opportunities fo r p ublic input have closed, is a v iolation o f both the letter and spiri t of the National Environmenta l Policy Act," Zimmerman said. Des ig n plans show Burnt Bridge being w idened on the downstrea m side. Cuts into the mo unta inside up to 750 feet long are now planned both upstream and downstream from the bridge. Two retaining walls of 200 fee t long wiJI be anchored in riparian areas near the bridge. Three more retaining walls, one up to 400 feet long, are planned fo r the mountainside below the bridge. These cuts and retaining walls are for the sake of widening the highway on either side of the bridge fro m 26 feet to 34 feet. These d esign features and their impacts on the scenery and adjacent fishery were not disclosed in the FEIS. In that document, UDOT assured us that the highway in this part of the canyon would not be w idened . Visual impacts w iJI be significant. Burnt Bridge is s urrounded by riparian vegetation and u pland plant communities that have received a visual sensitivity ranking (contilwed /lext page) �Violates ("";.,,,,) of 6 and 7 by the Forest Service, indicating that the roadside in this a rea cannot absorb alte rations and still appear as na tur- allandscape. The affected maple-shrub community on the cut hillsides will take 10-15 years to re-establish, while a ffected juniper and Doug las fir communi ties will take more than 20 years to reestablish. Some wetlands and riparian vegeta tion will be permanently lost. UOOT has pledged to color and texture the extensive retaining walls, but retaining walls will still look like retaining walls, appearing unnatural. Exposed rock faces will still look like exposed rock faces, damaging the scenic beauty of this area. Lee believes these impacts are unnecessary. The bridge could be tapered into the existing highway in a shorter distance, eliminating the need for much of the wid ening and the accompanying cuts and retaining waUs. At Lower Twin Brid ge, mountainsides will be cut up to 600 fee t on either side of the bridge in order to widen the highway from 26 feet to 38 feet. A retaining wall of 200 feet long is planned above the bridge. This retaining wall and cuts above the bridge were no t disclosed in the FEIS. UOOT has yet to show a purpose and need for allY high way widening in this middle section of Logan Canyon. They have adm itted that their an accurate d escription of planned construction and a better idea of its impacts. Surely at this stage of the FEIS, UOOT cou ld have surveyed the relevant features of the can yon, such as the location of wetlands, and applied appropriate design standard s in to provide an accurate description of construction and assessment of impacts. Preliminary plans for Upper Twin Brid ge show a cut into the mountainside of approximately 15 to 24 feet deep and 760 feet long. This cu t and its impacts were not disclosed in the FEIS. We believe that with a fair assessment of the environmental impacts of the elltire highway project, considered as a w hole, a less damaging construction alternative would be more a ttractive. Such an integrated assessment should be given in a Supplemental Environmentallmpact Statement for the entire canyon highway project. There shouJd also be an honest demonstration of the purpose and need for any construction in Logan Canyon. " LCC has g rave concerns about both the need for UOOT's proposal and its impacts on the special values of the canyon. These concerns are only made worse by UOOT's violations of its FE IS and its failure to g ive the public full opportunity to participate in this decision and to comment on potential environmenta l consequences," Zimmennan stated. traffic and safety d ata is "garbage" and "problematic." lmmediately downstream of this bridge is crucial brown trout spawning habitat. LCC is concerned w ith the impact construction and the resulting erosion will have on this fishery. The Logan River fishery is currently ranked in the top 5% of stream fisheries in the sta te. UOOT has not supplied adequate information on sedimentation or on trout mortality. At both bridges, there will be increased erosion into the rive r during and after construction until ground cover can be re-established. Increased sediments can smother trout eggs, clog gills, and kill the aquatic insects upon w hich trout feed . UOOT admits, "Additional loss of fish habitat could potentially occur from riverbank disturbances and introduction of sediments into the Logan River as a result of heavy machinery and activities associated with bridge construction." LCC has suggested replacing Lower Twin Brid ge wi th a wider and sa fer bridge on a new alignment, while maintaining current highway wid th . This would eliminate much cutting into the mo untainsides and protect this va luab le fish ery. UOOT has refused. We are concerned with UOOT's method of segmenting its Logan Can yon Highway proposa l into smaller projects in w hich, well after the FE IS and Record of Decision, we fin al1y get 2 �1 , 19 96 Allglls t Logan River, Wild and Scenic by Drew Parkin The recent appeal of the Forest Service decision to allow highway expansion in Logan Canyon quesHoned, among other things, the resuJ ts of a Forest Service study regarding wild and scenic rivers. For many of you, the idea of a wild and scenic river evokes images of the Sa lmon River in Idaho or the Rogue River in Oregon . What d oes this have to do with the Logan River? A lot. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires federal land management agendes to include w ild and scenic river evaluations as part of their normal decision-making processes. In the case of the Forest Service, this means that forest plans must specifically consider wild and scenic river eligibil ity. It also means that any Environmental Impact Statement that involves river resource must address this issue. Further - and this is the important part - once the Forest Service identifies a river as being eligible, it must, in adherence wi th its own ad ministrative directives, manage the river "in a manner consisten t with the purposes of the Act, and such that the outstand ing remarkable values which make it eHgible for inclusion are not dim inished to the poin t where eligibility is negated. In no event should the free-flowing characteristics of the river be modified." In response to a threatened lawsuit, the Forest Service some 10 years ago set out to identify potentially eligible wild and scenic rivers. Individual forests were entrusted with this and many responded admirably. Unfortunately, wild and scenic evaluations have never been high on the list for forest managers in Utah . That is, not until the controversy over the proposal to widen the roadway through Logan Canyon. Pressu red by citizens concerned about the highway proposal, the Wasa tch-Cache National Forest undertook a yearlong river study and, in November 1993, released its inventory. The inventory started by identifying 37 streams that forest planners deemed wor thy of being s tudied. Nex t, the larger s treams on that list, including the Logan River, were subdivided into "segments." In all, the Forest Service study considered 59 stream segments. Of these, 18 segments were rejected out-of-hand as being insignificant. Beaver Creek was one of these. An ad d itional 11 segments were rejected for not being free-flowing. These included s treams tha t had been s ubjected to water w ithdrawals, channeHzation or other degradation . All of the Logan downs tream of Temple Fork was rejected for this reason. This left 30 segments that were actually included in the study. The inventory considered nine separate resource fea tures. The idea was to determine the significance of each stream with regard to each resource feature. A stream could be ra ted as ei ther (1) typical, (2) Significant a t a statewide level, or (3) significant at what the Forest Service termed a "provincial" level (an area comprising all of the Rocky Mountains). A rating of 3 for any given resource feature would q ualify a stream segmen t for wild and scenic river (conthwed next page) DID YOU KNOW? A b ridge o r a city street must h ave 12 lanes to accommod ate 40,000 automobiles per hour. 1 lane is necessary to 40,000 bicycles per hou r. To elimin ate the need for Midd le East oil, U.S. commuters w ould need to b icycle to w ork only 1.25 times each week. Equating calories to gasoline, the number of miles per gallon that could be tra veled b y the ave rage cyclist is 3,000. ook 130 Nort h 100 EaSI Logan UT 8432 I 753-9089 PL EASE RI DE YOUR B I KE. SU NR:ISE C VC LE R:V 138 NORTH 100 EAST LOGAN, UTAH 84321 801 -753-3294 M ONOAY - SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 100% fo r L ogan Canyo n P.M. 3 �Wild (COlltinlled) designation. The result? Of the original 59 s tream segments, only one - the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River - was found eligible based on the rating for its scenic features. No other stream received a 3, and all were therefore rejected, including the Logan River. I was stunned when I heard the findings. Based on severa l years of professional experience with wild,and scenic rivers, and having detailed knowledge of the Logan River, it was my judgment that the Logan River not only met but exceeded eligibility requirements. After pouring over the report, I concluded that the study team's basic assumptions were wrong and applying these assumptions greatly skewed the findin gs. The decision to use "p rovi ncial" significance as the cu t-off for eligibility was the most pervasive error. The Forest Serv ice Manual itself d irects that "statewide" significance is an appropriate measure for judging wild and scenic status. Several national forests have used it as the basis of their decisions, and it is accepted practice for National Park Service and BLM planners as well. Had the WasatchCache used "statewide" significance as the threshold, the Logan River would have been included easily. If anything, I believe the ratings for the Logan River are low. I question the ratin gs for wildlife, water recreation and, especially, scenery. Even if the Forest Service ratings are correct, it is obvious the Logan River is an extremely important resource with "statewide" significance. [n five of the nine categories, the river received a s tatewide Significance rating. No other stream had more than two. The Logan River was rated as the most significant stream in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for five of the nine resource categories. Again, no other stream could claim more than two. The conclusion is inescapable. The Forest Service report absolutely confirms that, when compared to other streams on the forest, the Logan River is the crown jewel and is most certainly eligible for national wild and scenic river status. (Drew Parkin is a river policy conslilfant in Cambridge, Mass., alld serves Off the board of dirf"Ctors of till" Pacific RivtrS COlllleil. HI" prf"Violls/y mallaged wild and scenic riuer programs for tire Na tiollal Park Service. He is a Ilative of Utah and Sptllt severa/ seaSOIIS workillgJor tire Forest Service ill Logan Canyon.) USFS data on the Logan River between Temple Fork and White Pine Creek. Logan River rating St.ltewide s ignifiu nce Highest rating in forut Typical reso urces Wildlife Rating compared to other Wasatch..cache streams Rated in top 5 Rated in top 5 Geology/Hydrology Statewide significance Highest rating in forest Rated in to p 10 Scenery Water Typical Highest rating in forest Statewide significance Rated in top 10 Fisheries Statewide Significance Tied for highest rating in forest Ecology St.ltewide sig nifican ce Tied for high est rating in forest This information was taken directly from tile report. Adventure, Sports _. . W l ft ....... tho -_ """".ft,..r.._' ...... in4<.o"" h . .... - ......, • _ _ ;u.. "';. •• ... ....'-ft.. " ... ... •. . . ...... 1".4 t • 4 �- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -- ---------- - ------- ------ww Augllst 1, 1996 Canyon News Briefs by Tim Wagner Utah citizens lost a serious battle recently when U.s. District Judge Tena Campbell ruled in favor of the Utah Deparhnent of Transportation's (UDOT) plans for further widening of U.s. 189 through Provo Canyon. The Provo River Coalition filed suit February 29 seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent further environmental destruction. Because UDOT had made significant design changes since the origina l plans were drafted in 1989, the group argued that NEPA required a supplemental environmental impact statement. Judge CampbeiJ saw things differently. "Plaintiffs have so far failed to come forward with any evidence for significant environmental effects arising out of the project as currently planned," Campbell wrote. The judge said an agency is not required to supplement an environmental-impact statement every time new information is found. At the same time she acknowledged the design changes included a new road alignment, additional concrete retaining waiJs, and the creation of a dirt haul road. Inside sources say that Campbell's concern for the environment was a cover-up for more important matters: the economy and jobs. With a $34 million price tag for two miles of highway, is it any wonder? A bit of irony is that UDOT's plans for the next phase of the project have been scrapped due to lack of funding. Alan Meecham, director of UDOT's Region Three said, "I've got about five years left (before retirement) and I'd like to see some work completed in the canyon before I'm gone." In the past there was much talk about UDOT becoming more trustworthy and willing to compromise. Facts behind the case give the true p icture of UDOT. This is not an agency as concerned about public transportation, the environment, and highway safety as they are about funding massive, unnecessary highways. . LCC now has a great public education and awareness tool for Logan Canyon. With some tremendous pholos by photographer Scott Smith, LCC has created a fantastic slide show presentation. It debuted at a well attended potluck in February on the USU campus and has since been shown to several groups. The presentation lasts twenty minutes and is easy to fit into a variety of public gatherings. If you know a group that would like to see the show, contact one of the officers. • LCC would like to thank the outpouring of support we have re«!ived from our fundraising letter. The money ($3,155) will help us proceed with our upcoming UDOT battle. The majority of our support comes from Cache Valley, but there are many canyon lovers across the country. Enthusiasm, support and love for the canyon is evident by the following: - "Please accept my donation of $25 to help save Logan Canyon . I'm not sure how you traced me down here in Maine, but I'm sure glad you did. Thanks." - "As I will soon be moving and wish to keep up with these canyon issues, please add my permanent address to your mailing list." - "Thanks again and keep up the good work. See you in the canyon." - "Long live Logan Canyon." - "GOOD LUCK! Just wanted you to know I was impressed with the professional presentation of the latest brochure and letter. You articulated your objections to the project in a straightforward, no nonsense manner and 1 appreciated the compromises tha t you see are necessary. Take Care. "Coffee with a Cause" Logan Blend • regular· organic · decaffeinated · Night and Day ra i n@intele.nel 801 .75 J . 05'J $1.00 is donaled 10 Lee for OV8lYpoond sokJ. 5 �SLOWDOWN WE MOVE TOO FAST by Kevin 1. Kobe On December 3,1995, members of the Logan Canyon Coalition drove from Logan to Garden City. OUf objective was to assess the quality and uniformity of advisory and regulatory signs. We documen ted our assessments and addressed our concerns to Dyke leFevre, Region One Director, Utah Deparbnent of Transportation (UIXJ1). Our fi rst question to Mr. leFevre addressed the inconsistent u se of advisory speed signs on curves. We expected to see an advisory speed sign on any curve which has a design speed below the posted speed. This was the case only from the summit of Logan Canyon to Garden City. There is a 40 mph posted speed limit. There are also in both th e uphill and downhill lanes signs indica ting an approaching cu rve and an advisory speed. Most of these curves have arrows ("chevrons") around them. The Middle p art of Logan Canyon has not one curve with a posted advisory speed. According to the 1987 Technical Memorandum, this part of the canyon has many more curves than Rich County that are below the posted speed. LCe's question was quite simple: Why hasn ' t UOOT posted advisory speed signs on these curves? Mr. leFevre explained how each curve is "unique in its capability of sustaining a reasonable speed through the curve section. Because of the construction, maintenance, and natural ground settlement through each curve, each one will drive differently than originally anticipated or designed. Some curves, as much as 10 MPH below the posted speed, are s till able to reasonably allow travel through the curves at the pos ted speed." "We have been anticipating a project through this canyon fo r a considerable length of time and may have neglected reviewing each o f the curves below the posted s peed limit.;; " I have talked to our Region Traffic Engineer and he has indicated that since we have a completed environmental report and we know what is going to happen, especially through the middle canyon, that he will review the curve signing and advisory speeds and make recommendations to better inform the traveling public." To date, UOOT has fai led to install any advisory speed signs in the Middle and Upper canyon. A related LCC ques tion asked how accident surveys can be done in the midd le LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 4th"" colorl canyon if the curves in question are n ot signed properly? We did not get a response. Perhaps UOOT can't come up with good accident and traffic da ta. (So there is no reason for the project.) We also documented the lack of signs warning o f wildlife crossings. The only wildlife sign in the entire project area is located within the Garden City limits. UOOT documented in the FEIS that moto rists collide with animals at least twice as often in the Midd le and Upper parts of Logan Canyon as on the Rich County side. Mr. LeFevre's answer: '' In talking with the Fores t Service, there does not appear to be any location that has a prominence o f animal collisions and that placing the signs at the beginning of the canyon is probably just as effective as having signs throughout the canyon . The wildlife warning signs h ave little effect on driver behavior and would be more of a visual impact in the canyon than it would provide for motoris ts behavior." (And massive construction won't have a visua l impact?) To further make our po int, there was not a concern over vehicle/snowmobile collisions anywhere in the FEIS, and yet there is a sign pos ted in the Upper canyon that reads, "Snowmobile Crossing: Next 9 Miles". Why worry about snowmobiles, and ignore w ild life? LCC also asked why there aren't " Pedestrian Crossing" signs where many people are crossing the road, such as Logan Cave, Blind Ho llow, Ricks Spring (which is s till a planned passing zone) and Bunchgrass C reek? Mr. LeFevre indica ted that " A lot of these socalled pull-outs were created by individuals using them with disregard for safety to themselves and the traveling motorists and have not been an official designated turn-out." With the lack of signs warning motoris ts of pedestrians, animals, and curves one begins to worry about UOOTs mission. Is UOOT really concerned about our safety? �Augllst ] , ]9 96 Lee adds ,fun to activism '96 SUMMER FUNDRAISERS The summer heat and good 01' fashioned ice cream combined to pro· duce a fin ancial bonanza for the Coali tion at KRCL's Day In The Park in Salt Lake City on June 8. Through the efforts of dedicated LCC member Dan Miller and a few other volunteers, over $600 was raised in a sin· gle afternoon as festival geers lined up to pay $2.00 for a Ben & Jerry's ice cream bar. Thanks to Dan and some good connections, the hot weather treats were entirely donated by the socially·conscious ice cream manufacturer. "For awhile we were the most pop ular booth there," said Dan. It shou ld also be noted that many people stopped by A WORLD O. all members and staff of bo th band s who d onated their time and talents, THANK YOU! THANK YOU l Please get out and support these guys . They' re worth it. This event was special for two reasons. One, the amphitheater was per· fect. This venue is beauti· fut yet unused and in need of some repairs. Maybe we could do a fund raiser for the theater itself. Secondly, Jerry Joseph, lead singer and guitarist for the Jack Mormons, spent a good deal of time livi ng in Cache Valley. Thus, it was like returning home for him. They want to come back as soon as possible, so what do you say? just to receive some free information and sign up on our roster list. Way to go Dan! •••••••••••• •••••• The Coalition would like to thank all who attended our fundraiser concert with Euphio Project and the Jack Mormons on June 6. Capping the last day of finals and a beautiful summer evening,. over 200 people came out to enjoy live music on USU's amphitheater on Old Main Hill. The event raised nearly $800 towards protecting Logan Canyon. We would especially like to thank the Baugh Motel for co·sponsoring the event. Of course, to EJ)GINGWE$T 2"1'1 SW Sl'lll'!. (; \11111' S I P OIIIl \'11, OJ{ 'Ii21<l Logan Canyon Your Destination? T ComCTIOtJ CLOnmJG & - Backpacking - Skiing · Climbing · H iking . Snowshoeing - Sightseeing "Ccents 117 North Mai n 5t • Logan, Utah, 84321 • 801 -753-1541 7 �r-----------------------, YES ! I WANT TO J OIN THE LOGAN CANYON COALITION and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND o $20.00 Annual Membership o I wo uld like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots m ore o I wo uld like to voluntee r. o Here's $12.00 for a grea t T-Shirt. p/lIs SJ shippillg o I'm broke! Here's five bu cks. o Please add my nam e to your mailing li st. H PRINTING CO. D Name ____________________________ 5treet____________________________ City__________5tate_ Phone# _ _.Zip _______ Em ail ____________ Plene rn,lk, check p,lyablt MI d mai l to: 43 LOGA N , 100 W EST UT A H 8 4321 TEL .80 1 .752, 0 3 1 1 FAX Logan Canyon Coalition SOU TH 80 1 .753.3 1 61 USU Box N1674 Logan, UT 84322-0199 L _______________________ We ask for your continued support at this time, as we prepare for the legal challenge we believe is inevitable. Our ability to mount a legal battle depends upon the moral and financial support of canyon lovers such as yourself. PLEASE consider a generous donation to save Logan Canyon and Logan River. • - ._-=.. .. .. __ __ ... _iii ... _ . . .iii ___ iii na . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . . - --- - - -- -- - - C:O.A.L:J:T:J:ON' , AI'rR.() . yl- ' bE J'f',() 'W BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID &, ' < A fv1. I USU Box #1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 Tom &Jan Lyon 655 canyon Road Logan ur 8432 1 I I , LOGAN. UT PERMIT 50 - tI' Please relfew your membership today �- ---_ -- -------- -....... -- --- - -..... --- -------.. ---- -- - -- ---- - -- - - - - ----- - - - -- -- - - - -- ---- ---- -- -- --- - - ----------- --- ---- - - - - -- - --- - ------__T • • _ _ _ _T _ • • _____T • _ ---- A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION Vol. 2 No. 4 Summer 1997 Stop Wo rk Order Lifted LCC Files Suit On Ma rch 19 the Logan Canyon Coalltion (Lee) filed a complaint in U.s. District Court against the Utah Department of Transpo rtation (UOOT) and the Forest Service. We requested the cou rt to order a halt to construction at Lower Twin Bridge in Logan Canyon until our concerns over the bridge could be resolved. The judge s uggested UOOT s top construction. UOOT complied . We reached an agreement w ith UOOT that has aUowed us to w ithdraw our request for a halt to cons truction. Lee recognizes the need to replace the bridges, and work is now proceeding. UDOT has conceded some important points: -They ha ve agreed that in the future they will not argue for the need to widen the highway above Lower Twin Bridge simply because they have w idened the "An improvement to the road and consequent increase in operating speed would expectedly increase the accident occurrences." - from a 1974 interna l UOOT memo highway at the bridge. Lee was concerned that widening at the bridge sets an engineering precedent to widen the highway aU the way up the canyon. - UDOT has also agreed to remove the old Lower Twin Bridge in the most environmentally sensitive fashion. They ha ve agreed to present a written plan for removing the old bridge, with a djscussion of the environmental safeguards they will employ, and to consider LCe's comments on their plan. Finally, UOOT has agreed to consider Lee's comments on their water quality monitoring plan and mitigation efforts for the project. Lee is s uggesting more frequent moni to ring during construction. We are recommending that for any future construction better baseline da ta is ga thered prior to constructio n. Unfortunately, for the present project base line da ta goes back only to September, making impossible adequate comparison with past parameter va lues. We are recommending as well that for future construction more complete monitoring be done of sedimentation due to construction. Our lawsuit has already enabled LCC to help make highway construction less environmentally destructive. Lee is grateful to our attorney, Ray mond Scott Berry, for his excellent work on behalf of Logan Canyon. Scott has put many hours into lea rning the details of our case. His advice has been invaluable. We are in good legal hands. Expertise and ad vice has been donated from professionals and environmental organizations across the country. We are especially g rateful to Drew Parkin, Jack Griffith, Steve Flint, Bob Morris, and Pete Frost for their expertise and dedica tion. Lawsuit Highlights Our lawsuit still stands and will be heard by the court in a few months. We will explore the following issues in court: -In an internal 1974 memo conceming the Logan Canyon highway, (COl/Jill/nod Il!!xl page) �Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The Forest Service has not followed UOOT stated, "an these procedures in the improvement to the road case of Logan River. and consequent increase in operating speed would ThE:Y should not be allowing losses to the expected ly increase the scenery, the fishery, the accident occurrences." water quality and other Here UOOT is admitting canyon resources that what we should know by will come with UOOT's common sense. Widening and straighten- proposal until the evaluation procedure is propering this ca nyon highway, wi th an increase in traffic ly ca rried out. We have documented the fai lures speed, wi ll lead to a less of the Forest Service to safe highway. There will abide by its own regulastill be curves in the road, limited sight distance and tions. - The Forest Service is steep inclines. Especially mandated by federal law in the ice and snow of to generate a list of recrewinter we should not ation areas in Logan have traffic hurtling Canyon that are to through the canyon at receive special protection speeds that are not safe. from construction By 1993 UDOT changed impacts. The Forest its mind and presented a Service presented 17 sites, safety argument for its most of which are small proposa l. They promote parking lots. This meathe myth that thei r proger list was generated posed construction w ill with absolutely no ratiolead to a safer highway. nale for why they chose Their traffic and accident data ha ve obviously been these sites and why they manipulated to make the have ignored other important recreation case they wish to make. a reas. For aU we know, -In their 1974 memo the Forest Service threw UDOT admitted, "The darts at a map to generonly conclusion w hich ate its list. LCC has doccan be drawn, therefore, umented 63 addjtiona l is that even the most recreation areas that the minima l improvemen t to Forest Service should the existing highway have included in its list, would have severe areas that are used for adverse impact on the picnicking, fishin g, kaycanyon water resources." acking, rock climbing, Yet, now UOOT c.I aims either no impact or mini- etc. The Forest Service's Management Plan for mal impact to the fishery Logan Canyon lists recreand to water quality. ation as the primary use They must be thinking of the canyon. We will tha t a mirac.le will occur. explore in court the arbiTheir estimations are trary and capricious manbased on fantasy, not ner in which the Forest good science, which is a Service has behaved in its violation of federal law. evaluation of recreation. - The Forest Service - The Forest Service is has la id out a proced ure a lso mandated by fed era l fo r eva luating rivers for law to account for inclusion in the national Lawsui t impacts of construction upon its sensitive species, including Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout. The Forest Service's conclusion of no impacts is based upon no surveys at all or upon surveys that are inadequate. The Forest Serv ice makes bald assertions that are totally mysterious, such as "flora l species have been mitigated for." No explanation of this claim is provided. Other assertions are pa tently false, Stich as "no fauna l sensitive species were found withthe proposed project dIsturbance area,"" a claim contradicted by information known to the F(1rest Service about Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout. UDOT's highway proposal will result in a highway that is less sa fe. It is far more expensive than is needed, and it is far too damaging to the fishery, the scenery, water quality and other resources. It threa tens recreation, the primary use of the canyon. UDOT's hi.hwav PI"OPO'Sal is also porkbarrel project for the sake of bringing taxpayer dol lars through the UOOT burea ucracy. Our own Conservationists' Alternative fea tures sensible highway improvements such as bridge replacement, some passing and turning lanes, while it protects valuable canyon resources. Our lawsuit is essential if we are to save Logan Canyon from UOOT's appetite for asphalt. Our stand has already made a difference. (,0,,1i,,""') ""'g'''" 2 �Summer 1997 The Ultimate Impact Roads Facilitate People By Tim Wagner Over the course of the last eighteen months, I've had the opportunity to speak on behalf of LCC to several groups. After presenting some history and current facts surrounding the Logan Canyon issue, I usually find myself drifting towards what I see as the biggest threat. That is, people. While we are aU rightfully concemed about the many various fonns of environmental dcgradation resulting from fifteen to twenty years of construction, I honestly believe that a new and "improved" U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon will facilitate a tremendous amount of development, and the result, the "ultimate impact." Try to project your thoughts to the fall of 2017. It's a beautiful afternoon and you and your granddaughter have decided to go fishing in Logan Canyon. UOOT contractors are putting the finishing touches on shoulders and drainage facilities. A new widened stretch of asphalt lays before you, extending aU the way to the summit and down to Garden City. Semi-trucks careen by at 60 miles per hour, making deliveries to a convenience store that has been located at FrankUn Basin for the last ten years. Up the road, adjacent to the Beaver Mountain tumoff, lies a brand new restaurant and hotel complex. The facility occupies over 40 acres with a giant parking lot, sending roadg'rime into Beaver Creek. Farther up, a new snowmobile/ ATV dealershjp has located along with a fast-food franchise. Because of the increase in tuming traffic, UOOT has now started construction on another widened intersection, forcing massive cuts into the slope. Throughout the upper section of the canyon, residential construction is booming, along with severa! higher density developments. At times, traffic is so congested that it continues to back up, with increasing accidents. Your fishing trip tums into a nightmare because every place you try to stop is packed with anglers. Many are out-ofstaters staying at the new hotel reading about the wonderful fishing and sight-seeing opporhmities in Logan Canyon, courtesy of Chamber-sponsored national advertising. Frus trated, you decide to take a short hike to view the fall colors. That too is aborted when you realize that every trailhead is jammed with vehicles. So much for quality outdoor recreation. Sound surreal? It shouldn't. If you've spent anytime at aLi in Logan DID YOU KNOW? A bridge OC" cily stTftt must 12 10 40.000 aulomobilal pet' hou,. Only 1 U n«eIINl)' to KIC01I\mOd.;ole 40)100 bicydes pet' hour. To the need fo, Middle oil, US. commuleT\l wou ld nHd lu b iqde 10 work only t.2S times eKh week. Eql1.Jling 10 guoli ,"" the n"moo of milal pe' pilon thOIIt rould boP: lnIveled by the Ivenoge cyclist ;53)100. PLEASE RI DE YOUR BIKE. 138 NoRTH 100 EAST loG.t.N, UIAH 84321 80 1-753-3294 MoN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M.- 6 :00I!M. •---.-.--.--- GRAPEVINE I tiTa,.aIT . 3 Canyon in the past years, you know we are already seeing the first inklings of such a scenario. This is a real situation that can and will occur, if allowed . This is why we are seeing some of the major environmental groups starting to tackle the issue of uncontrolled development. Just this past spring the Sierra Club initiated a national campaign entitJed "ChaUenge to SprawL" According to the club, " ... nothing threatens our air, water, and wild places more than sprawl." Right up front, the club proclaims the campaign starts with stopping inappropriate roads and d evelopments. Sound familiar? One point they take issue with is the myth that development results in increased tax revenues. The cost of infrastructure alone needed to meet the demands of such develop(cont inued /lext page) �PEOPLE (con/itwed) men!, including highways, sewers, water, electricity, and communications, often exceed the long term revenue. These are a ll items subsid ized by you, the taxpaye r. And who reaps the most benefits? The developer and the summer h ome owner who are enabled to build in the canyon beca use they do not pay the true expense. Add in the future costs of decreased air and water quality, traffic congestion, and an overall decline in the quality of life for residents and the price tag goes through the roof. Another way to look at it comes from the n atio na l organization, The Trust for Public Land. It recently cited research showing how zoning and other government regulations actually encourage development into many of our open spaces. There again, government investment (by the taxpayer) into infrastructu re serves to boost land va lues, making them much more attractive for development. Is there anyone who bel ieves that private and state owned land values in Logan Canyon will decrease once the new " modified preferred alter· native" is in place? It all comes back to one central point. Build it and they w ill come. This is an a rgument that can' t be disputed, even by LCe's staunchest opponents. Yet it is this, what I refer to as the "ultimate impacl," that has not been addressed in the Environmenta l Impact Statemen t nor in a ny other serious d iscussions. This is the very issue that helped the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club successfully stop a m ajor interstate highway expansion. In the ruling the judge stated, "Highways create demand for travel and expansion by their very existence." Because the final EIS d id not include the "necessary studies," the court felt the public and other government agencies were not informed of all the consequences. Roads precede developmenl. It is a simple idea and one you will hear more of n o matter w here you live. Not that highway expansion and development is necessarily bad. -_ _-_. _ '- ..... . ' -' .. , • •• " But there are right ways and wrong ways and right places and wrong places. Logan Canyon is the wrong place. And this is why I firmIy believe we need to elevate the discuss ion of this project beyond the hjghway itself. Whenever we have the opportunity to talk with the general public about LCe's position, we must include the issues of people and development. For many, the topics of bridge w idths, fishery impacts, endangered plants, and wild and scenic rivers are too abstract. But ask that person Log"" Canyon Postcards GmT'a y"f Stu d io 404 l'hOlograph y. Alan Hu u li s ... i ...g.. 3-xS- $,SO f usu 16701 Utah 1W322"()I9'.I Adventure, Sports o f ••• . ...... ... ......,,, ...... - 4 how they will feel w hen their favorite fishing hole or ski or s nowmobile trail is too crowded, forcing them to go elsewhere, and you may find a n ew ally. Preventing the " ultimate impact" in Logan Canyon is a lifelong commitment. Achieving reasonable highway sa fety improvements in lieu of a massive pork-barrel project is just one incremental step, but the first step. If you would like to help or would like more information about this issue, please feel free to call me at 755-0286. Get involved now. .:. EDWARD AUEY , ...,ItA;, 0' II I'NII 111.10 ANII 1 ••_ IIII"'N; TO. LCC POSTCARDS USU 101C_ I,"," LO;AN. UTAN "111- 01" �Slimmer 1997 Canyon News Briefs (Tlte follawillg is reprillled from a letter to tlte editor of tlte Utall Slate University All/11m; Magazine.) the shot-crete is for added stabili ty and is falling off in sheets as we stand looking ... Shotcrete on this type of canyon First Provo Canyon, now material is like putting a band- Provo Callyoll Coalilion Logan. Soon there will be nothaid on a gushing artery ... The ing left, only p eople racing recent slide triggered the from one spot to another trying County political and business lead- Coalition's worst fears, fears to find a happiness which can ers are begitmiug to question the that a four-lane road just won' t only be found in slowly savorenviront1lel1tal alld finallcial costs work through a narrow area ing the bea uti es God created. wi th unstable rock. of the Provo Cal1yon fiasco, and are protestil1g tile priority given to Gilda Sims, class oj 1940, the cal/yon road at the expense of Looking at this raw, powerful, currently residing ill Eval1ston, more Jzeavily traveled roads.) exposed scar, boulders tumble Wyomitlg down as we speak. They " ... I can hardly stand to be here appear out of nowhere, crash... I am prone to letting out a ing down, hitting the barrier of primal scream of anger as I concrete and wire fencing (Tlte followillg was sent fr01l1 pass daily the monster dump UDOT has constructed in an friends in Provo WilD are watching trucks hauling away the attempt to protect motorists tlte last of tlteir cat/yol/ behlg innards of the can yon. once the canyon is opened. It devoured by dynamite, bulldozers seems as if someone is up there, and asphalt. Almost-vertical culs We are all looking at the same hurling down the rocks in in file cal/yoll walls Itave caused thing. A massive cut in the anger. It is driving the engimassive slides, flattellil1g a twocanyon wall--70 feet high and neers crazy ... Further up the tOil pickup and closing tlte 300 feet long--that wi ll eventuroad, a waterfall of black mud highway. Tlte fOllr-laue highway, ally make room for two more flo ws from an area scraped by a costing $20 million per mile, is in lanes of de-curved roadway. bulldozer. its Jilwl phase. U DOT begal/ tile The first length of the canyon rec0115tructioll ill the lIIid-1980s face has been drilled with We are frustrated, worried and with a promise to tile enviro1JlIlell- twenty foot spikes and covered sick at heart over what they tal community tltat tlte road wou ld with shot-crete. The drilling is have done to our canyon." be limited to two lmies. Utah an attempt to stabilize the face; " Coffee with a Cause" • regular· organic · decaffelnaled • Night and Day 11.00;' to LCC Ior..-ery pound sold. "We are sick at heart over w hat they h ave done to our canyon." �Recreation Threatened By Kevin f. Kobe nificance, or enjoyment of Commerce). During my recent s ki trip from Logan Canyon to Teton Pass, Wyoming, I saw only two canyons throughout the entire 300 mile stretch that did not have s nowmobile tracks. It made me realize how current highway plans fo r Logan Canyon will further threaten human-powered recreation. How? Most of the recreation resources in Logan Canyon were le ft out of the highway documents (the FEIS, DElS, and ROD). This opinion is s upported by the fac t that only 17 sites were lis ted as recrea tion si tes under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1996. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) states that, " Recreation has been designated as the primary use in Logan Canyon according to the Wasa tch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Developed and undeveloped recreation lands occur along the hig hway within the National Forest. .. " The entire stretch of Logan Canyon IS USED FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION and is promoted as s uch (note the many brochures pro- duced by the C hamber o f an UIban park where Recently, Logan Canyon Coalition (LCq inventoried an additiona l 63 sites a long the project area that were not listed in any of the documents. Most of these sites provide access for picnicking, fishing, climbing, kayaking, bird watching, sig ht-seeing and parking for winter activities. Many of the sites will be adversely affected by the proposed highway project. These include direct impacts to the recrea tion resource, such as elintina ting access parking lots, and indirect impacts such as noise and safety. According to the FEIS (p. 6-4), " indirect impacts include exceeding ambient noise criteria, reduction in access, visual impacts, vibratio n, and ecological intrusion. Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished." The FEIS d efin es protected activities and features as, " ... performances at an outdoor amphitheater, sleeping in the sleeping area of a ca mpground, enjoyment o f a historic site where a quie t setting is a generalIy recognized fea ture o r a ttribute of the site's sig- serenity and quiet are significant Based on the above criteria, all 63 sites, as well as the entire stretch of Logan Canyon, will s uffer "substantially diminished " recreational resou rces due to the current hig hway project. Many o f the activities in Logan Canyon occur in areas "where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature o r attribute of the site's sig nificance ... " These areas will be affected by an in crease in traffic no ise levels as a result of: faster speeds, additional passing lanes (d ue to vehicle acceleration), and braking noises. Another indirect impact concerns safety for recreationists; vehid es entering and exiting recreation sites along a faster highway w ill be more dangerous. Additionally, different trends in recreation have occur red in Logan Canyon since the FEIS was written. Activities that have grown in popularity and have not been considered in any documents include backcountry snowboarding, boating, fly fishing, climbing alo ng the rock cliffs adjacent to the highway, and recrea tional and professional cycling. In conclusion, the list of 4(f) sites in the FEIS lacks professional and scientific integrity. It falls short of recognizing the recreation resource in Logan Canyon a nd new recrea tio n trends. It also does not provide enough information conceming all of the recreational pursuits occurring within any onc of the 17 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon. ----. 28 Fed!llIIItft. Lopn. lit 84321 (101) 7Ss-olS7 F Ine & rw-k l I f _ ..............,........" I.CC T-SHiIl:TS - 51 2.00 (3 rob) 6 7Ss.8657 Moo......., · s,."....t "'"' �-- - -- 'iE -- - i --"Ei Slimmer 199 7 Speak Now, Speak Often Make Your Voice Heard G overnment Officials Letters to the Editor What to Do Governor Mike Leavitt The Herald Journal State Capitol Building Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84114 Ph# 801-538-1000 Fax: 801-538- 1528 75 West 300 North Logan, UT 8432 1 Phil 801-752-2121 Fax: 801·753-6642 Please write and urge ou r government officials and the public to re-evaluate UOOT's plans and to consider the more fi sca lly prudent "Conserva tionis ts' Alternative" that s till addresses the need s o f highway safety and Logan Canyon . It is not a "do nothing" proposal. Be s ure to include your full name, address, s ignature (except e-mail) and daytime phone number. Keep your letter short and to the point. Write about your personal experiences in the canyon and use facts to s upport your a rguments. e-mail: govemori?Jemail .state.u Lus e-mail: hjleUeri?Jhjnews.com The SaIt Lake Tribune Rep. Jim Hansen U.S. House of Representati\'cs Washington D.C. 205 15 Phil \-202-225-0453 Fax: 1-202-225-5857 Rodney Terry Project Manager, UOOT Ave. PO Box 12580 Ogden, UT 844 12 Phil 801-399-592 1, ext30S 169 North Wan Fax: 801-399-5926 liz Schuppert District Ranger USFS, Logan District 1500 East Highway 89 Logan, UT 84321 Phil 801 -755-3620 Fax: 80 1-755-3639 Public Forum PO Box 867 Salt La ke City, UT 84110 Fax: 801·237·2022 Deseret News Readers' Forum PO Box 1257 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Fax: 801·237-2121 e-mail: Letters@d esnews.com The Standard-Examiner PO Box 951 Ogden, UT 84402-{)951 Phlf 800-234-5505 Phil 801-625-4222 Fax: 801-6254508 e-mail : Letters@standard.ne t Thank you for your h e lp ! L()(H, Hilt Oil! 'E\\ \\EII I'\(a. \I: AW ORLD (!omCTION CLOTHING & Logan Canyon Your Destination? - Silckpil cking - Skiing -Climbing -Hi king - Snowshoeing - Sightseeing Accents 57 SOOT\I lWw • locwI UT 1?4g21 753·3497 htll': I/\"'\\o/l11"rinl'rol'nl11 / ilo o l !JON·SAT 11·6 117 North Meln 81 7 �r-----------------------, YES! I THE WANT TO JOIN LOGAN CANYON COALITION and receive a subscription to CANYON WI ND o $20.00 Annual Membership o I would like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lois more o I would like to volunteer. o Here's 512.00 for a g reat T-shirt. o I' m broke! Here's five bucks. o Please add my name to your mailing list. pl"JSJ51!ippi"g Name____________________________ PRINTING (0. 5 Ireel____________________________ Cily _ _ _ _ _ _Slale_ _ _. ip _____ Z Email_ __ _ ___ P h one# 43 SOUT H 100 LOGAN , UTAH WEST 84321 TEL . 801.752.031 1 make ch«k payable ilnd m ol;1 to: Logan Canyon Coalition USU Box #1674 L _______________________ Logan, UT 84322·0199 FA X 80 1 . 753 . 316 1 Please consider a donation to LCe. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan Canyon. LCC wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses and foundations who have contributed time, money and expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated. .. .. Wi !!!! ...... - ............ __ __ .iii . . __ ... .iii _.:;;;;; ___ • --=- -=-= ==--= = - -== = = -=-=- - - COA.L:J:T:J:ON BULK RATE U.s. POSTAGE Paid lDgall, IJT Pe.",;t N"SO Wor k i n s f or t h e P ro t ec t ion o f USU Box #1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 ." Please Rellew YOllr Membersllip Today �----...-.. -- -------...- -------- -----_..... --- -- --- -- - ----- ---.-------.- . - ------ - - --- ----- - ---- - - - - ---- - - -- ---- - - ------- - - - -- -- -- - - --- ----- --- - --- -- - - -- -__-.- __ T _ _ _ _-.- - --- - - -- A --- -- -------- - ------- N E W S B U L LE TI N FR OM L OGAN CAN YO N COALI T IO N Vol. 2 No.5 Spril1g 1998 Bass and Parkin to Headline Logan River Summit Have you ever seen an o fficia l Wil d and Scenic rive r? Have you ever wonde red i f the Logan Rive r possesses such qua lities? And ha ve you ever wondered why Utah currently has no rivers that a re being studied fo r possible incl usion in the Wild and Scenic system, let alone a river with the officia l designation? Answers to these questions and more will be presented at the " Logan Ri ve r SummitA Confluence of Ideas/' Saturday May 16, 1998, from 8:30 to 4:30 at the Beaver Mountain Ski Lodge in Logan Can yon. Fea tured guest speakers addreSSing the w ild and scenic issue w ilJ be nationalJy known river policy ex pe rt Drew Par kin and Utah Rivers Council director Zach Frankel. Have you ever wondered w hy Utah currently has no rivers that are being studied for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic system? Parkin's expe rtise includes directing wild and scen ic rivers programs for the National Park Service. Currently he consul ts with many river orga niza tions, add ressin g a variety of rive r issues. Parki n also serves on the board of di rectors for the Pacific Rivers Council A native o f Utah, he now lives in Cambrid ge, Massachusetts. Zach Frankel sta rted the Utah Rivers Cou ncil approxim a te ly five yea rs ago a nd has become well known around the state for his knowledge of Utah rivers and the man y threa ts to their wa tershed s. A lso speaking on beha lf of ri ver ecosystems will be na ti ona lly known author Rick Bass, who w ill bring his own style of passion for our na tura l world. He is widely loved by Am erican readers. As a forme r res ident of Logan, Utah a nd a USU alumni , Bass often spea ks of his intimate relationship with Logan Canyon and the Logan Ri ver. "Sustainable Watersheds" w ill be the theme of an afternoon panel di sc ussion , CO I11p lete w ith a ques tion and answer period. Partic ipants include John Ca rter with Willow Creek Ecology who will address riparian and wa tershed issues, Wendy Fisher with U tah Ope n Land s who will educa te attendees on such th ings as conservation easemen ts, Wes Johnson, president of Utah's Trout Unlimited who will talk of the importance of aquatic protections, and Mike Timmons, USU landscape arch itectural professor, who will discuss visual aesthetic issues. Acting as panel moderator will be Logan 's own KUSU program director Lee Aus tin. It should be noted that this conference is (col1lill!u'd 01/ pagt' 4) �Bridge Fight Averted On September 8, 1997 potentia l impacts by ceas- bridge up after it has col· ing construction during the Logan Canyon lapsed into the river? Coalition sent II letter to the spa\vning season. .15 there an envi ronmenTom Twedt of BioWest UDOT's Sto rm Water tally less damaging with questions concernPollution Prevention Plan method of bridge ing the Utah Department clearly stated, removal? Since UDOT of Transportation's "Cons truction activities plans to crane the new wi ll be scheduled to (UDOT) constructi on bridge into place, it avoid period s of aquatic plans for the fall. seems that they could BioWes t is the env ironlife cycles (spawning, crane pieces of the old men ta l consultant on the etc.)." Suddenly UDOr bridge Qu t w i thout droptwo brid ges project in annou nced that it was ping it into the ri verbed. Logan Canyon. Surpris ingly, the Our main conidea of demolishing After LCC's threa t of alt illj uctioll, the old brid ge durcern was over the pOSSibility that UDOY {l l mOItIlCe ri there would be ing spawning seaUDOTwould son, just upstream of 11 0 bridge demolitioll dur;lIg the demolis h the o ld a documented Brow n Trout fall spawning seaso". brown trout spawnLower Twin Bridge in the fall. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ing area, was su pd uri ng brown ported by the Utah trout spawning season. considering construction Division of Wildlife UDOT's Reevaluation of and bridge demolition Resources. the llucc Bridges Project during the spaw ing seaOur attorney, son. for Logan Canyon conRaymond Scott Berry, tains a good discuss io n of We were concerned faxed a memo to UDOT's the brown trout spawnthat UDOT wou ld use attorneys, stating our ing area immedia tely explosives to blast ou t in tention to file for an the brid ge su pports, downstrea m of Lower injunction on all b ridge Tw in Bridge and the a llow ing the bridge to construction and demolipotenti al im pacts of fall into the riverbed. tion during the spawn ing increased sediments They wou ld then drag season. At the CAT u pon the eggs a nd fr y of the b ridge out o f the (Cooperating Adv isory riverbed wi th tractors. spawning trout. Team) meeting of According to U There would be massive ,e Sep tember 24, UDOT a mounts o f sediment Reeva luation, "The announced there wou ld be no bridge demolition Logan River dmvnstrea m introduced in to the ri ver during the fa ll. They of Lower Twin Bridge has as the bridge sank into agreed that all constructhe riverbanks and was been used as a spaw ning tion activity in the fall site by brown trout. ... dragged out. The loss to would be li mited to work riparian areas wou ld be sedi ments released into considerable. on the deck of the bridge, the Logan Rive r by conh igh above the ri ver. s truction activities in la te Our There would be no work su mmer, fa ll , and winter questions included: in the river or o n the could suffocate eggs and - Precisely how much riverbanks. We believe fry, which are expected to sed imen t will be in trothis decision by UDOT be present in this spaw n- duced into the river? - Exactly how wi ll the old helped to protec t spawning area from about ing b rO\'vn trou t in Logan October through March." bridge be removed? Rive r. UDOT had previously - Wha t w ill be the agreed to minimize impacts of cu tting th e 2 �-- - -------- =- - - -= - - = - '= - :-=..:: '::' -- -- = :-=.: - --=-= = =:: = :':.: == ..=..-=..=..=-.= Sprillg 199 8 An Expert Speaks O u t UDOT's Confused Data By LCC Stnff mates or on how accurate their estimates are. more than o ne accid ent per ye<lr, " there is only one site in the entire canyon with more than 2 The Logan Ca nyon Coalition asked Dr. Everett C. Carte r, of the Transportation Studies Cen ter of the University o f Maryland, to exam ine the Utah Department of Transportation's (UOOT) traffic and accident data . In his report, Dr. Carter states, "There is d efiniteIy some confusion concerning acciden ts and traffic volumes in Loga n Canyon." Dr. Carter no tes that the method UDOT used to estimate traffic fl ows in Logan Ca nyon " resu.lted in errors." UDOT used only one counter at o ne location in the ca nyon to count vehicles, and they then used these counts to estim ate traffic volumes in nil sections of the cn nyon. No information is provid ed on how they calculated their esti- Here is one exa mple of error. In the hig her accidents pe r yea r." He states. "One o r two acci- section of the middle dents/year is not ca nyon, and in the uppe r ca nyon, the estimated traffic vo lumes that UDOT used to calculate acciden t rates declined in the years 1986 - 1990 compared to 1980 - 1985. Yet the estimated tra ffi c volumes in the lower ca nyon, and in the lower sectio n of the middle canyon, show a 7% increase in 1986 - 1990 VS. 1980 -1985. Why would traffic volumes increase in the lower secHons of the canyon in 1986 - 1990 and yet d ec line in the upper sections? There is no expla nation of this discrepan- unu sually hi gh"! In o the r words, the Logan Ca nyon hig hway is not an especially dangerous hig hway. Special Report 214 from the na tional Trans portation Resea rch Boa rd (1987) indicates tha t the benefit of w idening beyond 34 feet is "q uite lim ited." Dr. Ca rter states, "Thus a 34 ft. paved section, especiall y in lig ht of the env iro nmen ta l impact, should be the upper limi t in Logn n Cn nyon .... " UooT is planning a 40 foot hi ghway width above Beaver MOu.ntnLn, in s pite of the greater expense and environmental impact o f this cy. Dr. Carter observes that w hil e there are 9 si tes in the canyon \v ith DID YOU KNOW? A bridgt' or .. cit y J tTfl't mu st h .. "c 12 Joint'S to .. 4lJ,000 .. utomobil cs pCt hour. Only I I.. nt' iJ nc.:cssuy to 40,000 bieyclcs pcr hour. To thl' nccd for Middl c Eas t oi l, U.S. commuters would nced to biercit' to work o nl y l.25 tim cs wl't'k. u lo riH to thc numbcr of milt'S could bf tr'''flcd by th f aYf ragc (yelisl i, 3.000. . 'IY • :;- ' 1W..1 PLEASE RIDE YOUR BIKE. 138 NOI»H 100 EASl lOGAN. UrN! 84321 801 -753-3294 MQN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. G ,, -_.- ... --_-- PEVJNE ... 3 : ....... width, and in spite of this Specia l Report. Another report UDOT apparently ignored, " Low Cost Methods for Improving Traffic Operations on Two-Lane Roads," wa s published by the Federal Highwa y Administra tion in 1987. This report discusses low-cost but effecti ve highway improvements s uch as slow-vehicle turnouts and better signing. These improvements have been part of LCe's propo5<'11 for many years. Dr. Carter concludes, '' In summary, I a m convinced that there is reasonable doubt that a fu ll scnle/mnjor improvement of the entire Ca nyon is justified." .:. �RIVER (,,,,lim,"') be ing underwritte n th roug h the generos ity of the ational Ri vers Coa liti on, w hich is mad e up of the America n Ca noe Assoc., Ameri ca n Rivers, A meri ca n Whitewate r Affili a tion, Na tio nal Wildli fe Fede ration, Ri ver Management Society, Rive r Ne two rk, Sie rra C lub, and The Wilde rness Soci ety. Loca l co-spo nso rs includ e the Citi zens for the Protection o f Loga n Ca nyon and Brid ge rl and Audubo n. The ir support is commend able! Cost for the enti re day, incl uding a conti ne nta l breakfast and lu nch, includes $10 for adu lts and $7.50 for students. Early reg istra tion is encou raged as seating is limited to 150 people. See the enclosed insert (Uta h mailing o nly) for m o re info rmatio n. Or call at 435 / 755-0286. Why Are Wetlands Important? Wetlands are important for ma ny reasons: Wetlands prevent nooding by hold ing wa ter much like a sponge. By doing so, wetlands help keep river levels norma l and filter and pu rify the s urface wa ter. Wetlands accept wa ter d uring sto rms and w henever water levels arc high. When wa ter levels are low, wetland s slowly release water. Wetlands also release vegetative matter into rivers, which helps feed fis h in the rivers. Wetlands help to counter balance the human effect on rivers by rej uvenating them and surrounding ecosystems. Ma ny anima ls that live in other habitats use wetlands for migra tion or reprod uction. Fo r example. herons nest in la rge old trees, bu t need sha llow areas in order to wad e for fi sh and aquatic life. Am ph ibians often for<lgc in upland areas but return to the water to mate and reproduce. Wetlands must not be thoug ht o f as a unique and independent habitat. They arc vital to the survival of many ecosystems and ...... ---... ,., , wild life in genera l. Unl ike most oth er habita ts, wetlands directly improve other ceo-systems. Becausc of its many clea nsing bmefits. wetlands have been compnred to kid neys. The analogy is correct, wetlands and kid neys help con tro l water flow and cleanse the flow o f liquids within a system. Eros ion Contro l Looking at pictures o f delt"s, o ne cn n tell that rivers d eposit" lo t o f mud . Mud is top soil that has eroded and w"shed away. Emergents (plan ts firmly rooted in the muddy bottom bu t with stalks tha t rise high above the wa te r su rface) a re able to radica lly slow the flow o f water. As a result, they counter the erosive fo rces o f mov ing wa ter along la kes and ri vers. and in rolli ng agricultura l landscapes. Erosion control effo rts in "qua tic areas often incl ude the planting of wetlands plants. Wate r Purifica tion Wetlands also clean thc watcr by filtering o ut sedimentation and d ecomposing vegetable ma tter. Wetlands pla nts help Adventure, Sports -"'- _. , _ "_ _ n ..... ......,. ....... , 4 convert nitrates and other life-givi ng chemica ls. Soil thai is inundated with water is largely oxygen free, and the microbes and bacteria in upla nd soils depend on oxygen to su rvive. TIle activ ity of such bacteria is centra l to the breakdown of n utrients into fo rms usable by the rest of the bio tic comm unity. Some wetland s plants actua lly pi pe oxygen dow n into their roots, to provide to special bacteria. Others, as in peat moss, build up huge, "a rtificial" g round areas on wh ich bacteria can work. Still others, such as many noating leaf plan ts, have d ispensed with the use o f bacteria altogether and ex tract needed nutrients from the water itsel f. The ability o f wetlands to recycle n utrients ma kes them critical in the overa ll fun ctioning of the ea rth . No other ecosystem is as prod uctive nor as un ique in this conversion process. In some p laces, in fa ct. artificial wetlands were d eveloped solely fo r the pu rpose o f water purification. �_ ---------- --------- .. - ------- - - -= - -== = = === = "": = :-=..:: '::" =:-::.: :-=..:: S p r ill g 19 98 Canyon News Briefs LCC LAWSUIT UPDATE Logan Canyon Coa li tion's lawsuit against UDOT and the Forest Service is still in place. We are now compiling a list of docu ments we will req uest from these ngencies during the d iscove ry phase of the lawsuit. We are inte rested in obtai ning copies of UDOT's calcula tions of tra ffic flow in Logan Canyon, for examp le. Based on traffic counts a t a si ngle loca tion, UDOT has esti ma ted traffic flow in a ll sections of the ca nyon highway. Yet there are serious d iscrepa ncies in UOOT's estimations. We wi ll request copies of the surveys the Forest Service has condu cted on sensitive species in Logan Canyon. The Forest Service has cl aimed there will be "no impact" of constructi on upon et these species. Y it appea rs tha t for severa l of these species the surveys have been inadequa te, if they exist at aU . The documents we obtain through d iscovery will help LCC sa ve Logan Canyon from ulU1ecessarily expensive and destructi ve highway construction. Deb Eshelman a CPA and her daughter Amy Casa massa come on boa rd as LCe's new Co-Treasurers. Amy's work w ill apply towards an adva nce placemen t science cred it fo m Jac k Green's Logan High class. Welcome on boa rd. Canyon Wind Ed itor Dan Miller w ill be returning to Cache Va lley to become more active in LCC projects. He has been living in Ogden, Utah and Oregon as his wife pursued her ca reer. Welcome back Dan . • Uuknowu impact 0 11 trollt popllia tiolls. UDOT's estimate is all IIlIeducated guess based 011 il/adeqllate data. COllstrllctiol/ ill the lower cal/yoH reduced tlw trOll t populations ill sOllie areas by 80%. "Coffee with a Cause" • regular ' $1 .00 is dona rBd ro LCC Nigh1and Oay ro.-"""'Y pound sold. Logan Canyon Coalition is up and running on the World Wide Web. Check out our homepage at: http://www.logancanyon.org �Home Canyon by To m LyO l1 Comi ng back from a long trip east, we'd just dri ven a few hundred treeless mi les on a hot and sunny da y. Most of the last hours had been in the mined and p um meled landscape of south west Wyom ing, a scene tha t hurts to look a t. We climbed up fro m Bea r Llke in third gear- getting close now, thirty-odd miles to Logan- a nd then, over the summ it, started to s lip d own into the fold s o f the hills, steeper a nd closer on the sides as we wen t, a nd the trees aga in, the co mpan ionab le river soon to be alongsid e. We g limpsed a good-sized bull moose moving o ff through the w illows along Bea ver Cree k. A certa in sce nt came in on the window-wind , a secret fragrance mad e up of w illow a nd sage, toba cco bush, fir a nd cottonwood, river water, lime rock in the sun, Loga n Canyon dirt ". we were ho me now. When we fi rst s tarted tryin g to p rotec t th e ca nyon from hi ghway d rea ms, we had the id ea that public-works po li cy was p retty much a rational process. You sat d ow n w ith the highway d epartm ent a nd the Fo rest Service, and you entered the canyon 's beauty a nd re la tive intactness in to the mi x, and the peop le's love for it, the fishing, the skiing, the hiking, the peace a nd quiet and s lowness of it, th e way it stood for a w hole diffe ren t life. You always men tioned w ha t w as sadly true, that Loga n Ca nyon was the last of its kind of pl ace in Uta h. It was disappointing that none of this ever go t across to the highway department. Not in all these yea rs. It was as if you were talking a n en tirely d ifferent language. But w hat was rea lly stunning was that the Forest Service did n' t ca re ei the r. The Forest Serv ice b lew off its own Forest Plan, a documen t supposedly having the force of law, in orde r to support the h ighway d rea m. The Forest Service should have been the natural a ll y of the ca nyon. Instead, in the end, they a nswered a d eta iled , 187-page a ppea l (wh ich a mo unted to the Env ironme nta l Impa ct Statement tha t should have been d one by those h ired to d o it) w ith a page and a half of bureaucratic dismissa l. So w ha t we have lea rned is tha t we are on o ur ow n, and we have to be tough a nd pe rsistent if we wa nt to be heard- if we wa nt the canyon to be hea rd . We can' t just expect people to be rationa l, and we can ' t assume tha t everyone loves the canyon more than they love the h ighway drea m. (Probably a lot o f people think we can have the o ld, good ca nyon and a big hig hway through it.) This w ho le time has been a kind of edu ca tion in realism. That's the politica l part. In the hea rt part, it's mad e us th ink about w hat we rea ll y va lue, firmed us down to the home things. POSSESSfONS 28 FaSuai A l.ogan.lJI'. 84321 vt. ....... '7:'. (IIOU 755-0851 FIne l ob .. « o , Logall Ca lly o ll Post cards Co u'!t'Syof S tud io 404 rh o tog r.- phy, Alan Hu es ti s , ...,,, J-. 5· s.5O I 4· , 6- S.75 USU nod log.1n. Ulah 84322.{l L 99 a M .. t dphy , ,, .. L N e rd , ' d l 011, a H('f b , Pon(A1U>:I 0# EDWARD Aaa EV 1[ NO t l t .50 IINO $l .oo lee USU 8 0l( . L OCOIIN. U TilI! Lee T·StliRfli· 512.00 (3 mlor) '011.-0,,, 6 755-8657 �------== = == = S p ri n g 1 9 9 8 Speak Now, Speak Oftell Make Your Voice Heard G overnment Officials Letters to the Editor What to Do Governor Mike Leav itt State Capitol Building 5.111 La ke City, UT 84114 Th e Herald Journa l 75 West 300 North Logan, UT84321 Ph# 801-538-1000 Fax: 801-538-1528 e-mail: governor@email.sta le.u t. us Ph# 801-752-2121 Fax: 801-753-6642 Please w rite and urge our government officials and the public to re-evalua te UOOT's plans and to consider the more fisca lly prudent "Conservationists' Alternative" that s ti ll add resses the needs of h ighway safety and Logan Canyon. It is not a "do nothi ng" proposa l. Be su re to include your fuJI name, address, signature (except e-mail) and d ay time phone number. Keep your letter short and to the point. Write about you r personal experiences in the canyon and usc fac ts to s upport your argumen ts. Rep. Jim Hansen U.S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515 Ph# 1-202-225-0453 Fax: 1-202-225-5857 Rod ney Terry Project Manager, UOOT 169 North Wall Ave. PO Box 12580 Ogden, UT 84412 Ph# 801-399-5921, ext3Q5 Fax: 801-399-5926 Brian Ferebee District Ranger USFS, Logan District 1500 East H ighway 89 Logan, UT 84321 Ph# 801-755-3620 Fax: 801-755-3639 e-mail: hjletter@hjncws.com The Salt Lake Tribu ne Public Forum PO Box 867 $.1[t L.1ke City, UT 84110 Fax: 801-237-2022 Deseret News Readers' Forum PO Box 1257 Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84110 Fax: 801-237-212 1 e-mail: Letters@desnews.com The Standard-Exam iner PO Box 951 Ogden, UT 84402-095 1 Ph# 800-234-5505 Ph# 801-6254222 Fax: 801-625-4508 ('-mai[: Letters®Standard.net LOOK FOR O[' R :>IE\\ AW ORLD Or Tha n k you for yo u r h e l p! "Ell PA(a: AT: Logan Ca nyon You r Destin ation? & - Backpa ckin g . S kii ng -Climbing -Hiking - Snows hoein g . S ig htseei ng Accent5 57 IANN • loGANUT l?4 g21 117 North Main SI 7 �r-----------------------, YES! I WANT TO JDIN THE LOGAN CANYON COALITION and rece ive a s ubscription to CANYON W1ND o $20.00 Annual Membership o I would like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more o I would like to volunteer. o Here's $12.00 for a great T-s hirt. o I' m broke! Here's five bucks. o Please add m y name to your mailing list. p/IIs SJ shippillK Name _______________________________ H RA PRINTING LD (0. 5Ireel._____________________________ Cily_ _ _ _ _ _ Slale'____ Zip, _____ Email _____________ Phone# Please check p" Y.l ble and mail to: Logan Canyon Coalition USU Box #1674 L _______________________ Logan, UT 84322-0199 43 SOUTH LOGAN , 10 0 UTAH WEST 84321 TEL .43 5 .752. 0311 FA X 435 .753.3 161 Please consider a donation to LCC. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan Can yon. LCC wants to tha nk the hW1dred s of individuals, businesses a nd fOW1dations who have contributed tin1e, money and expertise towa rds the lega l d efense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated. BU LK RATE U.S. I'OSTAGE Paid COAL:l:T:l:O:N' Work ing for th .. P rotection of L og.n Canyon Logtl1r. UT N"SO USU Box #1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 II' Plea se Renew YOllr Melllbership Today �A NEWS B ULLETIN FR OM L OGAN C ANYON C OALITION Vol. 3 No.1 Sum mer 1999 Logan River is Eligible for Wild & Scenic Designation In January the Wasatch-Cache National al value of this river segment. Concerning recreForest released its draft Rivers Eligibility Study. ation, "highly scenic pristine rivers/ corridors are This study reports that Beaver Creek and a twen- of higher value" (draft Eligibility Study). The ty mile-long segment of the Logan River are eligi- Forest Service is mandated to protect the scenery, ble for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. The recreation, and other outstandingly remarkable Logan River segment has been found to have five, values of rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic desmore than any other river in the forest, outstand- ignation. ingly remarkable values including scenery, fishUDOT is planning cuts into the mountaineries, recreation, ecology, and geology I hydrolo- side at Upper Twin Bridge that will be vertical or gy. The Logan River is truly the jewel of the "as vertical as possible." This was not evaluated Wasatch-Cache National - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - in the FE IS or In Forest. UDOT's Record of We believe that the Decision. We still do of not know how extenUtah Depa rtment the Logan as Utah's first Transportation's (UDOT's) sive these cuts will be. Wild and Scenic River nex t phase of highway Vertical rock cu ts will construction w ill harm ___...._______________ not revegetate and will these values. We are asking that a Supplemental harm the natural appearance and hence the Environmental Impact Statement be required for scenery and recreational value of this river corrithis highway project. dar. Recent design p lans show tha t UooT is We a re concerned that construction planning to build approximately 2,275 feet of impacts on Wild and Scenic values are not being retaining wa lls adjacent to the Logan River seg- evaluated properly. There was no detailed evalument eligible for designation. These wa lls were ation of impacts in either the Final Environmental not evaluated in the FEIS for this project or in Impact Statement or in the Record of Decision. UooT's Record of Decision. Seventy-five percent UooT intends to evaluate the impacts of the next of these walls will be "basket walls," which are phase of construction in a Reevalua tion document. wire baskets filled with rocks. These walls are not This entirely ignores the impacts of the remaining attractive in a na tu ral setting. They will not highway project. appear natura l and will harm the scenery of this UDOT and the Forest Service are segmentriver segment. They will also harm the recreation- ing this project in their evaluation of impacts Leave a True Legacy �Wild & Scenic ("...".."d) which is a violation of Forest Service policy and the National Environm en tal Policy Act (NEPA). From recent design plans, the next phase of construction covers on ly about three and a half miles of highway. UOOT is planning an additional approximate ly thirteen and a half miles of highway const ruction that will potentially impact Wild and Scenic values, from the Dugway to the canyon summit. The danger of segmenting this project is that once the next phase of construction is underway, UOOT will be committed to its larger highway project with uneva luated and potentially damaging impacts to the Wild and Scenic va lues of these rivers. Issues that should be addressed include: what will be the ex tent of the required retaining wa lls and vertical cuts as construction is extended into th e remaining upper Midd le Canyon? Will we see a miniDugway a long Uppe r Twin Bridge and Temp le Fork? In short, how ugly is this going to get? According to Forest Service policy, "Groups of actions, when added together, may have collective or cumulative impacts which are Significant. Consideration must be given to the incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions of the Forest Service, as well as those of other agencies and individuals." We have requested that a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SE IS) be required for this highway project in which the entire project is evaluated with respect to the Wild and Scenic va lues of these rivers. Forest Service policy requires that there be an SEIS whenever there are "significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns .... " Surely the fact that the Logan River segment and Beaver Creek ha ve been found eligib le for Wild and Scenic designation is significant new information. in an SEIS the purpose and need for a ll planned construction should be clearly demonstrated . While we agree that some highway r'OSSESS'ONS 28 Federal Ave. Logan, Uf. 84321 Home Accessories, CoUectibles, Jewelry, Gifts 755-0857 2 improvements are needed, such as replacing the worn bridges, UOOT has never demonstrated the purpose and need for their extensive proposal. We agree with this statement by Drew Parkin, an expert on Wild and Scenic Rivers policy, " . . . designation as a wild and scenic river will not preclude improvement to the highway. It would, however, require that UDOT take special precautions, both in design and construction, to ensure that the road does not alter flow regimes, that important natural and scenic resources are preserved, and that short-term disruptions to the river are minimized. Even if this costs a little more, it would result in a superior project that multiple meets long-term needs." & A«t'ssones M f'taphyslcdl N t'ed .. E.. Oil s & HNbs 11 755-8657 Toys thaL capt.ure a child's ima8inaLion! 14bN l OO[ I. ". ... A ....,nu.,O lo9 .. n UT • · Moon Toys * * 75 HlO'5 5 �- -- -- Summer 19 99 Dear Logan City Council: CANYON LOVERS My wife and I lived in Logan from 1955, when we came as college stud ents, until just last yea r. We raised three sons in Logan, and Logan will always be our heart's country. We absorbed Cache Valley. The silhouette of the mountains, east up the canyon and west across the valley, is still the horizon line of O UT life. I wou ldn't mention this background if I didn't think a great many people share such feelings. Few things go as deep as the sense of home. Unfortunately, sometimes the deepest values get taken for granted. We're all very busy. We can even forget to think about the abso lute beauty and purity of Logan River, coming down the canyon and through the town. Su rely there can't be many towns anywhere in the world that can say: a wild, clean river comes down ou t of the mountains to us; there is no one, no town, upstream. I think about Logan River a lot these days. Our irrigation and drinking wa ter here in coastal California is sparse; it comes a long way, and it has been used several times. There is no way, with all the engineering capability in the world, we could create the kind of situation Logan has. So, speaking from deep care for Logan and from the knowledge of how easy it is to lose natura l resources, and how hard it is to get them back, I respect- fully urge the Council to endorse Logan River as a Wild and Scenic River. Logan is lifeblood. Please protect it. Sincerely, Thomas J. Lyon _ , eo-.-. soo ..... PLEASE RIDE YOUR BIKE W EB SITE D eSIGN, D eVELOPMENT, H OSTING, AND P ROMOTION SERVICES http://zmorlner.com Info@zmoriner.com 435-755-6595 138 Norm'i 100 EAsT lOGAN. UtAH 84321 4351753-3294 MoN. - SM. 10:00 .... 1.4 . - 6:00 P.M. G PEVINE II 3 -_ --- ,t l *" U__l_ ' • ll ... .... ...., we Dan Miller Jaynan Chancellor Deb Eshelman Gordon Steinhoff Derek Staab Graham Hunter Kevin Kobe Tim Wagner John Carter Amanda Th immes Mark Lunt Bridgett Kobe Creed Clayton Carolyn StOnge Brooke Bigelow Jim Vandygriff Coalition Supporters -R ick Bass -Terry Tempest Williams oRobert Redford -C.L. Rawlins -Sierra Club -Utah Rive rs Council -Tom Lyon -National Rive rs Coalition -Maki Foundation �Canyon News Briefs Sincere Gratitude Members of the Logan Canyon Coalition wou ld like to wholehea rtedly thank Dan Miller for all he has done for the orgaruza tion . Dan has lead Lee during his year as president with tremendous energy and insight. Under his leadership several important adva nces have been made for Lee including a commitment to getting the Logan River designated as Utah 's first Wild and Scenic river. Dan continues to be active in Lee, and we are always grateful for his common sense and unwavering support. Tha nks Dan, and we wish you the best w ith your ex tra ti me! Lee Board of Directors LOOKING AH E AD Fall Fundraiser Lee is proud to announce its fall fundraiser: Jerry Joseph and the Jack Mormons. They will be playing in the Amphitheatre on Old Main Hill, USU campus on September 3rd at 7:00 PM . Tickets will be $7 for nonstudents and $5 fo r students. Giardia Run Thursday, September 9th at 5:49 PM. Meet at the HPER on the USU camp us and run to the White Owl. $15 includes a T-shirt; $10 without. This year 's theme: Y2K!! Get Inspired! Announcing the first annua l " Art from the River" celebration. Send your artistic entries inspired by Logan River (painting, d rawing, pottery, writing, textiles, or music) to Brooke Bigelow, 1371 E. 900 N., Loga n, Utah 84321. All entries will be honored at the River Festiva l on September 18th and special recognition will be given to outstanding entires in each of three categories: children 3 to 5 years old; children 6 to 12 years old; and children 13 and over. Be sure to include your name, phone number, and age with your ent ry. Christmas Auction With the completion of Dan's term as preSident, managing and governing responsibilities for LCC are being handled through a temporary board of directors. A permanent board will be installed by vote at the next Lee general meeting in January. Any LCC member interested in being on the board of directors should attend bimonthly meetings, the fi rst and third Tuesday of the month at 7:30 at Merlin Olsen Central Park (100 South 200 East). Logan River Festival The second annual Logan River Festival will be at First Dam from noon to 3 PM on Saturday, September 18th. Bring your kids, neighbors. and friends and come enjoy the Logan River. There w ill be games, canoe rides, art activities and displays, and vendors. (For more informa ti on or to get in volved, contact Jaynan Chancellor at 7532553.) Adventure Sports 4 It's not too early to be thinking about the LCC Christmas auction. Watch fo r fur ther details. In the meanwhile, gather those donations or services suitable for auction, and continue the gift by donating your "classy junque" to be treasured by someone else for a recycled Christmas. For more information or to store donations, contact Jaynan Chancellor at 753-2553 or Brooke Bigelow at 753-5682. Thanks for your generous contribution! �Summer 1999 Memo To: Brian Dixon, Bridgerland Audubon, Chris Wilson, Cache Anglers, Kathy Gilbert, Citizens For Protection of Logan Canyon, Dick Carter, High Uintahs Preservation Council, Jon Marvel. Idaho Watersheds Project, Dan Miller, Logan Canyon Coalition, Ron Younger, Utah Chapter Sierra Club, Barrie Gilbert, Utah Wildlands Heritage From: John Carter, Willow Creek Ecology Re: Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone I am writing this as a result of the many issues and activities involving Logan Canyon/Logan River, includ ing the recent land swap, ongoing highway construction, increasing recreational use, second home development, logging and continued livestock grazing all affecting wildlife, habitat, water quality and aesthetics. Those of us who love Logan Canyon and all it symbolizes, and the reluctance of the Fores t Service to effec t progressive change as evidenced by the recent rejection of our appeal of the Bear Hodges project show us we ca nnot depend on science or logic alone. It also shows us that we need community support and unity among ourselves with SOfl)e common goals and objectives. To this e nd , I am s uggesting the Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone that recognizes the high quality of the scenic and wildli fe attributes of the Logan River Watershed, and urges protection. Because of the many sensitive species or habitats recogni zed by the Forest Service as exis ting in the Logan Canyon area and are threatened, as a group we should demand protection of these watersheds, elimination of livestock grazing and other destructive forest practices and that a p roper value be placed on the natural attributes of the Canyon. Because of the Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout a nd its potential listing as endangered, Willow Creek Ecology expanded its monitoring of the Logan River and its tributaries at the end of 1998. We are collecting samples at up to 20 locations, docume nting s ilt loadings, fecal coliform pollution and other general water quality parameters. We are also assembling a data base of Logan River stud ies of water quality, fisheries, invertebrates, habitat and hydrology. Our initia l purpose is to comment to the Fish and Wildlife Service in support of listing since a large portion of Bonneville Cu tthroat Trout populations in Utah exists in the Logan River. Many factors threaten its continued existence including habitat alteration and whirling disease. I think it is important that we discuss how to combine our efforts and concerns into an effective strategy, gai n public support and pressure the Forest Service and other public entities toward our chosen goals. We saw how iIIinformed the City of Logan was on Wild and Scenic River Status. I think we should use quality of life, economics and watershed health as driving factors in gaining public support for protection. After all, the watersheds above Sa lt Lake City are worthy of protection for a variety of reasons, why not here? �Leave A True Legacy The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River We the undersigned hereby declare oui' support for segments of the Logan River to be designated as Utah 's first Wild and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as long as that designation doesn't interlere with traditional uses now enjoyed by the public. Signature Print name Street City Siale Zip -------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+----t------------ ; • z • .; • • " • , -------------------------f-------------------------+------------------------+----------------------f----t------------ " i -------------------------t-------------------------t------------------------+---------------------1----1------------ 2 • • RETURN CO M P l ET E O P ETITIO N S TO THE LOG A N CA N YON COALITION. USU BOX. fl6H . LOGAN. U TAH U 322·01 99 �NOT LATER WRITE NOW! Wild and Scenic Bernie We ingardt The Wild and Scen ic Rivers Act of 1968 is unique among environmental Jaws in the world because of its p oten tial to protect free-nowing rivers and riversections. Yet less than one percent o f the nation 's total river m iles is included in the National Wild and Scen ic Rivers System, and NOT ONE o f Utah 's beautiful rivers has th is outstanding d is tinction. In 1998 the 30th anniversary of the Wild an d Scenic Act was celebrated across the nation. Lee is hoping to extend thai celebration to Utah before another 30 yea rs passes with the designation o f the Logan River as Wild and Scenic. Pub lic support is crucial to m a king th is happen. Show your su pport by encouraging policy-m a kers to leave a true legacy in Uta h and recomme nd th e Logan Ri ver as the firs t Uta h river inducted into the N a tio na l Wild a nd Scenic Rivers Syste m . T h a nk yo u for your h e l p! T he Salt l ak e Tri bune Wasatch-Cache Nationa l Forest 8230 Federal Building 125 South State Street Salt Lake City. Utah 84138 Public Forum PO Box 867 Salt Lake City, UT 841 10 Fax: Bria n Fe re bee District Ranger U5FS, Logan District 1500 East Highway 89 Logan, UT 84321 Ph# 435-755-3620 Fax: 435-755-3639 Desere t New s Readers' Forum PO Box 1257 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Fax: 801-237-2121 e-mail: Letters@desnews.com Logan City Counci l 255 North Main, Logan UT,84321 The S ta ndard-Examiner PO Box 951 Ogden, UT 84402-0951 Phil 800-234-5505 Ph# 801--6254222 Alan D. Allred Karen S. Borg John L. Harder e-mail: Lelters@standard.net Ja nice Pearce Stephen C. Thompson Mayor Douglas E. Thompson Lette rs t o the Edit or The H e rald Journ al 75 West 300 North Logan, UT 84321 Ph# 435-752-2121 Fax: 435-753-6642 e-mai l: hjletter@hjnews.com A WORLD Logan Canyon Your Destination? & -BlCkpildc.in g oS ki ing - C lim b ing oHiking oSno ws hotin g oSightstt in g Accents 57 Sourn MAIN • locAII Uni'49 21 753·3497 7 �r--------------------, J WANT TO JOIN THE LOGAN CANYON COALITION LOGAN RIVER and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND SCENIC RIVER YES! """" UTAH'S Uri. WILD aad o $20.00 Annual Membership o I would like to contribute an additional $10 $20 $JO $40 $50 Lots more o I would like to volunteer. o Here's $12.00 for a great T-shirt. o I' m broke! Here's five bucks. o Please add my name to your mailing list. ,llUllu.;,.,;", LEAVE A LEGACY n •• LOG"_ AI UrAl" 'Ian WItD "_D IC'_IC a",. Name ________________________________ Streetl ________________________________ City, ______:State Phone' Zip, _______ E-mail _____________ Plun ..... ke check Support the Logan River and null to, include shipping Logan Canyon Coalition USU Box'1614 L _____ Order these new Wild and Scenic bumper stickers for the Logan River. A $2.00 donation for each sticker will _____ Please consider a donation to Lee. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan Canyon. Lee wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses, and founda tions who have contributed time, money, and expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated. .... ................... Wi !! =-=-- . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ • •;:.... _ . - - --- !!' --= = - BULK RATE US POSTAGE - - Paid CO.4.L:J:T:J:ON Loga", UT Pnm,' N° 39 WorkIng f o r Ih e Prolullo n of l oga n Canyon USU Box #1674 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 .,t Please Renew Your Membership Today � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 3335 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2607 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 2464155604 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource LCC newletter, "Canyon Wind" Description An account of the resource Newsletters updating the events of Logan Canyon Coalition including but not limited to the formation of LCC, denial of appeal, violations of FEIS, lifting of the stop work order, and the eligibility of Logan River for wild and scenic designation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kobe, Kevin Lyon, Tom Wagner, Tim Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Wilderness areas Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Newsletters Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Logan Canyon Coalition Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd8 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/22e788c66a037849dee45ed26deb71a2.jpg 2af27e980519282c5bc79ad34c1f61d0 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 2149 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2883 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 0x3CA2C3DA File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6748.619 KB Conversion Specs jp2 image created using CONTENTdm Acquisition Station version 4.2 JPEG2000 extention software Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2004-07 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/Savage/id/1297">http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/Savage/id/1297</a> 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 Lees Ferry Colorado River 1870, C.R. Savage Description An account of the resource Four men on the banks of a river. Original is a silver gelatin print. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Savage, C. R. (Charles Roscoe), 1832-1909 Subject The topic of the resource Lees Ferry (Ariz.) Colorado River (Colo.-Mex.) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1870 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Lees Ferry (Arizona) Colorado River (Colo.-Mex.) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1870-1879 19th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, MSS P 24 Item 731 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. <a href="http://lib.byu.edu/EAD/XML/MSSP24.xml">http://lib.byu.edu/EAD/XML/MSSP24.xml</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Brigham Young University, Harold B. Lee Library, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Courtesy L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Charles R. Savage Photograph Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Image Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 984431514112005_731_MssP24_B7_F16.jpg Colorado River Highway 89 https://highway89.org/files/original/516f3269d1309e4f38dc15ab6b5bdca3.pdf 47f0c9d95fa38a6db816f6108d0e50a0 PDF Text Text �nferi. ';ty , regardless of the avenue :hey ~.'-.ive c hosen to follow . Som ~ couples m e r~ly need infornation or referrals; others feel alone ..vith their grief and need the companionship of other people who have bee' in the same situation: If you, or sumeone you know, could benefit from these services, call Resolve, 1-350-8807. t1 I • , ~~atn1€ , ,_ ...... _ J'Resolve ol,-Utah ::t I - J / ~ t-4- • ,rn...d--'~ t :r Adult fables ,.. Editor: Adult Fable No.1: Once upon a time in a small town called Smithfield, there were very old , large trees on both sides of Main Street. Long branches covered the o utside lane of traffic and sidewalks . Experts were called and a study was made. The little city wac:; advised the trees needed to be drastically pruned for best results. The n came the "pecking :hickens ." "Leave the trees alo ne. The trees Alill 'die, sca red for life , fo.ols . I want ny way~ " The littl e to'.vn was right. They impl :> me nt ed the plan that was best We are now proud of our park -for th e c it y. Now the- tr.ees are --':.,;,.. -trout in the~tTea m, covered plc ni.c beau tiful a nd mojes tiC , and eac h tr~e a reas, love ly planted freeS and grass, . can say , "Someone cared for me." grounds, foot bridge, fine, clean rest Conclusion : The "pecking rooms. We are not afraid to use this chickens" are at it again. Maybe the park anymore, thanks to all who Logan Canyon study may be the were and are responsible. next fable that needs help. The Conclusion: Logan Canyon is the experts, local elected and next fable about a little canyon thelt government officials, who have the needs help from experts, elected good of the people and the Logan officials and government employees Canyon in mi nd, I commend yo u for who have worked and planned so your dilige nce and concern for the hard for the good of the people and majority of the people and the good best for the land. for the canyon. Adult Fable No.2: Sadie Hanson Once upon a time there was a Smithfield place called "Mack's Park" in a little town called Smithfield. Weeds, underbrush, junk, rampant trees, destroyed toilet facilities and picnic tables, marred and broken, were seen all around. An yone who had a no tion slepTon the tables. Summit Cree k was no t visible because of the sirua tion . Town people we re afraid to go there. The c ity called in experts and an extensive st udy was done. The plan was anno un ced. Then came the "pec king ch ic ke ns ." "Sto p. you will ruin the natural look and habita t and kill the creek. The pa rk needs to be wild. I want my way, fools ." T he city plan was implemented over the cry uf the "peck in g chickens ... � 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/42">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/42</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 3601102087 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 682293 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 Letter to the editor entitled Adult fables Description An account of the resource Letter to the editor entitled Adult fables by Sadie Hanson from Smithfield. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hanson, Sadie Subject The topic of the resource Logan (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Letters to the editor Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Newspaper Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1905-06-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan (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 1 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_Fd1_Page_10.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b9cf9fd3e27f005d9b3809b8d62df26c.pdf 1d19cf63268fadc4fef8d6710015baf4 PDF Text Text _ l~:ff~l:lI" _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah John 4570 Bear Legislative Delegation Holmgren W. 5400 N. River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Depar t ment of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be direc t ed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. ~e~ Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45</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 2931222100 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 576226 Bytes Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah Legislative Delegation John Holmgren 4570 W. 5400 N. Bear River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be directed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 208.345.5310 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East 801.363.0200 P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 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 Lettter from Stanton S. Nuffer to Senator John Holmgren, dated July 25, 1986 Description An account of the resource Lettter from Stanton S. Nuffer, Project Manager for CH2M HILL, to Senator John Holmgren, regarding the impact study of Highway 89 in Logan Canyon, dated July 25, 1986. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource CH2M HILL Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 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 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States United States Highway 89 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, COLL MSS 133 Box 10, Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives 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 USU_MSS133Bx10_Item_2.pdf Highway 89 Impact studies Letters https://highway89.org/files/original/e858d6ab16d4da179f9e37a6d9a554a0.jpg 6669dc35e046289948c322d5161ec7d5 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2759 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3510 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 599936 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/27/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Levi's road sign in Sevier County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Sevier County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Sevier County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/23/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 151.18 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Sevier County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 8. Folder 5. Photo 2185. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959008005_2185_Levis.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/d42c02bea32d925083c3b949a99aaf82.jpg affcc63e5124a25f996b5e75a1eede59 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2771 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3354 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 579839 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi). Display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 3/27/2014 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 contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Lighthouse Electric road sign in Weber County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Weber County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Weber County)--Photographs Advertising--Utah--US 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/22/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 378.6 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 12. Folder 13. Photo 3152. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959012012_3152_LighthouseElectric.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/ce5224e45ec89c9970cfd3e51abe9a28.jpg 6a862197b6c3b6f4d8d348ad1260fbca Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State Archives and Records Service Physical Dimensions The actual physical size of the original image 4 inches x 5 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 2801 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3560 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1201613 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State Archives and Records Service using Epson GT-30000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (800 dpi); display file is JPEG 2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013-09-10 Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please contact the Utah State Archives History Research Center at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/index.html</a> 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 Lightning Cafe road sign in Garfield County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Garfield County as part of a project by the State Department of Highways to document Utah highways signs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah State Department of Highways Subject The topic of the resource Garfield County (Utah) United States Highway 89 Roads--Signs Advertising Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1965-12-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 055.55 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Garfield County (Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1965-1975 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State Archives and Records Service, Outdoor Advertising Sign Inventories, Series 959, Box 3. Folder 14. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State Archives and Records Service 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 Utah State Archives, phone (801) 533-3535. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 00959003014_LightningCafe.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/fab6d7cf4b2cd71ca42f77221eee32b2.jpg 764c02da61719632578946d0989a7432 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Salt Lake County Archives Conversion Specs Scanned by Salt Lake County Archives using Epson GT-15000 scanner, at 400 dpi. Display file is JPG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies or scans of this item, please contact Salt Lake County Archives at: http://admin.slco.org/archives/resFees.aspx 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 Loan Store at 3242-3244 South State Street in Salt Lake City, UT. Description An account of the resource Loan Store at 3242-3244 South State Street, built in 1910. Image taken on December 20, 1966. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Salt Lake County (Utah). Assessor's Office Subject The topic of the resource State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah)--History Tax Assessment-Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Black and white photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1966-12-20 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake County (Utah) State Street (Salt Lake City, Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Salt Lake County Archives, Tax Appraisal Cards and Photographs Collection. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://admin.slco.org/archives/resPHtaxAppraisalCards.aspx Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Salt Lake County Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource No copyright is held. Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is permissible. Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context SLCO_16-4917 Highway 89 Stores & Shops https://highway89.org/files/original/114953c298918ab459d2e38054d5e94b.jpg d7a455b6a854d6b856c81cc7bcdd6ec5 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/145">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/145</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lodge at Camp Lomia, summer home of the Boy Scouts, Logan Canyon, Utah (1 of 2) Description An account of the resource Cache National Forest, Boy Scout Summer Home (Camp Lomia), Logan Canyon, Right-Hand Fork. Black and white photograph (4 x 6 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States. Forest Service. Intermountain Region Subject The topic of the resource Camp Lomia (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Camp buildings--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Camp Lomia (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, US Forest Service Photograph Collection, P0378 1:01:18 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the US Forest Service Photograph Collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv38040">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv38040</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. US Forest Service Photograph Collection, P0378 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P037810118 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1922 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-04-05 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/a285212164092ff1726f89d97161e548.jpg f18d6b75a259e89859c2e2e7a9e03b1c Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/151">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/151</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lodge at Camp Lomia, summer home of the Boy Scouts, Logan Canyon, Utah (2 of 2) Description An account of the resource Cache National Forest, Lodge at Camp Lomia, Logan Canyon, Right-Hand Fork. Nov. 10 1922. Black and white photograph (4 x 6 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States. Forest Service. Intermountain Region Subject The topic of the resource Camp Lomia (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Camp buildings--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Camp Lomia (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, US Forest Service Photograph Collection, P0378 01:01:24 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the US Forest Service Photograph Collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv38040">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv38040</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. US Forest Service Photograph Collection, P0378 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P037810124 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. Nov. 10 1922 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1922-11-10 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/42632f82acf91e5a5570a746a20a7c07.pdf 671191b6196db839b079771a5c2a7f03 PDF Text Text J --~ ~~ ~~(~~ AND OAOHE V ALLEY UTAH "A Recreati on Paradise for Everyone" , ,g , " " ,, , lD n ", ,"• " " ,. ••• ••• ,• ,• lI<y<;.c""Y'" " . , " 4 " _ lol<. G,_ Sol , l ,,10.0 G--o l __ N ", ' I . y. II_""... 1'101'1. s .... V. lloy 1'10.'1. l ion 1'1"" ..... 1 ,O< ~ GI... C on ~ ... D_ O. G~C"" y ... 10 . 1100_. D_- l oo V_ DI_ . .... N .. ' I . ....... . ' 1! . lo<~y _,.;~ 1'101'1. I l . , .... or. ... f<>< .. , " . N"' .... I .. iag.. 0/ ,,," M_ .. " ".c"" .... .. �I YOU'LL I FEEL W~LCO in the "Town Desig ned fo r Living" • Beauti ful cap ito l of Northe rn Utah • Home of Utah Stot e Un ivers ity f=un ... FOR THE • • • • ENTIRE FAMILY Fis h in cr ystal clear Logan River. Black s mith F ork Rive r. and choo se fro m 9 dams a nd r eser voirs in the Valley . Swim in Bear Lak e, Hyrum Da m rec r eation area, or p ublic pool s. Boating and water- s kiing ar e great at Hy rum Dam, Bear Lake , and rese rvo irs within a close r adius. Ca mping or picni c ing Is abs olutely unsurpassed. • • Just a 5-minute drive from downtown Logan and you are in Logan Canyon - one of the most me morable 40 mUe drives in America. Hiking - climb to the Jardine Juniper - a 3,500 year old tree which was ancient at the time Christ was • born . Visit one of the high. snowfed lakes or follow one of the many mountain trails for a thousand thrilling panoramiC views from towering overshadowing cliffs. Then, too, there ' s golf I tennis, bowling . theatres. horseback riding, superb big game and small gam e hunting in season. �Q,p~ctacular Q,c~n~r!:l Regardless of your route of travel to get to Cache Valley your trip will be a memorably scenic one. Logan is In the center of Scenic America nestled nearly a mile high in the magnificent Rocky Mountains. 1 :;::,--'---"'''-=''',I'i R~f r~~hing MOUNTA IN C LI MATE The moment you arrive , you'll be aware of a surge of interest and energy - a natural result of Cach e Valley's perfect summer climate . Crisp, dry mountain air I brilliant sunshine , cold spa rkling streams. green forests and c anyons all consp ire to make your stay a pleasant one . Picture , of Cache viney fllmUbed by tn l h ST.,e Ualn rsily Summu School. Ullion Pa clflc, U.S. fore >! Se •• lee , and Mn Blu nson STudio. �j • IN THE HEART OF THE SCENIC ROCKY MOUNTAINS " ' f=or 1:he Kid~ , .. A~i Logan and nearly all the towns of the Valley .,/a . ~ :.; 1 \ have clean parks comI ; ,. plete with tables and benches, children's pl ay equipment, ball d iamonds and other recreational equipment. Incomparably beautiful Logan Canyon h as 42 camp grounds and picnic areas with tables , stoves , and pure piped-in water. Fishing the sparkling trout streams and hiking in the s pectacular canyon setting are especially interesting. Thing~ 1:0 ~ee: • L.D .S. Temple grounds. • World's largest Swiss cheese factory . • Utah State University. • Cache Vall ey Breeding Association, largest artificial insem ination organi zation in the West. • Condensed milk factori es. • Famous dairy herds. • L ad i es exclusive knitwear and re ady-to-wear factories . • Fa rm machinery manufacturing. • Mobile home manufacturing . • Enjoy shopping from we ll stocked s tores and the most accommodating sales personnel found anywhere. For additional information, write CACHE CHAMBER O F COMMERCE 360 North Main. Logan, Utah · Ph. S K2- 2161 Y our Comfort.. It's the first consideration at the 11 modern motels and hotel s in Logan. Rates are from $3 . 50 to $12.50 and accommodations for singl es t o famili es of a dozen. There are 20 excellent cafes , driveins, restaurants and coffee shops in Logan accorded Grade A fo r high sanitation standards and gener al excellence by the Board of Health. The Utah State Univers ity 's many new residence hall s a r e avail abl e when poss ible for large conventions. � 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 and Cache Valley promotional brochure, 1964 and 1965 Description An account of the resource Logan and Cache Valley promotional brochure from the Cache Chamber of Commerce, 1964 and 1965. Captioned "A Recreation Paradise for Everyone." Brochure includes local map, general information about Logan. Content headings include: town designed for living, spectacular scenery, refreshing mountain climate, for the kids, things to see, and your comfort. Subject The topic of the resource Tourism; Outdoor Recreation; Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Brochures; Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available J. P. Smith Printing Company; Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1964; 1965; Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah); Cache County (Utah); Utah; United States; 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, J.P. Smith Printing Company records, 1961 - 1989, COLL MSS 431 Box 6 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Collection inventory of the J.P. Smith Printing Company records, 1961 - 1989 please see: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv99395">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv99395</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights 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. 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 MSS0431Bx006Fd02.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/de63dd2d806f8fcd18e16990b8b4c5aa.pdf 74f54949964869108795d0a76fcd547c PDF Text Text I CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON JANUARY 1991 The Question of Logan Canyon .. .is not as big as acid rain, or ozone depletion, to be sure-but it might be an indicator. It can tell us how sincere we are, and how thorough, in our '90s leaning toward the land. Here is a deep, beautiful and winding canyon, gradually shallowing as it ascends into an open country of high meadows and ridge-top forests. For decades now this canyon has held a fairly modest two-lane road that winds eastward from Logan with the lay of the land, eventually crests a 7800-foot summit of the Wasatch Range, and then drops swiftly in switchbacks to Bear Lake. The whole forty miles, in any season, is a treat to the eye, because this is one of the few Wasatch Front river canyons where the road has not become the dominant feature of the landscape. It still looks like respected country. -- Tom Lyon Logan Canyon: Here and Now For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider, straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961, five miles of the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more-up to the Right Hand Fork. But then came the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and the road straighteners no longer have a perfectly free hand. Now they have to justify their plans, and discuss alternatives, and now we too have a say in what happens. Under the requirements of NEPA, the l.Jtah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been researching the environmental impacts of different construction plans. After several years and the expenditure of over three quarters of a million dollars, they've come up with a draft study that doesn't specify a "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the view of many, has been marked by slipshod· procedures, insufficient data, and lack of consideration for the environment. Now it is up to those of us who care about the beauty and intactness of Logan Canyon to come forward and make a stand. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have made their own study of the canyon and have prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, which is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We urge you to give the Conservationists' Alternative your careful examination, to write a letter, and to make a statement at the public meeting on the DEIS. You can make a difference! �The Conservationists' Alternative The goal of this alternative is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a highway that moves the greatest number of people through the canyon at the highest rate of speed. The Conservationists' Alternative meets this goal, but it is not a do-nothing alternative. Current roadway width and alignment would be maintained throughout the canyon, with the following exceptions: • Bridges and culverts replaced and widened to 28 feet, with all but Lower Twin Bridges kept on the existing alignment. • Turning lanes constructed at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver Mountain Ski Area. • Climbing lanes constructed above Red Banks Campground, below the state sheds, and in the Sinks area, but not at the Dugway. • Increased traffic law enforcement. • Slow vehicle turnouts and multipurpose parking constructed at several locations. • Roadbed raised near Logan Cave and in several other locations to avoid spring flooding. WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ALTERNATIVE What Can You Do to Help Protect Logan Canyon? Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Write a letter expressing your concerns. Speak out at the public meeting in Logan. Writing a Letter is as Easy as One, Two, Three First: Introduce yourself. Mention why you are concerned about Logan Canyon and experiences you have had there. Second: Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Also point out problems in the DEIS. You can refer to the above lists for details; or write to us for more information. Third: Put your return address on the letter, sign it, and date it. Send your letter to: James Naegle Utah Dept. of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 To get a copy of the DEIS, call: James Naegle (801) 965-4160 Letters must be mailed by Fe~ruary 1, 1991. Letter-writing workshops will be held at A Book Store, 130 North 100 East, Logan 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, January 3; Monday, January 7; and Thursday, January 10. Despite what some say, the road builders do "count votes." So speak out! �Other Alternatives Considered in the DEIS After careful study, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon concluded that these alternatives would compromise safety, destroy the canyon's unique environment, or both. These alternatives include: • "Standard Arterial" - The widest, straightest, highest-speed alternative. With wide shoulders and "recovery areas" adjacent to the road, well over twice as much land would be disturbed as at present. Large cuts would scar hillsides, and the road would intrude into the river. • "Modified Standard" - Identical to the Standard Arterial, except the roadway width would be somewhat less in the narrow and scenic middle section of Logan Canyon. There would be fewer cuts than under the Standard Arterial. • "Composite Alternative" - A combination of the Standard and Modified Alternatives. It is a late addition to the list of alternatives and retains many severe environmental impacts, such as a climbing lane at the Dugway. It would also have more adverse effects on streams in the upper part of the canyon. • "Spot Improvement" - Road width would not change; however, hillsides would be cut to straighten curves, and climbing and turning lanes would be built in environmentally sensitive areas. • "No Action" - NEPA requires agencies to consider this alternative in a DEIS. There are legitimate construction needs in Logan Canyon, however, so ....- - - - - - - - - - -.. conservationists have not supported this alternative. Shaded area shows one of the highway cuts proposed under several of the alternatives. Unfortunately, these alternatives and the DEIS itself have some serious flaws, including: • Disturbance of the river and loss of riparian habitats are not adequately addressed. • Impacts on wildlife, especially fish, nongame species, and the threatened Maguire's Primrose, are weakly treated. • Disposal of rubble, many thousands of cubic yards under some alternatives, is ignored. • Greater accident frequency or severity is possible with increased speeds under some alternatives; this possibility is not addressed. • Site-specific impacts are addressed vaguely; mitigation is put off until the "design phase" which is some unspecified time in the future. • Worst-case traffic projections are used to justify major modifications to the highway, yet Logan Canyon is often only lightly travelled. • The safety record for Logan Canyon is not compared with similar mountain roads; yet safety is a major concern and is the rationale for some construction. • Logan Canyon is nationally renowned for its scenery, and has been designated a Scenic Byway, yet this prominence is not discussed. Logan Canyon Cannot Speak for Itself But you can speak for Logan Canyon. A public hearing on Logan Canyon is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 1991, at the Mt. Logan Middle School Auditorium, 875 N. 200 East, Logan. If you plan to speak, you will need to arrive early to sign up if required. The points that apply to letter writing also apply to your spoken comment. It is likely that thetime allotted to each speaker will be about five minutes, so please prepare your comments accordingly. IT you can both speak at the hearing and write a letter, do both. Even if you do not plan to speak, please attend the hearing to show your support for Logan Canyon. Printed on recycled paper Photos by Scott T. Smith �"Improvement makes straight roads; but the crooked roads, without improvement, are roads of genius." -- William Blake LOGAN CANYON is at risk. LOGAN CANYON needs you. Bulk Rate U.S. Po tage PAID Logan, Utah Permit No. 104 A.. P.O. Box 3501 Logan, Utah 84321 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/137">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/137</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2378621560 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4437341 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Logan Canyon Bulletin, January 1991 Description An account of the resource Encouraging citizens to write to James Naegle requesting copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement and support the protection of Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lyon, Thomas J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Naegle, James Smith, Scott T. (photographer) Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_2.pdf Highway 89; 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/95c76aee566a1526be638b3a5d6d9ddc.pdf b8ec6eb75529d43b3121fa89004e367e PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY: DISTRICT 1 OFFICIALS: GAR'( LINDLEY DYKE LEFEVRE LES ABBEY THE, UDOT IMPORTANT NAMES , '. UDOT DIS'TRICT , # '1 128 17TH STREET OGDEN, UT ,84404 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM: STAT~ OF,FICE BUILDING SALT LAKE CITy,UT , ' GENE STURZNEGGER, LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ALSO ADVISER TO DISTRICT 1 . SHERMAN JENSEN, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL STUDIES ALSO CO-ORDINATOR FOR THE UTAH HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL (SEE B~LOW) J. Q. ADAIR, ROADWAY DESIGN JIM BRADEN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIR~CTOR LESTER JESTER, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HOWARD LATHAM, PLANNING A~DPROGRAMMING SHELDON 'MCCONKIEiPRE-CONSTRUCTION ' RICHARD ' RoBERTS, FISCAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING , THE UTAH HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: HARRY TULLIS, OGDEN, STEVE LAWSON, OGDEN DAVID LLOYD, SLC JANET MINDEN, SLC LARRELL MUIR, MURRAY BERTRAM HARRISON, PROVO JOHN BONNETT, AMI FORK HAL CLYDE, SPRINGVLLLE BATES~~ILSON, 'MOAB FEDERAL HIGH\1AYADMINISTRATION: ' 127 S STATE, SLC GEORGE BOHN '; DIVI S'lON ADMI 'NI S 'TRATOR � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/106">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/106</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3530602949 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 493264 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Logan Canyon highway: Important names Description An account of the resource List of district officals, UDOT managment team, Utah highway environmental council, and Federal Highway Administration. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) United States Highway 89 Government agencies Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/a2b04583817f1dfd842859c2794d84e7.pdf 737b249bd48ec39dae48c0e76df80acb PDF Text Text - II , - - - --- - --- -- ... - - - - -- - � 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/31">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/31</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 846876083 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 575677 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 interdisciplinary team attendance sheet Description An account of the resource Lined notebook paper with a list of those attending of the interdisciplinary team. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970-1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 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_Fd1_Item_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/683aee359c947c5c245fd895b301f5db.jpg 7de65c69b37d9ae4ca871ed67b3d4e58 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Modified by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/index.php</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/319">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/319</a> 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 National Scenic Byway - U.S. Hwy. 89 Description An account of the resource Modified map of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, Utah, from Logan, Utah, to Bear Lake, Utah, and Idaho. Taken from Cache Valley Visitors Bureau's pamphlet entitled "Guide to Logan Canyon: national scenic byway." Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cache Valley Visitor's Bureau Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Maps United States Highway 89--Maps Scenic byways--Utah--Logan Canyon--Maps Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Tourist maps Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 2000-2009 21st 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 Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives 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 Cache Valley Visitors Bureau, (435) 755-1890 or 1-800-882-4433 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Logan Canyon Land Use Management Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context LoganCanyonMap Highway 89; Maps; https://highway89.org/files/original/993bcca0830449a0c737649a3f49ab5b.tiff e60067b8b7feb22d15c0651e10a088a2 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/319">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/319</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Modified by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-09 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 National Scenic Byway - U.S. Hwy. 89 Description An account of the resource Modified map of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, Utah, from Logan, Utah, to Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho. Taken from Cache Valley Visitors Bureau's pamphlet entitled "Guide to Logan Canyon : national scenic byway." Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cache Valley Visitors Bureau Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Maps United States Highway 89--Maps Scenic byways--Utah--Logan Canyon--Maps Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Tourist maps Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 2010-2019 21st century Language A language of the resource eng 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 Cache Valley Visitors Bureau, (435) 755-1890 or 1-800-882-4433 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context LoganCanyonMap Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2011 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-07-03 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections