27 50 1396 https://highway89.org/files/original/7a2e36e589e88098db42411a627f9d3f.jpg f463209b2bdc8537f62502cc233a3220 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 Utah Concrete Pipe Co. at 1212 South State Street in Salt Lake City, UT. Description An account of the resource Utah Concrete Pipe Co. at 1212 South State Street, built in 1939. Image taken on April 10, 1940. 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 1940-04-10 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. 1940-1949 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_8-2479a.jpg Concrete products industry Highway 89 https://highway89.org/files/original/190a0ff46b01cc7effd6c1be026bd577.jpg 07905686a2a98809ea2fd08202518a2b 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 2422 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3675 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 959972 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 Utah Industrial Promotion Board 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 12/9/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 358.150 (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 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 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 00959002014_91-31_UtahIndustrialPromotion.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/c44c4cac3b2ee71948e80f3eb95626cd.jpg d1ceaeeaf4186bbc429d8b0097c0f380 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/199">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/199</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 Utah Power and Light Co.'s power plant at mouth of Logan Canyon, Cache Co., Utah, 6/19/13 Description An account of the resource Utah Power and Light plant at mouth of Logan Canyon - formerly Telluride Power. Black and white photograph (6 x 12 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Power-plants--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Utah Power &amp Light Company--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. 2010-2019 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, Historical Photoboard Collection, A-3951 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 A3951 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 19-Jun-13 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1913-06-19 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/5a939e94823d892079e889d2018a726a.jpg ff6089f9dfdaa11c2c4c293705c334cf 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 Utah State Liquor Store at 5134 South State Street in Murray, UT. Description An account of the resource Utah State Liquor Store at 5134 South State Street, built in 1961. Image taken on February 27, 1962. 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 1962-02-27 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_21-1474-78b Highway 89 Liquor Stores Stores & Shops https://highway89.org/files/original/80cd7c2542b1751f5c911972603737ef.jpg b84ced58b8002e1da6de731225982467 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 3544 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2767 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 5 inches x 4 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 3544 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2767 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 933299 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. 3/4/2014 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 Utah State University road sign in Cache County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Cache 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 (Cache 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 15.85 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Cache 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 1. Folder 14. Photo 1040. 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 00959001014_1040_UtahStateUniversity.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/523faf9a93af3eb93bcb17beb21022b3.pdf f47e63aa91e8caae6bcb28ecc74052e2 PDF Text Text MAY 1986 · THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION ~BLM I ~ "l Your testi ony is crucial to the future of Utah wild lands Utah wilderness supporters will get their first opportunity to comment on the Bureau of Land Management's statewide draft environmental impact statement May 7 in Vernal and three other communities as the public hearings on the document begin. The agency will cram 16 public hearings into five days in May, ending with two in Salt Lake City on May 15 (see full schedule in box below). ) \ Is tt worth your time to speak at one or more of the hearings? Absolutely ... if you care about protecting Utah's outstanding desert and canyon wildlands. Maggie Fox, Southwest regional representative for the Sierra Club, calls testimony at the hearings ~the most important conservation activity you can undertake this year. ~ "If you have time for only one conservation commitment this year, the wilderness hearings should be it," she added. The BLM is required by law to hold public hearings on the wilderness proposal embodied in its massive draft environmental continued to page 8 Hearing schedule (Unless otherwise noted. all hearing begin at 7 p.m.) May 7, 1986 Tooele Tooele County Courthouse Commissioners' Chambers. Third Floor 47 South Main Street Kane County Courthouse 70 North Main Street Moab Grand County Community Center (Old Legion Building) 500 East lOON orth Ogden Roland Perry Choral Room Browning Performing Arts Center Weber State College 3750 Harrison Blvd. Cedar City BLM District Office 1579 North Main Street Loa Community Center One block west of the courthouse Price Carbon County Courthouse 200 East Main Street Logan Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium 45 East 200 North St. George Washmgton County Administrative BUIlding 197 East Tabernacle Delta HIgh School Auditorium 50 South 300 North Castledale (2 pm and 7 pm) High School Auditorium Kanab May 15, 1986 High School Lunchroom 70 North First West Monticello May 14, 1986 Utah County Building, Courtroom 310 51 South University Ave. Escalante May 13, 1986 BLM District Office, Conference Room 170 South 500 East Provo May 8, 1986 Vernal Emery County Courthouse Salt Lake City The Salt Palace Suite E 100 South West 1 emple tliin'Wirrorri;-tl'-H'.i&r.rlai:V 10 pari proposal. There are over 100 miles of canyons such as this one in the White Canyon complex. Narrow, winding canyons cut through the same formation [hat occurs in adjacent Natural Bridges Natural Park. The BLM dropped most of the White Canyon complex in the inventory and is recommending none of [he remainder for wilderness. v\yc~WJJ~f:O~~Ml~'~~t~Qh'~"~ wi~ Faced an appeal by the Utah Wilderness Coalition, the Utah Bureau of Land Management has agreed to restore the original boundary of the Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills Wilderness Study Area and to undertake "reasonable" reclamation efforts to restore an area illegally chained on the mountain. Jim Catlin, conservation chairman for the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, who wrvte the appeal on behalf of the Coalition. heralded the decision as a major victory for Utah conservationists. "It was especially good to win this one because of the way Mt. Ellen has been treated throughout the wilderness study process." said Catlin. "The treatment of Mt. Ellen may stand as the worst violation of interim management policy on BLM wildlands anywhere in the country. In addition to the chaining. the Bureau has allowed the Exxon drill rig and its six miles of new road. a trespass road near Mt. Ellen's summit, and a reservoir within the wilderness study area. And much of the land on Mt. Ellen that enjoys wilderness study status is only there because of conservationists' appeals." The chaining occurred in 1984 when the bureau contracted for the removal of pinyon juniper forest on Mt. Ellen's western slopes in the Henry Mountains of central Utah. Two bulldozers linked by heavy chain ripped through the forest. 300 acres of it within the published boundary of the 8L726-acre wilderness study area (WSA). continued to page 3 �2 THE UTAH" lOER ESS COALIT ION MAY 1 UWC wilderness and Utah's parks parts of a whole b} Terri Martin The l tah \\ ildernel>~ Coalition's 5 million-acre "ilderne!lll proposal renecb another theme: enhancement and protection of l tah's national parks. By designating orne I.e) areas adjacent to the parks a~ "ilderness the l ' \\ C proposals "ould remedy the arbitrariness of important park boundaries and better protect the natural and scenic \alues of ecOS) stems and vie,,sheds integral to our parks. Ho\\ often have you thought. as you gaJed across Utah's canyon country. that mmt of southern Utah could have been set aside as one huge national park? That many other state. almost any chunk of this "ordinar)" BLM land would probablj be a national park? Bndges l'.atlonal Monument. Too often, of course. those arbitrar) boundaries disregarded Imponant park-quality values on adjacent lands. The result? Areas with outstanding scenic, hIstone and natural values were excluded from Utah's parks and remain vulnerable. And many of those adjacent areas possess high wilderness values as well. The BLM wilderness review gives us another chance to speak out for protection of areas like these before it is too late. Some key wilderness areas adjacent to our parks include the following: Zion UWC wilderness proposals abut Zion National Park on all sides. Protection of these areas would enhance the park's ecological, recreation and scenic values. Southern Utah's canyon country is clearly Id wor class" - a unique and unparalleled Iand cape. And while pieces of this superlame regIOn have been preserved as national Parunuweap Canyon parks, crucial areas integral to the parks Parunuweap is increasingly popular for its superlative hiking opportunities. The were excluded in drawing their boundaries. Unfortunately, the boundaries of our UWCs Parunuweap proposal includes the natIonal parks were too often the result of upper half of Parunuweap Canyon, a deep arbitrary political compromises or timid canyon carved by the East Fork of the vision. Crucial areas were sometimes exVirgin River through Navajo sandstone. c1uded because of specUlation about potenThe lower portion of Parunuweap Canyon tial resource conflicts - fear that inclusion lies within the park, and protection of the WIthin a park would lock up the land, upper Parunuweap is critical to the longbarnng possible future development. Other term preservation of park water quality and park boundaries were drawn narrowly to recreational values. protect only specific scenic features _ the The BLM Wilderness DEIS admits that pmnacles at Bryce, the Waterpocket Fold at ~scenic values here are equivalent to those Capitol Reef, the rock ~bridges" at Natural present in the national park." The BLM calls }-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ I can't BEAR to be without my UWC T-Shirt!! - the hike through Parunuweap "superlauve backpacking quality." The Washington County Water Conservancy District. however. has proposed a 35,000-acre reservoir on the East Fork within the Parunuweap WSA. The dam would be located near Zion's boundary and back water up to 3 to 4 miles into the heart of the Parunuweap wilderness proposal. pines and salmon colored spIres that are in the national park Box Canyon forms an integral road less unit with Bryce Canyon. The unit contains many of the unique erosional features found in the park itself. Canaan Mountain Capitol Reef National Park was set aside primarily to protect the Waterpocket Fold - a 60-mile-long uplift of sandstone cliffs with highly colored sedimentary formations. Protection of and in the UWCs wilderness proposals next to Capitol Reef would greatly enhance park values by assuring protection of scenic views, adjacent watersheds and roadless areas. Immediately south of - and contiguous to - Zion National Park, Canaan Mountain is a spectacular plateau towering 2000 feet above the surrounding desert. I ts rugged slickrock plateau top is broken with pinnacles, cones, scours and natural arches and is partially covered with scattered stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Canaan Mountain offers impressive panoramic views of Zion National Park, the Pine Valley Mountains (designated forest wilderness), and the Pink Cliffs. Bryce UWC is proposing wilderness designation for 3 areas which would enhance the natural, scenic and recreational values of Bryce Canyon. BLM dropped all of these areas during its inventory process. Squaw and Willis Creek Visitors to Bryce Canyon's popular overlooks view the pinyon-juniper covered benchlands of the UWCs 21,OOO-acre Squaw and Willis Creek proposal when they look beyond the park's famed pinnacles and spires. Wilderness protection of this area would help assure protection of Bryce's scenic viewshed. Similarly, protection of the area's slickrock canyons and pinyon-juniper bench lands would significantly expand hiking and camping opportunities available to Bryce visitors. Conservationists also promote the expansion of the park to include the narrow strip of Forest Service lands which lie between Bryce and the Squaw-Willis Creek area. Capitol Reef Mt. Pennel The UWCs 143,OOO-acre Mt. Pennel proposal abuts Capitol Reefs eastern boundary for around 15 miles and comprises a major portion of the scenic panorama viewed by visitors to the park's impressive Strike Valley overlook. Wilderness protection would help to assure that coal strip mining --once proposed for Swap Mesa and Cave Flat - does not occur and scar this vista with the sights of industrial development. The BLM has recommended none of its 74,300-acre WSA for wilderness. Fremont Gorge The rolling benches and sandstone cliffs in the UWCs l8,OOO-acre Fremont Gorge wilderness proposal are a natural continuation of geologic features in Capitol Reef National park. The area also includes many deep, narrow canyons which drain into the Fremont River as well as four miles of the Fremont River Gorge itself. Colorful rock walls and seasonal waterfalls create high quality day hiking opportunities convenient to the Capitol Reef campground. Colt Mesa The UWCs 24,OOO-acre Colt Mesa proposal includes Deep Point, a small heartshaped mesa which extends westward from East-or-Bryce and Box Canyon the south end of Capitol Reefs Waterpocket East-of-Bryce is a small -- 887 acres F old. The mesa provides a bird's eye view of but logical extension of Bryce Canyon the park's amazing geologic features . It was National Park, located northwest of Tropic. probably only excluded from the park itself It features the same towering ponderosa • because of the congressional preference for straight-line boundaries. continued to page 7 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION Legend on Reverse: 5 Million Acres of BLM Wilderness! 100% Cotton Color: Sand o XL (4648) 0 L (42-44) 0 M (38-40) 0 S (34-36) $11-50 (Includes postage and handling) ·ame ___________________________________________________________ ddr~s ______________________________________________________ Clly ________________________________ State ____________ Zip ________ Make Check To: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O . Box 11446 alt Lake City, Utah 84147 Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands The Ulah Wilderness News is a publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition - 18 com.ervation organizations united in support of a proposal to designate 5 million acres of Utah BLM. wilderness: The News will appear once each month during the comment period on the BLM s draft envIronmental Impact statement and as often thereafter as needed in pursuit of the Coalition's goal. or information. contact the Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84147. or phone 801-363-9621. Escalante Wilderness Commitee Wasatch Mountain Club Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Utntah Mountain Club Slickrock Country Council The WIlderness Sociely Sierra Club National Parks and Conservation As>ociation hiends of the Eanh Defenders of Wildlife Four Corners' Wilderness Workshop Friends of the River. Colorado Plaleau Arizona Wilderness Coalition Colorado Environmental Coalition Arizona Whitewater Association Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalition Desen Tonoise Council (supporting wilderness designation in Joshua Tree and Beaver Dam Wash Areas) rundtng for The Coah(lon Ne ....1 I~ provided in pan by RecreatIonal Equipment Inc. (REI). 1124 Brtckyard Road . Salt Lake City. tah 84106 �MAY 1986 Utahns oppose Burr Trail boondoggle by Kris Dangerfield In a whirlwind of activity in Washington April 7-10, Utah conservationists lobbied against Sen. Jake Garn's plans to pave the Burr Trail, a 66-mile dirt road from Boulder, Utah, to Bull Frog Marina on the shores of Lake Powell. The week-long lobbying effort culminated in testimony before Sen. Malcolm Wallop's Public Lands Subcommittee. Proponents of the bill claim that paving 9.5 miles of the road and gravelling the rest as Sen. Garn proposes would substantially increase tourism in the area and would link all five Utah national parks with the Lake Powell ferry boat system in the Glen Canyon National Recreation area. Utah conservationists disagree, opposing the bill over these critical major points: • The paving plan would damage the outstanding scenic, recreational and wilderness values of the area which draw The descent into Long Canyon along the Burr Trail, one ofseveral places that various proposals call for paving. Utah conservationists favor a minimum improvement alternative at a fraction of the cost of paving. people who want to preserve the rural character of the road and its somewhat different "get away from it all experience;" • Paving and gravelling are unnecessary. The Burr Trail is now a graded, twowheel-<irive road easily driven in passenger cars; the road is passable year-round except for 10 or so days a year during periods of heavy rain or snow. Plus, there are paved, highly scenic alternative routes to Bull Frog, the new Boulder Mountain road among them; • The Burr Trail cannot be paved without altering the existing horizontal and vertical alignment. To accommodate tour buses, as the Gam bill provides, the road would have to be widened from its present 12 to 16 feet to 24 to 30 feet. Major cuts and fills would be required in the scenic and sensitive switchbacks portion of the road through the Waterpocket Fold in Capitol Reef National Park; • The costs of paving and gravelling, as well as an estimated $435,000 for annual maintenance and operation afterwards, are excessive and unjustifiable, particularly in the face of the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act which is already taking its toll on established Utah parks. Those budget cuts have forced reductions in staff, services and operating hours for Utah parks and visitor centers; • Despite the fact that supporters of the bill claim that only a handful of environmentalists is blocking the bill, the facts show that a majority of people in Utah oppose paving the Burr Trail. The Deseret News/ KSL poll showed that 53 percent of those polled who knew of the Burr Trail opposed paving it. And editorials in Utah's three major daily newspapers have spoken against paving; and, • There are serious flaws in the bill as drafted. The legislation does not address the original concerns - many also cited by the National Park Service - the conservationists raised in their opposition to paving. Among them are cultural resources, habitat for the endangered peregrine falcon, the existence of two wilderness study areas adjacent to the road, the long-term impact of roadside development on the seven state sections that adjoin the road, the use of the road for commercial hauling and increased use of the backcountry with no increased protection. Much of the bill's intent would be accomplished not through the language of the bill itself but through a contract between the National Park Service and the State of Utah. That contract exists now only in draft form and some of the major provisions have not been drafted at all. Among them is a so-called "reverter clause" that would give the road back to the State of Utah if the Park Service C:id not maintain it. One of the most troubling features of the contract approach, according to Maggie Fox of the Sierra Club, is the fact that if the Congress passes a Garn bill incorporating a contract that may not yet exist, the public is denied any opportunity to participate in the process. The Utah group voiced precisely those concerns in visits with National Park Service Director William Penn Mott after the Senate hearings. Mott firmly reiterated his view that the road must follow the existing alignment and meet other standards he set out in his proposal of last fall or, "We won't sign the contract." Conservationists told the subcommittee that the Park Service estimates the true cost of doing what Sen. Gam wants done on the Burr Trail will be around $16.4 million. (That compares to the present annual operating budget for Utah's 13 existing park system units of only $11 million.) Sen. Gam's bill would authorize the expenditure of $7.7 million the Congress conditionally approved late last year, leaving the fiscally strapped State of Utah to come up with roughly another $6 million in addition to the $3.1 million it has already scraped together for the Burr Trail paving scheme. The Utah conservationists also visited a number of senators and representatives to explain their views on the Burr Trail issue and to seek help in defeating the measure. The testimony and the personal meetings Burr Trail story used without author's okay The article on the Burr Trail in our April issue was written by Ruth Frear, Salt Lake City, for Sierra Magazine. It was used. due to a misunderstanding, without her permission. We apologize to Ms. Frear for any inconvenience we may have caused her and thank her for her understanding in this matter. accomplished two very important things, said Del Smith, Springdale, associate director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). "First, the extensive conflicts with the language in the bill and the draft contract, the environmental costs and the real costs to the people of Utah were added to the Senate record. Second, our testimony and our discussions give to members of Congress who are serious about balanced budgets and environmental common sense a stronger footing from which to oppose the measure." Others involved in the hearings were Clive Kincaid, Boulder, Utah, director ofSUW A; Dale Dockstader, Rockville; Christine Swanson, Boulder and Salt Lake City; Clay Puckett, Orem; and Tom Messenger, Arlington, Va., a frequent visitor to Utah. Also, Terri Martin, Salt Lake City, Rocky Mountain Regional Representative for the National Parks and Conservation Assn.; Darrell Knuffke, Denver, and Regional Director for The Wilderness Society; and Maggie Fox, Southwest Regional Representative for the Sierra Club. Kris Dangerfield is ajournalist who lives in Springdale. She also testified in the Burr Trail hearing. THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION BlM backs off - Mt. Ellen win • • • continued from cover Chaining is a common practice on public lands as a way to allegedly increase grazing for domestic livestock. Such activities, though, are illegal under the BLM's Interim Management Policy (I M P), regulations that are meant to ensure that the agency manages wilderness study lands in ways that do not impair their wilderness values. After conservationists, including members of the Utah Wilderness Coalition, protested the action, the agency announced in August 1985 that it was modifying the WSA boundary to remove the bulldozed area, suggesting that it was only correcting a "clerical error~ and that the ravaged land was never part of the WSA. The Coalition appealed both the chaining and the boundary change to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), asking that the 300 chained acres be reclaimed and restored to the WSA. The IBLA notified Catlin on April 17 that it has dismissed the case because the BLM has agreed to the Coalition's requests. DISCOVER THE BEST OF UTAH IN THE UTAH GEOGRAPHIC SERIES BEAUTIFUL COLOR BOOKS ABOUT UTAH... Canyon country, mountain ranges, skiing, wildlife, rivers, deserts, pioneer trails and people-all are featured as separate titles i? t?e new Utah Geographic Series! Each title contains 120 pages of authontatlve text and approximately 175 color photographs by the West's finest photographers. UTAH CANYON COUNTRY, the first volume in the series, is now available. Written by Moab author F.A. Barnes with a foreword by Ted Wilson, UTAH CANYON COUNTRY is a comprehenSive portrayal of the unparalleled country of southeastern Utah. Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands ........................................................... : : TO ORDER UTAH CANYON COUNTR Y, : send $14.95 plus 51.80 for sales tax and postage (S\6.75 per book) to: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O . Box 11446. Suit Lake City. Uta h 84147 Address . " Zip : ~'~"',... .. , . . ..... . , ... ... SLue , . . . ...... .. . .. . .. . .. ... ....... .. . .. . 3 �4 THE UTAH WILDER NESS CO ALI TION MAY 1986 In Defense of Five Million Acres The Coalition's Proposal in Brief In this issue we summarize our wilderness proposals in the Zion-H ot Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah. We give a synopsis of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as national parks, a description of some of the remarkable features, an~ t~e BLM's rationale for its recommendation. This is the third part of the senes m Utah WiJderne5S News describing the Coalition's 141-area, five-million-acre BLM wilderness proposal. (Note: Map areas in black are BLM's recommendation; grey areas are the UWCs proposal.) Cougar Canyon Zion and Hot Desert ' The BLM gives no reasons for their nonwilderness recommendations in their EIS. (Mojave) Region Why! Perhaps because their proposal is so Southwestern Utah i'i a mosaic of diversity: the upper Sonoran desert meets the Great Basin and the canyonlands of Utah's Colorado Plateau. Here, ponderosa forests nest in coral pink sand dunes. Clear mountain streams descend through rugged cougar country. Many of the important wilderness candidates are logical parts of Utah's most vi'iited National Park, Zion. Bear Trap ZIO N and HOT D ESERT R E GION Existing WSA Unit Na me Beartrap Canyon Beaver Dam Wash Black Ridge Canaan Mountain Cottonwood Canyon Cougar Canyon & Doc's Pass Deep Creek Goose Creek Canyon J os hua Tree Nat. Area La Verkin Creek Canyon Moquith Mountain ;-'; orth Fork Virgin River Orderville Ca nyon Parunuweap Canyon Red M ountain Red Butte S hunesburg Spring Ca nyon Taylor Creek Canyon T he Watchma n Ka na b Creek Totals 40 0 0 53,600 11 ,330 23,768 3,320 89 1,040 567 14,830 1.040 1,750 30.800 18,250 804 0 4,433 35 600 0 166,296 Ut a h W ild ern ess Coalition P ro posal BLM D E IS Pro posal 40 0 0 32,800 9,853 0 3,320 89 0 567 0 1,040 1,750 14,100 17,450 804 0 4,433 35 600 0 86,881 40 38,221 12,500 62,400 11 ,000 28,600 7,070 89 13,500 567 14,830 1,040 1,750 30,800 18,000 804 80 4,433 35 160 25,750 271,669 ZION & MOJAVE DESERT REGION T he head of Bear Trap Canyon just lies outside of the Kolob part of Zion National Park. Secretary Watt dropped this area from wilderness study, but legal action by members of the Utah Wilderness Coalition forced the BLM to reinstate it. This small40-acre area is now supported by the BLM for wilderness designation. Deeply incised and capped with pine forests, Bear Trap Canyon warrants a visit. Beaver Dam Wash This large 38,22I-acre area laps into Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. A large part of the desert tortoise popUlation depends on the Beaver Dam Slopes which form most of this wilderness proposal. Brigham Young University conducts scientific studies and education programs within this area. BLM dropped this area from wilderness study without publicly giving any reason. The Coalition proposal deletes the few developments in this area; no known conflicts block wilderness designation. Black Ridge La Verkin Creek exits from the Kolob part of Zion National Park through this road less area - a popular route into the park. The black volcanic mesa to the west of LaVerkin Creek forms the rugged Black Ridge. Incredibly, the BLM dropped this area from wilderness review, claiming that neither hiking the ridgetop nor sightseeing and photography of the scenic geological features such as the adjacent Zion National Park "are individually of outstanding quality." Canaan Mountain L aVer kin Creek LOCATION MAP T ay lor Can y o n Spr in g Ca n yon Red Mounta in Black Ridg Cre ek . Virgin River rderville C. -- Cottonwood Canyon S hu nesburg Joshua T r e N at ural A rea Cr e ek Long protected from off-road vehicle use, Canaan Mountain abuts the southwest side of Zion National Park and the north side of Colorado City, Utah. The masthead of the Utah Wilderness News is an 1872 drawing of this mountain by W .H. Holmes from Dutton's classic Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District. Although BLM supports the core for wilderness, sigrtificant parts of the cliff base, including those just south of Rockville at the mouth of Zion Canyon, are not recommended. Access is limited to just a few routes to the top. The views of the Arizona Strip and Zion Park from this area are superlative. Pa runuweap C ana an M oun tain Public comments ('ount! BLM now supports this area for wilderness designation because of your comments. Exposed Navajo Sandstone canyons lie northeast of St. George, Utah on the south slopes of the Pine Valley Mountains. Hiking access via the Red Cliffs Recreation Area is popular. Drilling wells for water poses a conflict with a few acres on the south side of the area. Protection of sensitive wildlife species including the gila monster and chuckwalla make wilderness designation needed. Several thousand acres of adjacent National Forest road less lands need consideration in the DEIS. hard to defend: witness Cougar Canyon, where clear streams flow into Nevada's Beaver Dam State Park. BLM states that the area has "extremely narrow and dense riparian zones that are practically inaccessible." Earlier, BLM argued the area was too rugged to be a wilderness area! No conflicts exist in this area. The Coalition proposal includes the Forest Service part of this area near Pine Park on the north, a good starting point for hikes. Deep Creek Hiking up the one of Zion's deeper canyons, you reach the unmarked boundary of the National Park and wonder why the park doesn't continue for another ten miles? Access from outside Zion is from the Lava Point area northeast of the park. The BLM proposal includes only the lower half of Deep Creek: the upper half was dropped in order to put in a developed mechanized recreation facility. The Coalition proposal includes that upper part of the canyon to preclude such unwarranted uses. Goose Creek Canyon Tucked against a comer of Zion National Park, this 89-acre area is recommended by BLM for wilderness designation. To their credit, the BLM is also trying to acquire nearby land on Kolob Creek. Goose Creek Canyon was dropped by Secretary Watt from wilderness study but was reinstated by our legal efforts. BLM states, "Mountain lion activity in the vicinity is heavy. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources considers mountain lion herd 58 (which includes this WSA) as the state's best kill record for cougar hunting." Joshua Tree Natural Area You won't fmd Joshua Tree Natural Area or the surrounding 12,460-acre roadless area mentioned in the Utah DEIS. The BLM recommended against wilderness for this area without environmental review or a chance for the public to comment. In addition to one of the most remarkable Joshua tree communities, this area is critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The BLM dropped a majority of the area from wilderness study by exaggerating the sigrtificance of a few impacts on the edge of the area The Coalition redrew the boundary excluding those impacts. LaVerkin Creek Canyon One of the special canyons in the Kolob (northeast) section of Zion National Park is upper LaVerkin Creek. The BLM recommends adding 1.5 miles of the upper canyon to the Zion Park wilderness proposal. Douglas fIr, white fIr, aspen and juniper grace the tops of the nearly vertical 900-foot-high canyon walls. Moquith Mountain West of Kanab, Utah, and southwest of Zion National Park, Moquith Mountain abuts Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Reserve. Several deep canyons incise the Verrnillion Cliffs offering hanging gardens and archeological ruins. The most amazing value is the pockets of ponderosa pine nested in sand dunes, a unique biologic community containing endangered plants. The BLM recommends nonwilderness, leaving the area open to jeeps and motorbikes. �MAY 1986 TH E UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION CANYONLANDS REGION Existing WSA Unit Name heir ns. I so Ion, aa's Ithe hse ces- t~~ ~ mg n 0 12,635 0 54,290 22,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,870 59,300 Beaver Creek Behind the Rocks Hunter Canyon Black Ridge Butler Wash Fisher Towers Goldbar Canyon Goose Neck, NOIth & South Granite Creek Hatch Wash Harts Point Indian Creek Labyrinth Canyon & Horseshoe Canyon Duma Point Spring Canyon Point Hell & Roaring Canyon Lost Spring Canyon Mill Creek Negro Bill Canyon Six Shooter Peaks Little Bridger Jack Bridger Jack Mesa Shaffer Canyon Westwater Canyon Utah Wilderness Coalition Proposal BLM DEIS Proposal 25,500 20,000 3,800 52,290 25,780 13,300 8,790 5,800 4,400 7,920 13,800 42,000 26,920 135,420 0 12,635 0 * 24,190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,870 56,500 Adjacent areas 3,880 9,780 7,620 5,290 0 31,160 212,855 3,880 0 0 5,290 11,600 14,570 13,500 32,640 Adjacent areas 2,800 31,160 481,990 0 26,000 135,365 ch al by Red Mountain Sandwiched between Snow Canyon State Park and Gunlock State Beach, Red Mountain offers hunting, backpacking, and horseback riding for the St. George area, six miles to the southwest. In 1984 the BLM recommended non wilderness for this study area. They now recommend wilderness - largely because of effective public testimony. Shunesburg Totals itat Red Butte Locals call it ~the most beautiful drive in North America~ - the road from Virgin. Utah, that crosses the middle of Zion heading north to the Upper Kolob Plateau. Its beauty owes partly to Red Butte - a 2,OOO-foothigh sandstone massif abutting the park east of LaVerkin Creek. Supported by BLM for wilderness, this is another example of legislators drawing straight lines for a park boundary, ignoring the pleading of the land. Secretary Watt dropped this area and - you guessed it - we sued and won. CANYONLANDS REGION Goldbar Canyon -Black Ridge Westwater Canyon ranite Creek Hikers exiting Zion National Park in the Parunuweap canyon pass the vertical cliffs of this area, just north of the Virgin River. The BLM ignored the presence of the adjacent National Park and dropped this area from wilderness study. This is another logical extension of Zion's wild country. Spring Canyon Visitors to Zion notice the deep-red sandstone canyons just north of the Kolob Canyon turnoff from 1-15 to the northern part of Zion. This is Spring Canyon - rival to the Kolob area itself. Secretary Watt dropped this area from study but members of the Coalition sued, reinstating the study. Now the BLM recommends wilderness partly a result of the lawsuit but also because of public comment. Kanab Creek Bill Canyon --"nill Creek the Rocks (>-----+--.\-1 a t c h Wash Neck ew Six Shoote Peaks Bridger Point Monticello o ob is LOCATION MAP North Fork Virgin River of The North Fork of the Virgin River flows into the northeast corner of Zion National Park and is clearly of park caliber, yet was excluded by the ruler-straight boundary. Many hikers walk this canyon unaware of the mistake the boundary makers made. BLM supports wilderness for this area - but only as a result of strong public support. Orderville Canyon oen The classic Virgin Narrows hike through Zion National Park begins by passing through this canyon east of the park. The area includes several important side canyons: Esplin Gulch, Englestead Hollow, Walker Gulch, and Birch Hollow. Initially, the BLM recommended nonwilderness but as a result of your comments, the BLM reversed itself and recommended wilderness. This area is a logical component of Zion National Park. Parunuweap Canyon East of Zion National Park, this area is the scene of one of the most protracted wilderness battles in the state. The BLM tried to drop all this area from wilderness review and lost. Then they recommended nonwilderness, but changed their recommendation thanks to your comments. Local government proposes dewatering Parunuweap - a classic "wet narrows" hike - with a dam. At this time the BLM recommends wilderness for much of the area, but excludes the forestcovered top of the White Cliffs and scenic Elephant Cove, and Harris Mountain. streams offer excellent hikes with a spectacular white sandstone backdrop. The Coalition's 25,750-acre proposal includes unimpacted lands the BLM dropped from wilderness study. The Allen-Warner Valley Energy Project, now dead, proposed a coal slurry pipeline across this area. The Watchman Zion is the fIfth most visited National Park in the country. The fIrst impression most visitors have of the park is The Watchman, the huge buttress just above Springdale that is partly on BLM land. The BLM recommends wilderness for a portion of the cliff; the Coalition includes the natural lands down to the river. Another "Watt drop~ that is being studied only because of conservationists' legal vigilance. Canyonlands Region slickrock maze The Green, Colorado and Dolores Rivers all meet in Utah's Canyonlands. Abutting these rivers are numerous BLM side canyons with wilderness equal to those found in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks. Beaver Creek East of Moab, the Dolores River crosses the Colorado state line passing Beaver Creek. A l3-mile crystal-clear stream flows down the thousand foot deep canyon. This area includes the wild and scenic river proposal for the Dolores River in Utah including numerous side canyons down to Ridge Canyon. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness inventory, claiming that impacts high on the edges of the road less area impacted the core. The Coalition proposal excludes those impacts, protecting a major portion of the Dolores River in Utah. Taylor Creek Canyon This logical extension of the park's northern wilderness flows into the Kolob Canyon area. The BLM proposes wilderness - but only after conservationists appealed yet another ~Watt drop.~ North of Kanab, Utah, the White Cliffs wrap around the headwaters of Kanab Creek. Several deep canyons with clear Behind the Rocks and Hunter Canyon Just west of Moab, an 1,800-foot cliff announces the edge of the multifluted petrifIed sand dunes in Behind the Rocks. The BLM supports wilderness designation for much of the area, excluding the northern tip near the Colorado River Portal and the western third including Hunter Canyon. continued to page 6 CEDAR MESA REGION Existing WSA Unit Name Arch Canyon Comb Ridge Cheese Box Canyon & Deer Canyon Cross Canyon Dark Canyon & Beef Basin Sweet Alice Canyon Fable Valley Bowdie Canyon Plateau Youngs Canyon Lower Horse Flats Black Steer Canyon Fish Creek Fortknocker Canyon Grand Gulch Gravel & Long Canyon Harmony Flat Mancos Mesa Mule Canyon Nokai Dome & Mikes Canyon Road Canyon Sheep Canyon Squaw & Papoose Canyon 0 0 15,410 12,000 68,030 Utah Wilderness Coalition Proposal 8,800 14,460 25,000 Adjoining area 12,000 119,300 BLM DEIS Proposal 0 0 0 * 68,030 Adjoining areas 46,440 0 105,520 0 0 51,440 5,990 0 Totals *Arcas being studied by the Colorado BLM 5 65,000 7,680 136.120 37,200 10,470 108,700 5,900 80,000 35,220 0 105,520 0 0 46,120 5,990 0 52,420 0 6,580 363,830 52,000 4.500 6,580 693,710 45,720 0 * 306,600 �6 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION MAY 1986 dropped this area from wilderness study using the presence of a few impacts to exclude a larger natural area. continued from page 5 Congressman Hansen, R-UT, has proposed that these two canyons be added to Canyonlands National Park. Shaffer Canyon LOCATION MAP Dark Canyon Sheep Canyon CEDAR MESA REGION N.P. Wash ravel & Long Canyon Squaw & Papoo e Glen Canyon Box Canyon N.R.A. -----Mule Canyon omb Ridge ish & Owl Canyons Road Canyon Cross Cany Flat Recognizing the significance of Pritchett Canyon to ORV users and mountain bicycles, the Coalition has excluded this canyon from its proposal. Rather than consider land exchange, the BLM excluded the Hunter Canyon portion of this area from wilderness study because of the presence of state lands. Black Ridge Stretching from Westwater to Colorado National Monument along the Colorado River, Black Ridge is recommended for wilderness designation by the Colorado BLM. This area is not discussed in the Utah BLM wilderness DEIS. Butler Wash Again, praise for public comments: the BLM added several hundred acres to this wilderness study area to enlarge the agency's wilderness recommendation. Located on the south side of Canyonlands National Park, this wilderness proposal matches the quality of the adjoining park. Fisher Towers One of the best known geologic formations in southern Utah, the Fisher Towers is well-known for rock climbing. Unknown to many is the pristine 5·rnile Waring Canyon which begins just behind the Towers and drains into the Dolores River. This area, located south of the Dewey Bridge on the Colorado River, was dropped from study by the BLM with the claim that ~the natural character of the unit has been compromised." The Coalition proposal excludes the peripheral impacts and includes the imposing towers, cliffs, and Waring Canyon with its stream. These impacts were used by the BLM as reasons to drop a larger natural area from wilderness study. Goose Neck, North and South Many float trips down the Colorado begin near Pyramid Butte. The first 13 miles wind through the Gooseneck road less area. This 600-foot-deep canyon is a logical extension of Canyonlands National Park. River users question the BLM's assertion that ~Iandforms in the unit consist of open flats" and lack wilderness solitude and recreation. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness study. Granite Creek North and east of the Dolores River crossing the Colorado state line, Granite Creek offers impressive hikes along lush green-lined streams. The BLM dropped this area from wilderness study, arguing that wildlife habitat does not offer significant wilderness values. Again the BLM claimed the hundred-foot-deep canyon lacked adequate topographic screening for solitude. Hatch Wash East of Canyonlands National Park and west of the LaSal Junction on U.S. 163, Hatch Wash carries the major sources for Kane Springs Creek. Impressive 500-foot cliffs like those of Canyonlands line the wash as side canyons join this natural area. By drawing a boundary including the natural canyons and excluding the impacted mesa tops, the Coalition developed a sizable wilderness proposal. The BLM used these boundary impacts to conclude the canyon was impacted and not deserving of wilderness study. Goldbar Canyon Hart Point The north side of the Colorado River Portal west of Moab, Utah, has several excellent short day hikes. Two examples include a trail beginning at the portal itself, ascending the cliff beside the Colorado. A second hike begins near Bootleg Canyon and leads to Little Rainbow Ridge. The Coalition boundary excludes any wilderness impacts from the potash rail line and roads. Newspaper Rock abuts the Hart Point cliff face which runs for nearly 20 miles. Originally proposed as part of Canyonlands National Park, Hart Point and Draw are logical components of this park. Views from the point catch Six Shooter Peaks and DaVIS Canyon. For a sampler hike, explore Bobby's Hole behind Wind Whistle Rock, six miles west of U.S. 163. The BLM Indian Creek Abutting Canyonlands just west and north of the Needles District in the Park, Indian Creek has some of the area's most remarkable Indian ruins. The numerous canyons are the east bank of the Colorado River's equivalent of the Maze. The BLM moved the boundary, excluding two-thirds of the qualifying natural area from its wilderness proposal. Most of Indian Creek was excluded. A rarely visited area, excellent hikes start where the Hurrah Pass road crosses Indian Creek. Labyrinth Canyon After leaving the Book Cliffs, the Green River flows south, entering Labryinth Canyon and eventually Canyonlands National Park - one of the few rivers on which you can canoe for several days in deep slickrock canyons without rapids. The BLM dropped most of Labyrinth Canyon from wilderness study leaving only Horseshoe Canyon in its recommendation. River travellers cannot understand how the west bank is wilderness while the BLM claims the equally natural east bank ~clearly and obviously lacks wilderness characteristics." Lost Spring Canyon Behind Arches National Park are some wonderful canyons rarely visited. The National Park Service has openly campaigned to have these canyons protected and perhaps added to the park. Secretary Watt dropped this area, but our lawsuit forced the BLM to reinstate the study area. Now the BLM recommends wilderness for about one-fourth of the deserving area. Mill Creek Mill Creek flows through the center of Moab after leaving a BLM wilderness study area. This is one of Utah's finest canyons, with petroglyphs, swimming pools, numerous drops, and trees covering the perennial stream. BLM dropped this area in the inventory and we got it reinstated though administrative appeals. Now the BLM says this area is unsuitable. (This is an area for which Grand County opposed wilderness designation using a county bulldozer to plow a lOO-yard track near the area boundary. The BLM capitulated to this political threat and recommends nonwilderness.) Negro Bill Canyon A bout 2.5 miles east of Moab along Utah 128, Negro Bill Canyon Creek flows out of its deep canyon to meet the Colorado River. Grand County staged a second demonstration against wilderness here, reconstructing a road up the canyon. Under conservationists' pressure, the BLM sued the county for trespass. The suit was settled when the county agreed to stop bulldozing the canyon while the BLM agreed to drop the area from wilderness recommendation. Our administrative a ppeal of that decision was the first in the country to restore wilderness to the study process. Today the BLM continues recommending nonwilderness. Six Shooter Peak Two impressive canyons, separated by Bridger Jack Mesa (a relict plant community), Little Bridger Jack and Six Shooter Peaks abut the Needles District in Canyonlands National Park. Only the top of Bridger Jack Mesa (a sixth of the area) is being recommended for wilderness. To assist the Department of Energy in siting high-level nuclear wastes next to Canyonlands. the BLM dropped Davis and Lavender Canyons from the wilderness review. The BLM incorrectly claimed that these areas lack wilderness-grade solitude and recreation. The northeastern corner of Canyonlands National Park and Dead Horse State Park are sep?rated by the BLM roadless area called Shaffer Canyon. Totally ignoring the magnificent view this canyon gives park visitors, the BLM astonishingly found, ~the irregular configuration of the unit which wraps about the state park would severely limit opportunities for solitude." This area is a clear choice as an addition to the national park. Westwater Canyon The Colorado River first travels through Utah in this ca:nyon, strongly favored by river runners. The BLM supports wilderness designation for a majority of the area. The BLM recommends nonwilderness on the southern area in order to encourage off-road vehicle use. Cedar Mesa, Land of the Anasazi The most important evidence of walled Utah's ancient peoples lies in the Cedar Mesa region - an unmatched reference collection for understanding early Americans. Unless key parts of Cedar Mesa are designated wilderness, new roads will expand vehicle access - and expand the range of the "pothunters" that destroy priceless archaeological sites. Arch Canyon West of Comb Ridge, just north of Utah 95, Arch Canyon contains cottonwoodlined creeks that tumble from the Abajo Mountains to the north. Despite a 63-1 record of public comment in favor of wilder- ness study, the BLM dropped the area claiming that State-owned land somehow "divided" this natural area. (In similar areas where the BLM supported wilderness, State land was not a problem.) Comb Ridge One of the most memorable views in driving Utah 95 is crossing Comb Ridge, a dramatic, uplifted reef 15 miles long and over 1,000 feet high. The BLM dropped this area in the initial inventory, concluding that the area "clearly and obviously lacked . wilderness character." Citing a few impacts on the edge of the area, the BLM claimed the area was ~heavily impacted by human activities." Cheesebox and Deer Canyons These serpentine canyons flow into White Canyon, which parallels Utah 95 north of Natural Bridges National Monument. The BLM opposes wilderness for Cheese box and is not even studying the roadless areas surrounding the Monument - Harmony Flat and Deer Canyon. Their claim of significant human impacts is exaggerated, given the very real wilderness values of the area. Cross Canyon About four miles north of Cutthroat Castle in Hovenweep National Monument, Cross Canyon lies mostly in Colorado and is being studied by the BLM in that state. Utah's portion contains badland formations next to a pinyon-juniper forest. Dark Canyon Only half of the BLM land in this popular backpacking area is proposed for wilderness. A BLM wilderness recommendation is needed to complement designated National Forest wilderness in the upper canyon and recommended Park Service wilderness in contin ued to page 8 �MAY 1986 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION 7 Parks and wilderness • • • continued from page 2 Red Desert Arches Abutting Capitol Reef for several miles on its northeast border is the UWCs 28,800acre Red DeseI1 proposal. This area includes an unusual and colorful basin of deep pink badlands and fluted mud columns. Protection of this area would enhance the scenic and recreational experience of visitors to Capitol Reefs North District, as the park access road forms the Red Desert boundary for several miles. Abutting Arches' northeast boundary, Lost Spring Canyon offers diverse hiking opportunities in conjunction with Arches National Park. The unit includes the upper reaches of Arches' Salt Wash and the entire Lost Spring Canyon system. The area is characterized by deeply eroded side canyons and colorful rock formations, including fins, domes and several arches. Canyonlands Natural Bridges Canyonlands National Park lies within a large, cliff-edged basin of highly eroded slickrock formations - canyons, buttes, spires and needles. The original proposed park boundary would have included this entire basin - rim-to-rim - from the Orange Cliffs on the east to the Hatch Point Cliffs on the west. This proposal was whittled down until only a heart-shaped portion of the Canyonlands basin was established as a national park. The UWCs wilderness proposals adjacent to Canyonlands would help provide needed protection to deserving lands excluded from park protection. Six-Shooter Peaks The UWCs Six-Shooter Peaks 32,640acre proposal would protect the lower ends of Lavender and Davis Canyons (the upper ends are in Canyonlands National Park) as well as Bridger Jack Mesa. Scenically and geographically, this area is an inseparable part of Canyonlands National Park. Protection of this area has become particularly critical because of the U.S. Department of Energy's consideration of Davis and Lavender Canyons for high-level nuclear waste disposal. Indian Creek Fourteen miles of Indian Creek Canyon - a narrow, twisting canyon draining into Canyonlands National Park and the Colorado River - would be protected in UWCs 26,920-acre Indian Creek proposal. Indian creek is a major feature in the Canyonlands basin west of the park. When viewed from BLM's Needles Overlook, it is frequently perceived as part of Canyonlands National Park. The Canyon offers an unforgettable hiking experience because of unusual rock formations and rich color combinations in the rock. Wilderness designation would also enhance protection of the many Indian rock art sites amateur archeologists have documented. Shaffer Canyon and the Goosenecks Just north of Indian Creek are these two units the BLM dropped during its inventory process. The UWC's 2,800-acre Schaffer Canyon proposal lies directly below Deadhorse Point and would protect the Point's scenic breaks as wilderness. The Colorado River winds back and forth through the U WC's 1O,200-acre Goosenecks proposal. Boaters in Canyonland's Cataract Canyon float through this stretch of river on their way into the park. Butler Wash Abutting the park on the south, UWCs 25,780-acre Butler Wash proposal includes the upper end of Salt Creek, a major canyon and hiking corridor in Canyonland's Needles District. Hikers seeking remoteness and solitude in the Needles frequently make the Butler Wash area their destination. The BLM recommends 24,190 acres of wilderness for Butler Wash. Lost Spring Canyon Natural Bridges National Monument is literally surrounded by UWCs wilderness proposals - and for good reason. This small monument was set aside primarily to protect 3 natural rock bridges, but it is surrounded by outstanding wilderness lands. These wildlands are part of what the UWC calls the "White Canyon Complex" - a series of canyons dissecting the Cedar Mesa plateau and draining into the White River. With its maze of deeply incised canyons and pinyon-juniper covered benchlands, the White Canyon Complex includes tens of miles of outstanding hiking and backpacking opportunities. Designation of the White Canyon Complex would make Natural Bridges National Monument the heart of one of the most impressive wilderness complexes in southern Utah. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Geographically, the Glen Canyon NRA forms the heart of the UWCs 5-million-acre wilderness proposal. The NRA itself is not included in the proposal because it is under national Park Service jurisdiction. UWC wilderness areas abut virtually the entire perimeter of the NRA, one of the nation's largest. Thirteen UWC wilderness proposals adjoin NPS-recommended wilderness within the NRA. Although Glen Canyon NRA was established primarily to administer the recreational values of Lake Powell, it includes - and abuts - some of the most remote, pristine and impressive wilderness in the state. The NRA contains, for example, the lower stretches of the Escalante River Canyons, and abuts the UWCs North Escalante Canyons wilderness proposal. The UWCs Lillie Egypt, Scorpion, Dance Hall Rock and Sooner Bench proposals all would protect the upper ends of canyons draining into the NRA's portion of the Escalante Canyon. The Coalition's French Spring/ Happy Canyon-Dirt)' Devil and Fiddler Butte proposals meet the western boundary of, and are natural extensions of, the wild and remote Orange Cliffs section of Glen Canyon NRA. The San Juan Arm of Glen Canyon NRA forms the southern boundary for UWCs Nokai Dome, Castle Creek, Mike's Canyon, and Grand Gulch/ Johns/ Slickrock Canyon wilderness proposals. These areas would protect the deeply incised narrow canyons draining Cedar Mesa's pinyonjuniper covered plateau lands which flow into the San Juan River. Protection of these areas in conjunction with the San Juan River would form an outstanding river and canyon wilderness. Terri Martin lives in Salt Lake City and is the Rocky Mountain Regional Representatives/or the National Parks and Conservation Association. This spectacular spot in Parunuweap Canyon is the site 0/ a proposed site 0/ a dam the Washington County Water Conservancy District would like to build within the Parunuweap Wilderness Study Area. Wilderness designation would protect it. Photo copyright Ray Wheeler Help UWC New Books To Focus On Utah Ulah Canyon Countfr. the first volume in the new Utah Geographic Series, will be released April 14. Written by Moab author Fran Barnes, with a foreword by Ted Wilson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah Canl'on Country contains 120 pages of text, maps, and charts and nearly 200 color photographs of southeastern Utah. Rick Reese, President of the Salt Lake City - based Utah Geographic Series, Inc. said that his company is unique in that it will publish more than a dozen books which focus exclusively on Utah. Each title in the series will contain 120 pages of text, maps, charts, and a large number of color photographs. The beautifully illustrated series will portray in words and photographs the unique diversity of Utah ... its astounding landforms, abundant wildlife, colorful history and vigorous people. Other titles currently in production or planning include Utah Ski Country, Ulah Wildlands, Pioneer Trails, The Wasatch Front, Utah Wildlife, Ulah's Great Basin. and Ulah Mountain Ranges. Utah Call1'on CountrI' has sections on natural hist~ry, human ' history. national parks and special areas, and recreational opportunities in southeastcrn Utah. The informative text is supplemented by the work of more than three dozen photographers including John Telford. Tom Til\. David Muench, Rod Millar. Paul Logsdon, Tom Bean, John George, JeffGnass, Larry Ulrich and Pat O'Hara. In his foreword to Utah Call1'on Country, Wilson writes: The Utah Geographic Series is a celebration of all that is Utah: its vast space, its matchless beauty, its absolutely unique diversity and its peopie . . . Utahns and visitors alike will welcome the knowledge and understanding this series brings. The accompanying sensitivity to and appreciation of our special province of the West will make it a better place for all of us. Ulah Canyon Country is being sold through the Utah Wilderness Coalition (see ad, page 3) and the proceeds from the sale of each book will go directly to the Coalition. Send $14.95 plus $1.80 for sales tax and postage ($16.75 total for each book) to the Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446, Salt Lake City, Utah 84147. The Utah Geographic Series guarantees your money back if you are not pleased with their books. �8 THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION MAY 1986 _ __ __ __ BlM Hearings continued from cover impact statement. But the agency is not going out of its way to make it easy for conservationists to register their comments either through the hearing schedule or the hearing procedure, said Darrell Knuffke, Central Rockies Regional Director for The Wilderness Society. Signing up to testify is easy enough: the bureau will have sign-up cards available at each hearing location starting one hour before the hearing. Individuals who want to testify need only fill out a card. Jim Catlin. Utah Chapter Sierra Club, said the latest information from the BLM indicates that people will be permitted to speak in the following order: elected officials will go first. followed by governmental representatives, organizations and companies. The _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ general public comes last. Catlin said that the bureau has told him the individual signup cards will be shuffled after they are collected and individuals called in the resulting order. There will be no first-come, firstserved order. Catlin has asked the agency to at least announce the final order of witnesses so people will know when their turn is likely to come. So far, though, the BLM has made no such commitment. All speakers will be under the same time limit, probably from three to five minutes - not long, but long enough to enter persuasive comments into the hearing record. It is impossible to detail in three or five minutes all the areas you support for wilderness protection or all the reasons why you support them. By stating your support for the Utah Wilderness Coalition's 5 million acre proposal. you go on record as opposed Five million acres of Utah wildlands _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ to the BLM's small recommendation and you amplify the need to support many areas in addition to the ones you specifically In writing your testimony, it is important to stress the personal aspects - who you are, what you do, how and why you use wilderness. Other points to cover include: support for specific BLM areas you know personally; - support for the Coalition's 5 million acre proposal; - brief discussion of your wilderness experiences on Utah's public lands and why they are important to you; - a recognition that we need not - and cannot afford to - choose between the equally important directions of economic development and wilderness protection. We can have both if we plan carefully. I n Defense of • • • continued from page 6 the lower canyon. Most of this huge natural area is BLM land, but they would slice off its edges with exaggerated claims of impacts in Beef Basin, Youngs Canyon, and Fable Valley, The BLM understated wilderness values in Sweet Alice Canyon which abuts the Forest Service road less area, Ruin Canyon, More than 60,000 acres should be added to the BLM recommendation. Fish Creek Located south of Utah 95, west of Comb Ridge and southeast of Natural Bridges Natural Monument, Fish and Owl Creek are popular backpacking areas. BLM supports wilderness designation for the canyon bottoms and mesas on the west but not on the east. The BLM plans expensive bulldozing of the forest and reseeding for cattle - money better spent on less sensitive areas, One of the most important canyons missing from wilderness study is lower Mule Canyon which Utah 95 crosses in its middle. Fortknocker Canyon FaclOr .. BUlle in Ihe Mudd .. Creek Vnil. PhOIO by Eldon Briand THAT'S WHAT THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION IS FIGHTING TO PROTECT WITH WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. We need your moral, political and financial help to save that land from destructive development and the BLM's poor stewardship. Just before White Canyon flows into Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, it is joined by F ortknocker and several unnamed side canyons, Access is from Utah 95. The area has nearly 20 miles of deeply entrenched white sandstone canyons, The BLM dropped this area with claims of impacts that "caused this unit to lose its natural character." The Coalition redrafted the unit boundary to exclude the mere 10 percent of the area that has significant impacts. Yes. I want to help the grassroots and national organizations fighting for 5 million acres of wilderness on the Colorado Plateau. Enclosed is my donation. 0$15 o $25 o $35 o $50 0$150 0$250 Name Address _________________________________________________ City, State, Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Make Check To: Utah Wilderness Coalition P.O. Box 11446 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Members of Ihe Vlah Wilderness Coalilion are: The Escalame Wilderness Com millee, The WasQ[ch Moumain Club, Ihe Sowhern V/ah Wilderness Alliance, Ihe Slick Rock Coumrl' Couneil, The Wilderness Societ)", The V/ah Chapler Sierra Club, The NQ[ional Parks and Conservalion Assorialion, Friends oflhe Eanh. Defenders of Wildlife, Four Corners Wilderness Workshop, Friends oflhe River - Colorado Plaleau, The Ari=ona Wilderness Coalilion, The Colorado Environmel1lal Coalilion, The Arizona WhilewQ[er AssociQ[ion, The Ne\'{}da Ow door Recrealion Associalion, The New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalillon, and The Deserl Tonoise Counul (suppomng Ihe Joshua Tree and Beaver Dalll unils). I """"""""""""""'1"'1 Grand Gulch One of the biggest - and most popular - road less areas in Utah, Grand Gulch meanders 53 miles over a straight-line distance of 21 miles, BLM divided this single road less area into many smaller parts, just as they did with Dark Canyon. Unlike Dark Canyon, they only dropped one: Steer Gulch. The rest were joined as they should have been with the Grand Gulch Primitive Area, Numerous natural arches, rincons, and pinnacles line the Gulch and its side canyons: Bullet, Kane, Polly's, Collins, Step, and Pine. Gravel & Long Canyons The most prominent sandstone tower between Hite and Natural Bridges along Utah 95 is Jacobs Chair, sadly scarred by uranium exploration. Alongside this tower are two magnificent unimpacted canyons: Gravel on the east and Long on the west, both flowing into White Canyon. The BLM used mining impacts - which totaled a mere 1,800 acres - as reason to delete the remaining 37,200-acre road less area. The Coalition's proposal simply excludes the impacted area. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ , Harmony Flats The south side of Natural Bridges National Monument is bordered by Harmony Flats, The name is a misnomer, since a deep canyon and several tributaries fill the area. The BLM dropped this area in the initial wilderness review, leaving the door open for yet another proposed roadside tourist attraction. Mancos Mesa Scene of one of the ftrst confrontations with the BLM over protection of wilderness study areas, Mancos Mesa has a stormy history, Just after Congress passed legislation requiring a BLM wilderness review, Gulf Minerals punched in almost 30 miles of new roads for uranium exploration in the middle of Mancos Mesa. The BLM granted access under the condition that the roads be reclaimed. Now the BLM has relented, recommending nonwilderness for the impacted area. Our proposal differs from the BLM's by including all of Moqui Canyon on the southern part of the area, The BLM ignored the pristine perennial stream and canyon, Mule Canyon Just north of Utah 95, a few miles from the turnoff to Natural Bridges, is Mule Canyon Ruins - a reconstructed Anasazi village that borders the Mule Canyon Wilderness Study Area, BLM recommends wilderness for this area, which offers excellent day hikes through "Class A scenery characterized by smooth red sandstone and contrasting ponderosa pine and Douglas ftr." Nokai Dome This huge area lies south of Utah 263 to Halls Crossing, north of the Sanjuan River, and west of the river takeout at Clay Hills. The historic Mormon Trail crosses the western portion. Numerous canyons drain into the San Juan River. The BLM cut the 80,OOO-acre area into ftve pieces, citing impacts, and then dropped them all. The impacts occupy less than a square mile in a road less area three times larger than Salt Lake City, Road Canyon Road Canyon is north of Mexican Hat, Utah, east of Grand Gulch, and south of Fish & Owl Canyons. In 1984, the BLM proposed half the area for wilderness. Now the BLM has enlarged its proposal, adding the cliffs that face the Valley of the Gods on the southern part of the area. The Coalition proposal includes the rugged canyons that reach Comb Wash in the east, outside the BLM study area. Lime Creek and Road Canyon are favored hiking areas, Sheep Canyon Abutting a National Park Service wilderness proposal in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Sheep Canyon represents a logical extension of the NRA wilderness proposaL The area is west of Dark Canyon; Sheep Canyon reaches the Colorado River at Mille Crag Bend. The BLM said that the few impacts near the edge of the road less area affected "the entire unit" and "caused a significant loss of natural character.~ The facts argue otherwise; the Coalition's 4,500 acre proposal simply excludes those few impacts. Squaw & Papoose Canyons The Colorado BLM is taking the lead in studying this area east of Blanding and north of Hovenweep National Monument. This area abuts Cross Canyon Wilderness Study Area just to the south. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/52">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/52</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3289444056 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7032201 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Utah Wilderness News, May 1986 Description An account of the resource A publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition published in May 1986. Summary of wilderness in Zion-Hot Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah, giving a synopsis of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as national parks, a description of remarkable features, and the Bureau of Land Management's rationale for recommendations. Also includes a hearing schedule to discuss the future of Utah's wild lands. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Martin, Terri Dangerfield, Chris Subject The topic of the resource Natural resources conservation areas Wilderness areas Utah Wilderness Coalition Wilderness conservation Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Wilderness Coalition Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-05 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Zion National Park (Utah) Bryce Canyon National Park (Utah) Capitol Reef National Park (Utah) Arches National Park (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/edea32c1f71d1e3b9be7d5c673ba4baf.jpg 957105b7075dd5f8934a2122e5f5a991 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 3559 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1386254 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 Utahhybrid Corn Seed road sign in Davis County Description An account of the resource Utahybrid Corn Seed road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Davis 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 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 1965-12-07 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 357.960 (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 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 00959002014_Utahybrid.jpeg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/f0e2dcb58358d64692caf725b1f25092.jpg a68278572640be850c7c0ddd68957738 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 3524 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2779 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 5 inches x 4 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 3524 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2779 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 673341 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. 3/4/2014 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 Val Lower's Service road sign in Cache County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Cache 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 (Cache 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 12/21/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 29.26 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Cache 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 1. Folder 16. Photo 1164. 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 00959001016_1164_ValLowers.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/af71211b66da8edebf9c7d6548abefdc.jpg 294df16ed5812f59a4e0a298536a4242 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 5 inches x 4 inches Height Height of digital item in pixels 3537 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2788 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 664306 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 Van Kampen Furniture 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 379.9 (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 3177. 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 00959012013_3171_VanKampenFurniture.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/1b70ddff81ab91c7aea2bf724b354031.pdf 553c03efc1697d8d4159a5477f535f82 PDF Text Text AO MIHI S TIA T ION O FFI C E 1-40 WEST SfCON O SOUTH ST . SALT LA IC E CITY 1, UTAH OIAl El9.9lU .... IZON ... OHlef, 102 1 E. Co",.lba(~ Id. 'hoe";., A.;.ong Oiol CR 4· 770 B O fl fCl O f Mr . Ray V. s tewa r t President 69r. Intorna tional OlfICU$: l "Y V. STEWAU ""Id,.'o hlol" W .. 'o.n. W illi,,,,,, ",1 .0.' $. 0 won ow Yln·"...l d ..., """"0,," Mot..... Fl o'l.'off, A.IIC.". I ENTl EY I<oCITCHELL Vlc. · ' r•• id eM l<o4 ilch. II !ooIot.1 L"" ", U I.~ W. 6 .•..,SS S .c,.,.".T t ••• w ... to 51,.10 101010' Wi~h "but. , "',hoft. DIUClOU, 5UlllUt.4 0 S£OAHO De a r RaJ" I hope t hat ~our r eturn trip W a s p1ea nunt e s ourB B. wa • • W had a good time wi t h you i n M za tlan nd wish e a t hAt WI e oul d hav e atayed longer. lie di d atlly ono c.ay i n Pheonix Where we vi.ited wi th 80m of our friend. we hAd e not a e en tor aevera l years . W hope that t he rain we ran in to in Arizona hae exe ten ded into y our area. They told ua at Pheonix that t h o Whole ot northern Arizona W S having a good r a 1n . W had a o to turn W est fraa Pheonix and go clea r into Ca l i1'ol'nia bofore turn1nf, llorth in order to get a r r ound t h e s t orm . I have opened the account her e in thv Fir s t Na tional I U.NEn ,. . HfNOlYX C.,".'o"hlOKl udTo~ .. , .. t" i IC~ 1 Ut,h Sank in the name of Highway 69 ra Int t l Promoti ona1 erna ions. Fund . I de p oe! ted ~ho tour h und r ed dollar a heck whl Gh you chock tor the a dvertising 1n t he Brochure wh ioh ve agreed t hnt we would e a oh purohale in advance in order to have auttlo1ent funds to get the program on the va.,. . :i';:'t~:C~i':';.·"~~~cI.ha8ent me togethel~ wi L my pe r lona l h r.4 .. " I~ti .... h:l,"" ~I~~t;':.:,jl~~~~:'u A lp l .., W~", I ", IICHA.O C . FUCiUS Fe. q u. 10401.1 5 ... tF. U' , Mo",... AI you lmow t h e r e will be conSi derable expense invclved in ge.tlng eve rything ready for l·lI1ot in to go on t he IXICUTIVI nClElAlT: road . I am planning t o go to Salt Lake one day th10 week MAITlNH . C ANfWILL to go over t he final plana tor his work . At t ha t tlr.:e wo ~!t'1~ks:~i~~fU:: mUlt})e pre pa red t o pay tor getting out the r ece1pts and other materia l whioh he will need . By the time I pay him the stipulated . um ot one h undr ed dollar. per week tor t he month ot February we will be broke unl. . . a ll of the Director . send in their advertiaing money as agroed upon a t the meeting i n Afton . W ill you plea se send in y our monoy by re t urn to help t h e Oauae along . SCENIC ROUTE OF THE AMERICAS ~1l �Cdntwoll - , ~ltc hell COllvsntion A j)8.cty phone 1 as ... roa Fl..lj:s WI .uli..! IWke. fIIO it thd!'.., wtI.. 1.1 .. os,db11!. t. ot havlug ..,ill Coxon , .t..:t8cut1ve ...-ecrotarl \.· r t .. oj rl ...Uf' otor liot.el ·'l8;jc·ui...t.i OD ti.rl->ear on t.hld rot; r u at. J~Ck80 ,1 .·ole to tul, i'Uout p: Y 3nt1l~ b~ pU;S8;J of com..ounities on our l'o.ant 4. .WELlB . Dtlntlu,i' .. 111 r eruner (,,0)'011 f1 " ... 1..0 ..i.3. Ilt1 , to fIo"'- V tuLL to tbd ..~x1can }.;ucple dO·f. t·lO u ~ox()n .2.3 to It by 11 f 6.t OUT l.1t1dti, 111 F~bT'\l:J.ry , lu,ock. uCJ I. I.d dr"", out f1« ht 11. t.u# . . ~ta c C ,lri:a n6. & Vat.:. of.' V...c j'eople ill t III l:OIOl ...Ulll tic:. cOI.f..;e n j . i .l) Certain thu.t Ulllu3h do~thL;g of t.>3 rt i~ ......·..e that \lIver1 (;v u.lt ill be ya;j!8 GVaULW~ ali! I-8T'ilQrs will Ud .... .,.-:.IJ.V , but. t.lla)' nOl,t, b'l ill ~r i~o.. a with",ut ig .• t . ,raJelitl ~"'6inG' A prI\JYtSnt ouch b. p&.::3sirlt:; wi t;".o.. t 1 1fot.;J.J 11.L.$ to hear f"fot! y()~ boU) 1. o4ately t1 to YOU1' lJ.a _b ut h' vin him or. t.tl 1- r",~ram. Tbe party who c 1m! ·. . 111 !JOY t.c.&t h1s dxpo),~eO .;.re fail ;0 no '- at will acrua to t"o . J oc atiof: . I ,10 not. .iUjOIf 'A'h~ther it ls t o:Llh·l .: Io (' b t... get kt:ay fo-r 0 IV " b e1tJler , but b--o.for 1 '" ,j( b1= I .... (l.l. t yO\1.1' op 1110_ :J 8 t.. 11 '!"Ie~ you t ..• id( our toomllef'1lh11 w111 b " i.l ru t • i . ,JUl,l1 • l ~. . • -rloho.ll 1 b<!.1 ve t. H,) .oull for liQ(j,Q ot' l ater avel~ c ru it.. i I t.le til.ito jt'J.tl'~ 111 b:t f (-3 :..t.h U1 t '4:3 11(; an::. 11.. ('81't":Ll ....lill 1"u11. el."o. t IIltUI of t 1 ~ a 1n. el IDJltl, h Vd 1t' 4 b"'~I.t- ... ineu . 1 bd1d!V ..!oxo. • Ll ~! _ tI. etoc. t 1k 01 . . . ~ ubj ct arn b"l .Vt3 110 he 8 l..llu .. ;3 ~XIlctl: .il.l:... i:5 t..tI._~ i D u t. ",hell :1B 1s Q t t :JubJ u\. t . . I think it:. vel" and iAarUn 1t you &1'\:;. give =e your bonest opiJ.lon end ·l.OI.lt. •0 1;) t !1e ro.ll tiOD Tima: 1 6 ah ort if 1 , 1l6nsa . WI! co to 11~ ann ..111 art~.u Q at Ln.ll:t3 ask his fr8.l.l; \' ",1 th me r~jt' 1 C:.II ... \1 at R III I. to h~]J y J;: ~lniou b) VOL' .;.1.1 00 . . 1 3Ase "rorl.~ • 1 {.;;r c.oYon .1.LCural,y , I pill be a tte nd i ng a meeting or.. Sept l Ot h a t which -:.0 .... 0. I coulJ have your '3.Dswer by t ht::u it ;;oul· l be fine . Best regards to all the f/J.:lIil~' . lill 8]:· .uJ.. so if " �T t.il'"~ , . , t rol':lC' ~ u lOuht 'v'.• "'1 .. 1 I v t a-t. .it to I:. rrJ it. .... t tli. 51.\.• l!Ir 15 f r lc:·) .. til c .. !."j bVl..i.l 1 I..:f t: "" \lot i:o (".'·O.i.t,.:.:, [U(' . 1 ';1ol1lJ 'U ,O;;.L YOoL hsvl;:! a 0 ... ", t 1 .... h .tlUl • .o,,: i ! 0) to 01. '" aOJ.uti err.1I t.a ';.1"'6> j)l.: t;. .11 L .. • U:l1. 1 to til:; JO~' t. .... "". O;.U b' QI..,,:t' Oli n n uUJlt\J us 013. Ll h v tc t 1. to it. Lo h031 o .It . 0 I..:ertll.inly c·).f".ot i:o to t.:lI:! ;~oh ... ell,tit'l. _ )Ct",bCl' n- i ret<...'l't 1;.ba t ~ !1·c·.~oti!J loS D~t ~oir'Q 0'1.]1' ~. t t. 1 t" 1&' _.11 1.., ....... k 1,0 .. tot' t. iir.y 11 l.... i .1t 7 lC!6 t t lI:. ",or' ·t ' f tlldfu...... r(tD 1;)' l '\at t1m(l . ... '" W VJry Ji .... -.1. r .1;.>0. -0 nt, I 1 b VI) U3J... no thlr:1 . rh t.hc'J. ,t. 1 V':tT to u:..t,0 Ii 1. g 1 r·~"­ .... t:i i::; co .int: at t ,C UJ.t 10 i r i.11te OU\llI,JU3 tat,;,l fly '«'h· t.ve erG, rr!;) ut.o t~8oIdl..t ....'it p •-ell r \ : ; ! L l , b t l "~ 1 Lr.ir 'o'.l I 1 J., • 8ill , I t TO t t t " " "0 ~ t. it 1. Iih oJ ·n 1 1 ,1 'flu!'- v'!r WOI1t. '- [:'Ft)...tlar·t fot" S'l' but I ..on~ u\f,,m to r lfU1; I t.... 1 'liil1 be , 'P L tl t ~ .1 s ~l .... o it w L I U' t.L V t· .n ].1"]. '0 to:.';. AS. UO"' , 1. t ij .... )0. t , t· v ,r. t. .t rew ~f:Jl 1 " mll A) .t.: I ~ .,.~t.i .~ t .t1 k " .I... I r it lIb r. U!!'J! 1 1 .z 1 ·fJl'dtl;.'l. I; b 1 fin . 1l.!!::.}fH·~ H . .!li..I.t t. .~ COliV ·l,ti..:tJ ~!t~ 1 t.t.ac h.!.lf of ..;it:; ~, 6T' . 1IIl.i.~h 1 iOI'at·t';"Vi' ~ \,.; .r. tI t "ltd £r Tlwt'(j. ;:;ho.:lu va t ,6 ;f.n.~ It,o. . . l- r'il b ~ ... uL. t~ m..l13 tc .il thi .... mont.h, ::att ~~',.tb r..u.i t;,d l~t. ...;..11 to,," 'I'd u.cL 009 .)J)oul·'1 Inti,. .. ! t u~ o't'tl giv11'i A6 _b01Jt t'i'~ ,1. .. t..J..tt!) 11 ,Ii fur It . 1 l".<=j't .. 1r,ly 1 re t.l1l3 Tt'OllhJt~OT.l fulJ..y r<)8L. it;i J t.. ~l' .OU3 .r :... t Ul .l"t LtJ.t 1:. 11 I)!~ :Jl,1 r t'04DQr. mU·:.t fln .n:y teo get. i t Olle r il. Let' . if t. li6 ft"Q'raru !' .lls I ·11 t :I!o'l. ~;.tt· .lJ i!ll t.l"")1.8 00 :!It', itt cokerl . 1 Er"1l:.;t (;1<..,.:..;.;, -C CD bt; ,. ~<;l, ur . ,.l ~et DL..6"*.{ AWi 1 illcer~ll, t~ �AD MIN IS TRAT I O N Of FIC E \ <1 0 W EST SECOND SOUTH ST. SAlT LA KE CITY I , UTAH DIAL EL9 ., J U ARIZONA Off iCE , 10 2 1 E. Co",.l bo<. R . d ' h... ni.o; , A,i.o no Dial CR <1 · 7701 AuiflllUI. O ff iC E O f .... y Y. STEWA R' , , ... dd.nl 5JO W. alii Willlo",. • RAY v. STEWART " •• Id.", Enc lo s ed i s a cop,y of a letter t o t~tin in reply to hi s of the 11th .iith a report on the prol~re :; t o date of the rrocotio:cl r-ro.;ram . W."., n., 101 01.1 Willi.",., A, I.o". 1010,,0" 101 0 ' 0" FI.",.ff, "" ;.0... IHHlEY IoI ITCHiLL W • •" ..ld. nt I< loI il <h. 1I 10101. ' LOQlu, U'.h W. G . .... SS s..<r ••• 'y.T' ........ L. SI..,. 1oI0h ' Wld..nbv, • • A rI. o~ July 20, 1957 Dear Dentley , O'FICE IS, S. O. 1oI0UOW vlu ·".,ld.,,' Willia M. , A.bollO I 8lll very m uch concerneJ about tne .. ay il:. is going 8.", i t seems t o me i t is or ,;,;.gr; i ng much t o slo •.l y . I ful.ly r etl.lize i t is a. tre:....euJ.ous job , and I am c onvinc e ... that 110 or,e C;.d). bet tna .J ob ,lor,e i., t. time aUctL.eu vtithout mort:! nel p . I al..;o _'u1ly re:.J~, ~ the FrubleGl of &ett~r;~ uit .ble larson to help, but I can see no alt ernntive t o .oiLe;: i t c..n.i lioir,s it as ,uil..kly as possi·:lle . The s1.l.l!1:t.er i s half "one 1,0" with onJ...v six weeks of it left and scarec ely hl,~ of our luota raised to date and cons i dercl>ly l ess than that ac t u.:Uly collucteJ . DI_IC T Od , IiUIlLUIotO SEDA NO I :feel very c ertain t hat if we go to the ::oIlventi on and have to report less 1'101.1 F,.! 101.' .... <I. HI.. Ho,.I." ....or. , ", • • i.-than half of t he _~uo:a r aise.l t ha.t it iill very seriou'l:; effect our'fforts . ,ith just 10 weeks lei t u;.l:.i l th~ :onventiOli it L ;ojng to be whale of a f:"';~ii:h~Ul,:~ ...tI TOW 'big job t o eet an:-:thin.,; like half of t he :.J.uot:~ collect e 1. I n f a c t I ha been ~lANK w. SOI/iATl hopil..c i I:. would be j os sible t o repor t t o t :'e Convention t hat t he Brochure F].. , s.c., .., ""k of Id.1oo uld . loIon'p. n" ,ld." W O go t o pr ess ~n c tobcr or 10velllber at lc:..test . IURNErr A . HENDRYX ° DALLAS A. CLI NGER "rin~ S.ddl. lodu A pl u , W,o",;n, RICHARD C . FUGUS h t' u. 10101.1 6,ul F. U. , 101 0,,1... The Br ochure of c our se t o do the greatest Good for ne t year should be r da,iy fo r '.li stribut ioll not l a t er t han Dec ember as that i s rohen people start planui ng fo r next sumr.:ers va<': iit ioI, . No efIort should. b~ s}areU to get. : . t r ead,i by tilen , but I <i..Q ufraic! t he ~ro::;J":':cts /,l:ru .;etti n;;: dimr.;er ever:" day . fllfCUTIV I ffCUTAI'I' , a c onferenc e wi th Mi:.r tin an<l see what l,;an be ·,'Iork,"d out . tii th a l l due 1'9SpeCtS to Aiartin I fee l SW'9 he CtaUoot ,~o t he jo. . . titriout n'i! l p . He has ana i s tioing a g ood job but i t is simply toabig: 8. .. 00 for an: one J,;ersoll . Our s ucc.ess or f a ilure as an Associ a t ion rests s'luarely upon our t.e.];ree of .:.uccesa i n t his Promot ion 60 someho the Job llIust be !lolle . MARTIH H. cAHT w"J'l a v e ~,'t'~~s.-g;h~~:~ I will be 1 00Ling for a repor t from ;:ou on m;' return from Color ado una certainly hore you c an ork ont satta ;oluti oll . alJ. tho fOll1il¥ . ,1r.cert;ly , II SCENIC ROUTE OF THE AMERI CAS �AIR CONDITIONED 37 UNITS • • PHO NE 2064 crnitchell crnotel President 1IloI ",...t ~lIJf1Wdy 89 Westerner lo'fotel Logan, Utah Williams , Arizona . Dear RBY , Sit down before you get to the bottom ot t he page and .ee who this letter is from , otherwise you may pas. out and injure yourself . I ~ve been foroed to spend much of my dayl ight time out at town during the past few weeks , and by tho time I reached home long atter da7k each n1ght I have been just too bushed to wri t e any letters . I w111 start by g1v1ng you my imprecsions of the Trecker contraot . 1 . I teel that t here Ihould be a detinite time limit plaoed upon the filming of this project. 2 . I feel that M . Treokers minimum expense of tourty r dollars a day is a littl e out of line , unless of oourae he i . expect ing to take his whole f am11y on a nioe vaoat10n at our expense . J . I do not see why M . Treoker ahould be given r full and tinal aWlhori ty aa to what soene9 should be filmed, and as t o what is finall y ed1ted into our film .4. I cannot see why we shoul d suppl y Mr . Trecker w 1th aPPl'ox1matoly eight thousand feet of f11m from which he will make a t1nal f i lm ot less than three thousand feet for us and t hen m ake his own uso of the other five thou8& teet of film from nd Whioh .evernl area !'1lms oould very m,ll be made at our expense . In short I feel that t hi s oontract i 8 all in favor of Mr . Treoker , and does not give U8 suffi cient proteotion . Ilow for the ent1re promotion pr oject . Martin has t he ahow on the road . He 1. up in Jaokson now, and fl>om his letters and the money he has sent in I believe that we are at l a st cn the way with 1t . Last week he sen t 1n $245 . 00 in oash from a few he oontaoted on the way up throU{;h Montpelier and Afton . He seems to be very enthusiastio about the Whol e thing, but wanted this time up here to feel the program out where the clubB were str ong, in or der to develope hie presentation botore he star ts out in earnest . A l in all I teel l that we are go1ng t o be suocessful with the whole thing . It may take more time than we antioipated, but I am oonfident that if we work hard a t it we will make it a suooe.s . �AIR CONDITIONED COMFORT AND REFINEMENT · 37 UNITS • STEAM HEAT • PHO NE 2064 crnitchell crnotel I h:lvl\%~·~L~\jf,;v"tlJll he .h~~n'i~);'.i' out all ot the kink. 1n his presontation of thi. pr oJeot by the end of this week and t hen hend immediat el y for perts South 1n order to take advantaEe ot the leaBon down in southern Ar1zona. and then t o work North with the season . Thi. he pX'o:u1eoB to do . I expeot him to roturn here toni ght oX' tOlllorrow, at Which t i me I will go over everything with him and glve him all the help t he t I can before he leaves tor your ter ritory . I am going to write to Burnett within the next tew days When I can see my way clear to plan a trip into oout hern Ut h . He euggested that when I got down that way por haps the three of us could get together acd talk t hings over . I think he has a good id ea 00 I >1111 let both of you know w hen I can get dollIl tho t way . I lIlust v1sit all of the Be.t ,/est ern ~!otels in the State belfors t he tourist rush 8tarts so perhaps we could get together at that t1ll1o . J UBt as aoon as Martin geta baok here I will writa a full r eport ot the aotivities of the Committee up to dat e so t hat everyone """7 know that we have not died ot .tagnation up hers in this neck of t he >loodl . When are wo going to take another t r ip down South for another try at tho big f1sh? Sincer ely yours , �Cllut:.fell - l0i'i Drochure - Aiiuc. ureko.; lIIWlD.tia hal!! a rrivo J. . Sa. a. 1.t tl3 r fr oll2 )"rOIJa..n with his l='icturlO cn.l corre-ct U~ II!J!)~ .....iJj8'" I.e n.d l eft for Yo",ico :;1t:' t.e !t:\Y .uter .. & l .. ft flh-J hc..J. J UDt retUt"Io8Il br, ri!)y~ ~o . I -"ill 6-LC,,:1 913 his l e tter 1.0,J picture, but rla~t:lo r eturn t.:l l ",'tttlr 1.0 ~ SCo 1 :IL.,y 6.0: wvr it • t.1tle. .lao, b,_l1""Vd it. or bet .I. l"tJce1vdtl ~i 11 ... It ... 1a ch'Jtk i,.. Ul',l <11 tnt All f or hi.1S Jlio..:.lli>err!ihir" e..Fl ..... hI1 off ar to half' 'Wb,lI. t blii ... ould. lie 1$ v _,cy 1 I.er .lStad i~1 the 1~ point jr..:,rli!!ri lnU ll,.UC-it·.. tillil w:si. ef..6 f8'Jl'lc at Tucson ..,eul .. 1.1.# l",t.el'e"t.o. • ':'10':6 tho.) tI'eaaury 1u 1. ~mch 6 1·.. flbn I 11.l1.1. Il(m,t t!:<i> CD :(.;1;. ,ur·!t L.) t.o Oq!t/J t.~ ;,~..Vll t1Jn", ) th~r' is lltt,l" t.aced~- i.ty o.f it ,,'.1: ~ c!o r to S.. lt. L:J..a 11.11 I. b·,d( ~ in . ..t ce I WQllt ha.V3 t.ime t.o 'uS.-t:l-l' it. r Ot' n i ji,W <..i..~ 3 ! .. ill Nr,\.L,.-s ~ 1 t ~":H) uet ;-:- tUl'n it itrull'hl•• i.91y r1e.-,,$;t;l o !"t to rficeni ;:.1 :J:..r .;t;tQTJ 1 ~v rih.ivu ., ... J "" . It 1.8 4 "lory '.. ~, ·1 ruper t ana 1 hOl" ';Jill J;;.r SOIliU 01' thQ J11'd...;.lo r ~ Lose ..n"" Let t uoa Ol, tho bolL 1. aQa1 t I el so lil1I ""t. f:;'\llt , but will try to C01"':'tH.:t t ll<l.t v~;'ty 3001_• • 1 m.>te tilat. tll~ re~-ort. ,:.Od8 n~"t sh()", ULV· tcllitiv.·..J. fuo.;13 r" ",1II .l:lti3~. 1 ".10fh:;lJ bim ;.1l.j c~nt.l~1) ~ep .,,;..ou.ut "OlU..1 :>t.1.0.1 ~ • 1 U-e "ss #1... 1) -hlch c..:.:.me t,;d lA:!.to .1.'.)" , 1 It:-t.l\.' W~tII ric. u.... k to ,.1z; .wJ. r~ .u~-,te .. he let ~ Lr.l1t t.!~ • -.. .. t no.. o,t"t, ,. •./1.• • J. hilV", bot hd t' .. 11"uII< .. .:.it tnl.u .. n .GO 4'01 "lur it' nil ~-.ru!" lieut it. . 1£ ,)0'--- h· Vu •• t I&ot it bofc:t"'(; lJC, 1,1. 113 li.l •..;. .. . I' 1 l~cQ:1.:i.J. h.ir.1; of it ~~J"., 1 -;on•.;. t..i.w U.C: ~ .0._.11: fi.·l,.i.l!I ~;Ul. Welt":: . 0" . ~t. 01' t.iLt ill; ..i .... i>t;ll ~1';.l .U 11. C"lb .. ~ f'~'r b.,,_i.s ...n .... # h"".l~e,-,t.aa .)\J . it .;1_;.8 d.l.i:io 10 If it 1 :1 ~I!sibl~ t or yN;. to poJt.j-"H.O J.r-L.. t1 .. ~ ntH' eto.t.lo •. el"Y fer 6. littl" whi11o:1 IfOu.!. .. ~u...~~st. y U. a:"J ,jO . of \:., .. '•. Je 1! .. Colt :~._ Dvu,-lr out lOU til b v ~ to ill u ... bd, an I'ri,.t it. , but i-'t"iut. t;'J(,! v~ry j,.1ml.<m, \,:Ii ",,un g$t 0: 0;" . '1'-;;)1'e is ite 1....k.... J.y to b<l Q .... han.:. J.ll _ur-.;cW1"8 , uut 801 t~ tlJ 1JC;I 1 CbD.. ot tell you at:y IlI.re toll .. !, t.n •..!" ~t i;.!li3 time . A so }llJll:.e k .. e; it. cl)lf11~t1.;.l . 1 h,t.va on!.:. mldnti ..n:e:i l , it i,-, }l".H,I'l'" t o Dil.V t: 00 stiJ.tl.(.;.uery 3houl .: such, ell', 1 t.~,J...", 11J-ce. :r J.~.inl;\ i1.:1.1 IS tho neceuary .ri~: n dS ill 81)01 f~rt.hl,;omil..g hd 00 l'\;'.:Jl •• / to .gad. th" �Jear Bill, .J:lclotlet1. i3 Ch'_Ci, !'rOts dlll ll h t')T tl .• III· mba\'Shir 1tl t,.l'ld ...BJuciat.ion . j . cel.t it :tir .. ct tor. llilil) 41. t( ~ V~ time 1 :;Ii tse".li~ it .1r .... ct ~ yvu foS I b.ow ~a n!:.:e.l it. ill t.l .... u 1.~ • . !.t,i t,.,.<.t (;.h'.lck "".:3 a ver-:' •• lev 1&V.8l' ", __ 'Hi~; ::l13 t'ltj"'j iL roll "J:f ~o,.'iL.le '.' •. HI) :it. .:i t.eo.! h~ ilJ 11 '-'1") .11....... [; L.p.~,J. U.L i t.l t. e 1_ .....! t. 1 r .;.,,' iii' 8;;1 o:...Ui ... t £l4a ... t.l.:..n • (;!.. ... l .Ji~ yLl•• sen,1 t-.e chaLk. t.o ClltltJ yet .... 1 l~lat *r.;t:lk. . Ii Gv ~..I.;"I;wtJ l.alo Jl40J hlJo" 1l,J.'j l.>UA...b joe 1'<;: se tl.!,1~W..l t . 11. !,. tty lhc.l.e .i8 ~:.t.[,uAlel:; t, 0 rr .. ~ ti.:1 ial t. t,o ;"et. t:8 IH·l~.... JI\., r o out. 0 thl! r.;Lo. .. . ole go iL ~ rvd e v*"ry :/..1)" It sb,Q'i3 ., t_J~ tlh r ~o + 1cs up to un to !,Sst. it out . 1£ t.:,f;J U.l;ih"'l ~.r t,;f ",·r t.le OL...<.J1Ul' c..n bu J Tuduce ... t.,on Car,t le11 £AD ,et. 0 (no rcol.-J ~,J it .i:~;"u.l. p lta , l j . v u r ."ant t.lut euO'J€r. tuuJ true tll~:t·.1 t;. ....i ... (I,i,toJ cu . U:JC, t he ..;",...u h6 00 toll rO.3tar 16 A~,ril let rtic;;n 1.:: L.l','38(, than we t~1.1~ 80 fiat overy 3i.~1~ mambor ..H ) il,t!..· th6 tuU that you cnu oeforot Wnw . 1'ter 'rri.!. lot a. 1 1:tXJr'.. ai. ~ 1,Ll;,..L ~ivU ~il. 1 .rt'-V~ 'ne 1Di...ut.;,e c,r t. o'j . .Itu, ~.tin.; .nieh ,)''>1 ow;, If6 ~ e club:.. ":II .. ~ loOt. 'e.t tneir fivQ Q ll~:r r tun. tofte .... ohj1'1. ... 13tliJ th&t. f 'hi V\.L(:~:J ill t ieD ~o tv vro\tlote t. lid 1,,·£ t..JO lJ p' i t l1."l~l' $ . .. ~inCtl J~ �IInrch , 1. ...7 Cantwell - Mitchell I was very ,~! to .~t tn. t.. !!-....re lIIovlug ~8.l.n . u6n~r~ rr~,rels Rer ~t of rch 1 th n1 10a.rl1 that I ClUmut e:t t'Q8d enOl.i.fiD t;le im).'Crt6.Lce of .cett1l.Ol!, ti."" Ll'lIc.hu.'e off t...'le "row:;:... OD. 6elf c.ust.a11.1I1g \)8.bia IJ ~uic::lll as v-:-s~ 1ble ~'" it 18 c cstir.g a Coo.ea1 ot &oJ.o1' . vary GtQ' 'Qeo t pa3 as until it COJ. ba mt.. 1~ 801£ SU.3taL L :g . 1'.I.l' I ro ,UOl;Stea. BUlB.3 to tranBfal' un::>t:lor 4w . uv to tne iTo.otiar. .i.k:tpt ""'hieh he L ,for ;;19 . . h& 'la .. dO.:..6 . J.t I lmV 8 toe llltaT t_Ol 1 l'eadur/ 1.1 baa. wtJy 1.ho~il (f.J hQ intUnIl:) ~I',J Jl'J ul'). hab , 0.>0 b:J.. Ilca iJ Ln·"! bn.nl!. 'I. hu O.1"tHS l o~ . ill re.i\wi.J W v X'l.QUS l.:ll.ili of il h S .. . .JO i." !IUd llt.Tl . Marti;.. 1.£ )"IJU r bolj l ~i:> Lbo ... ttl\' 1I~.:,bt:!1"Jh_.t8 ~ t.ter :;",rd t.nwa w hiJII ta t. Uu' Ttlt.,IGl' t .c..o hula t .• em ..,u,,_ .i. we IJ..lbt r tht.! m nth . :; yo·J. C Ln r~a .. i l 580 ttle!"';) is n ,' a,- IHy if , •• t.t'ba. :11- to lil a bills .U<J t"Q l", t of 1, 8 m 11th BO IOU 3~8 bo' iar'rt.ant it 'UlY ",b id to i.,.-t ~Ow.:.:: rotduWOl dn J.,t-o ill at. Of... I3 . t.:l9 Oll,y '#1:1 WIl \,:oulj get t..J brcn.....uT'.l .•ut or. t.le r ... l:i:1. a to .r aih t.lle to ut it s1..lil'l;,ad 80 I t.vo~, t.l~ fJu..i.l ll, t.ht! •• vruJ rod j ! o . tlOl! i t is Ull to ;t .... ~ ",,1101\-;.; 1 1 .... lUll will do lvt)r,t l .. r.. j':o3d~1 to .. dt 1 et: l'teIe ,rOG ur full--r u re of h .tlI.~-,cl!tl C:"'JI:11t1~,. of t....... trl3a;;lU/ you w111 ..nder05t~d too 'IIh! t .•e ur~ ent n·...:o "it of otU1lt; f.bol an"w Oli t .• c r~1\ 1. 1 if.j-.t:.W tr~~9ury .. To hel.;. matte1'3 ..1oJ '6 on. of ~yr l"'kl!i I ~b 'lck:e bOlJ.ced JII.;.rJ:.: 1 ~r:o'" ! ido t fut. ' lllti.ts our tr(T. bl t· " , 0' t Lan :n:l.~,.l beli v t.:. t L of hl ld bOIl ,.,.;8. !Jill \III1l!;! . 0 .l.1 to 0 • 1 ba.. l • lith ... ..1, tho t:i h· , i t p<l1' • FoJ.· tJ ta r 88 no uterllativi't ). ~ f f. t Iforl. I i1t ~ a for a hils to et .. lltt.l .;or kiJ'i C pit .1 , trion h & uih and c ... tch i;J. I, and Phoi.n l~ 1fnile their se m ill till on . Th.s S8a.&CIi 8 t..1-..rt~(J tc sL _.... ~1I r. U ~ II ill CO!08 1.0 a haJ. t IJ ml U e r n:y . Of COUTS,. t.le IJOCUC)t' you C!W 8 )1II'nt. rt't b ettA.r , bnt 11 ill be imrollsiDl. u;llJ1 S lie tun ··,,:t'£, a" 1 01 lc. t. ,1""1' 011 rf1 th . 1 ~OO . )l, X-1us t ~le t ruv.ling ."':' n3e l'l will in the eni be +3 u~,t'A fros the COl ..... a. lcl:. eu-ne:1 fr'Ac tho ala of th~ l.lrochure p'ovi ,ed Lt cou:rae t' l It t ,e <.om.... lssioJ.s eat"l-.a,l aro in .7'--C.i,s O! t.."l8 L .;..1 . plU3 tr v.!U· e;:J: r.:J8 • 13 t 'lis c()rr~ct? Al8a i f the :.lbert.oj so• • ru ent cow8:s thru vr1t..~ ;a.T.o\h l' 1... . t"ia yea 43 it ln st Y$&r 'Would 1/,:, t that go to lOU as c O«S1S810n or or,ly 1/» of t e EL:101..L_t tb'J)' oj'el,d to i.r.:1 l .l;! brccbure? Let . ~ bear yo...r 1ntelTret.,t1oH ot t:.;,ls a.sr.ec +. It· unJ.erstanJ.iiog of the contrMo t you encl o' e! 18 tha.t the <;1r.C'lT'sly , �AlllONA O ff ICE , l Oll E. Ca",. lboelt AO M I N ISTIAtlON OffIC E 140 WUT SECONO SOU n . TH SAlT L CITY I . U A AICE TH Id. Pllo." I_, A,i zona D L El'. ' ll 2 IA Olo l CI " · 7708 O ff iCE O f .AY V. STEWA", p, ..;d.nl .53 0 W . 8ill Walla",. OfFIcns, lAY Y. STEWAlT " •• ld ... 1 ole l Wool.,U. ... W ....., A.;, au IUI 5.0 ... OIlOW Y ·, •• tJ d. o1 lu • Bentl ey iJitchell , Chairman Promo tion Comilli t t ee IIi tchell M otel Logan Ut ah Dear BentJ.:,y , looIor.o.. "'010... F-I.~.I.II. A',...... IEH1lET M Ll. ITCHE Vlc• •P•••ld""• ... lIeh.II M••1 o Loqu. U l.h W. G. 'ASS S ••• ".T,...w, ... .u L. SI.,•• Mole l Wlco.nbu,q, A,loon. April 24, 1957 Wl lIi a",., A';Eano analys i s form a nd l imit on we c vuld Your l e t t er rec eieved today and I fully agree wi th your of t he Trecker contract . ITe c ertainly c annot a c c e pt it in i ts present I bel ieve some fur t her negotia t ing ne ens t o be done . li th no time the f ort y dol lars a day expense s (even i f we a ccepte d t h a t fi&ure) fin d t hat film cos ting us twenty thousand doll ar s or more . 11henever y ou decide you can g et t o Pangui tch I ·,{ill do my b_ s t t o meet y ou t her o and pe rha~s the thre~ of us c an go ov_r the whol e s ituati on DUCtOU, 1 and c ome to a c.i. ecisi on as to just wha t i s a f air and e4ui t ab l a of f e r t o nul~e IiUILlUMO SEDANON .,_ . T ' " H ft"! M.,eo. d. I.... oiol rec.:rer en d carry on f r om th era . I c e rt ain l..Y c oula. no t ag r ee t 0 t h a ter .;s " oqol.. ona••. Muleoas t hey are . N 'U~NETT A. HEND~ YX Co....ro~ M ud Tow.. olol '.n qyll~h , Utoh By a l l means Mart in s hould get i nt o southern Ari ~ ona as s oor. ~~AHIC w. SO~GAT2 . the s ea son 7:111 t aper off f as t d own t here pr etty s oon no·,., . I f; .. tSac.rll,"'ft'ofrdo~ i 05Sl.bl e as t.4 .... tp.tillt.ld..... promL ed h im I would go s outh with him if he t hough t it ne ce ssary and perhaps DALLAS A. CLI N . I could be of as sistance t o him in g e t ti .,· ' ' ' ' - 1 3 GU "rl "~ S.dd!o lod, '' s tarted in Tuscon ana. tincal.>s A pI.. , W,O/Olln , s inc e h e i s pr acticall y Ul o-:m doVll, t h er_ . I s ort of f l: el t hat Bill V:alt z ~ ICH A.D c. HlGUS w111 step i n and he l p i f I show up wi th ~brtin and ask him to h el p , but knowing Fe"w. M ol.1 1i, .. IF.tt., M ... W l t z 1 t i s anyb ody!) gues s I/ha t a ttitude h e wi l l take i f rJL.rtin appr oac hes onl a him alone . Tne 3ame g oe s fo:' Ky riak.i~ alJd we \'Iont g e t to fir st bar,e ir, r.:e xico IX lCUTlYf SfCUTA~Y rrithout b i s hel r . MAlTlN H . C AHTWU.l. 1 w . Sacond South .0 s.1t l.h Ci,.,. Ut. h I am g l a d Ua.rt ins t r i p north wa s s uccessf ul e ven t h ough it i s the deade st o5sib l e t ime of y e er up the r e . I t makes i t l ook very e ncourag i ng . Martins wire Sunday sai d t r i p ne t ta":' 1 000 • ..;0 . Tha t s ur~ makes a good Gt o.r t . I BU. JIOse ~ t in "Ri ll be don hel" _ very shortly b ut ha vent heard any thing sinc e his wi r e l as t ~unday . I atten :l.e d a motel m ee ti l ~ a t Veg as ;.iond~ a nd s aid t ney had a wa nd r ful t r i p to ~ey.1co City and g one M other .J week s a f t e r lea ving Ua'_a.t lan . units . I ' l l go b ac k for that oig fish any to see y ou in Par~uitch s aw Da hill' Rob inson or. a r ound the other He is v ary bu sy and time you s s.y . soon , s~n~q, SCENIC ROUTE OF THE AMERICAS �AIIIONA OffiCE, 1021 E. Camelbock Rd. 'hoen,", A"zono Diol CI "'. 7708 AOMINIS'~Ar I ON OFFICE 1.( 0 WEST SKONO SOUTH ST. S... LT L... KE CI TY 1. UT ... H DI ... l H 9·9322 OffiCE 01 15 RAY V. STEWA Ii:T, " •• ide nt 53 0 W . Bill Willioml • WIlliam" Arizon .. 'lay 9 , 1 957 OfFICEU, . ... y V. STEWART " ••ideol W ..... no'M .. I.1 Bentley Witchell , Chairman Promotion Committee M itchell lIotel Logan Utah Willl.m" Ari.ono S. O. MORROW Dear Bentley , ............. Molon ~I09".U , A,I.on. I had been waiting t o hear from you in r eply to ~ l ast letter , IENTLEY .... ITCHElL Yiu·P •• ,ld •• ' but llar tin informs me the plans are chc.ngt:d an d y ou no longer e il..'""P8ct to Mllckell MOIII l091n, Ullk h ol d a mee t ing in Panguitch . W . G ..... SS So ...,",..,·T... ,.,., ~ince my las t l etter I h ave g iven the movie c onside~ab le thought l. 51. 11. Mol.1 Wlc~ .. b"'9, A.i . on, and I mus t say I am i n agr eement TIith M artin t hat i t should b e po stponed until a l ater dat e , probably next y ear . My reasons f or t h i s are p artly as DIRECTORS, follows : 6UILlUMO SEDANO Th . .. A. Hol.1 fto! M do NI.. .,co. 1 e .aSSOClatl.On J..S proh i bi t eu by the ilY LAVIS from c ontactinb any N0911.., 0"0" , MI.ktiebts in excess of ~2500 . 00 ~~!~~!!" ~~!'IE~~~T~~" 2 Until iTe hav e a balance i n the bank to c over the production of ~'"9uit~h,U'.h t he movie I fee l i t woul d b e unuise to make a contract for i t s pr o,..uction :e:I~:C:iIVs~'~~~~d~ien asi de f r om the fact above s tated . The s ale of t he brochure c ertainly i s MOnipoolilf.ld.ho not f ar enough a l oIlti to b e certain of it s SUC\..6SS anu while I fee l a nd hope DA.Lt.AS .... CllNGE~ it will be i t ~ tar.e lOllt;er than we expec ted end we could easil,,>, fina. "r'"~ 5.ddl. Lod91 Aplno. w,omin9 ourselves very much e m oarr a..; cied financially • 5 Th ere are certa i n parts of Tre<..ker::; c outra.ct which c ould not be • ICH .... DC. FERGOS FO'9U' Malol 6, .. 1FoU,. Monlo.1 accepted as t~ ey are . I b e li ~ ve f urther i nvestiga tion i n to tn~ coot of pr oduc ~ s uch EXECUTIVE SfCm .... n. film shoul..l be made . It s eems t here are a l ot of ~A -tra c ost s n07 coming ........ TlN H C"'NtwEI4lUt that we . .I.i d not know about before and we truST kno·r. what the compl e ted . 1 W S.cond Sou"'. 40 . $4olll. k.ClI... Ullh f l.1m ./l.ll cost bef ore we en t er into a con t ract wi tb anyoI.e to ~ ro.....u.ce it . Viu·',uid.nt I plan t o meet L -tattin in :Phoenix l'lionl.l.8\Y Wlcl go to Tuc son and Nogales wi t n h im. Hope we can Get the pr omoti on i n to h i ; h gear dorm there no.. as their 510'.7 season i s approachin~ very f ast . 1.1so I find t he 93 As s oc . has just c anvasse.l a ll of southern Ari .ona n icki.n& everyone for fifty bucl; e for t heir b r o c hu~ e . ~~ ~ake our p~tch a ~it tle h arder . Let m k'lol'I your uecis ion . e Sincerely , q(~ cc Burnett Hendryx M in Cantwe ll art SCENIC ROU TE OF THE AMERICAS �Ser. ", Cantwoll - IJ57 ~tchell C(\nvention Juet r ocaiv6,j 0 letter fr o BUTueH t.odny ~;i·.ril", hi... n. wl .. ra~:; which will be pet"IUUlent !:Ii"l;O ho ha,i pt.:rcha.~e .. :. a homo . Tbe l..-i .r·esi!. p-o.v will bu 11& Dar.cro,.;·ft p.oad burL~.:.:.JlB , ...... UfO;.·I'il.o . ,lease C01'{'t:rC't ,Yvur ~li. ~ L ..dt End 31;1 t .... t hI:! r ("f~ ... \~ '3 t.ha buUetl'JB et-..c . I have not hal.!' 1 from either or je'u for Jome t_ae, "L-"l:t .i 3U,. ~ th ... i 1.......,3 fot· the &:1'0 go1..tt. '!OL\lo fl.": eXp8(.te..l • .oil'..) Iln:: r';,':ie~·"1,.... ti .. 3 C..·S;il,· i. flo "at? It.. itt just 4. "saku off now an... tUG j~f!VI '1me p.c.3JO.' tbat L03rt .L1:' ·cr.;" btl! !o:-i; . ~oll\l'"~rltiOl, I ho V h~..l no Tej'll1 Hl aa yet froID !o.fiy I.H. Ule ctiH!l' lot.tQT'n G 0 ~ 110 he'\1" [Tilt; t118t! tiOUJ . r sent out to ... ilv' , hct1.l}M.n et.1.. u1 thsl", b'lt he; 11l t~JO h'(Ji:lOtitlfl I iL:k.i1ii tlJ tsxp. (.' ~ to b . kbl·,.. ~.", ... e l . to t "ke ~ . I gua.ls tbat 13 811 for 00':4, ljut ont~ tU te· b(·t~" have L~\Jrnctt:l l'l.Iucit al 1·133~ . }fa eSiecL.11. as. t: tlll<t be b., k It .1 . .ft.·!1n';h a;) to t 3 ,rc;...~·f,; .• of t •. \::1 t·~;Jo.·1or" QI;d t.;)t': o..;j •• odatic,n as 110 s.:..id bi~ be'H't i .... 1 ~ d ~_~ \l"l o.lh he i , ver i .t. "!31te I lo 1. ..C" 1r. h·::'1 t:l1llJ~' turl1 O'l t. 3iJ.c erely , �1.r . 1 , 1 Ct'nt 1011 'i tt:he:l1 II lott-<lt' tod1'l.:,'"' ["-lm !'-'rd ~ .,ilI: ret" ~ l·ng . Ii... B ,1 oJ ~octi.1J fl .. .ad .. l1:3t l';"h.. e1v~~ ab. ... _ ... ~1 .... 1 h b.:Cl:"; tl'ftv~ll1 ~ 1.. 7' ""ie: r I;"ta r ;,:,~ h ..... ~ I 1 !"~co1vs,1 1.;,0 .e an, t.l.!.q; fr ... tt !WV bot hlJ r_. fl'l'!D ... 9: t. rJ foY' tl . r h. t 1 t t n lit', 1... .. \ ' : ' ~ t· 1 ~ try1.t: 3 .. .!lI ",i" is 111 lG h I~e~ It. ,)., cr t...c • a t. 6 woe:ii. . Ye3ter~ h6 So! t. .... ..-,1 nat', t,:d Col tet' "M ~Jl.t<.lc.G11t(J ," lJ c..~l;(..... !, ' j kit. 1'l1ftJ.Gg . f:;x-ptJeta tr:.- "cD l:,d. 11.1' U I ... ! e: 10.•. ~ "~. b v 1.'.\ ~ C • t ..... ''':ollV".Ji,ti 10 , 'v ;tfAi;.~~ ... II'" ',- d I k e V'J-..·:/ l:IUdl t .. l> Ul<.i .... 1 1 if '" Lt 0,11_ L ClJ\ , t'~J'U 1.'1 ~L:J ;rGaoht :;J Jq'c ., L ._. t Ci r13 fi'Ohll .A-rt:.hur Hi! ''''. b-~ It.(.;heatt:.r , '1m. • 1: t. t'o,,:: !l.1 t.o .:'1_ A1....... o "'on.1 .il •• . o. • t I 'n&.9 WI, c:.U I h bC+ J:i t v ~ II t' 1 t;,.. ~.o.;, :...n t~o.~I. him ... .U.~ b.. 1It t~ .-111 f.ut fl 'ut' ~ _!II " _ t 6'':'" i t 1.0J1 t yd, ki::; n, • .11" • e ~ j.... f 11 I' t 1· orv nt..1""' . . ... ~..:. ,. "lf1' t t In �RAY V. STK!lART September ~ 1957 Dea •••••••••• ** •••• * Ernie forwarded your letter of the 7th( addressed to Bentley and myself) up here to Edmonton. By now , you have no doubt reoel ved mine of the 8th br1.Dg1.Dg th1.Dgs upto-date as of that writing . At the moment there is very little else to add except that things have sone off to a fairly good start here in Edlllonton oonilider1.Dg that this is a large oity way up at the jumping ott plaoe into practioally no where , and the end of paved roads in the Provieno8 Tourist tre4. re to date has been so inoidental that even the motel operators do not have "~aA understanding or appreoiation of the potential and seam somewhat amaze'" to learB what similar oities in the States have been able to aocomplish. The whole area is louzy RICH with oil money , whioh makes tourism l ook unimportant , at least at the moment . In faot the Alberta Government just last week paid a "profit ehsr1.Dg" dividend to every adult oitizen in the Provinoe ••• • 20 . 00 eaoh for a grand total of 11 million. This was the oitizen' s split of profits aocumulated by the Provinoial Government from Govt . Oil leases . - Have been work1.Dg with my su agent , Ed . ZllZZO: Leger who will oarry on atter I leave . Only about halt a dozea memberships pioked up to date , but like any large City it is a slow prooess . The population is 248 , 000 spread out over 42 . 6 square miles . Have three pioture sponsorships at • 300 eaoh in the works v/hioh should oome to a d'finite deoision by TUesday (the 17th) and then I will take off leav1.Dg Leger to follow up on membership and listings . AS 0 the Convention" .ws ••• wl have nothing new sinoe my last letter . Last Sunday even1.Dg I wired \'lalt nng at Jaokson to advise me via letter as to general progress and list of roservations . The reply may be av Galgar by now awaiting my return , as I had planned to be there myself today. I am going to oall Ernie tonight , and a ilvise him that I w111 be a couple of days late and IP' there is a l etter from Jaokson will have him Dx read it to me over the phone . I t I ge t any intormation from tonight ' s oall will inclose i t with this before mail1.Dg . It not , will ad v ise you as soon as it does arrive . The way it looks now, I may not get to Jaokson until about the 30tll. as it is too far to oome baok up here , and I mus t therefore get Alberta tied up , piotures and all before I leave . I t the Jaokson folks have gone ahead and done anything as per plans , a week will be ample time to get the whole oonvention pllllgram polished off in good ahape ••• 1t they have laid down on the .1 o~hen it will be another story Whioh I hate to even think about . Somehow , I will mannege to get a bulletin into the mail over this n en week-cnd , whioh v,Ul be just two weeks before the oonvention . Am writ1.lls key people in the Livingston to Logan area today urging tham to Drganiae per&onal solioitation for convention registrations to all olub ~bdrs etc . Am ino+osing copy of a letter to lyn Sergeant 'J! t he Arizona Development Board . I bellave that I sent you aopy q! ~ ~evious l etter to her . Anyway s he t. to attand the aonTention and wr ~te ask.1.Dg if s he would be • ~..... ~\ ... la~ ••'.:.a~ go. her l etter ihast night , d Y/ired her an invi tation ~:r < oe.l ". hi " 1 Attar_ If' vou hannau to be in .Phoenix • .JIll,ltht be a g ood "" .. �RAY V. STEWART Sapt . l l- P.S . Sunday Morning • •• • P.S : ** • •*** ••• *** •• Just talked to Ernie to see it he had a letter tor me trom i alter King at Jaokson. No such luok . o It has been a tull week sinoe I wired him as tollows: - _ ~ , ___ • 0 ____ o w ••• 0 0 ~._ - , AllUIAIL LIST OJ!' CONVENTIO RESERVATIONS Il!' ANY AND ADVISE N REGARDING INVITATI N ACCEPTANCE AND GENl!:RAL liGRESS ::>TATUS UARE HEPBURN WTEL 5809 IlACLEOD TRAIL CALG'IRY NEEDED J!'OR SEPTEIIBER BULLETIN Look~ like a tull week is time to get an a ir mail letter trom Jaokson to Calgary. So ••• here I sit right on the spot a thousand miles trom Jaokson with the oonvention opening three weeks trom today , a bulletin to get out , and no intormation. J!'rankly, knowing alt iJ)Cl ng , this situation soares hell out ot me, and while it burns me up to have to put the ASsooiation to expense whioh should be unneosssary, I do not see how ~ can possibly wait any ~onger tor some word about the Convention p~ess , 80 I have plaoed a oall tor Mr . King. There was no .. answer , so I will keep on oalling until I get hold ot him. I want to get this letter to the P. O. sometime late toda¥, and it I get hold ot King betore it has to be mailed , will inolude the Conve~ion intormation . It I "do not hear trom him betore this has to be mailed , " will get another letter out to you at onoe atter I have talked to him. Ernie mentioned that I have mail trom you at Calgary which he will torward today , and should reaoh me M onday or Tuesday I'o!!ot knowing the contents ot thiS mail , I oannot oomment on i t at thia wrltlng ~ ~ •••••• * Sunday P 10:00 P .M. now , and I w.o..J r~~ just called W alt again , but got no answer . Earlier this afternoon Mrs . King told the operator t hat W alt was out hunting , and had a oooktail party date this evening , but was expeoted home by nine- thirty. Guess the old boy must hat;e had one too many and Mama joined him, so will now wait till morning . W ill advise you soon as I hear trom him. �Se~t . 1 • lv~'1 COllventlon 1'h1s l utter t.bo UQ d(.luOt w111 l O1\:j: rur. it r,ll1 COM De for t.1Q &.i ~OQBth1t1ti. or D hoCli to you both 1 fNuume , but in best no d.oabt • .to navQ JU3t m old Qur moWl ana \Jhero we ;till I!iO (,)1' "h"t ./0 ~i1l cio 1 bavent. t...e Bl1tihtll3t iCllJU Juot 80 l or-s aa gat a lOL;fI \Y tJ alJiQ' f rom touriota . 1 .loot t.hiok lover trant to S~ anotOur c'ne tho CUlYbo I ' U ehmlg6 my aL.d aVbt.tually it lover ,,;ct ro3too. up. A:J thlribs l<..~ ~ it 1') sOGIewhat tol.4bttul if 1 w111 ... 0 a.1:l1d t.o &61:. 1:.0 t.hl :O~.vcn­ tion Ol.. tu.e at> thd noVl O;:.JnOL~9 tL.tli.t1 OliOi' c.\.:to.~o\' 1st ~to.'i o. w.l 't.ho I .erA leu. 1 ....i.l._ ..10 :tV ~ ,..,t t~ .et 1;.091"'6 anti as ~o-..... <.1. looldble, but if. 15 akuot (;ort.J.n tilnt 1 • .J..ll nut· ~il:t then-oj LO" 1~ [._~e t,:..:.' L lti IJi\' l.t.ot'3 eUI~ loll vun....., . I 'Will t1"1 to t.e. mt 1 '\ow.-i.. i ... cu; o. ACCOl"'..iin..:: to tne lly L 101/S it 1;.1 t,jdt uut.,y ot t.:h.. .lor.", •• 8" t to d8~~I.,,~ whhh V1~ Pra;Ji...!clDt .mall t lks chnr(;o io tho a baol.t.B af t .•e .1 £'u~i·...allt I I a m tberafot' 'f0 lU63ting tha.t vica fl'ooiJon t dimtl,f):r lU tellsl t: ..c:.e fu ... l cha1"' 'a of 'unLj. all m6et1t;!s of tbe CoLvent.1.on 111c.:lulil ~ ttl'.: ll:;..l;.tt re-..'1;;lur ouat.il.c> ~.j.' i!le ... Wlu of . . . 1"1...... (; ~.orn . provi~· I ~ ~.o~ to ~et tle~Q : 0 lLO~ . As you might sueaD it ,.ill be bi,. JOb to bot ~d..1N. \lr eu..i mUII(J.J. ... ut. of ~lt:l \.;D the t "Vat . TtHm it .;ill t:.dl~ .!Jo:co lL..e to e:et uiUo ! ...1 J. up an.! t. <.1!.... .1 1i. Sl1uj e 00 ..... C&lJ lBu'Ie . 1 . . 111 (;ontim~.o to I'ltuJ to at.t.onri tho ~, vontiOil evu OO t but. I doubt 1t :..t ... 1...... uo po-i.1Di~:t. to ~t:t.. t ....l·g o::;.i.\.lr"v 1.1/.4.. m ..~ at tiJ.b 1~'_n:.·t.llat . This blU;"~ t-..,I C6.iko I t 1 ... w.:o.J..I.. t.h~t 1 do .!Dds ti.'+; /Iohu,,",,' t:<3";"'11< ti~l ... u .... \.t:ot'....,mce dtb tiw).)'/ we BO t.ho.t i t 1 W2l J.utv t.Ju..J.. I l,i,J c.; .... r-:-.1e bt".\,( Go.. I to sw COY"OI" but.. wilJ. trJ t.o t.-t.I thlJ C:";;;Jt.i.." thlJ vt.i,o~ :Iite. 1 b'.VG b ...... n w:.:..b ... uru;DJ.O tv bat. 0 Joo~\Jt;l1i~ ~t,t;.t 1 .UtS CtJD . 1 ,StiL. " ink it WI,), L~ 00 ",d-ll to ('ol1:>1u.a: my .u....t.a:Jt1o.!J .!t..o~t u10- t1.o& .'\ thrve to J N ~-r 111 vt..Jl t.o T"';",il ,0 vu ..:tt DIU tj.j~u. or~6 :;'0n,1" (U'"•.J. a t.•..r..h,l y ear ..i1 It t.c,;r fol' .ori':Qun. vL..u('"w1.Ju uvlrt JirtJ .. tot'.J.lil s will e • 1. .::; i .t. .1'1.iQl.o t..'1.Ls jOU yaar ... ooth 1n Ukill ~ .... ·t ~ oar . tly ju~t " . . . F. n t:,e to"t'!tS it. 'tiOulG elimiL-lW in botb .ot.ato.:J trvm u)..p1rll .... 1:. Wu \4,.'') time • • t "luht 0 chetlca lli.;.e t...ll:l C('I/8o) ... ui-' d.J.l.I h~.:.l 1 t j,j,L. it WOtll>J. b~ ,,1 ..9 t.o t\..t"~LJo or 1 • lfQth ..J.:.t'Cct ....rah .. I lo~~ t.1aQe, o.Jfore It. t I d.oubt aCl"iouJ.ly 11' LSun;et.t Co4Jl t,et away Lv ,t."'t.-.l. tiw :!o v\;;nt:~.,m but. 1 ti l "rite b nbd.. t it . You. have -1 lilt.tar by l.Of &.Oau t FN m~[; 1 l.Iw...,1r18 h1(.b exrJ.Edn.;; w!) lot b ...,' eOfl' ... that'S . I u vary so~ that thiw!a tmv~ nt1p,pcIl$"l at BlJ(.;h OJ inol oTtww tine Si:) far l,aoJoc1aUoll is C01'll;OrnoJ , but 1 will do It.y u,___ to .et tbsro on t.iM, anJ I OQll . Let IiMt hu&1: fr . you 31xm . J .. llCBt'Oly , ~1 &J> tt>e JI&l:'hrlp8 � 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 3392 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2630 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/933">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/933</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 1376813265 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Various correspondence from members of 89'ers, 1957 Description An account of the resource Various correspondence from members of 89'ers International Highway Association, Inc. including Ray Stewart, Bentley Mitchell, and Martin Cantwell. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart, Ray V. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mitchell, Bentley Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Tourism Alberta Route 2 Mexico Route 15 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available 89'ers International Highway Association, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1957 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Edgar Bentley Mitchell Papers, 1950-1959, COLL MSS 322 Box 2 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/xv06356">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv06356</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 MSS322Bx2Fd7 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fa672d65e76caf9ce2d084aff995456b.pdf 5e5fc2d36374c29656e02963ef263214 PDF Text Text 655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 August 22, 1994 Mr. Dave Berg Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Dear Mr. Berg, As a charter member of Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon and a longtime activist on the Logan CanyonlU.S. 89 question, I have recently had the opportunity to study the preliminary draft of the Record of Decision. I write now to tell you that in my opinion, the ROD manifests the same errors and oversights, and the same fundamental mispapprehension, that so unfortunately characterized the DEIS and the PElS. The basic problem with the ROD is that the purpose and need for the project have simply not been established. The traffic-flow projections and th~ safety argument are still being based on deeply flawed data. The ROD admits problems with the data but goes right on to assume the essential correctness of all assumptions flowing from the faulty statistics. Without rigorously collecting and checking traffic flow data over a period of time, maintaining consistent check points, how can UDOT make any believable projections of flow for the future, and how can UDOT present any accident-rate analysis at all? The fact is that there is no traffic problem in Logan Canyon, and no particular safety problem other than the slow deterioration of three bridges. The ROD skims over this huge and glaring hole in the project's rationale. It then proceeds to handle the comments, questions, and opposition of the public with what must be called pure arrogance. To the very serious objection that no study was ever done on people's values and perceptions concerning the Canyon, the ROD devotes only eight dismissive words. To the often-proposed idea of using turnouts instead of passing lanes, the ROD has no substantive response at all . To the detailed and specific critiques of UDOT's traffic and safety numbers, critiques offered by several highly qualified scientists, the response is simply that UDOT used standard and professional methods of analysis. This is not a response. To the concept that • • • �Logan Canyon is as much a destination as a route of travel to somewhere else, and thus should be treated in a special way, the ROD simply says the canyon is both a destination and a route, and then goes ahead to treat it as a route only. I believe an objective observer must conclude that UDOT has never truly considered the objections to this project. They only conducted an EIS when forced to. They hired a consulting firm that, to judge by the evidence, gave them what they wanted--a green light. They absolutely ignored overwhelming public opinion against their "preferred alternative" and in favor of the Conservationists' Alternative. They continue to use, and possibly abuse, flawed basic data in order to justify their project. The conclusion appears inescapable: UDOT wants to build this project, and will let nothing stand in their way. If I may offer a suggestion: Issue a ROD on the three bridges (these have never been a point of contention), and then, while the bridges are being rebuilt, conduct a genuine Environmental Impact Statement process and issue a Supplemental EIS on the remainder of the project. Sincerely, Thomas J. Lyon �February 10, 1989 Dale Bosworth Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 125 South State St. Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 Dear Dale: I regret I was unable to attend the meeting concerning the Logan Canyon Highway Project on February 3. Unfortunately, it was necessary for me to be out of Logan. I have read the latest (Jan. 20th) version of the Agency Alternative for the project, and I am greatly concerned. I do not wish to analize it in detail here, but only to give you some general comments: 1. This is basically the high speed alternative in the preliminary DEIS. We appear to be just about where we were over two years (and endless amounts of time and energy) ago. 2. The middle section of the Canyon has been reduced to only 4 milesfrom Right Fork to lower Twin Bridge; we regard the middle section as the entire distance from Right Fork to Ricks Springs. This redesignation, with the attendent upgrading of the road to a 35 mph design (probably 50 mph signing) from Twin Bridge to Ricks Springs is unacceptable, since the consequent environmental damage will be severe. 3. The high speed design of the upper section will result in unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly in the Beaver Creek and Summit sections. 4. There are several safety concerns vlith respect to the placement of passing lanes, especially in the Dugway and near the Limber Pine turnout. 5. The implementation of this alternative requires 45 (!) ammendments to the Forest Plan, surely a new worlds record for any forest plan involving a single project. The cumulative effect of this large number of ammendments is such that a major change in The Plan will be required - a revision, with everything that implies. Attempts to get by with an ammendment will certainly be appealed. 6. The Agency Alternative has little detail, making analysis of its impacts by citizens not throughly acquainted with both the area and the previous history almost impossible. If it appears as such in the EIS, the EIS will be challenged as not meeting NEPA criteria. 7. The cover letter sent with the alternative, bearing the signatures of the three agency engineers, attempts to disclaim the alternative as a "preferred" alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service rep- �presentative is clearly destined to become the "preferred alternative." I wish to repeat something live said in previous meetings with you: we accepted the Forest Plan on the assumption it was to be taken seriously by you. It states, e.g., that liThe road will not be raised to a higher standard than existing." (Chapter 6, p. 236). Other places in the plan are clear about maintining the scenic quality of the highway (VQO classification, e.g.). You have recently designated the highway as a "Scenic Byway". If the Plan had proposed the kinds of changes found in the Agency Alternative, it certainly would have been appealed. To abandon the Plan now, under pressure from UDOT and FHWA, is to break faith with the environmental community and reduce Forest Service credibility to a new low. Stn+:erely, • .--, -7 Jack T. Spence Dept. of Chemistry Utah State University Logan, Ut 84322 cc: Dave Baumgartner Tom Lyon Dick Carter UWA Steve Flint Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club , �tate 0 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EH. Findlay . Director G Sturzenegger, P . ene .E Assistant Director H. H. Richardson,P . .E North Wall Avenue POB 2747 . . ox Ogden. Utah 84404 169 SamuelJ. Tay r lo Chai rman W eSW ayn . inters Vice Chai r man JamesG. Larkin February 2, 19MaunCox Tdd G. Weston o Elva H. Anderson Secretary Disl.ri cl Directo r To Whom It May Concern: The attached document is an alternative for improvements to SR-89 in Logan Canyon. Elements of the alternative have been carefully examined by representatives of the UOOT, FHWA, and USFS. This document should not be considered as a preferred alternative, nor as completely addressing impacts of the suggested elements, but as one alternative of many possible alternatives. If the environmental impact on an element by element, and total element basis is acceptable, as analyzed in the environmental impact statement, then the elements of this alternative should be pursued. This alternative will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement. Various groups may wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss this or other improvement concepts. Arrangements can be made by contacting Lynn Zollinger at 399-5921. Sincerely yours, Richard Harris, P.E. USFS, Forest Engineer LRZljw/0924J an equal opportunity employer n Silver, P.E. , Area Engineer n R. Zo lnger, P. E. Preconstruction Engineer, 0-1 �655 Canyon Road Logan, tIT 94321 January 17, 1989 Dave BaUTIBa:r tner, District Ran er U .. Fores t Service 860 N. 1200 r: . Logan, UT 84321 J . Dear Dave: Stew Flint provided Ire vlith a ooPY of tJ'1e "agency alternative" on the Logan Canyon Jigrrway, and. I presume you might t:e interested in having ccmnents on it. The dOC1..ltmnt represent:.S no significant change frQ"ll tJDOT' ~' 1979 p lans for Logan ('",,'lIlyon. It reflects absolutely none of the I.D. team' s input, delivered in bA16nty-two meetings, each of several hoUrs' duration. It reflects no environrrental consciotl."3ness at all, but i s Jasically an en1]iI1eering statement. It makes the old, thoroughly discredited ar<Jl!frent ti'.at flattening curves (t.l)ereby increasing speeds) is sorreh<:Hl going to inprove safety. In sum, this document tal<.es us back to s qu8le one in the whole process. It a.:OlJI1t'3 to a declaration of \iar against the canyon and against the p...~ple defending it. '!'he rrost g laring p rocedural flat., in this OoCllInf'..nt is that it offers onl y vague inforrration on just ",hat cons truction is contemplated, in s:pecific places. It defers consideration of specific construction plans until a later hearing--later than the hearings for the DElS. If I am not mistaken, this is not )EPA Folicy. This dccurrent calls for 49 amendments to the Forest Plan. vJhy not be straightforward about it and say that the Forest Plan, as it applies to logan Canyon, is totally irreleva.1'1t? The cumulative effect-s of 49 J:nPJ1ts surely add up to a revised Forest Plal1. It seem..g apparent that the Forest Service has in eff~"Ct ded.ded that Logan canyon i s in fact !'lot any kind of a special scenic resource i so let's revise the Pla."'1 to reflect the actual assessment of the Forest Service. " The re-channeling of Eeaver Creek is an enviro11l:!'ental outrage, and I believe it itlill be seen this TNay by sportsnan's groups as vlell as by anyone generallv concerned \vl. th the environi11E:mt. The extraordinary number and - passing lanes in the upl?6r canyon ".,ill silt~)ly invite high spgeds, of t..'1u~ reducing safety. rrh.e three engineers ~'lho drew up t..'1is doCUi1Ent do not appear to realize that flOv within a system cannot be faster t.~an its l slCY.Nest single point ~ their p lans for Logan Canyon vlOuld have areas of very high speeds suddenly funneling dO'VTI to areas of lo,..er speeds. This could be calaITlitous. I will save deta:i..led <::x::lII'!.rent~ on each mile or tenth of a mile for a future opportunity. \ t present I will only Sllnmarize by saying that the ph1.1of'"ophy behind this "agency alt.emative" is only too clear. vf uat dis" tresses me alrrost equally with the contemplated envirol1I'l'ental destruct.i.on is the Forest Service's apparent acquiescence in it. ~ c mcere1y, · Thomas J. Lyon • • �. ./ . - ~ ..-v't.?. :r ~ f~ A'- :-z.- :...<-,...< . ./4 ~ - ( • < �f R-234 RECEIVED MAr 29 emoran um· UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC1N'987 .CH2 M HII.J.. DATE: May TO . Those listed Below • 19,~~7 r: ._0' FROM : R. James NaegI ' .-, "1!; lnee f Location and Enviro~ ental Studies , I \ SUBJECT: Logan Canyon, u.s.-84 J I Study Biological Assessment • Atta ~ hed is a copy of the Biological Assessment done by Stanley L. Welsh, Endangered Plant Studies, Inc., of Orem Utah. The Maguire Primrose found in the project vicinity is the object of the Biological Assessment. If you have questions or comments, please contact John Neil of our office at 965-4227. Thank you for your cooperation. RJN/JNeil/ps Attachment cc: ~~ Robert Ruesink, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Daniel Dake, FHWA s.tan.. Nuffer, CH2M Hill Eduardo Norat, UDOT John Neil, UDOT • • �• • ENDANGERED PLANT STUDIES, INC. 129 North 1000 East Orem, Utah 84057 (80n 225-7085 18 May 1987 James R. Naegle, P.E. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 ~lr. d,I}' .. Utah Department TranlpOnallori location & Environ. Sludies This report is in response to your letter of 5 May 1987 delivered to EPS Dear Mr. Naegle: • MAY 1 9 1987 from the Utah Department of Transportation on 7 May 1987 regarding a biological assessment of a segment of the highway in Logan Canyon ' (Project No. 1371163, FO; Authority No. 5988). An on-site survey was conducted during the period May 11-12 on a segment of the Logan Canyon highway adjacent to and east of the Wood Camp Trailer Park to the vicinity of milepost 385, a distance of approximately 1000 feet, and for another 1000 feet east of there to assure coverage of a second population of of Maguire primrose (no. 5 of the attached map). Prior to the on-site survey a literature review was undertaken. Specific references were sought concerning present knowledge of the distribution of Primula maguirei, a species listed as threatened under stipulations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Literature reviewed included status reports by Welsh in 1979 and the Utah Native Plant Society (Padgett 1987). The latter report is sUlmnarized in an Apri 1 1987 report to the Utah Department of Transportation by CH2M Hill, which was made available by your office. The Maguire primrose is apparently a calciphile, restricted to Laketown and Fish Haven dolomite formations. It js likewise a mesophyte, growing where moisture is available at least through the flowering period, which apparently is from early April to after mid-May. Plants in more arid and exposed sites flower first, followed later by those of the more protected and shaded areas. Proposed highway modifications, alternatives 81, C1, and D1, were considered. All are essentially within the area of concern for a principal population (designated in reports as population 4) of the Maguire primrose. The plant occurs on outcrops of limestone south of the highway, beginning at a point approximately 700 feet west of milepost 385 and extending east to a point approximately 350 feet west of that milepost. The population, estimated to contain 176 clumps of • Maguire primrose (Padgett 1987), occurs in small aggregations on exposed boulderlike outcrops at the west edge of the population. The initial , ano (westernmost) occurrences are about 40 to 50 f'eet above the h about that same d ~ roa er. rd • �• • the limestone is exposed as a cliff-forming unit and the population is largest in the area where it is most exposed to ~h.f= li i,gb!.Jay, • ..aO u.L ,550... _ Q. feet west of milepost 38.5 - At that most developed and deeply shaded __ exposure the plants occur in profusion, beginning at a point estimated at about 30 feet above the existing road. Eastward the exposure trends upward in elevation and the population follows that exposure to perhaps a hundred feet above the roadway. The second population in close proximity to the proposed modification (population 5) begins some 400 or 500 feet to the east of the east end of the area of concern. The plants are more remote from the highway and the plants are more scattered. There does not seem to be any potential impact of the present proposal on that population. Three other plants were noted in the CH2M Hill report indicated above. They are Erigeron cronQuistii, Musineon lineare, and Penstemon compactus. All are currently cited as Category 2 plants in the Federal Register, indicating that they are possible candidates for future listing processes. Of these species only MusineQn was noted within the proposed construction site. The species is a corrnllon component of the limestone cliffs plant couullunities in Logan Canyon. It is growing with the Maguire primrose at the population 4 site. The proposed action is not thought to constitute a significant threat to the Musineon or t o the other category 2 species. • • Two concerns were stated in the CH2M Hill report for the Maguire primrose, especially at population 4. Other populations (2, 3, and 6 ) known for the species are considered by me to be too remote from the construction site as to be threatened by the proposed action. The concerns involve cold air drainage down Logan Canyon, and the moderating effect of canyon bottom vegetation on adjacent cliffs serving to buffer the existing populations of Maguire primrose. To these can be added a third concern -- dust from construction activities. Dust might overlay stigmas thus providing competition for pollination and reduced seed set. err? tu( 'Concern I number one, cold air drainage, does not seem to be significant. The draina e of cold air is expected to continue atGUt- as i n th e pasf , regardless of highway modifications. The second concern is probably more lmportar.t, but, it s 0 rd be 0 ed, that the best developed part of the population of Maguire primrose at pop~lation 4 is on the most =7 exposed portion of the cliff system (i.e., there is little or n~ ~ screening ve etetation betwe e 0 ulation....and-the road). _However, in pow of action all possible care should be given to preventiOn of wholesale removal of the remaining screening vegetation. Only that part of the canyon bottom vegetation apsolutely in the way of_construction should be removed. The third concern, dust, can be mitigated by waiting until the flowering period is over prior to corrmencement of construction activities, i.e., construction should commence no earlier than June. " -- - - -- The nearest approach of the construction is at the bend of the road at the westernmost edge of the population 4 site. It is understood that as • much as 10 feet of the toe of the ridge might have to be removed to allow proper alignment of the roadway. This sho~ld cause no problem to the PQ,Qulation if the rockwork is dertaken I-lith s~re. Blasting shou l d be kept at a minimum and proper barriers constructed as to prevent • �uphill scattering of debris. -- -- If the recommendations cited above are followed there should be minimal or no 'mpiilc-t- to- the_Magui re primrose PQpulation 4. The other populations will not be adversely affected. , With best regards, Sincerely yours, . , • 4 - P ' I I ' ;, " ~I J' " , . r. • I{. ;' I , I '/ . , f • ; t . '. . ' , r .., I , , ' .,: (I ,, .... :.,.~. L ,\ Stanley- L/ Welsh , President I �• ) / " } II ' " (' /· " I t · .vv" ... . .. . J · . '0 '" ... , -~ r. '" -- ~ "r CONTOUR INTERVAL .11) . - .... ~- .. ._.I • "J ', .' .. ., ", , : , .' , , I \ .. , .. ' :. .'-~ '. ,\ . • I '\ I . ,. I ( ' -... ~ . (, ' .- , ,'\ .. ., \': ':1 . ' ", ... : .. "... .'-../. ,. ..... j '. -. . , , \ o · , , .\. ... . ,. ,~'-..J-.-' .". . , , • \ . .. " .. \ ~ ; .' .. , . , , \ , ' , , , ' ..I ., /- - : -~- . -.:\"---./ . ..- ...... _.. .. ..:.. :.:, ., ,' . ;.. •• ' . , ' . . ~ ... ; t ., , , I -, ' -- . " , , ,- " • ':---:.----;'--. ". ", , • . "' " I , , " ,--.:....- /', : . ,-"" .. .. , , ~ . ... :', ' . '.. '. .. '--' ' ' ,, , ', •, , , • , • , , :I . , .. , , "... , , " .. I I _ "' . ( , .. , - , ' 47'30" r , , . , - ., ) I '-/] , • ' , ." . ' '" .' i', , ,I , : , I .. ,. . , ,. ..,, , , ' ' • .. • : j I , - ,,-:, .~ I. ·, . I I - ..... • ..J' :". . . .-'- • '" ( ;. , (. ', I {'''' !,, : , ,, ,, . ) )I \ . L·· ( . , , ~ ' 6997 ,; ( \ \ • , , ... - '. , , ~ -. .. ~ - .. ::' ,' 1.., ",--"_ ~ 600 , , '" . , _ . .. -. . .- . ... ... '. . .'. ., . - ' - .-. '--" '! \-', ' ' , . ' 61 ... -'../ • ) -' , , , .' ,./ ._- ., • - • ,, , ;;,......I , ( :' \ " . r --- )'J _. ./ i "-.... , -,,-, . , , • .... r" , -" , , ' " , , ;, . , •• .I , ,, . ., , .. I, , , . . . I - .. -.. ' • . •, , , ,• I •, , - ~--:I , , ,, " .. , • , , , , ~ . . { I I I • \\ , , I . ,( . ' ; , \ ' ,, , • I f ; , ~ • ' ') ', \ .' ,'----' I . • \ " • • I ' o \ • " . " , , . .\.., . . . , -- - -. ( Ii "), ~ \ " ! ' \i ,' .. , I • ; · · ·.I·;~ 1; r--/\ ~\." ','\ , . ,'\ , • • 'I ,' . ,f , ,, • ' ' " , -..., .. ' I ' • " • ~-A . \i', ~\\ 'i, . , , , "' '" .. ,, , 6761 " • " . ..•,•, , , I ' Portion of the Mount Elmer 7.5 minute quajrangle map s~owing the approximate boundaries of populations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. '~25 " �45 ~~ - 400 W Logan, UT S4321 24 .January, 1989 Dear Dave, Since we last t<11ked, Lynn Zollineer has g iven us the oppor tunity to reviJe the conservationist's proposal. We have decided to take advBn tage of tLi s oH)ortuni ty. 'Nhi Ie we do not plan 8 Y1.y maj or change s in our plan of a year and a half ago, this will p€rmit us to rc: sp~nd once again wi th our cOIJ.Jerns over UDO'l" s al-'parent preferred a 1 terYla ti ve. We can a Iso update t h e few 10ca ti ons w!lere thin["s have eh8.nged. As I m enti~n ed last week, the a gency altel~ative seems to be the D alter~ ative fer all except 4 miles. We share your concerns ttat the environm ental analysis w!lich we have seen is weak. The desires of UDCT to put much of this (eg. rubble disI)osal) off un. til the "design hearings" is particularly worri some. We will be in touch when we produce this reviseo draft. If UDCT would be willing to meet with us now we can once again try to expl.ain our concerns. Sincere1..y, /U~ 2-:-e~:r Steve Flint • Copies: Tom 1,";on / " Jacij:kSpence B'ruce Pendery • P. S. It is also disappointing to note that, despite the national recognition which the Forest Service has given to the scenic qualities of Logan Canyon, UDOT has put off all ~ention of turnouts until the design hearings. I worry thc:.t "Sight distance and tapers" will be difficult to include, so we will end up with no turnouts. • I ~"'7 A- ~I /~,;f • tAlloT ~ ~ /tz~7" ~ v~~h /tI-evr'd~ ~v , ' e- , �1/20/69 Dear Dave: T --In gene ral t his plan ." t ··l'l""".:.' , on l"2Jrunirl.g 'I''':> ~ "-"_' ;:) . ' L c' 0' the f ollowing COrnme!lt.s : Al tenlat.i ve " I .!.n responee tJS .I J ,-, ;:~L~l-'E: r}l i ,gJ-l\-lay " a sim ply cannot t olerate appealing , , im pacts t.:ll.. :3E: ; - - 1• o· '-IF- - "'I .- -;:.rodl.lctive .I.. .... . ,- o , . , - ·-r l· +· '· . ' ''' J· '' . ~ ·'__ , .L J. 1 0' ' ,_", n.: ,- ",, .i'='- ~ A1 t.'<:: J. , .'.,. ,' .J.. 'of" r:.. -L , ...J... .,1 .1 "'_' , , ., . 4 .. . .. · '. h\ HY ,J:=~ .. ... . ......... u"-I _ . + ":\ ~ .!:0- ........:. . ..l..=T, ............ ' ~ " . ~... l.I 1-=-1 , - ,. .. Llc' .• ' .... 1,..) \I ..L.-J ... ...... ~-, +,-:.'" .. '. 1 ' .J,..~ _ _ ... _ r 1-, '_' 1... t-: 4..I,.- t,J. ..i. .,../. ._'J. ... _' '. ,_ . .. ~ , , - . --)=-'T ",""1 ..L ~.l ).".1 .' l.l l T J,.- ~ .. - • . '-\..- .... , -1: I , " . -. J.. \., ,~ - ~ ': 7 ..:.....:~ I _~ . I • ' ,. ' . ' • - ~ r-f ':. + ..,. y ..... _ , . 11 -. .-. "'1 -- .. '-} i. .1 i -,. ~ .··.·.... iJCi f., 1 ::. _ 1._ .L. t• • _ ' _ r ·.:..:.... ... .1 '_';' \. ... .... .L , _-; I _ , ,,,, - '- ' .... , . r" 1 1 f_••........ -', J,.. ' \I ..... T,c 1.!. I ,- "" .i.- -_·ct C:.;.;-)"'jJ-, "· l II ~ ~ -. -~ '-- 1 D" . -,. -, .. -i t::::' -' +' t_, OJ -: n~ ' - - ' .0.,::) : .~ - ) . ; , ..... I 1 •• ." " ~ •.:;. ;J.,dJC·,1 lttt::l ,_~ ..... ........t:.;,-...... .. • ', - ' '-' --.. . ' " » .... .:, 1_' J l ..... .~ ," c ' _'J.. (~lc:ar l)r , ,,,-). , - ~. :.. <> thE:: ·' i.Jill 0 .. . ···.l,_ 7,- ...···'::; t 'I"'-Tu . .... . ' . t'_ Y; J .L...: ' ..s.." ' _. ....,C J.. 1 • J.."" .. ,-,\.-. \ -, .-. ".... ;_, I..' ~ '_-, ' - ' t ......... "..", - . . . .... ._' -' , ' ( - . ;:) ~, - . ....... ~ ... -. •• ' - ;' -. -' , '-').':'1'V ';. ', - ,.\ , U , ~ .- - ,,;:. C ~' : ,--" ~ '_' _'" J. • .,n _ , , _ ... _ " - -' ~ ... . ........... • r-.;.) ~ ..... ~ l '. · 1 ~ .J. y, ,- , ... . .... 1·i ~ •., J..' .-'l' ' L -:'i 11 , .... ~.l. l.. " - ' .....\....&.. - \. ' ... J. _ ' J. ~ . 1. ~ . ·· -,' -'- r. ,... . '- -"- }-1,:> 1..' _, j " . , ~'l '~ Yr ,_, ..::.. J. . .. -;:,' :n1 l \ ::V ~ .:: 2..(~;1 J.. ~ i ...: .-: ,, - ' hil l , lS -; l ...... _ _ IT.Jt);-~. (' : - I 1" , t.t=. E..t , " -' J.. , 1 .](.u1d . . . .J.J ..... " ." ..... ........" . . .. ,.. .._-1...• ........, J,"''..,1'... +--" 1 . ,_ .... .,i. '. .::. J.._, 1..' -,,'. '_ ... .... , ~ ' ~ ~ ........... _ ..... J"'; . ] r ,.......... o ~ ....... , ....- 'T'1 "::'1 : ...... . ':"'1 ... the. 3. r(~ _ .. ".- .. J, 111 'f'-,/' _ env i~om;)E::n t ....P- .Im- 111 .,:1 ~-! .::.. ""1 ., - , : . C'::-tnyon; an , 3110 ~ °ql, ,=<<l .... . one , 1 _' ot._ pe bsck t.o . __..-c ' • 1 ~ ,. -. ' ; , 1 "- - '''' u ':. .. ",;;.. _' -" ,..,.. : ~ ;. -- - ll.l\_·' • .u "\" ~ .. . ... ..:,;., • • ' . ' "! .... ~-"~,, J,. ...... . _ •• • I ~ rl _..' -... . , - l '"' .,.") ,. , .... .........:..- J. I.' ) " T'_ - .., ... , J c "'- ... 1,, .' ' 1-' 1.A... 11 _.,:. ,-.• _' ",", ~"'~":­ _ ~, plan . ~ OI .; -+,.... ~ 1 ,, ~ \ .-1 '_' ~..,\ ..::. ~ 1 - ,. ,,;' ..... ... . ' ._ J.. . '=- ' r '. '. J.. " ,-' .. .,. ..... t::: , .)' '-J" ' _ . .,\...•.=-, - , ,_ ,j. J . \ Cl"" . .. V _ -1".. ,-.,- . . ~- " - . o ... cr~~ ,r. ~ \_ I~ _. _ J '. _ ' _ .. , 11. "\"~ " I_. - . .-1 t,(_~ l' I _+- - .... \_" ...'_' L. ~ , .:tj, J. ( " , , • .L. t..-' ~\ _, ~_, l.~t l' ,:;0 ,'-'', l .0::: '" .::. 11',!, ,_. , ~ r ,.,. t 'l..L,)... ~"'....~ ,=" o-I , l fl , , ... .......... t....: ,.." (_.,-~ • ,.. .... ...-' .L.b .... to , '-'1' - .~ .- ._ '-, . .1:-; '_. i:" C:11 .L - :.. .'" I., ! I J '_ ..Y ~ .- .1.., . .J... .~'ir "- .~ "'J[1""'! _ . -;.. ::. y- _ . -.:'" .•.. . .-. ,: ... .. . :_. '(" ...., 1 .-,'_" .. ,_ . ..l.... . " t.o .) " r 1 . ...r->....... -- _ . · .j· ~ ; J. ·" }1 1 .. .!," -.... C.. C .':'c.. .l...L ;. ' .....-. ..... 'I; will .,t '. ' .t:" ._ .- , , ~ ,,,,, -' ,' 0 1 -.i.. '1." i -- '' ..--, '''' ''' -5 . .....: I ' .J. L · • - '\ ., 0::- . . ... . l.-:' _ ..., t. ... ~y .-:. - , " -) ,_ .L T -"- �• January 22, 1988 Editor, The Herald Journal 75 W 300 N Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Sir: As a member of the 10 team responsible for preparation of technical information for the Logan Canyon highway project EIS, I am appalled at the recent decision by UDOT to pursue the maximum development alternative. • If this alternative is implemented, most of the canyon from Right Fork to Ricks Springs (as well as major sections of the upper canyon) will be severely affected. Much of the free running river will be channeled within retaining walls, the river bed itself will be altered, the riparian zone (on which the wildlife depends) will be destroyed, the fishing and water quality will be degraded, the river will disappear beneath cantilever structures, the lovely riv~rside rock ledges will by dynamited, huge cuts . in the hillsides will be made, thousands of cubic yards of fill will be dumped into side canyons, large amounts of conifer forest and other vegetation will be bulldozed and Logan Canyon as we now know it will be gone forever. UDOT has made this decision in spite of the overwhelming public opposition to this alternative expressed in the scoping meetings, in spite of a legally binding Forest Service Plan which designates Logan Canyon as a scenic highway and prohibits the destruction consequent to the project, and in spite of the best efforts of environmental representatives on the 10 team in endless meetings over more than two years to achieve a reasonable compromise which protects the canyon and also allows necessary improvements. In fact, the UDOT decision prepresents a no compromise position, essentially identical to their position in 1980. In short, UDOT. in their incredible arrogance, has listened to no one and has learned nothing. Two years or work and over $600,000 of taxpayers money have been wasted. Preservation of the scenic beauty and the environmental quality of Logan Canyon is of no apparent concern to this public agency. Many people have asked me what they can do to protect the canyon. Telephone calls and letters to James Naegle, Utah Department of Transportation, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, 84119 protesting the decision, and to Dave Baumgartner, U.S. Forest Service, 860 N 1200 E, Logan supporting the Forest Service Plan are needed. Later, there will be an opportunity for both oral and written comments when the DEIS is released. Additional information may be obtained by calling 753-8548. Only a concerned citizenry can preserve Logan Canyon from the mindless destruction planned for it by UDOT. Jack T. Spence 361 Blvd Logan, Ut 84321 - �January 11, 1988 Mr. James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 So. 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Jim: Thank you for your recent letter concerning my efforts in the Logan Canyon DEIS study. • While I appreciate your comments, I find them inconsistent with your actions. After spending the better part of two years attending meetings, reading documents, checking calculations, etc., I consider it an insult not to be provided with a copy of the preliminary DEIS. It cost us (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Utah Wilderness Association) $20.00 to duplicate the Forest Service copy, which I understand was made available to us only reluctantly and at the insistence of the Forest Service. So much for the good faith of UDOT. I also wish to make some comments on the role of the 10 team in this study. It was agreed early on that all technical memos would be approved by the team. This has not been done. It was my understanding the DEIS would be approved by the team. This is clearly not to be done. Finally, it was also my understanding the 10 team would make recommendations concerning a preferred alternative. Again, this is clearly not to be done. I regard this as a breach of faith by both UDOT and CH2M Hill. The preliminary DEIS has several major problems: 1.The Spot Improvement Alternative must be considered as encompassing all 35 spot improvements. It is a violation of NEPA requirements to present a shopping list, with UDOT selecting some number of improvements from the list at a later date. 2.In view of this, there is no environmentally acceptable alternative in the preliminary DEIS except No Action. 3.NEPA requirements have not been met with respect to a range of alternatives. The Spot Improvement alternative with all 35 projects at the level described is essentially the same as Alternative C. Unless our alternative (now in the Appendix), or a reasonably similar alternative, is included as a legitimate alternative, we will oppose all alternatives except No Action, or request that the DEIS be rejected as not meeting NEPA requirements. Legal action with respect to this request may also be pursued. I regret the culmination of two years of effort has resulted in this situation. The environmental representatives on the 10. team have repeatedly tried to convince UDOT and CH2M Hill that �their concerns need serious attention. It is clear we have failed. and the present situation must be regarded as adversary. Sincerely, /;"1, ~--: , ?? " ; / cc:Dale Bosworth Dave Baumgartner Lynn Zo 11 i nger Stan Nuffer UWA Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Steve Flint, Audubon Society . , I?;/ . C / Jack T. Spence v' 361 Blvd. Logan, Ut 84321 �• • I Izens o or oan rh.J () Wilson e ~ £ //-J Lcs+ -f,~ r • ·ro ec Ion _an on r. Tc, /k.e..A f a J.. ~ ~ ~ 21 September, 1987 ret ... -eJfe.-/ 1-4 f-€>e-J; From: Steve Flint ~~-k .'5!/{ -;f: < He: ~gan Canyon highway project ·~ e ..., F..nclosed are the ~errestrial Resources Technical Memorandum and the biological assessment for Primula maguirei. This biological assessment is referred to in the tech. memo as "Welsh 1987". One of the most glaring faults of this tech. memo is the failure to adequately discuss the disposal of waste material. Table 2 (p. 21) lists a few locations (but does not address impacts), but does not admit that these locations will only accolnodate a small portion of the waste which the action alternatives will generate. CH2MHill's refusal to discuss site-specific impacts contributes to this problem. Table 1 (p. 18) shows the high percentage of the riparian zone which would be impacted. Most of this impact would be retaining walls at the edge of tl1e river, destroying all vegetation on one side of the stream. This document downplays the impacts on P. maguirei. One of our concerns, which is not mentioned in this document, is the proposed location of & slow vehicle turnout adjacent to population 4. We believe this location is unacceptable as it would remove too much vegetation. In addi tion, there is a "collection" danger: the primrose is attractive 1IIlhl?n it blooms in the sprine:. We fear people may not know of its status and attempt to remove plants for their gardens. A related problem is the display of papulation locations in Figure 1 (p. 8) • We believe this is proprietary information which should not be included in a document such a3 this which is available to the public. Much of it is not even necessary for this study: populations 2 and 6 are outside the study area, and population 3 is across the river from the highway. The biological assessment dismisses the impacts to the primrose by speculating on its physiologival performance. It should be pointed out that nothing is known about the species' physiology; all the speculation is based on its habitat. In addition, while the author (Welsh) has considerable experience in taxonomy, I do not believe he has much background in physiology. Other tech. memos will follow shortly. Note: Despite the fact CH2MHill had provided UDOT with a draft of the EIS, they have not produced a final version of the Terrestrial Resources tech. memo. This June '37 version is the most recent draft. p.o. box 3580 logan, ut 84321 Of • �• • - Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P. O. Box 3451, Logan, Utah 84323 - 3451 April 5, 1995 Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon on Thursday, March 30, 1995, filed a lawsuit against Cache County and its County Council for not complying with the laws of the State of Utah and the ordinances of Cache County when they issued a Special Permit to the Westons permitting their sign in Wellsville Canyon. As an organization and as individuals, CPLC has a long-standing interest in Cache County and its canyons. It is the sentiment of the organization that permitting the sign, in direct violation of state and county laws, set a dangerous precedent for Logan Canyon, as well as for all of the canyons in the county. Business signs are presently prohibited in Forest/Recreation Zones under the current County Land Use Ordinances. Application for a Special Permit for the sign was first submitted to the Cache County Planning Commission, which unanimously recommended against the proposed sign because it was not in keeping with the Forest/Recreation Zone. The Planning Commission suggested an alternative more in keeping with the Zone. The County Council, which in the Ordinances has reserved to itself the final decision, granted a Special Permit for the sign, which, in the meantime, had already been erected by the Westons without a permit. By filing this lawsuit, CPLC hopes to make certain that all county agencies follow legal procedures when making decisions about public lands, including all canyons within Forest/Recreation Zones. CPLC could use your help in defraying the expenses of this lawsuit. If you have not sent in your membership dues, please take this opportunity to do so. Or, if you are already a member of CPLC, please consider making an additional contribution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------please print legibly CPLC MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION Name Address City State Zip Phone: Hom e_ _ _ _Work_ _ __ Areas of Expertise/ Willingness to Volunteer___________________________________ Regular Member ($10) Student Member ($5)-:--_ I wish to make an additional contribution of: $10 $25 $50_ $100_ Other -Send to: CPLC, P.O. Box 3451, Logan, UT 84323-3451 ----------------------------- • �-, , , • Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P.O. Box 3501 Logan, UT 84323 October 27, 1994 Mr. David W. Berg P.E. Chief Environmental Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Dear Mr. Berg: With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically, this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993, through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position. General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC: With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been demonstrated. (2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example, curve #5 in Section 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would need to study the data being presented. (3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for the longterm disposition of these sites. (4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource. (1) �• • CPLCIUDOT October 27, 1994 p. 2 (5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project, and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections. Point-by-Point Discussion: [The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.] Roadway Widths (1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'. (2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'. (3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook. A. B. Alignment (1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves in the project. (2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in Section 1a. (3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85. Passing Lanes (1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by UDOT in Section 2. C. D. Bridges CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first construction undertaken in the project. (1) �'. 0 ' • , . •• CPLCIUDOT October 27, 1994 p. 3 E. Riprap and Retaining Walls (1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible. F. Location of the Batch Plant (1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project. G. Future Activity of CPLC (1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during the design and construction phases. (2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan. . .. Sincerely, The Steering Committee Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Mark Bowen Katherine Gilbert Nathan Hult Lauren Keller Ronald Lanner Thomas Lyon Paul Packer Gordon Steinhoff --- - ---------- Sean Swaner Christine Hult �.' .' Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P.O. Box 3501 Logan, UT 84323 October 27, 1994 Mr. David W. Berg P.E. Chief Environmental Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Dear Mr. Berg: With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically, this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993, through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position. General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC: With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been demonstrated. (2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example, curve #5 in Section la), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would need to study the data being presented. (3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for the longterm disposition of these sites. (4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource. (1) �CPLClUDOT October 27, 1994 p. 2 (5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project, and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections. Point-by-Point Discussion: [The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.] Roadway Widths (1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1 b will be 34'. (2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'. (3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook. A. . - - Alignment (1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves in the project. (2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in Section 1a. (3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85. B. C. Passing Lanes (1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by UDOT in Section 2. D. Bridges CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first construction undertaken in the project. (1) �• CPLCIUDOT October 27, 1994 p. 3 E. Riprap and Retaining Walls (1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible. F. Location of the Batch Plant (1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project. G. Future Activity of CPLC (1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during the design and construction phases. (2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan. . -Sincerely, The Steering Committee Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Mark Bowen Katherine Gilbert Nathan Hult Lauren Keller Ronald Lanner Thomas Lyon Paul Packer Gordon Steinhoff -- --------Sean Swaner -- Christine Hult �[DRAFT] Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P.O. Box 3501 Logan, UT 84323 October 20, 1994 Mr. David W. Berg P.E. Chief Environmental Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Dear Mr. Berg: With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically, this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993, through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position. General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC: CPLC is not persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been demonstrated. (2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC could agree to any accident-dependent curveMflattening (for example, IS iff ~edicni: 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would Hud "' "tidy the data being presented. (~, ClYte testates its deep concern for the protection of any and all \f,t1flnd8 tiiid riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for th' imtgtefm disp()jition of these sites. (4) CftLC restat~s its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and ae~thede res911tc~~ of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the Wa§a·t~h-Ca£he National Foreses Forest Plan of 1985, which states that there shall b~ no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource. (5) CPLC stroftlly iiUppOtts the hiring of an independent consultant, to be ~eHv"l)' enga86td ifi the design and construction phases of the project, iUld to tUlve ~ite"specific stop .. work powers during construction. (1) �CPLC/UDOT October 20, 1994 p.2 Point-by-Point Discussion: [The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.] A. Roadway Widths (1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'. (2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'. (3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook. B. Alignment (1) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in Section 1a. (2) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85. (3) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves in the project. C. Passing Lanes (1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by UDOT in Section 2. D. Riprap and Retaining Walls (1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible. E. Location of the Batch Plant " . (1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs involved in "the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project. �CPLCIUDOT October 20, 1994 p. 3 F. Future Activity of CPLC (1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during the design and construction phases. (2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan. [signed] �Peter W. Karp • Forest Supervlsor Wasatch-Cache National Forest Mr. Karp, We are writing to you to request a rev iew of a previous decision by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Recently, you ammended the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Ma¢hagement Plan to provide interim protection to the Stillwater Fork for possible inclusion in the nation's Wild And Scenic River System. It is our opinion that both we and your River Inventory Team believe that at least one river segment on the Cache National Forest, and probably two, should be eligible as a "recreational" river under the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These segments are the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Ck.) and the Right Hand Fo rk of the Lo gan River. There is currently a proposed improvement of u.S. 89 by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). The proposed improvement might harm the river's flee-flowing nature. Therefore it is important to consider the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek) now, before said construction takes place. We have evaluated this segment o f the Logan and found it is free-flowing and outstandingly remarkable (see attached documents). Your wild and Scenic River Inventory Team appears to agree with us on the latter point. Co nsult Appendix D of the recently amended Forest Plan. You will find that the Identification Team ( IDT) found this segment might possess outstandingly remarkable characterists in five (5) categories. The IDT found the Stillwater Fork, which you set aside for interim protection, might possess o utstandingly r e markable characteristics in o nly one catego ry. The problem may be that the IDT did not conside r the segment free from roads because the Scenic Byway, U.S. 89, parallels the river along this segment. However, we would call your attention to the section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for assessing the free-flowing nature of a recreational river, it states, "roads may parallel the river for much of its length as long as much of the road is unobtrusive or well-screened." We request that you and your Identification Team reconsider this segment of the Logan. We would prefer assessments of the Logan from the source to Beaver Ck., Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Ck., the Right Hand Fork of the Logan R., and Beaver Ck. (source to Logan R.). We believe all of these segments may qualify as recreational rivers under the nati o nal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Sincerely, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon �655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 June 23, 1987 Mr. Stan "luffer CH M I-'ill 2 Box 8748 Boise, ID 83707 • Dear Stan: First, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the drafts of the technical memoranda and alternatives for the Logan Canyon DEIS. I consider this a genuine opportunity to (possibly) save a great deal of many people's time and energy. If the DEIS reflects these memoranda, in content and bias, I think I can assure you there will be an extremely strong public protest. As was mentioned yesterday at the meeting in Brigham City, the chief problem with the memoranda, with the exception of the one on aquatic resources~ is their very obvious bias toward a major road project. For example, the socioeconomic memo devotes many pages to the dependence of Rich County upon Logan for various goods and services. The clear thesis of this document is that an "improved" road through Logan Canyon is vital to Rich County':s continued life and to its future development--at one point even industrial development is mentioned as a future possibility for Rich County, on the assumption that an "improved" Logan Canyon highway would make such a thing possible. The fact is that Rich County exists and has existed without serious hindrance caused by the two-minutes-slower Logan Canyon highway of the present. The assumption that some kind of industrial development would be good for Rich County is rank speculation, and judging from the experience of ' places like Evanston and Rock Springs, is untrue. But to set this kind of chamber-of-commerce dreaminess forth as a real item of probability, in a technical memo, is nonsense. It is also highly biased. We are all aware of the number and strength of the comments given at the Logan scoping meeting. But these comments DO NOT APPEAR IN ANY FORM AND ARE NOT REFERENCED ANYWHERE in the documents supplied so far. They have been completely ignored. The memo on visual resources is a strange effort to quantify perception and aesthetics, and results only in fragmenting and obfuscating the real situation into a bunch of numbers. The fact is that the natural appearance of Logan Canyon is, along with the ecological health of the river, the absolute primary matter in hand. I can assure you that perception and the aesthetic sense are not satisfied by numbers--they are based in an entirely different mode of awareness. This brings me to what may be the central problem in documents of this nature. They attempt to state qualitative issues in quantitative terms. A wise man once said that to do this is like judging the "Mona Lisa" by weighing the paint. In the present documents, it is blithely stated that if native trout are killed by construction, well then we can plant some �Stan Nu ffer June 23, 1987 page 2 hatchery rainbows "to supplement angler catch rates," [po 38] and everything will presumably be all right. But this is not so. There is a very great and widely perceived difference between fishing for wild trout and fishing for stocked trout; as a matter of fact, this very difference is the basis for the Logan River's attractiveness as a qual tty trout stream. And it is a primary reason for the Logan River's being a "million-dollar" fishery. This difference between quality and quantity cannot be mitigated. It is a basic fact of existence. In the same way, you cannot mitigate a road-cut across a hillside. It is simply there, and it destroys the wholeness of the scene which arouses the qualitative sense of beauty. This is what the people in the Logan scoping meeting were trying to say, one after the other. The issues are beauty and wholeness. You can't fragment these things into a bunch of numbers and expect people to be satisfied, just as you can't substitute a flabby hatchery fish, raised on food pellets and habituated to a looming human figure bringing food, for a wild and wary trout in a natural stream. The documents presented so far clearly indicate that none of the alternatives preserves Logan Canyon. "Spot Improvements" was supported by a number of people at the Logan meeting, including mysel f; but now "Spot Improvements" has ballooned into a major realignment of the highway in several crucial and environmentally sensitive sections, and cannot be supported any longer. It is decidely misleading, and even deceptive, to place "Spot Improvements" next to "No Action," because it is emphatically not the second-least-damaging alternative. . The documents presented so far are biased individually and in the aggregate. For just one example, "Aquatic Resources" mentions millions of dollars being spent on the Logan River by fishermen, but this money somehow does not appear in the socioeconomic memo. Why not? (If we get down to arguing dollars and cents, which again is not the central issue here, I wonder if all the alleged Rich County dependence on Logan amounts to a sum comparable to that spent by Logan River fishermen.) For another example, which appears again and again throughout the documents, it is alleged that the present highway is unsafe and that flatter curves and higher speeds would be safer. No documentation for this assumption is ever presented, and my conclusion is that if there were any such documentation in existence, it would have been brought forward very prominently by now. I doubt that a wider, faster, flatter-curved road is any safer than a narrow, slow, curvy one. People adjust their speed to the circumstances. Logan Canyon is a canyon; it cannot be made into something other than a canyon. If there is a road in it, it will need to be a narrow and winding road and people will have to drive at slower speeds on it. That's IF the intactness and beauty of the canyon are to be saved. I realize that your firm has spent a good deal of time and work on this matter, and so I hesitate to say the following. But it is clear that the entire set of documents needs to be redone and written without bias. The "Alternatives" chapter is so biased as to be for all intents and purposes worthless; it too needs to be entirely redone. "Spot Imp IOvements" in particular is a travesty. Sincerely yours, rhvmAA Thomas J. Lyon � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1745">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1745</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 1031935434 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 15438123 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Various correspondence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994 Description An account of the resource Various corresponence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994. Most cover the topics of the agency alternative improvement suggestions, the biological assessment of Logan Canyon, and the endangered plant study from Utah State University. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lyon, Thomas J. Spence, Jack T. Harris, Richard Silver, Duncan Zollinger, Lynn Flint, Stephan D. Naegle, R. James Pendery, Bruce Welsh, Stanley L. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Berg, David Bosworth, Dale Baumgartner, David Lyon, Thomas J. Nuffer, Stanton S. Naegle, James Karp, Peter W. Wilson, Wes Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Administrative records Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd1.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/7937ea3697c26966a32256201f29800f.pdf 230ee6fbd762f75f34dd9218cf42899e PDF Text Text • WE NEED YOUR HELP We anticipate needing increased community support. Please let us add your name to our mailing list: Name: CITIZENS FOR A SAFE AND SCENIC CANYON Citizens for a . Safe and Scenic Canyon OUR EARTHLY TRUST: WE SUPPORT MAKING LOGAN CANYON SAFE • WIDENED BRIDGES • MORE PULLOUTS Address: LOGAN CANYON • CLIMBINGrruRNING LANES Phone: • PARKING AREAS MAKE IT SAFE • MORE SIGNS • BEITER MAINTENANCE Please accept the enclosed donation: . $5 $10 $20 $ I can help with ----- WE SUPPORT KEEPING LOGAN CANYON BEAUTIFUL • RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS IN LOGAN CANYON • PRESERVING ONE OF THE LAST, BEST PLACES IN UTAH Please return this form and any donation to: CSSC, Box 3501, Logan Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Canyon/CPLC P.O. Box 3501, LOGAN, UT 84321 KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL �. 11-- FOR A SAFE CITIZENS · . AND SCENIC CANYON WHAT IS CSSC? COMMON QUESTIONS Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Canyon (fonnerly Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon) is an organization that is dedicated to providing a safe highway through Logan Canyon while still preserving its scenic beauty. We support making the canyon safe by replacing and widening bridges; constructing more pullouts for slow drivers; adding several climbing lanes, turning lanes, and parking areas; and putting in more and better signage in the canyon . . • Does CSSC advocate a total hands-otT approach to Logan Canyon? WHAT IS THE HISTORY? NO! There is a real possibility that a wider road with faster speeds will in fact increase both the number and severity of accidents in the canyon. For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider, straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961, five miles of the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more--up to the Right Hand Fork. Under new federal regulations, UDOT was required to research the environmental impacts of their construction plans. After a sevenyear study, they have come up with their "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the view of many, has been marked by slipshod procedures, insufficient and incorrect data, and lack of consideration for the environment. Citizens for the Protection ·of Logan Canyon conducted their own study and prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, a road construction plan that proposes a safe canyon without destroying its scenic beauty. NO! We favor a gradual, go-slow approach to working on the highway, beginning with the replacement of dangerous, deteriorating bridges. • Is the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) "preferred" alternative safer? • Will the savings in travel time significantly benefit the neighboring communities? NO! By their own figures, the "preferred alternative" will only reduce travel time from 48 to 43 minutes. It would take a lifetime of these 5minute savings to equal the 15-20 years of delays and disruptions caused by this massive project. • Will an improved highway promote economic development in Cache Valley? NO! The disruption to the canyon will hurt tourism, Cache Valley'S major economic asset. WHAT DO THEY WANT? Utah Department of Transportation wants to obtain federal funds for a massive highway project to tum the Logan Canyon road into a commercial highway, at a cost to the public of over $35 million dollars (CSSC's alternative would cost $15 million)! UDOT predicts that the project will take at least 10 years to complete, with the real possibility that it will take as long as 15 to 20 years. We only have to look at the destruction, delays, and devastation to Sardine (Wellsville) Canyon to get an inkling of what this project In would really be like in our backyard. UDOT's plan, the road would be re-routed, on average, once every three-quarters of a mile throughout the length of the canyon. Huge cuts are planned to achieve a straighter alignment and substantially increased road width. This massive project will be devastating to the scenic beauty of Logan Canyon. Roadside plants and forests will be replaced by unsightly gashes on hillsides. In .the lower "improved" section of the canyon, barren slopes have not revegetated yet, though the cuts were made 20 to 30 years ago. Extra-wide shoulders (clear zones) of 22 feet will destroy the forest on each side of the road, cutting a wide swath through the cottonwood, riverbirch and box elder trees that line the river canyon. The river itselfwill be intruded on, lined by 2,000 feet of "riprap" (chunks of rock and cement). Logan River's wild and scenic qualities will be destroyed. �• LOGAN c!ANYON: Summarizing Two "Alternatives" US-89 LOGAN CANYON Accompanying this map is a table comparing key goals of two alternatives regarding the "development" of Logan Canyon. These goals are listed by canyon section. o 2 • �Alternative #1 UDOT Plan of Action • • Alternative #2 ConseNationist Plan of Action Go relatively light on the canyon between Right Hand Fork and Lower Twin Bridge (4 miles). The road would be left at its current width and alignment, but curb and gutter would be added and several curves will be flattened. Burnt Bridge would be widened to 34 feet, requiring river bank modification. The road near Cottonwood Creek culvert would be raised 2 feet to protect the road from occasional damage due to flooding . I Essentially leave the canyon between Right Hand Fork and Lower Twin Bridge (4 miles) as it is presently. Improve signs signaling advisory speeds and curve warnings. The road would be left at its current width and alignment. Burnt Bridge would be widened to 28 feet. The road near Cottonwood Creek culvert would be widened to 28 feet and raised 1.5 feet to protect the road from occasional damage due to flooding. Substantially widen the road from Lower Twin Bridge to just above Rick Springs (4 miles) from current 26 feet to 40-46 feet. Six curves would be cut and major parking areas would be built at Temple Fork and Rick Springs. Upper and Lower Twin Bridges would be moved upstream from their present position and widened to 38 feet. 2 Move Upper and Lower Twin Bridges towards river to lessen curve and widen to 28 feet, locating a slow vehicle turnout where the present road cut goes through. Improved signs signaling curves and intersection at Temple Fork. Widen road at Ricks Springs to 28 feet, maintaining existing parking. Add signs warning of pedestrian crossings. Drastically widen the road from above Rick Springs to the Rich County line (13 miles) . TAe road would be widened from 26 to 47 feet for half the distance (6.5 miles) to allow for passing lanes, with the remainder widened to 40 feet. Nearly ten feet will be cut into the vertical rock face located after the Beaver Creek area (milepost 399.1). There would be five curve cuts and major construction at the Franklin Basin, Tony Grove, Red Banks campground and Beaver Mountain turnoffs. 3 Add three climbing lanes and provide a 90 degree intersection and deceleration lane to Beaver Mountain Road. Improve intersection at Tony Grove. Replace the Tony Grove Creek Bridge, Red Banks Bridge, Beaver Creek Bridge, Beaver Creek Structure, and Amazon Hollow Structure without curve cuts and widen to 28 feet. Provide signs and approaches at the Bear Lake Overlook. 4 Improve signs on advisory speeds and curve warnings. Provide active maintainance for the road. The road would be left at its current width and alignment. Essentially build a new road from the Rich County line to Garden City (7 miles). There would be a continuous passing lane from near Garden City to the Cache County line (47 foot width) , 19 curve cuts, and substantial additional construction. I 2 3 4 Information cited: US Highway 89 Final Environmental Impact Statement. �• June 28, 1994 To: Dave Berg From: Bruce Pendery Re: Follow-up to last week's meeting Enclosed are the "hot spots" we would appreciate receiving narratives on. I forgot to get a copy of the letter we sent out to some of our selected supporters, but will get that to you ASAP. I know time may be a problem, but if its possible to get the narratives to me by July 11 it would be helpful (address: 755 Canyon Rd., Logan, 84321). We will be having what should be our last outreach program that evening, and the narrative would be useful. We will be talking (probably via letter)to additional people (ie, the vast majority of our supporters) after July II, but that will be more to explain what we've been doing rather than to get input on what we're doing. • • I will call late this week or next to discuss a couple of things with you. I would like to find where we stand with getting a copy of the ROD. That's critical to us. I would also like to discuss how the Forest Service feels about just amending relative to the bridges, as well as a few other things . �• HOT SPOTS Curve #5 MP 384 and Curve # 29 MP 387. How will the accident studies be handled and what efforts will be made to reduce the aesthetic impacts of these cuts while also avoiding the river? Lower Twin Bridge, The Dugway, Upper Twin Bridge. What efforts will be made to minimize the size of cuts and associated aesthetic impacts? What efforts will be made to minimize any alignment shift to Upper Twin Bridge? How will the cuts along the Dugway be handled to minimize aesthetic impacts and the size of the cut? Temple Fork. Describe how the decision process will work relative to whether a "short" up-canyon turning lane is possible. How will impacts to the river and aesthetics be minimized, considering also the need to "straighten" the angle at which the Forest Road intersects the highway. Passing Lanes in the lower Upper Canyon of Section Two (see your letter of 3/4\94, item 3). Elaborate as much as you can on how, when, where, if, etc. the decision to put in these passing lanes will be made. Beaver Creek, Franklin Basin Bridge, Amazon Hollow Bridge. Elaborate as much as you can on what efforts will be made to minimize riparian impacts. Especially describe any anticipated retaining walls or intrusions on the rivers. • Tonv Grove, Beaver Mountain, and Franklin Basin Intersections. Elaborate as much as you can on what efforts will be made to minimize the magnitude and/or impacts of these activities. Passinq Lane Above Beaver Mountain turnoff, especially as it relates to the old-growth forest and curves 69, 70, and 71. To what degree can impacts on the forest be minimized; has an alignment shift been approved? How will aesthetic impacts of this climbing lane be minimized, especially to what degree will the climbing lane involve cutting into the hill as opposed to filling? Curve 85 Old Growth Forest near Limber Pine. What options exist to minimize impacts to this area, and particularly can the passing lane be ended a little sooner--say near the Sunrise Campground? Be as specific as possible. As I mentioned, this is a critical site to many people and we will need to discuss it fully at our next meeting. How will the old road from the Limber Pine Summit to Garden City be Handled? That is, people want to know if old sections of road in areas where a new alignment is created will simply be abandoned, or will the pavement be torn up and the soil revegetated? • . �• • • Portion of Section 1b Above Ricks Springs. Describe as fully as possible how impacts to riparian habitats will be avoided in this area. Mitioation. Discuss each of the following a fully as possible: -What is laydown fencing contemplated in the Tony Grove area and is it really needed, especially since the Forest Service will soon own the land and possibly reduces livestock numbers -Many people are concerned that mitigation is simply another big construction project with nearly as many impacts as the construction project prompting the mitigation. How do you respond to this, and what can be done to alleviate this concern? -How will rip-rap at bridges be minimized or better yet avoided altogether. -To what degree will contractors and especially equipment operators be given training to ensure they minimize the impacts their machines can have. -Could UDOT include the following publication as the basis for its construction: "National Cooperative Research Report 221. Transportation Research Board. Erosion Control During Highway Construction. Manual on Principles and Practices" 1980. AASHTO and FHWA sponsored. Or is there a more up-to-date publication UDOT would specifically use as a guide? -To what extent will not only native vegetation be used, but an attempt be made to mimic existing plant communities. -To what degree will followup be made to ensure mitigation actually works, and to what degree will UDOT "do what it takes" to make mitigation work? Especially consider vegetation. -How will excess rubble be handled. -How will staging areas be handled . �• August 9 , 1994 Mr. Dave Berg UDOT Salt Lake City UT Dear Mr Berg, These comments are by no means encyclopedic; a brief review of only scattered sections of these documents revealed so many problems that I have not even been able to do a through reading of it. While there is much progress that has been made since last December, there is still much to be disappointed about in these documents. • The purpose and need section of the ROD (Appendix A) is again one of the most flawed" sections of this document. This appendix presents the first description on how traffic flows for accident rates were calculated (this information was never presented in the Technical memorandums); thus this is the first opportunity for comment (and literally no more than 5 members of the public have had access to this new information). As we discussed in our August 1 meeting, there are fundamental problems with the data and the methodology which call into question whether any accident rate data should be presented in the EIS or ROD. • 1. Traffic flows in the "improved" section (mp 374.64-378) are artificially inflated by the inclusion of the 14,000 AADT adjacent to Utah State University (outside �• Flint comment s of th e canyon and outside of the lIimproved ll section mention ed above). This hig h AADT is used in the weight ed average for this section, thus the accident rate is ar tificially redu ced . The true accident rate for this lIimproved" section is likely 3 or 4 times higher th an what your document shows. 2. The mp 37 8 - 383.3 section had the counter in it orig i na lly and traffic flow presented in the FEIS is adjuste d to this location even though the counter is currently located in Rich county. This is stated on • page 3 of the Appendix A, and you agreed that it was correct. Thus the traffic flow to be used in calculating accident rates in this section is near 1800 rath e r than over 3000. Simply saying that the AADT is 3000 in the Utah Road Files (Appen dix A p. 3) does not make it correct. Again, the true accident rate in this improved section is much higher than that shown in AppendixA. 3. The ta ble on page 5 of Appendix A has a similar problem: The true traffic flow is much lower than shown in the table, thus the fatality rate for the Lower Canyon is much higher than shown and may be the highest in the • Canyon. 2 �Flint comments 3 4. As we dis c ussed in our August 1 meet i ng, there are • fortunatel y so few fat alities th a t their distri bu tion may be s omewhat random. A better perspective on acciden t severity may be gained by examining the injury accident rate. 5. An attempt is made on p. 2 of the Appendix to justify using lower traffic flo ws in recent years to calculate accident rates even thou g h it is claimed elsewhere that traf fic is increasing. Rather than dispute this point by point, let us look at your flow data. In recent years you have traffic increasing in the Lower Canyon and decreasing in much of the rest of the canyon. Thus what you are saying here is that the fundamental characte~ • of vehicle use of this roadway has changed; most of the traffic only drives up into the Lower Canyon and then turns around and goes back out. How do you explain this? Isn't it readily apparent that this oddity is caused by your inflation of the traffic flows for the Lower Canyon? To justify conclusions, as in #1 above, we are told that "standard methods" are used, that they are "accurate" and based on "professional methods" (all on p. 3), yet saying this does not make an incorrect analysis right . this type of pontificating should be stricken from the ROD; the methods of analysis should • �• Flint comments 4 be able to stand up on their own. Appendi x p. 2: Here a claim is made that a signing project was done in '86. A review of the public comments (Lanner letter page 9-74 of FEI S) suggests th a t the signing was completed in '83 rather than ' 8 6. From personal recollection (since '86 was the year the EIS started), all I remember happening in '86 was that a contractor was hired to replace delineators. They were placed blindly according to some "standard", consequently most de-facto turnouts were blocked until some unfortunate drivers ran over the things. Cou ld you provide more details on the signing project? • Specifically, check the year a nd describe the project . We have never received an explanation why the expected accident rate is higher for the "improved" sections (Table 1-2). If "improvement" raises the expectation of accidents, then we don't want t o do it. I am disappointed that there is still confusion on 4(f) site #7. Perhaps this confusion would not have occurred if the public was allowed some input into the 4(f) site selection process. Appendix A h a s site 7 at 391.6, the ROD (p. 5) says the passing lane starts a t 391.6. A passing lane should not start at a heavily used recreational turnout such as this; one can foresee • safety problems as different up-canyon vehicles simultaneously try to pass and make left turns. �Flint comments The biological assessme nt in Ap pendix A lists Dr a ba maguirei as "known onl y f rom Bo x Eld er a nd Heber c ounties" yet Shaw (1989, Vascu la r Plant s o f Northern Utah) also l i s ts it in Cache County. Can you ac c o u n t for this d is c re pancy ? Al so, why is there no mention o f t he newly describe d spec i es of Viola that we mentioned in earlier cor respondence? It a ppea r s en d emic to Logan Canyon. In the ROD itself (p. 4) sta tes that the Upper Middle Canyon will serve a s a transition reg ion to the 40' pavement width of the Upper Canyon. Note that, wi th the reduction of the pavement in the Ton y Gr ove flats and Beaver Cr eek areas to 34', this logic is no longe r v alid. The RO D (p. 7) states th a t the Conservationists' Alternative • would provide 28' wide bridges. As I explained last year at the transportation commission me et i ng, we initially selected 28' because your e ngineers selected i t for the spot improvement alternative. I spent a conside r able amount of time at that commission meeting explaining that we had no problem with wider bridges. Did I take a day off work to drive to Salt Lake city for this meeting and accomplish nothing? Were all the commissioners and your staff asleep? The ROD on page 7 also neglects to mention that we proposed (from the very beginning) that the Beaver Mountain intersection be improved, along with a right turn lane at Right Fork. Thus the • �• Flint comments 6 Conservatio n ists' Alternat ive prop o s e s 3 intersection improvement s ye t you only credit us wi th one. You talk of "unresol v e d s a fety concerns a t Red Ba nks Campground yet we h a ve never seen an y documentation o f this. In short, you are trying to make our al ternative appea r to be vir tually "no action". We expressed th es e concerns befo re (s e page 6 0 of Appendix B) and you put mo re effort into den y ing our concerns than in correcting the problem. Appendi x B continues the on g oing i g noring of concerns which has plagued this EIS since its inception. As an example, on p57, I spelled out i n great detail how re a listic alternative routes ~ should be considered (the world does not focus on Garden City as its ultimate destination, as you imply). For this effort, I am greeted with non-response #4. So was John Carter on p. 79. Or look again at my letter at response #3. I asked why the response PI02 was not reflected in the text of the EIS. This is a valid question an d i t was ignored. You did th e damage - decision makers that read the text of the FEIS will not get the information that was in PI02. How do you make up for this? Or look at John Sigler's letter. Whoever wrote response #6 doesn't seem to have a clue how citations are used in technical documents. Or look at how the det a iled comments of Kate Boyes were ignored with an 8 word non-r esponse . • In summary, the problems which we have pointed out before �Flint comments still persi st . Rather than point out eac h one in great detail, let me suggest you go back to the comments submitted throughout the past 8 ye ars and provide an analysis rather than a defensive posture. from an objective That would go a long way toward building the trust that is needed for this project to succeed. Sincerely, Steve Flint • • �0 -1 : ~ -I FTl FF'Clll M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Bruce pendery FROM: Appel & Mattsson DATE: August 16, 1994 RE: Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA Introduction You asked that we determine whether there limitations for f:'ling a claim 1 NEPA to a ~s assist statute of your group in determining when and if to bring a lawsuit. The • short: ar.swer contain a statute be brought. See also, contain question your Jones v. Gordon, 621 F. S upp. Sierra a club Oua~ity ( "NEPA and the NFY'A v. Penfold, statute II ~o~~rts of 10 (D. Alaska 1985) . 2.20 1307, 1315 (9th limitat~on.~ ); Citizens for do not set II ) II Jones, supra, at p. 10. rout~nely See also, Park Inc. v. U. S . Department of Agriculture, 817 F . 2d 609,617 ; lOth Cir . 1987) • not have relied upon the doct.rine of laches to Coun t y Resource Council, have 857 '"7, [National Forest Management Act] bar stale (NEPA] s·,:i ts . actions NEPA does v. U.S., 731 F . Supp . 970, 992 (D.Colo. 1989) forth a stat.ute of limitations. However, that NEPA nor the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] specif~c Environmental is c: limitations (or time limit) by which suit must ("Neithe~ Cir.1988) to (lltimelir.ess challenges to NEPA involved analysis under the doctrine of If claims are brought under other st:atutes or laws, statutes of li mitat:ion may be different.. the �FF'()fl 0 -1 : 2 -1 F'f"1 11_1 M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Bruce pendery FROM: Appel & Mattsson DATE: August 16, 1994 RE: Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA Introduction You asked that we determine whether ther e limitations for f:'ling NEPA claim 1 a to a ~s assist statute of your group NEPA does in determining when and if to bring a lawsuit. The • shor'c ar.swer contain a statute be brought. See also, contain question your c= limitations Sierra a Club that not Penfold, 857 '7, 10 (D. Alaska 1985) . P.20 1307, 1315 (9th NEPA nor the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] specif:'c Environmental v. is (or time limit ) by which suit must Jones v. Gordon, 621 F . S u pp. ("Neithe~ Cir .1988) to Oua~ity statute of limitat:on."); Citizens for v. U.S., 731 F.Supp . 970, 992 (D.Colo. 1989) ( "NEPA and the NF:VA [National Forest Management Act] do not set forth a statute of limitations.") However, "co~~rts have relied upon the doct.rine of laches to bar stale (NEPA] s ', :i ts. " County Resource Council, Jones, supra, at p. 10. Inc . v. U. S . Department of Agriculture, 817 F . 2d 609,617 i lOth Cir. 1987) • actions have See also, Park (lltimelir.es6 challenges to NEPA rout:"nely involved analysis under the doctrine of If claims are brought under other st.atutes or laws , statutes of l i mitation may be different. the �laches . " ) which, Laches is defined as neglect t o assert a right or claim taken together with the lapse of time and circumstances causes prejudice to the adverse party. other ~ Black's Law Dictionarv. Laches According environmental to courts that have addressed the issue, act i.on may be barred by the equi table de fense an of laches if "(1) there has been unreasonable delay in bringing suit, and (2) the party asserting the defense has been prejudiced by the delay. " Citizens for Environmental Quality v . U.S., 970, (D.Colo . 1989) 687 992 F.2d 1324, Colorado 1338 District 731 F.Supp. (citing Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus, (lOth Cir. Court In Citizens, 1982). held that there had supra, been the neither unreasonable delay nor sufficient prejudice for the doctrine of laches to apply. The court determined that the case had been brought within a "reasonable time after application of regulations at issue in case" rd. ac 993. government. Inc. v. U. [the] S. and there was no prejudice to • the See also, Park County Resource Council, DeDartment of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 609, 617 (10th Cir. 1987). Courts have concluded that "(l ) aches must be invoked sparingly environm~ntal in ~he cases because ordinarily the plaintiff will not be only victim of alleged environmental damage . A less grudging application of the doctrine might defeat Congress's environmental pol icy . " Park Cou::ty Resource Council, Inc. v. U. S. Department of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 609, 617 2 (10th Cir . 1987) (citing • �Preservation Coalition, In c. v. Pierce, 66 7 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1982). However, there are instances whe n cou rts h ave precluded NEPA c laims under the doctrine o f laches . Andrus, 687 F.2d 132 4 , 1338 In Jicarilla (lOth Cir. 1982 ) , Apac~e Tribe v. the Tenth Circuit Cou rt of Appeals held that there had been an unreasonable delay by the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in aSSerting its NEPA claim. 1 13 8. 1d. at The Tribe brought suit in April 1976 to contest four lease sa l es that took place between April 1 9 70 and September 1972. rd. This was found to be an unreasonable delay. The Court also found that the delay in bringing suit resulted 1.n prejudice to the lessees: [T]he delay resulted in prejudice to the lessee defendants. Because they had no notice that anything was amiss with their Jicarilla leases until the institution of this sui~, they have invested wel l over $12 million in lease in the fo~m of bonus payments, rentals, administrat i ve overhead costs, plus exploration, d~illing and production costs. Were ~hey to lose their leases ; much of that investment would be lost, not to mention the :OS5 of future profits based on investments already made . • rd. at 1339. v. Hodel, 679 See also, National Parks F . Supp. 49, 54 & (D.D.C. Conservation 1987) ~.ssociation ( laches bars the act io n) A similar argument may be made c itiz ens wait too ~ong by to bring suit. UDOT You co"trac':ors if the mentioned that your group may want to monitor the project and then bring suit if the project does not meet with your expectations. UDCT, the • .::ontra.:: to~s The risk is that and/or the Federa l Highway Adminis:ration may claim un reasonab le delay and prejudice . 3 �In e v aluating whether to bring suit, t here are other issues yo u r group should consider including the pro c ess for bringing suit and defenses available to the defendants including standing. • ripeness, exhaustion of administrative remedies and mootness . The Complaint The typical NEPA case begins wi th the Plaint iff f i 1 ing a Complaint in federal court seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint gener31ly names the various federal agencies and officials, state officials responsible for actions alleged to violate NEPA as defendants. Law of Environmental Protect ion. §9.01[3)[b). In U.S. NEPA at:orney represents the federal agency . Plaintiffs process. may cases. either the Department of Justice or the local to move for an injunction Id. It 1.S common for in order to speed. up the However, if the Plaintiff loses the injunction, the case become moot 9 . 01 (3] [b] (ivJ . Slnce It the project will be built. at • if orten advisable to consolidate injunction hearing and. hearing on the merits for that l'eason. Id. Venue Plaintiff can bring suit. where cause of action arose, ( 3) (1) where defendant resides, (2) when real property involved, where it is si:uated. or (4) where plaintiff resides if real property is not in"·cl ved. 28 U.S.C.A. 51391(e) In this case, suit would be brought in the Federal District Court for the State of Utah . 4 • �• Standing To bring a NEPA suit, your group (and its members) must have standing. To prove standing, members of y our group must show: (1) injury in fact and (2) that his/her interests are within the zone of interests intended to be protected by the constitutional provisions on which the claim is based." Garrett, 971 F.2d 936, 942 statute or Specter v. (3rd Cir . 1992 ) . Environmental as well as economic interests allow a plaintiff to meet the threshold requirement allowing him / her to bring suit as long as injury Complaint must is particularized state that to those Plaintiff plaintiffs. uses and environmental amenity alleged to be threatened . is an organization, • ~, enJOYS The the If the Plaintiff its members must allege personal threat. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). See But see, Lujan v. National Wildlif= Federation, 110 S . Ct . 3177 (1990) (the:r-e must be an injury in fact and a connection of plaintiff to it.) Ripeness A procedural defense often raised by agencies is not ripe. This doctrine is generally used to being brought too early in the process. 1S pr~vent that a case suits from Ripeness should not be an 1ssue 1n your case. According to 40 C . F.R. §1500.3, a lawsuit should not be brought before a final EIS--"judicial review of agency compliance with these regulations [should] n0t occur befo:r-e any agency has filed the final EIS or has made a final finding cf no significant • impact when such a finding will result 5 in action affecting the �enviro nment injury." or P,D';" T[I FF'IJr" IJ8- 1 '=.-1 :<:'14 O.:J : 26Pr'] ta~es action that will result in • irrepar~ble See als8, Sierra Club v. MOLTon, 514 F.Supp . 856 (1975 ) (generally challenges to individual pro jects under NEPA can only be brough t after fina: agency approval of the project ) ; Environmental Rights Coalition v . Austin, 780 F.Supp. 5844 Ind. 1991) (S.D. (EA not completed therefore case not ripe. ) Inapplicability of NEPA ~lother NEPA does defe~se raised by defendants sued under NEPA is that apply. not §9. 01 [3J [bJ [viJ [ El Law of En'Ji ronmental Protection, Although this defense is rarely successful, it is a factor to be considered . Any lawsuit brought by your group ' must state specific violations of law and / or statute. • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Government agencies have also used the defense that a plaintiff has fai:ed to exhaust his / her administrative remedies, but Courts have been reluctant to penalize Plaintiffs for tardily bringing to an agency's attention what have known from Council v. i~s own studies. See ~he agency itself should ~., Pari-: County Resourc,,= U. S . . Gepartment of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 609, 619 (10 th Cir . 1987 ) Mootness Anot.her de:e::.se used in NEPA cases is mootness. A moot when "iz nc :onger presents a justiciable controversy l.SSUeS invol vea Dicticnarv. If ~ave :~e become academic or UDOT project gets toe far - .. , - ... '::'.u.l. ..... 1S bQca~se Black's dead ." alo~g, cas~ :'-aw your group may of :-:1OC: ::ess . • �• Conclusion In determining when and if to bring a NEPA claim. your group must weigh competing factors. If your group decides to bring suit and does not want risk being dismissed based on the doctrine of laches, the safest approach is to file suit before the project begins and before bids are requested . costly and The downside of this approach is that litigation time consuming adversary to UDOT. any other filing suit you become an agency or person) has violated NEPA or other regulat~ons The other by Your group would have to prove how UDOT (anci appropri~te applicable and lS opt~on or law. is to monitor the fi~st phase of the projec~ and to bring suit later if the project does not meet with your • approval and expectations. may find that the defendants the~e The risk in cioing this is that a court has been unreasonable delay and prejudice and will dismiss your lawsuit. The benef i ~ lD. waiting is that you may determine a lawsui: is not necessary. In either case, if a lawsuit is filed. members of your gro~p must be able to show that the violation or action personally adversely impacts them. a~d Without standing. your group's claims wil: be dismissed. The third opt ~on is to come to an ~gree;-;'1en~ wi th UDOT (and an:' other relevant c;.ger.cl.es or pel'sons) by '. . . hich your group would be allowed to monitor and have some control v'ller the project. ment ioned that UDeT wants • This may be advisa~le YOU1- You gl-oup to delay bringing a lawsu':'t. . as long as your 7 gro~p receives a benefit and �not lose the right to bring suit in the future. This is an o ve~view of some factors to consider in making your decision. Have yC'...ir group think them over carefully. have this, done ... e can discuss the matter further and Once you jointly • determine which ap~~oach is best . • • 8 " - �, \ August 12, 1994 Mr. Dave Berg Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Dave: Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint, and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery cc: Nathan Hult Jeff Appel EPA Denver Office EPA Washington Office FHWA Region Office FHWA Washington Office �" COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) SHOULD BE PREPARED The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the DEIS and FEIS). More particularly, the letter from Appel and Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as DEIS, and so forth. This is not a matter of quibbling over details. At the core of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed public participation. By placing the whole NEPA process with regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS. Safety provides a major illustration for this contention. Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see ROD, FEIS, DEIS). to the project. It is not a peripheral concern, it is central It is not a stretch to say that for many people the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts. 1 Yet �'. , ~ the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative) have been and continue to be seriously in error. As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the project, despite knowing the data were flawed. Environmentalists were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as to get UDOT not to use it. And even at this late date in the process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD Appendix B). Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in the FEIS). Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained herein, points out. So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need for the Logan Canyon Project. And the significance of this is that informed public participation in this process cannot take place. All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as 2 �the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates. And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned about this project. ROD's--almost by definition--are not intended to be vehicles for public participation. Thus, the significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer people are able to review the project, and those who previously reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative. Therefore, an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly supports. UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that certain individuals have been closely involved in the development of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places in the ROD). But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery, Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an SEIS process. As has become clear recently, public sentiment 3 �regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has never been adequately presented to the public. While we are viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon. If UDOT wants informed public participation in this NEPA process it must provide for that via and SEIS. In addition to the fact informed public participation has been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a arbitrary and capricious decision. The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred alternative is implemented. But what basis can there be for that assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed? I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed. However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f) sites and to wildlife. The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected (see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD itself). Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon (see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35). The ROD contains some information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological 4 �Assessment). Thus, just as for safety, informed public participation could not take place in regard to these critical issues because the information was wrong or absent. Moreover, simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem. CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been reached with the environmental community with regards to the modified preferred alternative. That is an incorrect statement, which we have made clear to UDOT. Not only is it incorrect, it makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally announcing that consensus exists. Let me be clear. discussions with UDOT. Since last December we have had a several The tone of those meetings has been constructive and positive. I personally want that process to continue because I believe compromise is preferable to confrontation. However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable compromise has not been reached yet. Let me explain why. As the modified preferred alternative stands, conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts we don't believe are necessary). UDOT gets everything it wants 5 �. t in 42% of the canyon (full U.S. highway standard between mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles having a passing lane). Neither UDOT or conservationists get exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts 387.5 to 399.8). At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along toward compromise we were. Based on the above considerations, I said I thought we were 75% of the way there. about where we still stand. I believe that's Seventy-five percent of a potential compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus. Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely manner. To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been reached. RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16) The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive comments on the FEIS. I was the author of that letter, although I no longer hold an official position with BAS. Unfortunately, I believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular 6 �., reasoning. While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to them. What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I feel are particularly significant. It is not nearly an exhaustive list. 1. Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not genuinely standards. Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT has given to the public over the years is incorrect. Moreover, UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has, perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17). 2. On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD. Even if true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no longer part of the process. prepare an SEIS. That is, its yet another reason to Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public participation. 3. On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation area. That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores 7 �. \; the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation. Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas). I prefer the more pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., it is a duck. area. Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it clear that when the managing agency designates an area a recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f) area. 4. On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to concern itself with "hundreds" of species. Only 27 species were asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix A, USFS Biological Assessment). Moreover, not only does the Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the decision is made which certainly has not been the case here. 5. UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan Amendment will be required, not a revision. However, conservationists have long contended a much more significant revision will be required. Revisions are required when the basic 8 �output of goods and services from a forest are altered. I believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is. In fact, Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national article will demonstrate. 6. Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on about Appendix B page 29 to 31. 7. While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has also said that new information could cause a reevaluation. Such information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers. He concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area qualifies as a recreational river. to the Forest Service. His report has been submitted UDOT should more fully consider the ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that there will be no effect due to the project. 8. Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs. The land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. And to compare Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide 9 �, . which is the benighted agency). There will be changes in land management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact. In particular, the need for " laydown" fencing should be reconsidered because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the highway. 9. On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the 4(f) issues that are raised. As indicated above, all of Logan Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites. Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and exploration. These are the protected features or activities (see Appendix B page 34). Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely unusual situations precluding its selection. And when a feasible and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done. Failure to meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its selection. 10. The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all of our concerns would be addressed. 11. Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider 10 �,. slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes. However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD pages 32 to 34). As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states. And UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use slow vehicle turnouts. Therefore, they must be used in preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur. Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was incomplete. UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon (mileposts 387.5 to 391.6). If 26-feet is a practicable alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great? Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor . . . felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation success. However, it was not a matter that I "felt" there was a poor likelihood of success. Rather, I cited recent scientific literature--produced by scientists working for the very agency whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas 11 �such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37). If the scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should cite "better" information. That's how science works. demands the use of good science. And NEPA Until then, it appears UDOT has no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb. Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32). otherwise. The law is Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6) which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts of the project. Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this project. That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to proceed. 12. An inability to do a "before and after" (ie, cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38). However, I believe that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened section can also be estimated. For example, there are certainly many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints" 12 �of their existence. While not an ideal scientific situation, to simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the situation. UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38). Why did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS that this was not a more illuminating approach? MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in the ROD. 1. Again, this is not an exhaustive list. On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to 4(f) designation. Actually the test is whether designating a 4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The selection--or more importantly, lack of selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA. 2. On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will issue a transportation easement not the special use permit described in the FEIS. What is the significance of that change? If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant 13 �. " change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be involved in this decision. 3. As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out. This is a major project impact that has not been previously addressed. 4. I have already mentioned the tendency towards unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS letter was addressed. That same problem is particularly evident in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29 of the ROD. As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not alleviate that problem. Likewise, the discussions related to traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory. 5. On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT memorandum. First, under the logic developed in this memorandum, there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon. All of the remaining proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide. UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a generally acceptable compromise in the canyon. However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this memo. It is stated: n[A]nd given the fact that we would be able to proceed with the construction of the project . 14 . . n if the �f road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is acceptable. Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if they did not make this change? The sentence quoted above certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists. 6. The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read. In essence, not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet nonexistent design phase. We mentioned earlier how UDOT has marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process by its out of sync NEPA process. It appears UDOT is doing the same with expert agencies that should have input to this project prior to its approval, not after. A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project. That's because I feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS and FEIS. However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a suggested approach. When the final ROD is issued it should only approve 15 �construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and Lower Twin Bridges. These are the "scary" bridges in many people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in need of replacement due to their age. UDOT apparently has funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that replacing these bridges would take about two years. During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a decision is made and when it can still have a major effect. Many of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS could be corrected in this process. The numerous other flaws pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed. The EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B pages 1 to 4) might be addressed. Additionally, the constructive and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences. In any event, UDOT does not have funding for nonbridge portions of the project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right" should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally. You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal. There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges 16 �" mentioned above. Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem" with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would like. However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know. Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise might be reached for the Logan Canyon project. Sincerely, ~8~~ Bruce Pendery 755 Canyon Rd. Logan, Utah 84321 17 �... Shawn Swaner USU Box 1625 Logan, Utah 84322-0199 August 10, 1994 Mr. David Berg UDOT Environmental Division 4501 S 2700 W Salt Lake City UT 84119 Dear Mr. Berg, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the Logan Canyon Record of Decision and have several comments on the draft copy of that document. I have many concerns about waiting until the design phase to resolve controversial issues. As we discussed on the August 3 field review, the RoD is a legally binding document that must be adhered to in design. However, verbal and informally written commitments could be overlooked or omitted from final design for a variety of reasons. For the sake of reaching compromise, I would like to see the RoD become a more formal record of what is to be done and provide binding guidelines for the design phase. The following comments are areas that I feel need more comprehensive coverage to ensure concerns resolved prior to the submission of the RoD are not "lost" over time. Dugway During the August 3 field trip, there was discussion concerning the width of the cut at the Dugway . To widen the width of the cut from 4 feet to 12 feet would cause considerable additional aesthetic impacts in this area. It could result in design changes to the roadway width and number of lanes in this area. The width of cut and method for making the cut should be covered in the RoD. Cost considerations should be evaluated now, rather than during design. �, Lower Twin Bridge The proposed sloping of the south cut at Lower Twin Bridge would most likely provide better revegetation and possibly less of and aesthetic impact. The removal of the existing bridge support structure should be more Impact reducing measures such as sawcutting versus thoroughly covered. jackhammering are very important considerations and should be written into the RoD. Also, guidelines should be established for the disposal of the old bridge. Temple Fork The amount of variables at Temple Fork cause for a great amount of concern. I am grateful for the elimination of the left turn lane. I also feel that realigning the intersection will provide greater safety. However, the close proximity of the river and adjoining riparian habitat make it a sensitive portion of the project. I am concerned about the adding of an uphill deceleration and turn lane. Although the additional width will be cut into the hillside, I urge that extreme care be taken to ensure minimal construction and post construction impacts on the river and riparian habitat. Concerns have been raised about the threat of siltation due to runoff during construction. There are also concerns to aesthetics of this area. Once again, clarification of how these issues are to be dealt with would be justified in the RoD. Beaver Creek The Beaver Creek corridor is similar to the lower middle canyon in narrowness and close proximity of riparian and wetland habitat. Language similar to that used to describe the Lower Middle Canyon should be used here. Specific areas of concern are the use of clear zones, total roadway width in areas to be contained by retaining waifs, and use and type of protective guardrail. Specific attention should be given to that habitat of this section as it has unique terrain that is not conducive to clear zones within proposed clear zone areas. �• Amazon Hollow Bridge This is an area raised in early 1994 during a field review. At that time it was indicated that impacts to the wetlands adjacent to this bridge could most likely be avoided. Considering that the actual intersection will be moved farther east, away from the bridge, and that a shorter taper could be employed, this should be possible. It would seem that a consultation of maps should answer whether this is possible, or whether it would require a design exemption. If it requires a design exemption, then that must be included in the RoD, if it does not then it should be indicated that the wetlands will be avoided, as Federal agencies have directed. If UDaT does not feel that avoiding these wetlands is possible, then that should be made clear so that we can Inform our constituents. Curves 69, 70, 71 and adjacent forest. After numerous discussions on passing lanes, I agree that the addition of a passing lane to the 40 foot roadway section would result in only the addition roadway width of 7 feet. However, if this additional width causes a substantially higher road base width or a wider fill, then that should be the primary focus regarding impacts. Therefore, relating to these curves, the addition of seven feet of width could cause severe impacts to habitat and aesthetics by the inclusion of fills. Please evaluate whether retaining walls could be used to limit the amount of sliver fills down the steep slope of these curves. Also indicate the safety device to be used along this section of the road . A five foot shoulder would nearly double the amount of cut and fill necessary, has UDaT included the in it's impact evaluation? Curve 85 Forest Impacts Impacts to the forest habitat surrounding curve 85 are of prime concern to CPLC. Several alternatives have been proposed by both UDaT and CPLC. CPLC has a two fold concern in this area, and no proposed alternative adequately resolves these concerns. The first and primary concern relates to the elimination of trees in this area due to curve realignment and roadway widening . The aesthetics of travelling through this area are a unique experience in the canyon and as such are of concern. The widening of the road and the implementation of wider shoulders and safety features would eliminate the close proximity of these trees, resulting in the lose �• of the aesthetic value. I realize that curve 85 has a high degree of curvature (23 degrees) and the problem of icing during winter months makes this curve a safety concern . The proposed alternatives all offer varying degrees of satisfaction for CPLC various impacts to safety and environment. I offer the following comments on the proposed alternatives for this section. Ending the passing lane above Sunrise Campground This would reduce the amount of aesthetic impacts to this area but would not accomplish much unless the curve was maintained on its present alignment. I realize that safety standards would preclude the use of this option. ReRouting of Road from Summit to approx. MP This is a dramatic change from previous plans and a such I have very little information on its impacts and also on how the body of CPLC regards it. I am initially in favor of this proposal, as I indicated on the August 3 field review, however, we must more thoroughly examine all aspects of this proposal before myself or CPLC can formally accept this proposal. Impacts to habitat should be evaluated, as well as the manner of and amount of cut and fiJI that would be necessary to accommodate the roadway. Also, work must be done to show how the realigned portion would reacquire the original road . I feel this is a matter of prime concern that must be dealt with in the RoD. If UDOT wishes to proceed with design changes outlined in the FEIS, then that should be make clear. This is not an issue that can be left until final design. Old Road on Garden City side of ProJect The draft RoD is suitable regarding removal and revegetation of abandoned road . However, can the RoD include a statement that no abandoned road will be left intact above the Garden City Limits? �• Impacts from Mitigation CPLC has raised concerns about the impacts from mitigation. These concerns could be allayed if we could review a mitigation plan from a similar project. Also, what guidelines are followed, are they published and if so in what publication. Review of mitigation plans and procedures should show that those procedures are acceptable and not as impacting as we believe, if in fact they are not. Land Use What is the duration of the planned construction/pose-construction monitoring plan? Will they have the necessary budget and staff to revegetate or fix areas of mitigation and revegetation that fail? What will be the role and extent of communication with agencies other than the Forest Service? Should not more agencies be included in roles greater than that of the CAT team? What Best Management Guidelines will be used in Rich County, which has now guidelines of its own? Social Impacts While a majority of social impacts, notably those relating to Garden City residents are outside our primary area of concern, the impacts to recreation and access in the canyon are of interest. Despite categorizing sites in the canyon into 4(f) sites, the canyon as a whole must not be overlooked as a recreation area. Logan Canyon is a recreation area, regardless of its designation. There are many more sites beside the designated 4(f) sites that fit the same criteria. The close proximity of the canyon's 4(f) sites indicate that the whole canyon is a contiguous recreation site and as such should be treated as such. The recreation value of the canyon is not just a sum of available parking areas and turnouts. Social impacts are not only loss of these parking areas, but also the degradation of the canyon natural resources. �\ • Water Quality Impacts Siltation of the rivers and streams both during and after construction of an area of high concern. What guidelines will be used to ensure long term avoidance of siltation due to road runoff. Plans have been made for the first four miles of the project, but not much has been said of the rest of the project. Is there an AASHTO guide for this? Wetlands and Botanical Resources As mentioned previously, impacts which can obviously be avoided should be listed in the RoD. As the actual design may take place several years into the future, and concerns discussed prior to the release of the RoD could be overlooked. My inclination (and not necessarily that of CPLC) is that concessions resulting in less impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat are of prime interest, and that my emphasis is on these concessions, rather than concerns in the upper canyon and on the Garden City side. Hence, wetlands in the Lower Upper Canyon, and the Beaver Creek corridor are of deep interest. Avoidance of impacts in these areas are much more important than many other concerns and should be given thorough coverage. Water Body Impacts and Wildlife Impacts What studies are used to justify that impact wildlife migration? lay down fencing will not adversely What measures will be taken to minimize the likely increase of animal vehicle collisions due to higher vehicle speed? Regarding clear span bridges, what guidelines will be followed to minimize construction impacts to the river from the close proximity of the spans, noting that those spans will not be in the river, but in very close proximity. Does the erosion control plans mentioned in the RoD also cover bridge construction? Is there enough information about fisheries in the canyon to adequately determine what mitigative measures will be undertaken? Why not do a study prior to construction to determine the current state of fisheries? �• Construction Impacts Please include information regarding the potential air quality bituminous processing plant. What permits would be required Should these permits not be included in the RoD? Can a plant the canyon if the impacts of such a plant where not covered in prior? impacts of a for this? be built in the FEIS or Construction detours could represent an additional substantial impact. What will be done to minimize the use of detours, where will detours be prohibited, who has final decision over use and location of detours? Another impact that has been previously overlooked is staging areas. The construction of staging areas on sites previously mapped as untouched create a new impact that was undocumented in the environmental documentation. Comments on the FEIS Overall, I feel that UDOT's handling of public comments has been very poor and is a major contributor to current feelings of mistrust towards UDOT from CPLC members and the public. Better handling of comments could have greatly improved relations and led to better cooperation on this project. The dismissal of concerns and comments is certainly realistic, but dismissal without adequate explanation is unacceptable to the commentator. The replies to comments in the FEIS and the RoD indicate that UDOT has little regard for the publics input and if it was evaluated at all, no mention of how those suggestions where incorporated or dismissed was given . Regarding consensus CPLC and consensus process to not. the statement in the last sentence of page 29 of the draft RoD, has not yet been met. Representatives from FHWA, Garden City, within UDOT have expressed concerns that would indicate that has not been reached. It is damaging to the consensus building declare that consensus has been reached when in fact it has �Traffic and Safety Data In the August 1 meeting, UDOT stated that accident and traffic data was "garbage." It would seem that if improving safety and level of service were the intent of the project, then accurate data would be required to justify that purpose and need. Since the traffic and safety data is inaccurate, it would seem that purpose and need should be altered to include only level of service and substandard design. Conclusion I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the development of the Record of Decision. As a representative of CPLC, I look forward to continued communication on the many issues surrounding the Logan Canyon project. Sincerely, GP,'-/ s:'.....,g....uz Shawn Swaner � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1753">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1753</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 3391297476 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 18774812 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Various papers commenting on the Logan Canyon construction project, 1994 Description An account of the resource Various papers commenting on the Logan Canyon construction project, 1994. Included: Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Logan Canyon summary of UDOT plan of action and Conservationist plan of action, time filing lawsuit under NEPA, and comments on Logan Canyon project from Bruce Pendery. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pendery, Bruce Flint, Stephan D. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Berg, David Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd5.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/17452562eb4fa63ed85f685cb0f487d0.jpg 55f1330dc31d1ca6b016a6ad2b4ccac4 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 3761 Image Width Image Width in pixels 4728 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 1000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 0ae44a38f6258617ac2f572e62280627 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 108611640 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. 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/16269">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16269</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 Vermilion Cliffs, No. Arizona. Seen along U.S. Highway 89-Alt. from the Navajo Indian Reservation, this long escarpment rises sheer above the desert, intricately eroded and brilliantly colored. [Photographer's caption] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Formations (Geology) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color transparency 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 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Vermilion Cliffs (Ariz. and Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 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. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_24365.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/ba1945118e4348d825c089bacc96fdf9.pdf 33894449f839afde1847ac4121c35df7 PDF Text Text PROJECT CONFERENCE RECORD 1 7 project: U5-89, Farmington to South Ogden Place: Date: December 29, 1993 8031 Farmington city Hall Conference Room No. : . Time: 9:00 am Attending: Brooks Carter, Corps Jeanette Gallihugh, Corps Max Forbush, Farmington City Greg Bell, Farmington City Earl Kemp, Farmington city Marda Dillree, st. Rep. Joel Hall, Versar Lindi Gregory, Versar Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Dist. 1 Denis stuhff, UDOT Dist. 1 Dave Berg, UDOT Environmental Congressman Jim Hansen Peter Jenks, aide Aaron Richards, property owner Craig Peterson, Versar Subjects Discussed: Following introductions, Craig Peterson, Versar, explained the purpose of the meeting was to select an access option from 115/US-89 for the west Farmington area. Access is needed to reduce future congestion through Farmington and along 600 West . Wasatch Front Regional Council projects 30,000 daily vehicle trips in this area within 15 years. All traffic from the west Farmington area must currently pass through Farmington City, with much of it passing through the Clark Lane Historic Homes District and travelling in front of a junior high school and near an elementary school. The road will be built and maintained by the state. A handout showing the three options was passed around and the pros and cons of each option was explained. The reason for the variety of options is avoidance of wetlands. Two of the options tie into Clark Lane at 1100 West, while the third option ties into Clark Lane east of 1100 West. Wetlands Discussion - Brooks Carter, us Army Corps of Engineers (COE) , took a few minutes to explain the regulations concerning wetlands. First, you must look to avoid wetlands if at all possible and practicable. If you cannot avoid wetlands, then you must minimize the impacts in the most practicable manner. Finally, you mitigate by creating new wetlands to replace the lost and impacted wetlands. Currently, the COE does not prefer anyone option. If one option which impacts more wetlands then another option is selected, then UDOT and Farmington must prove to the COE, by providing safety standards, traffic projection, and air quality information, along with City planning information, that option is the most practicable option. 1 �Aaron Richards, a resident of the area where the access road would be located, stated that his fields are wet because they have been farmed and irrigated, not because they are wetlands. There are some drains through the fields and he pointed out their locations. He is not happy about his fields being called jurisdictional wetlands. Congressman Jim Hansen explained in general terms problems that have arisen with the Threatened and Endangered Species Act and Wetlands under the Clean Water Act. He stated that both these acts will be in for some congressional changes during 1994 because they create a land "taking" without offering just compensation. Mr. Hansen feels that economic impacts need to be weighed along with biological impacts. Marda Dillree, state Representative for Farmington, expressed her belief that wetlands are taking economic value from Davis County because of the costs involved to identify and avoid or mitigate. Farmington city Transportation Master Plan Issues Mayor-elect Bell explained the importance of the Burke Lane access to Farmington's transportation master plan. Access over 1-15 between Farmington and the developing west Farmington area is limited to two streets - Clark Lane and Glover Lane. Connections between Clark Lane and Glover Lane on the west side of 1-15 is also limited to two streets - 650 West and 1525 West . The City's master plan calls for the development of something like a loop system around Farmington to improve traffic circulation and emergency response times. The streets involved in this would be 1100 West, Clark Lane, Glover Lane, and Main Street/US-89. The Burke Lane access needs to tie into this loop to take west side traffic away from schools. Burke Lane Access Options option "A" is the original access proposal. It is the most direct access to Clark Lane and 1100 West, with one long, gentle curve. However, it impacts over seven acres of wetlands. Option "B" has been dropped from further study because it does not provide reasonable access to the projected growth area in the west Farmington area. Option "c" has two curves and impacts less than one acre of wetlands, but it does not tie into Clark Lane at 1100 West. option "C" creates two intersections which will decrease safety and increase air pollution problems. Option "D" is a compromise between options "A" and "C". It is estimated to impact approximately four acres of wetlands by snaking around them before tying into Clark Lane at 1100 West. 2 �Closinq Comments Versar will provide the COE with user costs and safety ratings for options "A," "C," and "D". Farmington City will provide the COE with a copy of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. The COE will use this additional information, along with the wetland impacts information, to determine which option is a "practicable permitting" option for the Burke Lane access. 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1698">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1698</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2915598555 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1859226 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden Description An account of the resource Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden, suggesting an access option from I-15/US 89 for the west Farmington area with a discussion on the wetlands, transportation master plan issues, and Burke Lane access options. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peterson, Craig Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roads Improvement--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Versar, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/29/93 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah) Davis County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS351SerIBx85_Item_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/eabcb5a52f2f3aebe289d084dbeb3005.jpg a51eec55926f2aaba4bf2b58f0b14950 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/236">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/236</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 View down Logan River from bluff above First Dam at the mouth of Logan Canyon, Utah, 1963 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. View down Logan River from bluff above First Dam. 1963. Color photograph (8 x 10 in) mounted on board. Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Island (Logan, Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan River (Utah) Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A-0309 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 A0309 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1963 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-05-16 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/c0ccb4e4d510d51f38416c3eb252c03f.jpg be29ef2611e8e575731d43845ff7423a 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 2661 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3870 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1166079 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. 4/14/2014 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 View from the Thistle Lake Overlook on August 25, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 8/25/1983 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 2, Folder 31, Photo 83175-97. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229002031_83175-97_ThistleLakeView.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/d2f2fab98225699096e02cba6e0c813a.jpg 11037229b1e085fde41932f2e90f8058 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 University, Merrill-Cazier Library Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University at 600 ppi, 8 bit grayscale, uncompressed TIFF image scanned using AGFA Duoscan T2500 scanner Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2008 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/USU_Photos/id/2713">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/USU_Photos/id/2713</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 View looking east from the roof of the Business Building Description An account of the resource View looking east from the roof of the Business Building, 1972. The photo was one in a series taken by Campus Planning to show parking lot wasteland on campus in advocacy of a second quad west of the Engineering Building. View shows the Engineering Building, the Fine Arts Center, and the Reeder and Merrill dormitory halls, as well as parking areas. Subject The topic of the resource Utah State University--History--Pictorial works Utah State University. Engineering building--Pictorial works Utah State University. Fine Arts Center--Pictorial works Utah State University. Merrill (Laura R.) Hall--Pictorial works Utah State University--Student houseing--History--Pictorial works 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 1972 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived USU Historical Photo-board Collection, photo no. USU-A1771 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. Utah State University Historical Photo 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 usu_a1771.jpg Highway 89; Utah State University; https://highway89.org/files/original/77d63ee5937cf2447379bc89c59d2178.jpg d1a820ca3c74a59fa02a82b9681b8b7a 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 3766 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6359 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by : Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1200 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 797647069 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 23950363 Bytes Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (400 dpi) display file is JPEG2000. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 9/2/2009 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/regreening/id/441">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/regreening/id/441</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 View looking out of mouth of Logan Canyon onto the valley Description An account of the resource View looking out of mouth of Logan Canyon onto the valley (Logan LDS Temple and Old Main tower visible) Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Somers, Raymond, 1917- Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs 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 1910 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1909 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, Raymond C. Somers Photograph Collection 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. Regreening of Cache Valley 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 PO324 06-281.tif Highway 89; Logan Canyon; Cache National Forest; https://highway89.org/files/original/e1df76c1a34c3b52502775e91165d52b.jpg 07e8cdd7fa211837d5a02439c5f46cee 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 University, Merrill-Cazier Library Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University at 600 ppi, 8 bit grayscale, uncompressed TIFF image scanned using AGFA Duoscan T2500 scanner Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2008 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/USU_Photos/id/2710">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/USU_Photos/id/2710</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 View looking southeasat from the roof of the business building Description An account of the resource View looking southeast from the roof of the Business Building. The photo was one in a series taken by Campus Planning to show parking lot wasteland on campus in advocacy of a second quad west of the Engineering Building. View shows the Moen and Greaves dormitory halls, as well as Highway 89/400 North street in Logan. Also depicted is the "Island" area of Logan. Subject The topic of the resource Utah State University--History--Pictorial works Utah State University. Moen (Johanna) Hall--Pictorial works Utah State University. Greaves (Ethelyn O.) Hall--Pictorial works 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 1972 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived USU Historical Photo-board Collection, photo no. USU-A1768 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. Utah State University Historical Photo 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 usu_a1768.jpg Highway 89; Utah State University; https://highway89.org/files/original/11870e1831050839f3dd5cb621a73757.jpg e073c7b397715c4c6889173f6a83edb6 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 University Merrill-Cazier Library Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale 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 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/241">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/241</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 View looking up the canyon from Third Dam, Logan Canyon, Utah Description An account of the resource Looking up Logan Canyon from Third Dam. Black and white photograph (3 x 4 in). Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs 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 1940-1997 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Third Dam (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Ted W. Daniel photograph collection Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv2579">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv2579</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. 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 P037330802 Highway 89; Logan Canyon; https://highway89.org/files/original/39520069bc546861bbdbc1254c4af8cd.jpg 166056a6200c2be146ebf659b99524f5 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/241">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/241</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 View looking up the canyon from Third Dam, Logan Canyon, Utah Description An account of the resource Looking up Logan Canyon from Third Dam. Black and white photograph (3 x 4 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Daniel, Theodore W. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--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. 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Ted W. Daniel photograph collection, 1892-1997, P0373 03:08:02 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Ted W. Daniel photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Ted W. Daniel Photograph Collection, 1892-1997, P0373 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P037330802 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1940 and 1997 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 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/7f9995c4a6869d85f4819b732d9a44e6.jpg 6418a19801b4c9650dbfe6e7dc391c64 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/194">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/194</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 View looking upstream at the Utah Power and Light Company power plant near the mouth of Logan Canyon, Utah, 1920s Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. Views, 1920s. View looking upstream at Utah Power and Light Company power plant near mouth of canyon (1/4 mile). Black and white photograph (6 x 8 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Utah Power &amp Light Company--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Hydroelectric power plants--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. 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-3149 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 A3149 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1920s Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 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/8a3ccd844991cb704a8998f67d368955.jpg dd9c15773730a96b08334b9bc845eb29 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 4722 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6708 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 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 50F9A26154083C48BB96C3FEF0A5B05F File Size Size of the file in bytes. 212544948 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2012-09-18 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/10478">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/104787</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 View North, Along Lee's Ferry Road Route, From 89-A at Navajo Bridge Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Schafer, Paul H. Subject The topic of the resource Rock formations; Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color transparency 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 1976 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Grand Canyon (Ariz.); Navajo Bridge (Ariz.); United States Highway 89 Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979; 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. Schafer, Paul H. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_154429.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/31783c9c4f3d41ec90188b200dbf04ef.jpg 479d3fe13f8fff6514b1468905e1f288 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/178">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/178</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 View of 'Government Dugway' in Logan Canyon, Utah, between 1910 and 1920 Description An account of the resource View of 'Government Dugway' in Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (3 x 5 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Crookston, Newell J., 1890-1976 Subject The topic of the resource Dugway (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Dirt roads--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Dugway (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Caceh County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 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, Mae Crookston Wennegren photograph collection, 1910-1920, P0130 1:013 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Mae Crookston Wennegren photograph collection, 1910-1920, can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv9026">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv90267</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. Mae Crookston Wennegren photograph collection, 1910-1920, P0130 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 P013010413 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1910-1920 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 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/8579596cbb4de2b705a971aaac8f4ebc.jpg 4a6b707102083ed6645aa8a1613faa5c 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/242">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/242</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 View of a stream in Temple Fork taken by the United States Forest Service, 1960 Description An account of the resource U.S.F.S image, a stream in Temple Fork, 1960. Black and white photograph (3 x 5 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource United States. Forest Service Subject The topic of the resource Temple Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Rivers--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Temple Fork (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Ted W. Daniel Photograph Collection, 1892-1997, P0373 02:14:17 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Ted W. Daniel photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Ted W. Daniel Photograph Collection, 1892-1997, P0373 Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P037321417 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1960 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-05-13 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/48ef9cf7a7b39d111c7615e85648472b.jpg d9ff2a0cc6be66b3b84865e1878829f4 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 University, Merrill-Cazier Library Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 75.008KB Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library. Black and white images in this collection are stored as archival TIFF and access JPEG files. Using a Creo-Scitex Eversmart Jazz+ scanner, they were scanned at 600 dpi (5 x7 or larger) or 1200 dpi (smaller) with 8-bit grayscale. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2007-04-11 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/Bear/id/11298">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Bear/id/11298</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 View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road, 1930s Description An account of the resource View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road, 1930s. One black and white photograph (7.75 x 9.5 inches) mounted on board. (Negative Available). Subject The topic of the resource Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho)--Pictorial works Logan Canyon road (Utah)--Pictorial works Garden City (Utah)--Pictorial works 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 1930-1939 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho) Garden City (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, 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. USU Historical Photo-board 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 A2532.jpg Highway 89; Logan Canyon; Bear Lake; https://highway89.org/files/original/44b1993875640eaaf6874da4999c5104.jpg c70e16ca2c90d66c60cff8194815bd20 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 University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library 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/155">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/155</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 View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road,1930s Description An account of the resource Bear Lake. Views. 1930s. View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road. Black and white photograph (7.5 x 9.5 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho)--Pictorial works Logan Canyon road (Utah)--Pictorial works 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 1930 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho) Garden City (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A2532 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A2532 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. Logan Canyon Reflections 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 A2532 Highway 89; Bear Lake; https://highway89.org/files/original/a9d7387b1a56359517c8319cd0e27edd.jpg b2489754e1482bc844f1d0046a8f0f62 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/155">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/155</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 View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road,1930s Description An account of the resource Bear Lake. Views. 1930s. View of Bear Lake and Garden City, Utah from Logan Canyon Road. Black and white photograph (7.5 x 9.5 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho) Bear Lake County (Idaho) Cache County (Utah) Idaho Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A2532 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 A2532 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1930s Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 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/d6289430216f8a2ca03f52929a02db5b.jpg df7f2fe70c67665f3a0201b79f138abf 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/135">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/135</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 View of Bear Lake, Utah and Idaho, looking toward the East Description An account of the resource View of Bear Lake, looking toward the East. Black and white photograph (5 x 7 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Israelsen, Orson Winso, 1887-1968 Subject The topic of the resource Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear Lake (Utah and Idaho) Bear Lake County (Idaho) Cache County (Utah) Idaho Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Orson Winso Israelsen irrigation photographs, 1900-1960, P0358 1:15:14 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Orson Winso Israelsen irrigation photographs can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03680">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03680</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. Orson Winso Israelsen irrigation photographs, 1900-1960, P0358 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 P0358 1:15:14 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1930s Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 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/8cc556c84395e047389043fa09b4192a.jpg 554f709a287b9d21f91ba86e518f99e0 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/142">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/142</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 View of Logan Canyon from the Utah State University campus, Utah Description An account of the resource View of Logan Canyon from USU Campus. Black and white photograph (5 x 7 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cooley, I. LaVell, 1901- Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs Mountains--Utah--Logan--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. 1920-1929 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, LaVell Cooley photograph collection, 1920-1985, P0101 4:01:07 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the LaVell Cooley photograph collection, 1920-1985 can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv30639">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv30639</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. LaVell Cooley photograph collection, 1920-1985 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 P010140107 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1920-1985 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 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/d6d8ab5ac3f76cd5e5bc191a0587d61f.jpg 894f3026a4a3007ed8a5d321be17aa04 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/132">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/132</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 View of Logan Canyon, Utah, ca. 1978 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. ca. 1978, Black and white photograph (6 x 8 in) mounted on board Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs Landscape photography--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A-2343 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 A2343 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. ca. 1978 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-05-31 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/a5e872c7cd419c6cbad32fa10b6b2bb7.jpg 8146e9d1c52d41c233ab39df117a9eff 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/233">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/233</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 View of Logan River in Logan Canyon, Utah, between 1900 and 1910 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon and River. Cyanotype photograph (6 x 8 in) Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan River (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1909 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, Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection, 1896-1916, P0014 8:61 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv64944">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv64944</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. Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection, 1896-1916, P0014 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 P00140861 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1900-1910 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 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/3382db041d89e2ee622547425705eced.jpg 186ae4c138536baa800f2e446d3c7d87 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/180">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/180</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 View of Logan River in Logan Canyon, Utah, between 1915 and 1925 Description An account of the resource View of Logan River in Logan Canyon, Utah. Black and white photograph (2.5 x 4 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Boy Scouts of America. Troop 5 (Logan, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan River (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 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, Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album, 1915-1925, P0364 10:02 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv43746">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv43746</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. Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album, 1915-1925, P0364 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 P03641002 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1915 and 1925 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 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/5b05fb058b334e2e75b8a17ee6603e63.jpg 2fd364a685f9e80a07c93c1d4975c2b4 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/237">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/237</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 View of the Girl Scout camp at Spring Hollow in Logan Canyon, Utah (2 of 2) Description An account of the resource Cache National Forest, Girl Scout camp, Logan Canyon, Spring Hollow. Black and white photograph. 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 Spring Hollow (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spring Hollow (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 01:07:06 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 P037810706 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/f75926a3c0b10710da689733a6f7a60d.jpg fca10f4bb78c6ae562c565045f302b24 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/173">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/173</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 View of the Girl Scout camp at Spring Hollow in Logan Canyon, Utah, (1 of 2) Description An account of the resource View of the Girl Scout camp at Spring Hollow in Logan Canyon, Utah. Black and white photograph (2.5 x 4 in.) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Boy Scouts of America. Troop 5 (Logan, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Spring Hollow (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spring Hollow (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 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, Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album, 1915-1925, P0364 44:04 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv43746">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv43746</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. Logan Boy Scout Troop 5 photograph album, 1915-1925, P0364 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 P03644404 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1915 and 1925 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 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/b453ab9427fd09193abec36e68a5b280.jpg 16a97b9a0c3da6efc4add3c852ee4381 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 University, Merrill-Cazier Library File Size Size of the file in bytes. 89.983 KB Conversion Specs Black and white images in this collection are stored as archival TIFF and access JPEG files. Using a Creo-Scitex Eversmart Jazz+ scanner, they were scanned at 600 dpi (5 x7 or larger) or 1200 dpi (smaller) with 8-bit grayscale. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 1/23/2007 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/Bear/id/10515">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Bear/id/10515</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 View of the Island and mouth of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource View of The Island and mouth of Logan Canyon early 1900s. Utah State University Agricultural Extension Service photograph. Black and white photograph (5 x 6.75 inches) mounted on board. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History--Pictorial works 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 1900-1909 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Historical Photoboards Collection A-0119b 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. Bear River Watershed 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 A0119b.jpg Highway 89; Logan Canyon; Cache National Forest; https://highway89.org/files/original/0b0c01dfa33688a2d533d028cfbad33e.jpg ad41e90a61a9abd5bd06b15def7a5265 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/138">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/138</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 View of the Logan River up Logan Canyon, Utah Description An account of the resource Logan River and riverbank up Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (10 x 13 in) mounted on board Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Somers, Ray, 1917- Subject The topic of the resource Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Logan Canyon (Utah)--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan River (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1860-1869 1870-1879 1880-1889 1890-1899 19th century 1900-1909 1910-1919 1920-1929 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Raymond C. Somers photograph collection, 1865-1993, P0324 05:01:17 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 P032450117 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1865-1993 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 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 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 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/5a3da6c885a82ce27ec6d15ab6201436.jpg 6d1f093faa5f29cf9eeae3fea96bfd18 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 2752 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3870 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1187876 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. 5/15/14 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 View of the Rerouted Highway Road Cut on January 12, 1984 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1/12/84 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 3, Folder 63, Photo 84001-39. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229003063_84001-39_ThistleRoadCut.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/ae6080669d8ed43501504edc4875ed1b.jpg ebe62dabd3de07c6bed7c9c6cf6d1bb7 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 2718 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3858 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1332619 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. 5/15/14 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 View of the Route 6 Road Cut from the Spanish Fork River on October 01, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 10/1/83 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 2, Folder 51, Photo 83210-75. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229002051_83210-75_RoadCutFromSFRiver.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/466aa4e9af8842eb71b0d995a5859a8c.jpg c884e2ffba3f5e04262f56095342ac43 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 2649 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3868 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1292887 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. 5/15/14 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 View of Thistle Lake on November 30, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/30/83 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 3, Folder 20, Photo 83250-51. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229003020_83250-51_ThistleLakeView.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/4f1d1dd3dcf1ddc577e65aa0c5baf76a.pdf 9d4d4ce7047561ed59ca1009393b1a95 PDF Text Text VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO 1. An important consideration with respect to the extent of various impacts is the relative amount of area affected. This is particu- larly critical for riparian areas (visual sensitivity rating 6 or 7). For example, in alternative Cl, the total riparian area affected is estimated at 9.5 acres. This calculates to be a strip approxi- mately 9 feet wide for the entire middle section of the canyon, and agrees closely with the amount of riparian area affected by addition of a strip 8.5 feet wide to the ' highway (modified standard). Since the middle section is very . narrow, all land between the road and the river is riparian (U.S.F.S. standard is anything less than 100 feet). How much of the total riparian zone would be affected in this alternative? 50%? 75%? For alternative 0, 40 mph, it must approach 100%, since this calculates to be a strip 13.5 feet wide for the entire section. In order to evaluate the impact, an esti- mate of the amount (%) of total riparian zone destroyed in each alternative needs to be given. 2. The maps showing the area to be affected are somewhat misleading, since they indicate, e.g., riparian zone only exists where the R/7(6) symbol occurs. In fact, in the middle canyon, the entire area between the road and the river is riparian zone, and any widening of the road will affect it for the entire length of the section. This should be clarified for Cl, 01 alternatives. 3. No accounts is taken of the impact on visual resources for those using the canyon but not driving. Campers, fisherman, hikers, etc, not on the road may have their visual resources adversely affected �by the various alternatives, but in a different manner than drivers. How is this to be ev a l uated? 4. Page 6. Evaluation Criteria. It is stated: "Roadsides with a 3-5 rating can absorb alternations, but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc)." It is hard to understand how a retaining wall or a bridge can mitigate the loss of naturalness. 5. The memo indicates all alterations in areas with a 6 or 7 sen- sitivity index (which includes all riparian zones) cannot meet the ~ VQO or Retention, which is required by the Forest Plan. /\ These amount to a considerable amount of the total area affected, particularly in the middle canyon (35% for Cl; 34%. for 01, 35 mph; 35% for 01, 40 mph), as well as parts of the upper canyon (Franklin Basin road to Beaver Mountain Road, Summit). however, as to how this C impas~ No indication is given, is to be solved. Clearly, this will require a revision of the Forest Plan for these alternatives, since such a large part of the total area will be affected. The implica- tions of this must be spelled out in the OEIS. This is a critical omission. 6. The spot Improvp-ment Alternative (B) appears to include all alternatives in the form originally proposed. spot ~ There is no such alter- natives, since the number and extent of each improvement must be agreed upon. It must be made clear this alternative includes all spot improve- ments at the maximum level for each, and the final alternative will be for fewer and smaller improvements. As it now stands, there is little to differentiate Bl from Cl in the sections affected: the only difference is in the width of the road between improvements. ~. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/97">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/97</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 4045140413 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1216380 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Visual resources technical memo Description An account of the resource Evaluation of visual resources in Logan Canyon and the different impacts for drivers and fishermen, campers, hikers, etc. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/466cb1d3a2645d5cb4a1e6d76e430378.pdf 78bc267cace4680d8bbc2f0b639a68a3 PDF Text Text u.s. 89 LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY VISUAL SIMULATIONS PROPOSAL DECEMBER 8, 1986 JOHN C. ELLSWORTH, ASST. PROF. OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE in cooperation with THE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION As described in the proposal to the Utah Department of Transportation on this date, the cost of providing the basic services and products under that proposal is: Equipment: Computer and graphics software and hardware Video camera and recorder Computer disks and videotapes $14,900.00 1,850.00 450.00 Stipend: Principal investigator 5,000.00 Overhead: USU Foundation (35%) 7,770.00 Total cost: ---------------------------------- $29,970.00 This cost is based on one hundred (100) single frame visual simulations. Additional products and services may be negotiated as described in the proposal. All equipment purchased would become the property of the Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning at Utah State University. � 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/125">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/125</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 1458491861 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 470269 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Visual simulations proposal, December 8, 1986 Description An account of the resource Visual simulations proposal for the cost of basic services and products to be used by the Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental planning at Utah State University. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ellsworth, John C. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Utah State University Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction 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 1986-12-08 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Cache County (Utah) Logan (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 7.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4629ad3cddc4f2f6dbb45f87a86c3952.jpg 5a30a3150413ef4bc415695f1118e13f 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/253">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/253</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 Wagons on dirt road along the river in Logan Canyon, Utah Description An account of the resource Wagons on dirt road along the river in Logan Canyon, Utah. Cyanotype photograph (6 x 8 in) Subject The topic of the resource Dirt roads--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Logan River (Utah)--Photographs Logan Canyon (Utah)--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. 1900-1909 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, Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection, 1896-1916, P0014 8:63 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv64944">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv64944</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. Agricultural College of Utah cyanotypes collection, 1896-1916, P0014 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 P00140863 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 1900-1910 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 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/bb650251978fa055f80e3e2e74376db1.jpg 0503c6081ba9388c5a9d770fe18e9a81 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 Walk in Lagoon Park Description An account of the resource Postcard showing a walk 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_lagoon018.jpg Amusement Parks Highway 89 Lagoon https://highway89.org/files/original/83b8704964c07b93721c2ac23c395213.jpg a54436e3fbe402413ea9526311450537 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 Warburton Metal Works at 655-657 1/2 South State Street in Salt Lake City, UT. Description An account of the resource Warburton Metal Works at 655-657 1/2 South State Street, built in 1928. Image taken on November 18, 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 1936-11-18 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_1-819.jpg Highway 89 Metalworking Stores & Shops https://highway89.org/files/original/dbffc08d5a7cb33f41ccad4ad9dad3d7.jpg d1ee39ed133ca47b9fa9390bcadeec1d 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 2675 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3567 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 647144 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 Wasatch Motel road sign in Utah County Description An account of the resource Scenic 89 tourism road sign photographed along Highway 89 in Utah 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 (Utah 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 12/15/1965 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Milepost 9.55 (Utah) US 89 (Utah) Utah 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 10. Folder 14. Photo 399. 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 00959010014_399_WasatchMotel.jpg Advertising and Marketing Road Signs Transportation https://highway89.org/files/original/79a1412da67178b48897cdd55db8b489.jpg 44dd098e4762746bc6dac2dab8dbbe64 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 Wasatch Motors at 5660 South State Street in Murray, UT. Description An account of the resource Wasatch Motors at 5660 South State Street, built in 1976. Image taken on September 28, 1976. 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 1976-09-28 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_21-2495-98 Automobile Dealerships Highway 89 https://highway89.org/files/original/dbb0414f5cd4b5b90a70716eaf4b3394.jpg 65333fc69070126cbc128a961934ae39 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 2656 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3858 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1349544 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. 4/14/2014 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 Water Diversion and General Construction at the Thistle Mud Slide Area on August 10, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 8/10/1983 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 2, Folder 24, Photo 83165-198. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229002024_83165-198_ThistleJunctionConstruction.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/8c8e3759024e89f6c01a015fc8f24364.jpg 2cb5d7e99e3ba6c9a75cba5d1034d2d3 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 2682 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3900 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1059463 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. 4/7/2014 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 Water Diversion at Thistle Lake on May 25, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/25/1983 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 1, Folder 58, Photo 83100-22. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229001058_83100-22_HallsFallsandCanyon.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle https://highway89.org/files/original/cbcf256f8335772fc031b945f2e7a695.jpg 815ba2c0dbe9d7a6e7468fc1edb41a09 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 2742 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3848 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 800 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example 24-Bit Color File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1380420 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. 4/9/2014 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 Water Diversion Bridge Near Thistle on July 05, 1983 Description An account of the resource This image documents the Thistle Flood that began in April 1983 with a massive mud slide that created an earthen dam, blocking the flow of the Spanish Fork River. In addition to severing Highway 89 as a transportation route, the dam destroyed the Denver and Rio Grande Western railroad tracks, cutting off the railroad link between Salt Lake and Denver. As flood waters rose, the town of Thistle (located on Highway 89) was inundated with the water that would form Thistle Lake. Massive construction efforts were made between 1983 and 1984 to reconstruct rail and road lines, as well as divert and drain water from Thistle Lake into the nearby Spanish Fork River. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation Subject The topic of the resource US 89 (Utah County)--Photographs Disasters--Utah-Spanish Fork Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographs Color photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7/5/1983 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Spanish Fork Canyon (Utah) Utah County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1983-1985 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, Official Photographs: Thistle Disaster Documentation, Series 25229, Box 2, Folder 13, Photo 83156-130. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Utah Department of Transportation Thistle Flood photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html">http://archives.utah.gov/research/inventories/25229.html</a> 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 25229002013_83156-130_BridgeDrainage.jpg Environmental Conditions Natural Disasters Public Works Spanish Fork Canyon Thistle