27 50 1396 https://highway89.org/files/original/a9223971dd6ac5ea2402d09145aca7b4.pdf 4ac6542617bf576c971131c12ab149d4 PDF Text Text (' ( UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY DARYL CHASE, PRESIDENT LOGAN, UTAH COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE August 10, 1961 W. H. BENNETT , DEAN J. Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management Campus Dear Dean Floyd: I have read the statement on Road Construction and Resource Use prepared by your College Committee on Road Construction with considerable interest. This statement is well prepared and shows the results of considerable thought and effort. I commend the committee members for the thorough job that has been done. I have some reservations about recommendation five on page 12 which recommends that local community organizations be developed to consider all matters relating to resource use. In my opinion we are already overorganized and a lot of time is spent in trying to coordinate things, but coordination might be taken care of as a matter of course if things were on a simpler basis. I think we should work through the existing organizations and endeavor to create a greater awareness and consciousness of the importance of resource use. I also feel that recommendation number five is too broad and could lead to organizations giving consideration to many diverse and unrelated aspects of resource use. Perhaps the wording of recommendation five could be . modified to mention specific things in keeping with the title and content of the statement. Once again I desire to commend the committee for the thorough, excellent job that has been done. It certainly points out problems and conditions that are important enough to warrant the best planning that can be done. It is written in such a way that I think very few people could take exception to any part of it. Very truly yours, Dean WHB/cm p. s. The word "stronger" in the second sentence of the second paragraph (first complete paragraph) seems to be out of place. I am wondering if the word should be "weaker" rather than "stronger." � 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/1724">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1724</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 55088275 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 713068 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from W. H. Bennett to J. Whitney Floyd, August 10, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from W. H. Bennett to J. Whitney Floyd, August 10, 1961discussing the Road Construction and Resource Use statement prepared by the College Committee. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bennett, W. H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah Traffic engineering Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 24.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/b5b861e3dc1f189c8a8a1cd8b2fb7ddc.pdf c31671bdc641b28e08834119d5ba70d5 PDF Text Text June 21 , 1961 . Dr. O. Preston Robertson, General o Beret News , l3 Richards ~ tre8t , Salt Lake City , Utah. anagar, Dear Dr . Robertson: e certainly want to thank the 'Oasaret ' ews' for the attention that has been focused on the road bu1lding activities in logan Canyon through Hack Miller's column . Those of us here at the College recognize the need for road improvement but we are alst) keenly aware of the value of our sceniC , recreational and fishery resources and the need to proteot these resources now for the future . Obviously we must have adequate and safe highways, but these must be designed to prevent damage to outdoor resources . This , of course, costs additional money, requires public SUp' } ort, and close cooperation between the various agencies involved . Considerable progress is evident . W~ think the fD eseret News ' has performed a public service by rocusing public attention on this aspect land use . W certainly e appreCiate your interest. 0' Sln. erel y . c J . Whitney rloyd , Dean College of Forest , Range and Wildlife Management . jwt � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1725">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1725</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 667538851 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 658782 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to D. Robertson, June 21, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dean J. Whitney Floyd, College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management, to General Manager D. Robertson, Deseret News, on June 21, 1961 about the road improvement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Robertson, D. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 28.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/5ea9201a3c82449d0ff5c9b9ef0a7f16.pdf 10d3d2b0edbc33a14a5cd28e041f865a PDF Text Text June 2l. 1961 Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Utah State Highway Department , State Capitol BuildIng , Salt lake City, Utah. Dear Mr. Burton : There 1 apparently soma confusion on the position of this College with respect to the roadwork In Logan Canyon. In the inters t of clarlfyingour philosophy , I am quoting directly my letter Df March 28 to Regional Forester Floyd Iverson , a copy of which was sent to you : fl e appreciate the invitation extended by Mr . Kay to be represented at the recent field review of the proposed highway construction project in Logan Canyon . It i encouraging also that the several agencies involved are being consulted dur1ng the planning tags. "The College of Forest , Range and 11dllfe Managemerit has a keen interest in h1ghway planning and constructi on . Recognizing the impact of hlg,hwaV construction on land and resource use . we hav appointed a facul tv committee to develop orne long range principles .and guidelines . This committee 1a concerning ltselfwlth the b;road regional and stat -wide i mplications of highway development with respect to urban and rural development, resource US8 , outdoor recreation , and other f actors . This committee bas been at work for sometime and we hope to have a preliminary report soon . "A second committee has been appointed specifically to prepare an objective evaluation of the impact of the proposed road construction on the fishery resource and utilization of the logan River . This will be a staff effort . This study will concern itself not only with the immediate Impact of highway construction , but with the long range effect upon the ri ver environment . One objective will be to obtain data on which to baa sound recommendations for the purpose of m1tigating losses . W e plan to have a preliminary report from this committee in the very near future . "Returning again to the econd phase of the road construction work 1n Logan Canyon, it is our hope that you will give every consideration to th scenic and fishery resources of the Canyon . We recognize the englneering problems involved and the fact that dequate protection will result 1n higher co ts . nwe . reject the . e . lsts should foot th 11 f losses. This is una • reu The e e R at is th . sportsmen and r.ecreationand the mitigation of blle , as 1s the transportation . .. . /cont . �- 2 .. Mr . C, Taylor Burton Jun 23 , 1961 system . It 1s of t remendou social and conomlc value to utah t citizen . Its protection shoul d b a nor a1 cost d building . It Is cl arlv the r esponsibi l ity of the road builder to protec t public r aourc S B8 1s done f or p l vat ' resour ces . 0 ' , e urg your ag ncy , as t he one r apen ibl for det rmlning land u on the Cache torest , to require v ry eCButlon ncesaary to prot ct the valuabl r ecreational. sc eniC , and fishery v lUes of Logan Canyon . This tatamant was. d valoped by our College eomml t fa nd 1 ndore d taff . It ha b en presented on s veral occasion . namel y to the Chamber of Comm t ee and'the sea 10n attended by Comml loner Balch . It at!ll rep r esents the thinking of the College or Fora t . Range and anagement . by th ppreciate the opper unit! s to part icipate In the discus lone concerning th road con t r uctlon work and w will b reprss nted at th 27 m sting . Sine r I V yours , J . hi tn V Floyd . 0 an College of Forest . Range and WIldl 1f ' Management . jwt • • • • Jun � 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/1726">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1726</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 1008945516 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1610550 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Floyd Whitney to C. Burton Taylor, June 23, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dean J. Floyd Whitney of College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Managment, to C. Burton Taylor of Utah State Highway Department on June 23, 1961 about the roadwork in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Burton, C. Taylor Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 29.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/3ff189f3a2085809e47bf1295f658de4.pdf 6bbc47dd805ba58271652c916b1287e9 PDF Text Text J Pr ••i4 CQIMIo"". Daryl 2, 19 1 e. _ ......... , ac: • rot. J ek U'PVIIDa .. � 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/1727">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1727</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 4213316456 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 576818 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, June 22, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management, to President Daryl Chase, June 22, 1961 referencing the Director of Highways. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 26.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/c43414c5a9fa57f484e723879feb97ef.pdf 479ccc20cf4acf4b50e1675aa3be56e3 PDF Text Text August 8 , 1961 M E M 0 RAN 0 U M To: Dean D. F. Peterson From : Dean J . Whitney Floyd Subject: College Statement on Road Construction and Resource Use Attached 1s a manuscript which 1s self-explanatory . It is now being reviewed bV our entire staff . rollowing staff review , we will make a decision on printing and distribution . Meanwhile I would appreciate any comments you wish to make. jwt � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1728">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1728</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 1910165741 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 528016 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from J. Whitney Floyd to D. F. Peterson, August 8, 1961 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Dean J. Whitney Floyd to Dean D. F. Peterson, August 8, 1961 about reviewing a manuscript. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Peterson, D. F. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 25.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/1116bd40cc0536980e52f309ad6ecf72.pdf cca9c275d48c760aa4271cfb70f54b8c PDF Text Text • • LI ,. ......... uiLI'ur , • � 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/1729">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1729</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 344189369 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 846780 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to C. Taylor Burton, June 30, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dean J. Whitney Floyd, College Forest, Range and Wildlife Management, to C. Taylor Burton of Utah Highway Department on June 30, 1961 about Logan Canyon Road. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Burton, C. Taylor Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 30.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/561ec586d6aad58a38b2c9c18186de96.pdf bbd0778cd7e5b1a11fdf409fa28bf7a1 PDF Text Text UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1 1 ,"f • �UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS -- I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1730">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1730</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 1571512553 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1115107 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from C. Taylor Burton to Daryl Chase, November 20, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from C. Taylor Burton to Daryl Chase, November 20, 1961 about highway construction and the Committee report. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Burton, C. Taylor Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Administrative records Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 36.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/2e0ec822801706dae8d62828cab8e29d.pdf b9990a0fd0ec3ebd33a2117ea2bc21bb PDF Text Text A... ITANT DIU CTO D•• (TO. 0' .. I....A" 101f," W. GRiFf iN C. TAYLOR IURTON RULON J . BALLA RD J . [OWARO JOHN TO ITATt O"ICI IUILe ••• Utah State Department of Highways Salt Lake City 14, Utah 1 ... 'relideaC Utah ItAte UGiv.rli LoI_, Utah Ilr. IUBJICI: P-02l-1() Lo an Can on Dear Kr. Cba.e: laference il to our ti I ift Lolan, Utah. OIl J 27, alre d to conllder certain .edificationl in t 1961, at wbich tl ,lao lubaitted at thi. etifta. After car ful conlideratl of t , .. 11 I 1 • in t four-1 •• e ion of hi h • ha reduc d t of t .e lan a by Itartia the u -hill pa •• ing lane at Station 464 aDd it at tation 490. ar Itartinl t paillna 1 at Itation t r.tnatin it at 477+81, Whic 1•• coalidera 1. ductioD ia total le th of pa.l1al lane •• Itudied the 'i.h G Ca..d •• i '. propo.ed .edificatlOil of t lUah y n Itation and 5 5. Ihould _ move t lUSh--, 10 feet north 1 to t 1011d roc , it will re.ult 1n a additioaal 7,23' cublc yardl of rock to be bl.lted out and hau1.d a di.tance of f1ft 1I11el t ri t fork c YOD. r .tl_ted COlt for the exca.at1oe of ,011d rock 1. t1.50 per cublc yard, t e.ti. .ted COlt f It · t rock 1. 150 a ya 1I11at or a to 1 of 90e r cubic 7ard ..tlna a total of t2.50 per C ic yard, or • total ollar COlt of f18,095. ftU. adctlti al re1ocatiOil of t hil., into .o11d rock vill relult ia a ut nduetion of chamal eDCr nt by 185 e.t. After revlev11l1 the ady_t •• lain d, 185 f •• t 1•• 1 of C 1 eacroac at c will . 1&1 d at a total co.t of au of , b1le loed' t load •• lOD do ot llev thi. 1 • ... le Ju,tlficatloa for t addlti a1 co.t invo1 d. I a1.0 1 ., l •• ted effact t t.ovi back 20 IOl1d rock lei ha • ad tbl fol1nial n.u1t. wn terata 1 _ ..... t of rock to be. .acay.tad 1, 19,657 c blc ya"'" n.u1t 1 the recluctlOil of t e l acroac"'nt ,a.e 1,060 fe.t 1 to d: The wufcl fa.t. The • ..-Y-' y. �.. 2lty t tal .t to • au t •• daatad at ,2 . 50 par c opl 1 1. 0 • leal , ........-.7 • I • rlct ,....'t I' for '1 rl � 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/1731">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1731</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 3898707963 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1308800 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from C. Taylor Burton to Daryl Chase, July 12, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from C. Taylor Burton, Director of Highways, to Daryl Chase, Utah State University, on July 12, 1961, about passing lanes on highway and the Fish and Game Commission's proposed modification of the highway between Station 565 and 595. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Burton, C. Taylor Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 32.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/1e45fb9dc88ea0077d539d0081843325.pdf 3dfc009eba6858bd560db74d9e466d3e PDF Text Text 1 , 1 o. re ro d n D ryl Ch J. 1 • lO~ in . i ubjec • o ely , , 1 ta't.4lDMm 1: i- t 1 r to h t ctory to that othe n th rt of th er Ch O\It.e JH8. • 0 C er 8r onn 1 •• plea r co cure t of ro wi the 8 � 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/1732">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1732</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 4183255998 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 651099 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, November 14, 1961 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from J. Whitney Floyd to President Daryl Chase on November 14, 1961 about a meeting with Governor Clyde, November 13, 1961. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--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. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 35.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/59e438adfc6ab890d16609206f3dbf86.pdf 2f9d6d4bb6bd30eb77dfcc20c2c62a1d PDF Text Text COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS STATE OF UTAH UTAH STATE U N IVERSITY AND U . S. DEP R f[MI!JN tD at AGNII:[)J LtrLl$E EXTENSION SERVICE LOGAN. UTAH COOPERATING To : President Daryl Chase From : Jack H. Berryman Date: September 1, 1961 . Subject: Logan Canyon Road Construction. I have the copy of Mr. Burton ts letter to you concerning the Logan Canyon roadwork . In the absence of Dean Floyd , I shall take the liberty of providing you with the background information and suggestions on a reply. For the past two years the College has been very interested in the roadwork and named a committee to study the Logan Canyon road and also prepared a statement on the impact of highway planning and construction on resource use . I have served as Chairman of this committee and have represented the College before the Cache Chamber of Commerce and at highway planning meetings on several occ8sions , including the June 27 discussions mentioned by Mr. Burton. We have expressed our position through letters from Dean Floyd t o Regional Forester Floyd I verson and Mr . Burton , copies of which are attached. Attached also is a dr af t of our proposed College statement which has now been reviewed twice by the sta f f and is in the process of final editing. We have consistently taken this position : obviously roads and road 1mprovements are necessary but planning shotild take into account the impact upon al l resources and , 1n the case of Lagan Canyon, the very important scenic , recreational and f ishery resources. W have e attempted to develop the prinCiple that cost of protecting these resources should be a normal cost of road building . In view of Mr . Burton's letter , we have been partially successf ul . To us the issue I n Logan Canyon goes far beyond this immediate area. I think a reply to Mr . Burton would be appropriate . I think , however, we must be cautious 1n endorsing the plan 8S revised because the Forest Service has not yet issued a special use permit and an endorsement by us would weaken their position as well as that of the Fish and Game Department . Fu r ther, we have confined ourselves to principle without reference to the specifics of engineering design . With this in mind , may I suggest something along the following lines: Thank you for your let t er commenting on the present studies of the highway pl anning in Logan Canyon and also for conSidering the philosophy of this University in designing the highway . �- 2 - President Daryl Chase September 1 , 1961 Obviously the decisions concerning the specifics of acceptable design are the responsibility of the agencies involved, namely your the Fish and Game Dep artment , and the U. S . Forest Service. Our concern has been with the principle--that highway planning must consider the impact upon all other resources and that the cost of protecting these resources should be a normal cost of highway construction. We recognize that the deSign for the second phase of the road has been modified to a considerable extent and th a t costs ha ve been increased substantially _ To us this represents progress in the establishment of an important principle that goes beyond Logan River. Your cooperation is much appreciated Q I would apprec iate the opportunity of discussing this matter with you . JH8:jwt c . c. Dean J . Whitney Floyd � 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/1733">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1733</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 2260071425 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1511816 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Jack H. Berryman to Daryl Chase, September 1, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Jack H. Berryman to President Daryl Chase, September 1, 1961 about Logan Canyon Road Construction. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 31.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/4e09d1df3721bc3eefd1eb11e2415a16.pdf 528b45e7d4493afbb4bdd64e9998f156 PDF Text Text Octob r 2 , 1 Floyd Iv r on , gion 1 For U. s. Forest S rvice For t s rvie ui1 in Ogd n , Ut h D t r r Mr. Iv r on: is mad to your inquiry conc rninq th po iti on Col1 q . r 1 tiv to the plan for th road con tructio ork in Logan C nyon . R fer ne of thi OUr positi n on thi nd othr r upon principl - -th prineipl of good lan road con truct'on in Logan ccount the 1m ct of rO . d and in ~r minimum imp irm cost hould be normal p tt r i bas d In our vi w, Canyon nd e1 ewh r mu t t k into con truction upon oth r r oure nt of th r oure s . Th a dd! ion 1 rt of th t of road con ruction. Obviou ly, ro d mu t b con th r re iner sing d mand u on 11 th 8 condition , conomy of de i9n i c tion for r oure de truction . It i highw y coats will ri a d nd upon r r long r n9 1 nd u t oint , th to con truct ro d with in1 oure inv t nt in th futur. 180, W ar that th r r political, nd oth r eon id r d by th n 9in9 9 nei , i . . th Fore t Utah st t Hi9hw y D P rt nt , th St t ish D p rtm nt , nd th Bur u of Public oad. Th s , how ver , in no w y lter the ie prinaipl s involv d , nor can w con in tting forth a prineipl • fetor T r sourc our at for fin 1 d sign n 9 m nt r ndpoint ~ f nd th r p n ibility for ts with th a9 nci s involv d. Fro to fully con id r th se nie , r c- ilur �Floyd Iver on r . tion 1 c .mpromi Octob r -2 nd fi hery valu for pr nt and futUl: th rincipl of go and u • u ;1961 is to urth r laboration on our thinking on th 9 n r 1 problem of hiqhw y c natruction i cont ined in n artiel pr p red by our at ff which will be ent to you rly next k. Sine rely, J. Whitn y Floyd, D Coll 9 of For st, nd Wildlif JWF: p eCI Pr sid nt Daryl Cb Att chID nt an 2 f"'1'.amA n � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1734">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1734</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 3685743768 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1287255 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, October 25, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Managment, to Floyd Iverson, Regional Forester, on October 25, 1961 about principles of good lane use. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Iverson, Floyd Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 33.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/778d15b7aa9021ca4c601277dac7c292.pdf f28b5907eb631bad05272e091ce8e7e0 PDF Text Text ,. • , 2 , �ov. 7, 19 1 -2- t n J ly 10, 19 1. vi 7, 19 1. by AU9u 1 with r id t Cb vi , . to 19 1, • n on Ootober 3 • on ov to th r 1 Gov rnor � 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/1735">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1735</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 2182055134 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1308962 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Files, November 7, 1961 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Files on November 7, 1961 regarding the position of the Forest Service and the College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management on the road construction and resource use in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Floyd, J. Whitney Merrill, M. R. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Administrative records Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 34.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/333431b145713a118e251437bf624e46.pdf c2b98e11075f7615db0446dbe27a9e5b PDF Text Text November 25, 1961 OPEN LETTER TO : Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director, Utah State De pt. of Highways Mr. Harold S. Crane, Direct or, Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game Mr. Floyd Iverson, Regional Fore 3ter, U. • Forest Service f~r. Gran t E. Meyers, Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads The College of Forest , Range and W ildlife Management of Utah State University recently issued a statement on Road Construction and Resource Use. The statement has been closely associated with the road controversy in Logan Canyon. As a consequence , the committee responsible for its preparation has been asked by the Cache Chamber of Commerce to intercede in an effort to bring an end to an apparent impasse among the agencies involved. The statement and all previous actions of the committee have dealt with principles of broad application - - Lagan Canyon and elsewhere_ The Lagan Canyon controversy existed long before the statement was issued. The committee assumes full responsibility for proposing an d supporting principles of good land use. It cannot, however , involve itself in administrative decisions nor assume responsibility for those decisions Obviously , the road in Logan Canyon should be completed. W hether it is completed, and the nature of construction is the responsibility of the agencies involved . Completion" satisfactory to all concerned, would be of credit to those agencies and of benefit to the greatest number of Utah ' s citizens We feel the only way we can intercede is to express the hope that the agencies legally charged with responSibility in these matters will find a solution -- a satisfactory design ., adequate finanCing, with minimum damage to the natural resourc es affected The Committee : Jack H. Berryman , Chairman J. Whitney Floyd Arthur D. Smith John M Newhold . Frank W Kearns . cc - Gov. Geo . D. Clyde w J~y Gar rett, Chacha Chamber of Commerce . Pres . Daryl Chase For the Committee Very truly yours~ J. Whitney Floyd , Dean � 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/1736">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1736</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 1499353227 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 759405 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 Open Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, November 25, 1961 Description An account of the resource Open letter to C. Taylor Burton, Harold S. Crane, Floyd Iverson, and Grant Meyers referencing the College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management of Utah State University and the Road Construction and Resources Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Burton, C. Taylor Iverson, Floyd Crane, Harold S. Meyers, Grant E. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 39.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/9aa1280be89237a13f9591db6dd2d875.pdf a408900cd28142b60b49fe0e04150b56 PDF Text Text Jan ry 24 , 1962 Mr. John B. F k , C ' airm n State oad Commission 300 West Pr ton Stre t Baltimore , ryland Dear Mr _ nk- At .th r q st of Mr . Ern st A. V ughn of he ryla stat Gam and Inland Fish Commi si n we dr s n ing you copy of our bulletin entitl IIR d Construction and esource Us II We hop it will b of int r est to you. Sincerely yours , J. Whitn y F oyd , D an College of For st, Range ,. and wildlife anag m nt ep � 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/1737">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1737</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 35046581 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 525981 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to John Funk, January 24, 1962 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to John Funk, January 24, 1962 regarding the Road Construction and Resource Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Funk, John B. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Baltimore (Maryland) Maryland United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 4.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/48c2d3ff0b4bc974e359d0c041d99fe6.pdf f2be8d23559be5f5901d72a334c16183 PDF Text Text UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION ADDR E SS REPLY TO REGIONAL FORESTER FOREST SERVICE BUILDIN G AND REFER TO OGDEN, UTAH November 28, 1961 Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management Utah State University Logan, Utah J 0 Dear Whit: Because of your interest in the protection of the multiple resources of the national forests, we are enclosing a position statement and clipsheet of news items and editorial comment that we believe will be of interest to you. The Logan Canyon Highway construction project in Utah raises an important and basic issue that involves these resources on the Cache National Forest. Logan Canyon is known throughout America as a major scenic attraction. The beauty of Logan River and the fine trout fishing and recreation it provides have similar renown. The Forest Service recognizes the significant contribution to resource protection that the highway engineers have made through modification of the original design for this project . However, after very careful study by qualified individuals representing a number of different profeSSions, we have determined that additional changes are needed to meet minimum requirements for protection of scenic and fisheries valueso The decision has therefore been made to insist that these modifications be incorporated in the highway design as a condition for the issuance of a permit for highway construction through these national forest lands. Our purpose in furnishing this information to you is to insure full recognition of the basic issues at stake in this case. Among public land managers and conservationists throughout the country there is growing awareness of the adverse resource and scenic impacts of highway construction. Especially is this the case when the approach has typically reflected a philosophy of single rather than multiple use. The basic conflict is brought to focus in Logan Canyon. �Whether the threat be from road construction, as in this case, excessive livestock use, big game numbers beyond the capacity of the range to support, or fire, the end result is the same. Deterioration of the vegetation, loss of soil and destruction of mountain streams is too great a price to pay. Under a sound multiple-use approach the resources of Logan Canyon can be protected. The Logan Canyon Highway should be improved to meet present day traffic requirements on this section of the Federal aid primary system in Utah. (Fbr this project the proportionate cost share is 18% Federal and 22% State funds.) Improvement, however, cannot be allowed to result in resource impacts that can reasonably be avoided. An informed public, alert to the need for protection of the basic resources of public lands, will not allow this to happen - - - in Logan Canyon, or elsewhere in America. Sincerely yours, E. M. BACON Assistant Regional Fbrester Division of Information and Education -2- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 213426992 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1198108 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 about the Logan Canyon Highway. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bacon, E. M. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 42.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/a40a5469ae54d18b64fe4f27a077fda6.pdf 3c61b4c07b8fbf68533b46b9a7e13747 PDF Text Text ( WHAT SHOULD WE BUY WITH THE HIGHWAY USER ' S DOLLAR? What should we buy with the highway user ' s dollar ? u*** road buil d i ng is an important activity, having far-reaching impacts upon people a nd resourc e use."l This is a statement which I personally endorse , and which I am s ure expresses the opinion of the citizens of this State, not only as ev id e nc ed by the creation of a State Road Commission in 1909, but also as evidenc ed by a c ts of the Territorial Government in highway matters practically from the instant of c olon ization by our pioneers. It is also an opinion, which I am sure ~ is not unique to this State , nor is it recent in origin, as evidenced by national legislation in the highway field, the most notable being the creation of the Bureau of Public Roads and the continued interest of our elected representa~ tives in good highways by the continued enactment of : Federal-aid to highways 1egis1ation o I can concur with the statement that the College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management has a keen interest and responsibility i~ the philosophy of land and resource use, but I cannot and will not accept the inference in your Committee's report that the Utah State Road Commission, and its Highway . Department, has no interest except in the engineering concepts of highway design and construction, and has made no effor~ to determine economy and social needs in the location and design of our State highways. last five years, we have spent ' ~lmost thre~ million dollars During t he ($2,821 ~ 910 . 00 ) through our Research Department, in-. cooperation with the U. S . Bureau of Public Roads, and have sought the assistance of several consulting engi neering firms of national reputation, as well as the University of Utah and the Utah St a t e 1Dary1 Chase , President , Utah State University �( - 2 - University, in studying social and economic needs for the improvement to existing highways and the location of new highways. direct expenditures of the State Highway Department. This represents only It does not include the cost to national organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences , National Research Council, Highway Research Board, Automotive Safety Foundation, American Association of State Highway Officials, and the Bureau of Public for special studies on the national level. Roads ~ These studies, as well as numerous studies by other states and private engineering groups, findings of which where applicable~ are being used as guides in our own highway policies. It must be remembered that the State Road Commission and its operational arm, the State Highway· Department, were created by acts of the State ~~gislature and charged with certain responsibilities relating to highway matters. As such, its primary responsibility is to all of the citizens of this State and is not limited to the small interests of special groups. that the Commission has a clos~d This is not to infer mind to the opinions and recommendations of any economic, social, or geographical representation; but, in the final analysis, it must be re ,~ognized that the Commission action is a matter of judgement bas,e d .on the studies which have been made, in which such suggestions must be evalu?ted in terms of maximizing road-user benefits and minimizing road-user cost. That such judgement is not arbitrary or capricious is borne out by the amount 'of money spent on research to develop facts upon which sensible decisions may be made for the orderly development of roads and highways in the State of Utah. on the type of generalities as 3 streets~ These studies are factual and not based e~emplified in the statement that "')h'd c the new Federal Highway program alone requires 30 acres per mile of highwayo will consume the equivalent of 11,000 Utah farms of 160 acres each." It It is a matter of simple arithmetic, assuming that each mile of the Federal-aid �- 3 - Interstate System did take out of production 30 acres of land , that this would be the equivalent of only 175 of Utah farms of 160 acres each, not 11,000 farms. As a matter of fact, over one-third (328.4 miles) of this highway is being built on the existing location. Also, as a matter of fact, many miles of this highway being built ' on the 605.2 miles of new loc a t ion are being constructed on land which is not productive farm land or even grazing land-~at least I haven't seen much vegetation on the Salt Flats between Wendover and Knolls. The 1959 farm census indicates a total of 16,543 crop land units of all sizes in the 29 Utah routes. Counties~ - There are 16 counties with interstate The crop land units of all classes for these counties account for 10 , 637 units of the State total of 1,.2J~ , ?19 /w~ I . It, therefore , appears tha t a deliberate attempt to mislead has been made in the Committee's report. Less than 10 per cent of the Interstate mileage on new location affects in any degree productive farm acreage. acres per mi1e~ the t otal a~reage Assuming the 10 per cent to t .a 1 did c onsume 30 affected would be only 1 ~ 800 acres. Using the Committee's figure of 160 acres per unit, this would resul t in only 11.25 units rather than the 11 ~ 000 ~tated. . If I wanted to generalize instead of waiting for the factual da t a which will be developed from the American Fork Impact Study being researched by There1 R. ~lack, Department of Sociol ogy, and Vernon Lo Israe1sen , Department of Economics, of the Utah St a t e University ~ which I am confident will substantiate the generality , I could say that the resulting economic benefits to the farm units adjacen ~ to the Intersta t e System, by providing greater utility from the improved transportation fa c ili t y, will far outweigh any social-economic loss occasioned by tJe withd r awal of such a meager productive acreage. The me t hod by which the bes t of several possible locations for highway improvements is determined , the Benefit-Cost Ratio, assures that the minimum in land value compatab1e with highway se r vice �( - 4 and construction costs will be selected for final route location. By inference the Highway Department is blamed in your Committee's report for the roadside or fringe type of development that has, in some instances in the past, followed the construction of a highway, especially on new locations. This is not a new problem to the Road was recognized a long time ago. Commission~ and its existence It was a problem that was also recognized by the State Legislature with the enactment of the Limited Access permits the Highway Department to limit or control access. Law~ which For obvious economic reasons such action has usually been limited to construction on new location. The Highway Department never has had authority to zone or restrict land-use on private land. Actually, adequate legislation is already provided for local government sqch as the cities and count~es~ to provide such control by zoning ordinances. Such a statement as "These frequently become the sites for junkyards~ shoddy developments, and other land~wasting areas" can only be refuted in general, becc;tuse "frequen t ly" it is hardly measurabo le mile, one per 10 miles~ one per 100 ~iles? :' O~~ 0 Does !it mean one per unfamiliar with Utah's high- ways would receive the impression that our more than 6,000 miles of State highways ~re lined from State bqrder to State border with these conditions. This is h~rdly ' a fact~ but even , if it were, it is beyond the legal ability of the State Highway Department to control. I agree that "BasicallY3 highways serve a strictly utilitarian their function is to get people o nd materials a fr~m one , place to purpose-~ another~'t'~('~'('," and I adm:i t, in fact, I am proud of the progress : that has been made in this State in providing highways to serve this basic need, but I believe the responsibility of the Road Commission is first to provide for this basic need and then to consider aesthetic values in terms of cost. In the past it has �- 5 - been proven that Utah has not had sufficient funds to even adequately supply these basic needs, let alone provide for aesthetic values with construction dollars. However, I would like to point out that when the funds are available, as in the case of the Interstate System , that due consideration has been given to landscaping and rest areas~ and selection of highway loca ti on where extra cost would not be excessive, that would preserve the natural beauty as far as possible--for example, the ' Interstate location through Silver Creek Canyon where the design provides for minimizing the cuts and fills by letting the creek itself be the traffic barrier rather than a four - lane shelf with an artificial median. The accusation has been made , and I quote, "Rarely has the impact upon I land-use and human population distributions received adequate attention." Of courses I don ! t know just what measure this Committee had in mind when they said "Adequate". Surely , t hey must be aware that the Utah Sta t e University had been employed to make an impact study on the effect of the Interstate Highway in American Fork and that this study was designed to serve as a model to mea sure such impact on the 19 urban areas of similar popula ti on size. Perhaps they can be excused , because the Road Commission does not seek publicity through sensa t ionalism~ for not knowing the Road Commission has spent about a half million dollars, in cooperation with the local planning agencies of Salt Lake City and County, Davis County, and Bountiful ' in which economic and social factors~ in terms of land-use~ are a major part of this research project , or that work has already been initiated to carry this same field of research into North Davis and Weber Count i es and is planned for the Utah County area o The total area under study inc l ud es approximately 75 per cent of the population of this State. Also, our work program for the period July l ~ through 1962 initiates the beginning phase of a St ate -wide Transportation Study in the �( - 6 - economic--including land-use--and social factors with relation to the total network of highways without reference to administrative system, to be coupled with a fiscal study to be related to over-all highway needs. Perhaps it is redundant to comment again about the accusation that "the Highway Department has in effect become the land-use planning without personnel competent in the many ~sp~cts of land-use." agency~ generally I again wish to emphasize that land-use planning is not a responsibility of the State Highway Department, but at the present time is the prerogative of the local governmental agencies; I also wish to emphasize again that the study of land-use, both existing and planned, is a part of the State Highway Department's field of investigation, and that advice and cooperati'on of the local planning agencies are sought not only informally but py fQ~mal contracts in many instances. In the field of highway literature reports replete ,with research studies and information in this field are constantly being used ' as reference material by the Highway Department, and are also available for the information and instruction of your Committee o I am including a bibliography of some of the more recent and more important reports in this field. Many of the criticisms containeq in the Committee's report are so vague and of such a general nature that they hardly warrant item by item attention. Such statements as "these frequently have an adverse effect,1t "this may spread," "many engineers," (highway engineers?) are examples of what I have in mind. Basically, I believe that our problem is one of misunderstanding rather than disagreement. Without question, all of the items ,mentioned in your Committee's report merit consideration, but in the final analysis, the cost ~ in terms of highway user ,'s dollars, of providing all of the remedies recommended by your Committee must be evaluated in terms of the existing and potential highway needs, and economic and social loss to society resulting from long �( ( - 7 - delay in providing needed highway construction compared to the loss which may result by not complying with recommendations in your special and limited field of interesto The Highway Department is the custodian for the highway user's tax dollars to the extent that the Legislature has seen fit to make this source of revenue available to it, and its primary responsibility is c learly defined in the State Code. In the final ' analysis, what your Commit t ee advocates is the diversion of the highway user's tax dollar to non-highway use and the assurance that such diversion will take place by the creation of a dictatorial group separate and distinct from the highway engineering field with powers to arbitrarily dictate and enforce such diversion o At the same t ime we recognize the needs" and desires of the segments of socie ty which may be benefit ted or adversely affec t e d by highway improvements and construc tion. However ~ we firmly believe that t he proc edures are already established for hearing and considering the objections ,a nd recommendations of these groups, bu t we still maintain that we have dec isions that~ right. in the field of highway matters t o make those th~ in ou r op i nion 9 and as directed by St ate legislatiori ~ be~ t serve the public good . nt I would like to make an addi tional comme_ or two to reply to each one of the four recommenda t ion s of y pur Committee: (1 ) We are already making use of the special t alen t s of Utah ' s universi- ties, and we Highway believe ~ Departmen t~ c onsidering the amount of money available to the Sta t e t ha t we have an exc ellent research program; for reasons of flexibili t y an over - all highway research program should r ema.in under t he jurisdiction of the St a t e Highway Depar t ment o (2 ) There is alrea~y Federal and S t at~ legislatioh~ requiring coordin = , ation of certain agencies. Perhaps more is needed ~ bu t in any event , there must be some authority resp onsible for making final decisions o I can ' t ~elp �( - 8 - but wonder how the Board of Regents and the University administrators would react to a suggestion that all of their decisions would be subject to review and confirmation including the final decision for funding and expenditure of the University's educational dollars by self-selected groups with little knowledge of academic problems and procedures who might have some interes t in the research and graduates. (3) We believe that the authority to review and reject highway design proposals can best be accomplished under the presently established Road Commission and Highway Department, just as we believe that the ' aims of the College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management of the Utah St ate University can best be served by personnel who have the education, training, and experience in this specialized field (4) o Legislative recognition of this recommendation is the prerogative of the duly elected representatives of the people, but if such legislation were enacted, would be the responsibility of the. State Highway -Department. �( BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 0 Arizona Highway Department, "Economic Impact o'f the Proposed Interstate Program in the Phoenix Area, 1957. 2 0 Better Roads, "Planning Is Essential for Orderly Development, July 1961, pp . 28 . 3. California Highways and Public Works, "Planning" Volumn 39, November-December, 1960, Numbers 11 and 12, page 40 . 4. Colorado Department of Highways, "Economic · Impact Study '1, Planning and Research Division, October 1958 . 5 0 Harrison, ·J oseph ·W. ) Highway Ee01:lOmi:-sc-, ·J'ffieon-omi-c · E-ff·eets ef-:. · Limi ted Aecess Highway and By-pass, University of Virginia, 1956 . 6. Highway Research Board, Special Report No . ·28, "Economic Impact of Highway Improvement, Publication 541 . 1957 - :S~ssion I - The impact of Highway Improvement on Land Val, es . .- Session II - Impac t of ..Highway Improvement u on Land Use . 7* Highway Research Boa17d, I'Fo.r e.castin;g. f<;lr 7 6,6 . 8. Highway Research Board, "Highway and Economic · Development", Bulletin 227, ~ublication 687, 1959 ~ .Hi$hw~ys", Bulletin 257, Publication 9 0 Highway Research Board, "Highway Needs .a nd Programming Priori tie- , s" Bulletin 249, Publication 7.38, t960 . 10 . Highway Research Board, Highway Needs StlJdy, 1957, Bulletin No . 158, Publication 497 . 11. Highway Research_~oard, "HigJ::lway Needs ' StudieS. - 1958", Bulletin No . 194 Publication 620 . _ 12 . Highway Research Board, 13 Highway Rese a rch Board, "Highway Planning", Bulletin No . 31, 1950 0 ; "H~.ghway Planning II , Bulletin No . 17 , 1948 . I 0 1·4 . Highway Research Board, "Highway Planning and Urban Development", Bulletin 64, Publication 249 0 15 . Levin, David R, "The Highway Interchange and Its Adjacent Land Use", 1960 Proceedings, Institute · of Traffic Engineers, Department No . 6, pp . 232 . l6 ~ Lovoca, Phyllis, "New Roads Proving An Economic Boon", Highwa:r Highlights, November-December 1960, page ; i2 '~ 17 0 Highway Research Board, "Roadside Development - 1957", Publication 496 . 18 . Highway Research Board, "Roadside Development", Bibliography No . 26, Annotated, 1960 . �I I ( 19. Highway Research Board, "Some Economic · Effects of Highway Improvement ft , Bulletin 67, Publication 256, 1953. 20. Highway Research Board, "Some Evaluations of Highway Improvement Impacts", Bulletin No. 268, Publication 801. 21. Stanhayen, William H., "Highway Interchanges and Land Use Controls", Highway and Land Administration, Chief Laws, Research Project. 22. Stewart, C. L., "Farm Land Values as Affected by ' Road Type and Distance", Journal of Farm Economics, 1936, page 724 to 735. 23. Taylor, Maurice C., "The Beneficiaries of Highways and Their Responsibility " Associate Professor, Agricultural Experimental Experiment State, Montana State College, Bozeman, Montana. 24. Taylor, Maurice C., and Infanger, Carl ton A., "Benefi ts From Highway Development - User and Non-uset!', Department of Agricul ture and Economics and Rural Sociology, Montana State College, Bozeman, Montana. 25. Zettel, Richard M., "Effect of Limited Access Highway on Property and Business Values", Institute .of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, 1953. This bibliography represents only a very minor portion of the research projects and studies that have been conducted in this field that are available for reference. � 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/1739">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1739</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 1811700847 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6645141 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 What should we buy with the highway user's dollar? Description An account of the resource Essay detailing the importance of road building. Includes bibliography. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Essays Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 37.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/730c7ff3565bebe05f635dc8649be823.pdf a1bf1c740a1843b8a72b0a2392ae6f00 PDF Text Text Whitney Floyd MEXORANDUM TO: Dean J. FROM: Jack H. Berryman DATE: November 28, 1961 SUBJECT: statement on Road Construction' and Resource Use I would not want to see this College or University embarrassed. In that spirit I recommend we do not delete the reference to Logan Canyon in the introductory section as has been suggested. For the record, these are my reasons: 1. The statement has been released with the explanation that it would be printed with only minor editorial change. It is in the hands of the press and agencies. It must have been duplicated and circulated widely J as we have requests from allover the country. It is now in page proof. 2. The reference to Logan Canyon has been quoted widely. Its deletion would be noticed immediately and interpreted as a back down. This would reflect adversely upon the University, damage the cause we wish to serve and undermine the position of the U. S. Forest Service. 3. The sentence is true. Damage was done. This can be authenticated. The Logan Can.ron road did stimulate our project. It is the focal point and in future years will give added meaning to the statement. 4. Our supporters -- the state press (in fact everyone but the Highway Department and the Cache Chamber) would be keenly disappointed i f they learned we yielded on this point. ,. We have already deleted every other reference to utah and corrected an acreage figure that was misleading. We have assured the ' Governor, the Chamber, the agenCies and the press that we favor completion of the project. 6. The passage referred to is introductory. can only mean that we hit tlpay dirt". The keen interest There are other good reasons. Suffice it to say, I think we are not being unreasonable. To modify the sentence might well be our undoing. I am fearful a change would be used against us in the press. � 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/1740">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1740</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 2811633907 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 808119 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961. Notes on changes to the Road Construction and Resource Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan (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. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 40.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/238851ed4552ba90b978209440bd6208.pdf dd6b2b7a7c204654ab81735005c4cdde PDF Text Text ( The Forest Service PositionOp The Logan Canyon Highway The Forest Service is deeply concerned with the protection of the tmportant resources and uses in Logan Canyon. Logan Canyon i~ well recognized as one of the choice recreation attractions in the Intermountain West. It is widely known and many people enjoy the fishing, cgmping, picnicking, and scenic -beauty of this colorful area. Many years ago Logan Canyon was accepted as a highway route between Logan and Garden City--a di~tance of some 40 miles. The original route through the canyon was built prior to establishment · of the national forest. Recognition of the need for a better highway led to Forest Service approval of plans for the State to construct the highway that now exists between the two points. t~e pr~ry Much of road system throughout the national forests represents stmilarly , successful cooperative efforts between the Forest Servic·e and State and local agencies. Present and projected traffic indicates the need for reconstructing the road to higher standards. Trends in traffic, however, are paralleled by trends in use and enjoyment of the canyon's recreational assets. New highway construction in this ltmited area poses serious conflict with the stregm, streamside vegetation, and recreational values. In 1959 approval to reconstruct the 4.2-mile section above Logan was granted by the Forest Service with the realization that tpere would be same on other public values in the canyon. high-speed highway. ma~or impacts The section now completed is a very fine, However, the impact on the resource values has been great. even though a yearlong permanent stream was not involved for same distance in this section. Wide clearing for the right-of-way has eliminated much vegetation that contributed to scenic values and to sdil ;s tabilization along the river. The river �channel is practically a canal in same places, and fish habitat value has deteriorated. The new highway, on the other hand, affords the traveler a better view of the canyon walls. The State Department of Highways' request for a per.mit to build the second 4.2-mile section of the new highway is of great concern to many interested people and to the Forest Service because particularly serio~s ~pacts are involved. Accordingly, Forest Service Administrators met last March out on-the-ground with - - repres.entatives of the State Department of .Highways, the State Fish and Game Department and the Bureau of Public Roads. During this field review specific measures to avoid the impact on the stream and streamside vegetation in a number of places were discussed. Again in June, . the groups represented at the March meeting and a representative of Utah State University met in Logan. was discussed and then reviewed in the field. lessen some of the ~pacts The redesign of the proposed highway The redesign included measures to at an additional cost of about $100,000. included shifting a l200-foot section of the roadway to save trees These measures an~ otper vegetation in front of Guinavah Forest Camp; installing two culverts and a high .. water bypass; and reducing streambank changes on channel encroachments throughout the project by approximately 4560 feet. The redesign, however, did not include the additional measures discussed in the March field meeting which we believe are reasonable considering ·the long-ter.m public benefits involved. These measures would cost an additional $126,925 and would el~inate several severe adverse effects on the stream channel and bordering vegetation. The Forest Service has made clear that the measures in question do not provide for complete protection of the stream channel and recreation values in the critical 4.2-mile section of the highway under consideration. -2- A review of the situation �shows that the Forest Service has accepted many ~pacts on other values in the i nt erest of constructing a good highway at reasonable cost. the loss of ~portant streamside vegetation for same 8,400 feet due to channel encroachment and channel changes. There are two major channel changes that i nvolve the construction of same 900 feet of new channel. we have accepted. There will still be These are among the ~pacts which A general engineering review of the cost 'of fully protecting the 8,400 feet of streamside vegetation and avoiding the .ne:ed for the 900 feet of new channel could, conservatively, raise the estimated construction cost by an additional $325,000. That portion of the highway route upstream from the 4.2-miles under cons i derat i on to approximately' Ricks Spring will also be difficult to coordinate with other resources and uses. This portion will likewise be expensive to copstruct. The route fram Ricks Spring to Garden City is in terrain that lends itself to easier location, less conflict with resource values and lower construction costs. The present proposed new const.r uction and that portion on to Ricks Spring is the most difficult part of the route to coordinate. To do an acceptable job of coordi nation in the best public interest will necessitate higher costs. The additional cost of $126,925 for the 4.2-mile section presently under consideration does not seem excessive when considered as a portion of the 40-mile route from Logan to Garden City. The expenditure of these additional funds will help in preserving the i nherent natural and near-natural aquatic environment of Logan River. The Forest Service feels that the expenditure of these monies will min ~i z e adverse effects upon existing favorable fish pabitat by avoiding 1,210 feet of channel . Encroachments pool structure, damage to on the stream in these areas would result in loss of na~ural streambeds, and elilnination of desirabl e -3- �streamside vegetation. In another location a 10-foot setback would save valuable streambank vegetation and el~inate an additional 385 feet of channel encroachment. The vegetation which exists along this total of 1,595 feet of streambank provides much needed overstory stream cover and shade; it provides terrestrial insects and other organisms to the water for trout food; it also provides streambank stabilization, and roots and branches that extend into the stream provide protective cover and resting areas. A recent fish habitat survey of this very popular and heavily-used fishing stream by Forest Service technicians shows there are a numb~r of good pools and numerous smaller pools formed by boulders, rock outcroppings, and streambank vegetation within the proposed road construction areas. Any encroachment on the stream channel, removal of streamside vegetation or increased gradient resulting in higher water velocity will cause shifts in streambed materials and adversely affect the natural channel and the desirable pools that are now presento Dr. C. J. D. Brown, a nationally recognized ~uthority on trout streams, made a very detailed study of Logan River in 1935 while a biologist with the Uo So Bureau of Fisheries. He reported that, "Probably the most undesirab le physical condition existihgin the main Logan River from the point of view of fisheries is the almost complete absence of good pools. The Logan River has but · one or two good pools per mile, while the Blacksmiths Fork stream has 40 to 500 As already mentioned, the absence is a natural result of a steep gradient flow of high velocity." are generally good. a~d a Dr. Brown also said, "Shade and cover in the Logan River In many of the sections, it is very dense and affords an excellent hideout for fish. Those plants along the banks and the brushfalls in the water should be carefully guarded." We believe ' this' appraisal reflects present day conditions. -4- �( Dr. Brown's report emphasizes the suitability of the water of Logan River for several species of trout, the abundance of deficiency in good natural pools. a~ilable natural food, but a definite The need, therefore, to protect as many as possible of the pools that are present, both large and small, is essential to - maintaining suitable conditions for trout whether they are produced in the stream itself or are hatchery reared. In addition to the prevention of dwmage to the stream habitat for its fisheries value, there is much public interest in preserving the natural setting and aesthetics of this beautiful stream and canyon. To do this will require all feasible measures to maintain to the extent possible the natural stream channel with its pools and riffles and native stream-bordering vegetation. The concern of the Forest Service on this matter is shared by others. recent report by a qtah State University group ~oncerning The the need to program and finance resource protection in highway construction projects is an example. That this will add to per mile construction costs is undeniable. We believe the costs entailed to accomplish this are both reasonable and justifiable. Our decisions in matters of this kind must be based on the concept of multiple use and sustained yield. The authority for this goes back to the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, and to the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield legislation enacted June 12, 1960. The latter, Public Law 86-517, directs that tangible as well as intangible values must be weighed and considered in management of national forest lands. It is mandatory that Forest Service administrators coordinate uses on these lands, exercising their best judgment in authorizing any single use so that coordination is effected to the fullest practicable extent in the best interest of all the American people. -5- �National forest administrators share everyone's interest in the construction of a good highway at reasonable cost. At the same t~e, the Forest Service is charged with a major responsibility for coordinating highway construct.i on on' national forest lands with other ~portant values. A highway in Logan Canyon designed with obvious consideration for the locality's outstanding roadside and stream values will be an endUring source of satisfaction. FLOYD IVERSON Regional Forester Ogden, Utah -. November 22, 1961 -6- � 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/1741">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1741</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 1087038698 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3963769 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 Forest Service Position on the Logan Canyon Highway Description An account of the resource Six page essay regarding the Forest Service Position on the Logan Canyon Highway. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Iverson, Floyd 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. Essays Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 43.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/594fce30b8a3833c6ba7b464252d5ad6.pdf b10342cc2c18507266d2f4fd4d12b8dc PDF Text Text 2 ; 1 r. C. part ar I apprec your letter d critique of ovem r 21 on a Conetr\lctio - esou.rc Use. pp rently t critioism of ay admini tr tion. 0 our state constru. In in the Lo s~ nth re Gran sa appl1 on .. due - ent . �th prlnc1pl that the co t protect major eaources normal 008 o road co tructi.on. I bellev the ar constructive and 80\Ul(1 t co end.ation does DOt imply a diversion of fun • Prevalent philosophy 1. one of eoODOmy i Bbi hway use tf fun. contend that ,n.D·~ay ra ar not a 8 public. Collectively. they are t peopl who deriv a living. or eaaur t fro . ource affec by highway. "the n fits to Q carmot be considered at the expen of t other. TIler adeqUa proc e t 1nclu the courts. to protect prl 1Dtereat. blie intere8ts-- tural reaour "'-00 DOt enjoy similar protection. reasons, the recomm ndatton that t e coa of rotecUng re ources .. oW be conald red a normal co t of hlghway conatrucUo.n. I quite agree that our probl sunderstandi. iV1OU81, t we are all inter. d in 1 r ¥ highway Y tem, with full conalde tlo of all i at t lncludln tutur resource use. It re my hope that our statement furthers that abn. Yours inc , ly, Daryl Pre co: Governor George • yde 'W~1nlJ 1dent � 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/1742">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1742</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 382544874 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1326990 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Daryl Chase to C. Taylor Burton, November 25, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Daryl Chase to C. Taylor Burton, November 25, 1961. Response to the Road Constuction and Resource Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chase, Daryl Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Burton, C. Taylor Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside Improvement--Utah Logan (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 38.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/6ce507029c5d7f8245640e032d555159.pdf fe19697ab8da4b567523cfc4a859cad3 PDF Text Text I I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC U LTURE FOREST SERVICE I NTERMOUNTAIN REGION ADDRESS REPLY TO REGIONAL FORESTER FOREST SERVICE BUILDI N G AND REFER TO OGDEN , UTAH December 4, 1961 J . Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management Utah state University Logan, Utah _Dear Dean Floyd: I appreciated receiving your open letter of November 25 addressed to the principals responsible for the collection of data, the establishment of position, and the related decisions for the .Logan Canyon Highway construction project. That letter should be helpful in clarifying the understanding of the concerned agencies about the position of the College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management of Utah state University . We in the Forest Service have at no time interpreted the statement of the College committee as being relat ed to or influencing our decision in the administration of national forest lands in Logan Canyon. You properly point out that this would be outside the prerogative of the University. However, the basic principles set forth in the University statement establish sound land management objectives; objectives which the Forest Service has sought-in Logan Canyon and elsewhere for many years . We understand the sincerity of your efforts to encourage agreement among the agencies concerned so that the project can move forward . This is our interest. However, the question at issue involves determination and definition of what you have referred to as "a satisfactory design, adequate financing, with minimum damage to the natural resources affected." Use of cost as a measure of needed work is convenient . The basic road construction cost for this highway, without consideration of resource values, is $ 360,000 . The total additional cost for essentially full resource protection without consideration of economic factors is 552 , 000. The State Highway Department has agreed to resource protection work amounting to about $100,000 over and above the basic cost . Our studies indicate that additional work, estimated to cost a further $127,000, is needed to meet "minimum damage" requirements . �This is the situation that has been described as an "impasse . " We hope this is not the case . However , I must fully discharge my responsibility for administration of the national forests in the Intermountain Region . I cannot , in the absence of facts to the contrar.y , agree to a proposal set at a level below that which meets the "minimum II resource protection need . We look forward to further discussions with State Highway Department officials , especially with regard to the total project and the costs involved from the end of the present constraction t o Garden City . Sincerely yours , ~VERS~ Regional Forester cc: Gov. Geo D. Clyde W Jay Garrett , Cache Chamber of Commerce . Pres . Dar.yl Chase , Utah State University Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director , Utah State Dept . of Highways Mr. Harold S. Crane, Director , Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game Mr. Grant E. Meyer , Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 199481223 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1132328 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 in response to the related decisions for Logan Canyon Highway construction project. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Iverson, Floyd Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 41.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/7383165b036484ed20f5c27d08763a2a.pdf df869c95e0b0697e34cf2d2c71b3970a PDF Text Text Decernb r 2, 1961 Mr. loyd Iverson R gional Forester U. S. For st service For st Servic Building Ogd n, Utah Dear Mr. v rson. Attach d is a print d copy of our st tement on Construction ZLnd R oure Us Except for minor editorial corrections it is th same d the dr ft released arlier. ItRoad tI. It is our hop that it will contribute to d b tter under t nding of one of th many · complexiti s of highway planning_ Sine rely yours, # JHB,ep Attachment J. Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, ange , and Wildlife anaqem nt I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1744">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1744</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 2558615927 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 547556 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, December 2, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, December 2, 1961 about the Road Construction and Resouce Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Iverson, Floyd Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 7.pdf 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/01723bfef9f895dc5d9636bbf030460d.pdf e456f8d9505df07bbf3d18156a7be93b PDF Text Text I i Logan Canyon HighwJy For the second time in nine years, the Utah Department of Transportation (UnOT) is proposing an expansion and reduction of curves to the 6.7-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 89 from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring in Logan Canyon. Environmental groups and concerned citizens, including the Sierra Club, the Bridgerland Audubon Society , Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon and o thers, view this expansion as highly unfavorable a nd as a threat to the beauty and quality of the Logan Canyon Recreation Area. General Summary * Major impact 011 both environmental '\lnd visual quality of canyon. * Project cont radict s national energy , concern. * 80-90 percent of the project requi r ~ s cutting into e~isting banks and vegetated areas. ! * "Waste poses a major engineering pr~ blem." (Quote from project engineer) Traffic Growth Factors * * * * UDOT uses an unrealistic expontential model. A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data. Traffic data used by UnOT are limited to one busy section of the highway, yet are used to describe the whole road. Need for highway re-al ignment not documented by current data. Safety Factors * * * * Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section III" is not supported by current data. A major discrepancy exist s between accident rate data and traffic volume. 1977 accident rate figured by the Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with unOT report. Statistical significance of acciden t data used is suspect. Environmental Factors * Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills. * Silt deposits in the river would 4estroy trout habitat and breeding cycle. * Loss of riverside vegetation needed by trout for 100/ light intensity. * Creation of any culverts would impair spa't<.>ning success of trout. * Los s of vegetative barriers lessens the quality of fishing experience. * Major visual impacts \"ould result from the cuts pla nned, especially the two major cuts at the Temple Fork area, which lI.T()uld be, according to the engineer's r eport, 75 feet deep and as much as 150 feet across. II IT'LL NEVER BE WORTH AS MUCH AS WE'VE PUT I NTO IT (the project) ALREADY." --Gary Lindley, project engineer. �January 20, 1989 SR-89, Logan Canyon ~9.~_IJ.£1_.~J:te r..n.~.:t:..t.~.~. Meetings, discussions and field trips between representatives of the Forest Service, Federal Highway Administration and UDOT have led to an agency alternative proposal. Impact upon aquatic, riparian and visual resources were considered as well as highway needs concerning safety, capacity, passing opportunities, structure conditions and roadllJay alignment. The following elements of the agency alternative proposal were selected, based upon needs. Impacts were held essentially to visual resources except for the Beaver Canyon area of Section 2. Visual, riparian and aquatic resources are of great value. Visual resources are considered to be more readily mitigated with proven techniques, to the extent that restoration can be achieved . The effect and success of visual resource mitigation is relatively simple to demonstrate, as compared to the mitigation of aquatic or riparian areas . The erosive capability of water at high-flow volumes can quickly damage the best of mitigative techniques in the aquatic or riparian environment . The Forest Service anticipates that some elements of the agency alternative will alt~r resources to the extent of non- compliance with the Wasatch- Cache Forest Plan and will require that the plan be amended. Elements of the agency alternative were selected from among the various alternatives, as prepared by UDOT's consultant and suggestions recommended by UDOT, FHWA and USFS. Each element is intended to stand on its own merits with regard to capacity, safety, nationally recognized standards, principals of good engineering practice, impact upon the environment, highway maintenance, and user's of canyon resources. Use of the map supplement, alter'native "0" as prepared by UDOT's consultant will be useful in locating the various elements of the agency alternative in relation to canyon topography, Each element is identified by milepost, generally to the nearest one- tenth mile. This location identification is only intended to be a general locator and may not specifically identify the location of any selected improvement, Various curves throughout the project corridor are selected for flattening (longer radius). This flattening is expressed in degree of curve according to standard engineering practice. The degree of curvature stated for each affected curve is only approximate, and may change slightly during the detailed design process because of local topographic or geologic constraints, related alignments, or other factors. Visual, riparian and acquatics were considered to be the areas of most significant impact in the canyon environment; and the elements of the agency alternative were selected in an effort to minimize the impact upon these resources. Impacts upon wetlands are created by some elements of the agency alternative. Wetland impacts are considered to be mitigatable accor'ding to the following schedule, if the wetland area cannot be completely avoided: (1) (2) Adjust highway alignment or location, Consider retaining walls in terms of economics and affects, and (3) Consume wetland in element construction and replace in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements. �-2-- The following elements of the agency alternative are recommended by the three-~ember committee to the lead and cooperative agencies: A clear zone requirement is associated with the improvement alternatives listed below, according to the schedule: 35 mph - 18 feet; 40 mph - 18 feet; 50 mph - 22 feet. This dimension is measured from the tr'affic lane/shoulder line to a hazard (rock, tree, slope, etc.). Any hazard lying within this distance should either be removed or protected by barrier (guardrail). Although many items (trees, rocks, etc.) are located near enough to the roadway to warrant protection, only the most severe and extreme hazar'ds will be protected. Severe hazards are defined where a serious accident could occur if a vehicle left the roadway, i.e., the Dugway area. The clear zone dimension also affects guardrail length and flare rate in connection with protecting bridge parapet walls. Guardrail will be the preferred barrier type for this project. Other acceptable barrier types may be considered if their impact is more favorable than conventional guardrail. Guardrail placement will be carefully evaluated in respect to hazard type, canyon environment, design speed and other site conditions. If a specific hazard warrants protection, roadway embankments may require extension to provide adequate space for guardrai I plac~~ment . Various parcels of right--of-way are required to construct the below listed widenings, curve flattenings, realignments, intersection improvements or other features. On National Forest lands the UDOT will obtain a Department of Transportation easement to all parcels required to contain the roadway and cut and fill slopes according to provisions of the Highway Act of 1958. Title to private properties will be requested through regular right-of-way proceedings. Parcels no longer required for right-of.!-way will not be retained by the UDOT. Vertical alignment throughout the project corridor is generally adequate for the intended design speeds. All roadway sections throughout the project corridor are intended to be reconstructed to meet the strength requirements of a twenty-year design period. This pavement reconstruction is intended to apply to all areas even if no widening, realignment, or curve flattening is intended. The pavement reconstruction oper'ation is to provide adequate strength while leaving essentially unaffected present pavement elevation. Techniques, such as in place recycling or total pavement excavation, may be utilized. All pipe culverts will be replaced . Drainage ar'eas will be evaluated to determine pipe culvert diameters, Some additional culverts may be requ ired. All project sections will be subject to highway signing and delineation upgrade, Feature signing for campgrounds and other points of interest may be included, Curves will be signed as appropriate with advisot~y speeds. Culver'ts will be marked with delineators for identification. Milepost and destination signing will be provided. Highway delineators will be installed in an acceptable manner in consultation with the Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration. �-3Traffic control during construction periods will be provided so that at least one-lane of traffic for alternating one-way traffic is available at all times. Traffic will be returned t6 the normal two- lane, two -~ay operation to the extent possible during no construction periods. Under no conditions will the contractor be allowed to prevent traffic flow in the canyon for extended periods. Time of construction of selected operations will be scheduled to allow for maximum protection of the environment, such as periods of fish spawning or other sensitive events. However, sufficient time and opportunity must be available to the contractor to build the improvements following good construction practice. Consideration will be given to constructing cut or fill slopes entirely on one side of the present roadway. Generall~, the preferable area of distu r bance will be the side away from the river, wetland or toward the area which can absorb disturbance with the least impact. Cut and fill areas will be constructed as flat as practicable in accordance with good engineering practice. In all disturbed areas topsoil and native plantings will be restored according to good landscaping practice. 1. Section lA: Project beginning (Milepost 383.47, Right Hand Fork) to M.P. 387.47, length 4.0 miles. This section is referred to as the "parkway". Present design speed and posted speed will remain unchanged; roadway width 26 feet (existing width). Maximum degree of curve - 26 0 . Curves showing high-accident location will be flattened to a degree similar to adjoining curves if it is concluded that flattening can be achieved without severe environment al impact. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet . No features outside existing roadway will be disturbed, except as provided below. Sections of the roadway having design speeds lower than the present speed limit will be appropriately signed. a. Flattening of Curve #5 at Milepost 384 from 25 0 to 15 0 . The curve is the site of an unusually high-accident r·ate. Flattening the curve wi 11 move the alignment away from the river. Excavated material will be disposed of in an acceptable manner. New cut slopes will be contoured, topsoiled and revegetated. Accidents at this location typically involve vehicles leaving thE! roadway due to excessive speed for the curve . Records show approximately equal numbers of up- canyon vehicle accidents as down-canyon vehicle accidents. A speed which is apparently safe for down- canyon (as well as for up canyon) vehicles is too great, in some cases, to safely negotiate this curve. Therefore, flattening the curve should lead to a reduction of accidents rather than encour'aging faster trave ling sp~~eds. An amendment to the Forest Plan for visual resources will be required �-4- b. China Row Picnic Area (Milepost 394.4). Accor'ding to Forest Service recommendations, this area will not be maintained as a picnic ground, and access fl~om the highway will not be provided. c. Replace Burnt Bridge (Milepost 385.5) with a new single span structure on the same alignment. Structure width shall be 30 feet (four feet wider than the approaching roadway). A detour is required as the present bridge must be entirely r'emoved before a new structure can be constructed. A detour and temporary bridge will be placed i~nediately downstream of the present bridge. Vegetation removal and river bank modification are required. The temporary bridge will be single-span, creating minimal impact upon the river. The detour will allow two-way traHic at a 15 mph design speed if extreme excavation and grading are not required. otherwise, a single lane between with adequate traffic control devices will be provided. Following construction, all contours and vegetation will be re-established. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. This element also impacts the riparian and acquatic environments. Appropriate changes to the Forest plan will be necessary. d. A grade increase of three feet will be constructed at Logan Cave (Milepost 386.2) for a length of 1,000 feet. The grade elevation wi 11 allow the roadway to move toward the mountain several feet and help to somewhat flatten Curve 22 (26 0 ). The river bank will be protected with large ripr'ap and revegetated as appropriate. An amendment to the Forest plan for work on the river bank will be necessary. Separate walkway and pedestrian facilities to Logan Cave will not be a part of the proposed alternative at the request of the Forest Service. e. Replace Cottonwood Creek culvert (Milepost 386.4) on the same alignment. A detour is not required as the new culvert can be placed one-half at a time. An amendment to the Forest Plan for visual resources will be required. �-5- f. Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 386.6 for 500 feet to a maximum amount of 18 inches. This action is to eliminate occasional flooding of the roadway created during freezing conditions of the river or other high-water events. An amendment to the Fore8t Plan for visual resources will be required. Other features of the parkway section are as follows: a. Parking turnouts will be placed wherever possible to attain at least three parking stalls with adequate sight distance and tapers. Exact locations will be determined during final design and in conjunction with Fore8t Service recommendations. b. Habitat of endangered or protected species in this section wil l not be affected by this proposal .. c. Placement of concrete curb and gutter, or gutter only, along one or both sides of the roadway in portions of the entire length of the parkway section. Curb and gutter placement will be a subject of final design and the location will be evaluated and care fully considered with respect to impacts on the following highway factors: 1. Roadside drainage channels. 2. Maintenance operations, including snowplowing, removal of talus (waste) material, and other activities (sweeping, painting, etc.) 3. Protection of roadside hazards. 4. Access requirements. d. Certain effects may occur if curb and gutter is c6nstructed as li sted be low: . 1. Delineation of roadside edge, and vegetation could grow to the curb. 2. Control of access. Vehicles could only park off the roadway in des ignated areas and access campgrounds in selected locations. �-6-· 3. Wider Roadway. Approximately 1 to 2 feet could be gained by placing the curb and gutter in the present gravel shoulder. This is necessary to provide an equivalent lane width due to the proximity of the curb and gutter. Some minor fill may be required to create grade to maintain a constant roadway width. 4. Roadway drainage. Discharge from curb and gutter catch basins into wetland areas will be preferred over direct discharge into the river. Good outfall design will be required. 2. Section 18: Construction of a 34-foot roadway section (except as modified by a passing lane) from Milepost 387.47 to end of Middle Canyon Section, Milepost 391.6. Length - 4.13 miles. Design speed 35 mph, maximum degree of curve - 15 0 30'. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet. Milepost 387.47 marks the beginning of a transition from the 26-foot of Section iA width to a 40-foot roadway of section 2. For down canyon traffic section 18 will prepare drivers after leaving the 50 mph design speed of section 2 for the 35 mph Parkway section (section 1A). Traffic moving in both directions will travel a variable width roadway through the heavily vegetated and very scenic area of section iA to the less vegetated terrain of section 2 or visa versa. Section 18 limits were defined as an area which could absorb more impact of roadway widening with less negative affect than section 1A. However, a 40-foot section with 50 mph design speed would cause impacts greater than could be tolerated in this section. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required on all widened areas on National Forest Lands with respect to visual and wetland resources. Features of this section include the following: a. Flatten Curve #33 (Milepost 387.7) to 80 by removing rock material and creating a new cut. The existing roadway cut can be partially backfilled and revegetated when the new alignment is put in service. This curve together with site (b) below are high-accident locations . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. �-7- b. Replace Lower Twin Bridge (Milepost 387.76) on new alignment immediately upstream of the present bridge clearspanning the river. The present bridge will remain in service until the new structure is completed. The new structure will be 47 feet wide to provide for a passing lane as described below. The present structure will be removed when the new structure is placed in service. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required in respect to visual, aquatic and riparian resources. c. Construct a passing lane from Milepost 387.5 to Milepost 388.4, including transitions to and from the new 34 foot roadway width. This section is through the "Dugway" section. Roadway width will consist of three 12-foot lanes, one 5-foot downhill shoulder and one 2-foot uphill shoulder for a total width of 43 feet of paved width. ~etaining walls are required. Walls will be aesthetically compatible with the canyon topography and of a variable height. Wall locations may be entirely uphill or entirely downhill of the present roadway, or a combination of both, as deemed appropriate, from an engineering and geotechnical analysis. Impact upon the acquatic or riparian environment will not be permitted. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. d. Flatten Curve #35 (Milepost 388.11) from 16 0 to 15°-30' for a 35 mph design speed, which requires a very minor realignment. e. Flatten Curve #37 (Milepost 388.5) from 19 0 to 15°-30' by creating a new excavation into the mountain. Design, construction and mitigation will be similar to Curve #33. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resource~ will be required. f. Replace Upper Twin Bridge (Milepost 388.76) on new alignment immediately downstream of, and 10 feet higher than, the existing bridge. This site is a high-accident location. The present bridge and roadway will serve as a one-lane detour during construction. Embankment mat~rial used to obtain an elevation increase and abutment footing will be placed onto the down canyon lane and retained from spilling onto the up--canyon lane by a concrete barrier 30" high. Thi s concept provides the following: �-8- 1. Minimum shift of roadway alignment. 2. Attainment of higher structure elevation, improving wintertime maintenance. 3. Accommodation of traffic through the work zone. 4. No realignment or filling into the river channel. When the new alignment is completed, the remaining unused roadway will be backfilled, regraded, and revegetated to an original condition. Most, if not all, of the present structure will be removed, dependant on any portions being required to support new embankment materials. Some tree removal downstream of the present structure will be required. Tree removal will be held to a minimum and a retaining wall will be constructed if substantial tree savings can be realized. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. g. Flatten Curves #39 and #40 (Milepost 388.8) to 15 0 . Curve #39 may be flattened to less than 15 0 , depending on how the realignment of Upper Twin Bridge is designed. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. h. Temple Fork Intersection (Milepost 389.2). Improve Temple Fork Road intersection by n~grading access road to a maximum grade of 2%. This intersection will be modified to provide maximum safety of access. i. Temple Fork Parking Area (Milepost 389.3). Construct a parking area at Temple Fork between the roadway as realigned in (j) below and the Logan River. The parking area wi 11 be made as large as possible in accordance with Forest Service recommendations and safety of access, without encroaching upon the roadway or the river. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. j. Flatten Curve #43 (Milepost 389.4) from 20 0 to 150 . This realignment will move into the area of shade near Milepost 389.3 (down canyon side of highway). The widening or realignment will not affect, or move closer to, the river. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. �-9- k. Rick Springs Area (Milepost 389.8) - Roadway width of 34 feet will be constructed and the Ricks Springs structure replaced. An al igrllnent shi f't toward, but not impacting the river or riparian area is recommended. Parking areas will be provided. Material will be removed and/or retaining walls constr~cted in accordance with good design practice to provide a maximum parking area. All improvements will be consistent with USFS reco~nendations. This area is recorded as a high-accident location. . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. 1. Flatten Curve #45 (Milepost 390.1) from 16 0 to 15 0 • Maintain existing passing lane from Milepost 390.1 to 390.7 except for the addition of paved shoulders. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. m. Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 390.2 and Milepost 391.1 to a maximum of 18 inches to eliminate occasional flooding of the roadway created during freezing conditions of the river or other high-water events . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. n. The remaining distance to the end of Section One (to Milepost 391.6, or 1.5 miles) will continue to be upgraded to the 34-foot r'oadway width and 35 mph design speed on the present roadway alignment. Areas of soil excavation and backfill are required, and will be mitigated as described in l.a above. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to visual, and wetland environments . 3. Section 2: Construction of a 4o-foot paved roadway width, except as modified by passing lanes, and 50 mph design speed from the beginning of Section 2 (Milepost 391.6) to the Bear Lake SUl1lmit (Milepost 404 . .,5). 13.15 miles. Maximum degree of curve is 6 0 45'. Clear zone requirement - 22 feet. Milepost 391.9 to 392.0 is a high accident area. In locations where the stream channels are placed in a curvert or otherwise affected, fish passage through the affected segment will be a design consideration . An amendment to the Forest plan will be required on widened areas on National Forest Lands with respect to visual and wetland environments. �-10- a. Construct passing lane from Milepost 391 . 6 to Milepost 393.3, including pavement width tapers, length 1.7 miles. Pavement width will be as in (g) below. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to visual and wetland environments. b. Construct fencin9 in open range area from the cattle guard near Milepost 391.6 to the Franklin Basin area near Milepost 397.2 along both sides of the roadway. Fence type will be of a double-steel post and barb wire of a design which can be laid down during non-~razing seasons. The fence is laid down by the cattlemen's association to prevent damage due to snow. The fence may be located a distance from the highway to avoid visual detection. c. Tony Grove intersection (Milepost 393.7 - Provide left turn deceleration and storage lane for up-canyon turns into Tony Grove area. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. d. Replace Tony Grove Creek culvert (Milepost 393.8) on original alignment. This is a high- accident location. New crossing will be 4 feet wider than the approach roadway or 44 feet. Appropriate guar'drai I prot~~ction will be provided. An amendment to the Forest Plan will be required with respect to visual, aquatic and riparian environments. e. Bunch Grass Creek Culvert (milepost 394.2). Check culvert for hydl~aulic capacity and structural condition. Provide a culvert which will meet the requirement for fish passage. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and "riparian environment. f. Replace Red Banks Bridge (Milepost 394.5) on original alignment. Structure width will be 44 feet unless tapers for campground widening run onto bridge. creating need for additional width . Guardrail with appropriate flare rate is required. A detour for traffic and a temporary bridge are necessary. The detour (for tl..,o-way traffic) will be located just downstream of the present crossing. After the new structure is completed the temporary bridge and detour will be removed and the detour alignment restored to original conditions. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. �-11- g. Red Banks Campground (Milepost 394.6). Improve campground intersection as in (c) above. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resource s will be required. h. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 394.9. End climbing lane at Milepost 396.5, 1.6 miles. Roadway width wi ll consist of three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot shoulder (downhill lane) and one 3-foot shoulder (up-canyon direction) Total width is 47 feet. Milepost 394.91 to 395.00 is a high- accident location. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required on National Forest land. i. Replace Beaver Creek Structure at Franklin Basin Road (Milepost 396.9) on original alignment. Pavement width transitions will affect total structure width, requiring a minimum width of 58 feet. Guardrail with appropriate flare rate is required. j. Franklin Basin Intersection (Milepost 397.0). Improve this intersection as in (c) . above . This is a high- accident location . The area from Milepost 397.0 to 399.0 is referred to as Beaver Canyon. k. Replace Beaver Creek Structure (Milepost 397.5) Replace on same alignment . New structure width is 44 feet. Guardrail with appropriate flare rate is required. 1. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.1). Relocate 300 feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway in original channel as present channel is required for roadway widening. New locations will lengthen the channel and reduce gradient . . Two crossings of the highway will be required. Concrete box culverts or other suitable culvert type will be used. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required on National Forest land with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. m. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.3). Relocate 700 feet of creek to up- canyon (easterly) side of highway in original channel. Conditions are the same as (1) above. An amendment to Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. �-12n. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.6). Roadway widening will be placed on the up-··canyon (easterly) side of the present roadway to the extent limited by the nearby canyon topography. If sufficient widening cannot be obtained, a portion of Beaver Creek will be placed in a culvert and/or relocated to the west to obtain roadway width. A design consideration will be for fish passage through the culvert. A maximum length of 400 feet of channel could be affected. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. o. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 39B.9). Relocate 500 feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway. Conditions are the same as in (1) above. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian environment. p. Replace Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding area drainage box culvert (Milepost 399.6). Widen box culvert to accommodate wider roadway and pavement transitions for the Beaver Mountain road intersection. An additional width of 20 feet from the shoulder lane to the headwall on each side is required to avoid guardrail protection. Generally a better approach is to eliminate a hazard rather than provide protection. An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the visual and wetland environment. q. Realign and channelize SR- 243 (Beaver Mountain ' Road) intersection (Milepost 399.75). This is a high-accident location. Realign 150 feet of SR-243 to create a conventional right-angled intersection. Provide left lane deceler'ation and storage lane with appropriate tapers. Total length of SR-89 affected is 1500 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. r. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 400. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required on National Forest lands. s. Realign through Curve #69 and #70 (Milepost 400 to 400.5). Realign 2700 feet of roadway a maximulll of 1.50 feet from the present alignment to attain 50 mph design speed curves. The portion of the present roadway removed from service will be obliterated, topsoiled and reseeded with natural vegetation. An amendment to the Forest Plan for visual resources will be required on National Forest lands . ... �-13t. Flatten Curve #71 from 80 to 60 30' (Milepost 400.6) to attain design speed. Highway widening f~om Milepost 400 to 402 will be obtained by removing rock material on the up-canyon (noy·therly) side of the present roadway. u. Flatten Curve #76 (Milepost 402.2) from 10 0 to 60 30' to attain design speed. An elevation decrease of at least 4 feet is required to achieve sight distance. The present 1,500 feet vertical curve will be increased to 2,600 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. v. Highway widening from Milepost 402.5 to Milepost 404.7 will be obtained by filling the down canyon (westerly) side of the present roadway. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. w. Flatten Curve #80 (Milepost 404) from 100 to 60 30' to attain design speed. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resour~es will be required . x. End uphill passing lane from Garden City at Milepost 404.6. End uphill passing lane from Beaver Mountain at Milepost 404.9. Between Milepost 404.6 and 404.9 the maximum roadway width will cDnsist of two 12-foot traffic lanes, two 12-foot climbing lanes, and two 3-foot shoulders; total pavement width of 54 feet. Width transitions are included . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. 4. Section 3A: Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision intersection (Milepost 404.75 to 409.4) 4.6 miles. Design speed 40 mph, maximum degree of curve 11 0 15', nominal roadway width 40 feet, two 12-foot traffic lanes, two 8-foot shoulders. Roadway width with passing lane - 47 feet (three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot shoulder and one 3-foot shoulder). This section will have a continuous uphill passing lane. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet measured from the traffic line/shoulder line to nearest roadside hazard. Elements of Section 3 are as follows: An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required on widened areas on National Forest lands. a. Limber Pine Trail Head (Milepost 404.8). Provide single access into parking area. No other specific roadway improvements. Internal modifications will be constructed as recommended by the Forest Service. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be requ ired. �-14-- b. Flatten Curve #85 (Milepost 405.1) from 23 0 to 110. This action will move the centerline 80 feet and require a new fill secti6n. The existing roadway alignment will be removed and original contour elevations and vegetation restored. Tree and brush removal will be held to a minimum amount, and fill slopes constructed to a slope rate acceptable for revegetation . Retaining walls will be considered in view of economics and tree savings. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required . c. Curve #86 (Milepost 405 . 2). Retain present alignment. Roadway widening will be constructed on the downhill slope. Tree removal is required. Retaining walls will be considered as in (b) above. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. d. Sunrise Campground (Milepost 405.5). Provide single access into campground without specific roadway modifications. A left-turn lane from Garden City is not proposed and would require more roadwa.y width in addition to the passing lane of 4 above and be of questionable value. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. e. Bear Lake View area (Milepost 405.5). Provide single access to view area in Curve #88, located to obtain the best sight distance possible. No specific roadway modifications for the access will be provided. Regrade (raise elevation), enlarge and relandscape view area according to Forest Service recommendations . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. f . Flatten Curve #88 (Milepost 405.7) from 18 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about 200 feet with accompanying earthwork (excavation) required. The present alignment will be removed and regraded to provide improved access for (e) above. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. g. Flatten Curve #89 (Milepost 405.9) from 20 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about 50 feet is required with accompanying earthwork (fill) required. The present alignment will be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. �-15- h. Flatten Curve #92 (Milepost 406.2) from 20 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed . A .centerline alignment shift of about 70 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is required. The present alignment will be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. i. Flatten Curve #94 (Milepost 406.9) from 16 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift of about 340 feet with accompanying earthwork (some cut and fill) is required. The present alignment will be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. j. Flatten Curve #95 (Milepost 407.2) from 20° to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift of about 60 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is required. The present alignment will be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required. k. Stabilize landslide area (Milepost 407.5) . An existing unstable landmass will be stabilized by application of appropriate geotechnical techniques. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will be required on National Forest land . 1. Flatten Curve #98 (Milepost 407 . 9) from 27 0 17' to 11 0 to attain design speed. This area is a high- accident location . A centerline alignment shift of about 670 feet with accompanying earthwork (excavation) is required. Roadway gradient steepens to about 10% in this area as a result of the curve realignment. The present alignment will be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion . m. Highway widening from Milepost 408 to Milepost 408.7 will be obtained by excavating into the downhill (westerly) s ide of the pY'esent roadway . Guardrai 1 protection on the uphill direction will be considered. n. Flatten Curve #101 (Milepost 408.3) from 23 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift of about 30 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is required. Portions of the present alignment will be removed and original conto~rs and vegetation restored upon completion. �-16o . Flatten Curve #102 (Milepost 408.5) from 14 0 to 11 0 to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift of about 20 feet with accompanying earthwork (excavation) is required. p. Close access to Bridgerland Subdivision (Milepost 408.6) All subdivision access shall be provided as described in (r) below. q . Flatten Curve #103, 104 and 105 (Milepost 408.8) to a single 11 0 foot curve or flatter, depending on the alignment shift of (r) below . Earthwork quantities appear to be minimal. r. Relocate alignment from C~rve #105 to Curve #109 (Milepost 409.4). Also , construct an intersection for the Bridgerline Subdivision with additional pavement widening for protected left and right- turn movements .. This is a high-accident location. The present alignment will be removed and restored to original contour and vegetation. 5. Section 38: Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City (Milepost 409.4 to 411.75) . Increase design speed to 50 mph, maximum degree of curve 6 0 45', roadway width - 40' (47 feet in passing lane areas.) Clear zone - 22 feet. This alignment will follow an alignment similar to 63 as prepared by the consultant. Roadway widening in this section will consist of approximately equal amounts of cut and fill areas. Guardrail protection will be considered on the downhill side of the roadway. a. Flatten Curve #109 from 80 to 6 0 (Milepost 409 . 7) to attain design speed . Some excavation will be required. b. Flatten Curve #110 (Milepost 409.8) from 100 to 60 to attain design speed. Some fill will be required . c. Flatten Curve #111 (Milepost 410.0) from 12 0 to 60 to attain design speed. Excavation is required. d. Flatten Curve #112 (Milepost 410.1) from 12 0 to 6 0 to attain design speed. Embankment will be required . e. Relocate access at Milepost 410.6 by closing present access and providing a new access from another public street, if possible. If the access cannot be closed, then relocate to an improved location, providing the �• -17best design possible. A combination with the access at Milepost 410.7 may be practicable. The access at Milepost 410.7 will be considered according to the same criteria as the access at Milepost 410.6. f. Begin uphill climbing line at Milepost 410.6. g. Flatten Curve #116 (Milepost 411.2) from aO to 60 to attain design speed. h. Redesign access at Milepost 411.2 to attain the best design possible. i . Redesign end of project intersection with SR-30 at Milepost 411.75. Left and right-turn lanes will be provided. 0169W �ADDITIONS 'ID CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE FUR U. S. 89, FEBRUARY, 1989 The Conservationists' Alternative of August, 1987 was designed to be in agreerrent with the folla.ving staterrent rmde in the Forest Plan for the Wasatch-cache National Forest: standard than exis ting . " "The road will not be raised to a higher This has always been the Conservationis ts' position, and will rermin so. The Conservationists' Alternative was designed to solve specific problems wi th minimal environrrental irrpact. The Agency Al ternati ve set forth in LTanuary, 1989, except where it appears to spare 4 miles of the M iddle Canyon, represents nothing nore than adherence to arbitrary standards, without regard for consequences, whether they be environmental (the proposed channelization of Beaver Creek, for exarrple) or related to safety (the proposed 10% grade in the Rich County section, for exanple). The Agency Alternative atterrpts to raise a facade of improved safety while in rea lity pronoting high speed travel. The Conservationists' Alternative has enphasized that the entire route between Garden City and Logan should be considered as a unit; thus it stresses the safety value of keeping highway speeds as consistent as possible. Alternative says to drivers, in effect, "Speed up." The Agency But the consequences of high-speed traffic entering the Middle Canyon are i gnored. In keeping with the overall philosophy of the 1987 Conservationists' Alternative, we propose the following changes for evaluation: 1. Logan Cave: raise roadbed and nove road away from the river, as per Agency Alternative 2. Mileposts 386.6, 390.2, 391.1: Agency Alternative. of fill.] raise roadbed as described in [Contingent on availability �Adell tions to Conservationists' Alternative for U.S. 89 -- p. 2 These changes are proposed for evaluation in the DEIS; this evaluation will determine whether they will be included in the final al ternati ve we present to the public. The follOtJing corrections need to be entered in our 1987 draft: When treating areas in the Upper Canyon (turning lanes, for exarrple), the reference should be to "B2" rather than "Bl." When treating areas on the Rich County side, the reference should be "B3" rather than nOBl." RICH COUNTY SECTION: The Conservationists' Alternative for the Rich County portion of the route is as follOtJs: Maintain the present alignrrent. Irrprove signing at the Bear Lake Overlook and at milepost 407.9. The rationale for the Conservationists' Alternative in this portion of the route is as follc:ws: safety, aesthetics, and erosion control. The Agency Alternative proposes a high-speed design, thus creating an impetus for unsafe, high speeds over the rerrainder of the route. The Agency Alternative proposes radical grades, as high as 10%, which constitute an obvious safety hazard. The Agency Alternative would leave a rrass of scars over the hillside involved, and would create numerous highly erosive cuts. The Conservationists' Alterna- tive contains none of t.l1ese flaws and works toward inproved safety by inproved signing at areas of potential danger. �\ February 14, 1989 Jack, Steve, Bruce: I propose that we add something like the enclosed to our Environrrentalists' Alternative on US 89. v-7hat do you think? �[DRAFT] Environrrentalists' Alternative for u.s. 89, Logan canyon: Rich County section ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------v propose that the alignrrent of U. S. 89 between Garden City and the ve surrmit of Logan Canyon be kept exactly as it is, and that signing be improved for the scenic turnout near Sunrise campground and the turnout at M ilepost 407.9. Improved signing at 407.9 will make the area safer; relocating the highway 670 feet away on a 10% grade, as the "Agency Alternative" proposes, would increase the danger in this area very considerably. Keeping the same alignrrent for the Rich County section, and improving the signing at points where traffic enters the highway (such as noted above), will help keep speeds rrore uniform throughout the Garden City-to-Logan route, thus improving the safety of the road. Altering the alignrrent on the Rich county section will increase the speed there, thus decreasing the safety, and will have the added negative effect of creating an inconsistency in speed over the whole route. 1iIe consider a high speed highway on the Rich County section to be an unfortunate impetus for higher speeds in the rest of the route. The proposed steepness of the "Agency Alternative" is also a safety hazard, particularly in winter. Keeping the same alignrrent for the the line on the aesthetic damage on the naintain erosion rates at their present leave a nass of scars over the hillside Rich County section would help hold east side of the rrountain, and v;ould level. The "Agency Alternative" v;ould and would create highly erosive cuts. �-- - - - -- To~ , I ..., ",..+~ J~ , "",&, +I..~ ~ c... ill ";,,. s...., Jt. .. ) '~f",7.c./ -I• ....... ~.~.. (.....~ .Iy/.;1-~rl~-'4r;I h.".,'yll. ~*,II>' 14(),r -h ,.t c'fif'1 0+- -It,;,. .ff#"...-I"'~. 1-4 ..... -t.u ,,+ s......i? -- �Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon Road between Right Fork and Garden City (submitted to UDOT February, 1989) This alternative is designed to solve specific problems with minimal environmental impact. This is in contrast to the Agency Alternative, where the main goal is to increase the highway design speed on all except the 4 miles between Right Fork and Lower Twin Bridge. To make a point-by-point comparison of this alternative with the Agency Alternative, you may obtain a copy of the Agency Alternative from: LynY"1 Zoll i n~1et~ Utah Department of Transportation PO Box i.:::7L~7 Ogden, Utah 84404 399-5'3i:::1 Add additicn'"lal war~Y"liY"l g sigY"1 such as "Nar~r~ow WiY"ldiY"lg Road Next 7 Miles". Tht~oughout the eY"ltit~e t~oute ptlt up specific cI.wve signs with advisory speeds where needed. jC:ldd s i ~V'IS fol'~ S i del'~oads such c.'.\s "R i ~~ht Fot~k 1 / L~ mil e". signs will be needed at Wood Camp, Temple Fork, etc. Cr,~ a 100' paved tapel'~ i l"lt 0 Right FCIl'~k. fc,l'~ -±-lCIst .::i l l u p-caY"IYOl'"1 tl'~affic Simi lal'~ wishiY"lg Plow parking area in the winter. Pave downcanyon pt~eseY"d; from bridge, si gY"ls. Replace Burnt Bridge on spal"l bl'~ i d ge. I~a i se present alignment wi th 28' wide c 1 ei:\'r~- 3' for 1000'; this removes an erratic bend t~oad bed away from the from the road and allows the road to be moved river. Contingent on availability of fill. Prohibit parking on curve. CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE 1 �For cave access, pave two parking areas immediately downcanyon from Cottonwood Creek: one 150' x 20' on the river side, arlothEn~ 100' x 35' (taper~irlg to 20') at the locatiorl of old Cottonwood Creek road. Plow in winter. A/1-',,( / Fot~est vetl uY·lteer~ Serv i ce groups f ' j "5. con s truct t o cave (erd:;r~ arlce. Replace structure on pres ent alignment with 28' Raise roadbed approx. 18" for 500' on availability of fill). wide structure. to avoid flooding (contingent Replace bridge with wide bridge immediately upstream from present bridge. This involves a new cut at the downcanyon edge of the bridge. Rubble could be used to provide a slow-vehicle turnout downcanyon of the bridge. Provide recreational parking at upcanyon edge of the bridge. Notj£= Her~e the A~]erlcy Altet~rlative pr~ oposes a 3 larle br~ idge, a climbing lane nearly a mile long, and the beginning of the wider, straighter, higher design speed highway. Replace \.'Ji th wide clear - span bridge immed i ately downstream of present bridge. Sigrl "NO PASSING". Replace structure on present alignment with 28' Raise r~oadbed appr~ox. 18" to avoid availability of fill. CONSERVAT I ONISTS' ALTERNATIVE 2 wide structure. floodirlg. �mp 3'32 Pave multipurpose turnout on side opposite river, ~9te: plow in winter. Hel"~e the A~~eYlcy Alte?t~native iYlcr~eases the l"~oad width even more, increases the design speed, and begins to add frequent pass i Ylg 1 aYles. Add turning lanes. Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Replace str ucture on present alignment with 28' wide structure . Pave multipurpose turnout on river side of road; Replace bl"~idge i.~ pt~eseYlt 1 i gnmeyd; plow in winter . with 28' wide clear-span bl"~idge. Construct climbing lane from milepost 3'35 to cattleguard. Replace bridge on bl°~ i d geM pr-o esent aliqnment with wide clear~-span Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. Replace structure on present alignment with 28' wide structure. ~§?a y..§?l"~ Mc~!::.!ni ai 1"1 I Ylt er~sec"!! i 01"1 (fI1 P 3'3'3. 75) Add turning lanes. CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE 3 �Construct climbing lane from milepost 401.5 fill) to mp 402.1. (above Amazon Hollow Construct climbing lane from 404.1 to short of Sinks Road. Ret air, pl"~ese'(",t alignment; add improved signing t '-n~r,e:.ut s. Place cli mbing lane sections t '-n~ r, o ut s only where cutti n g would not p . .~oblems. Not~.: c'-n~ve!:-3 a · d .... slol-'J-vehicle cause el"~osie:.r, fe:'l"~ Ol"~ Hel"~e the Ager,cy Altel"~r,ative emphasized speed by l'~ealignir,g curve s and steepening the gradient to up to 10~. They also plan a conti nuous climbing lane . Initially we took no position on modifications to this section because much of it is not on National Forest land. However, the potential for ma ssive erosion problems from the miles of excavation proposed in the Agency Alternative forced us to take this new pe:.!:; it ion. 50 CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE fl, 'J 4 �If Conservationists' Spot Improvement Alternative for Sections 1 and 2, Logan Canyon August, 1987 we consider the most important issues involved here to be safety, scenic values, and ecological integrity. Our alternative is based on the premise that rrodifications which alone or in the aggregate VX)uld appreciably increase traffic speed in the Middle Canyon must be avoided. we relieve that increased speed in this section would be likely to lead to more (and more serious) accidents. The construction involved in increasing the traffic speed would seriously disrupt the scenic values for which this canyon is nationally k.n<:Mn, and VX)uld seriously degrade the ecological integrity of the canyon, particularly in the riparian zone. Our goal is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a highway that purports to move the greatest number of people through the area at the highest rate of speed. Consistent with this emphasis, we strongly recommend enforcement of speed limits and substantial improvements in signing as an important part of our proposal. As a corollary, changes in the roadway in the Upper Canyon should not re so drastic as to encourage high speeds in that area and thus a possible difficulty of driver adjustment to the lONer speeds of the Middle Canyon. we have identified several gravel turnouts which should re paved, and plowed oonsistently in winter, to aid the Utah Highway Patrol in pulling over speeders and to aid in the passage of the occasional emergency vehicle. �LOCATION RATION ALE PP0P0SFD AcrION IMPAcrS AND PROBLEMS WITH REJEX:TED ALTERNATIVES Right Hand Fork 100' taper from bridge; sign: "Right Fork 1/4" safety curve at 384.0 preliminary sign: winding road next 7 mi."; advisory speed sign; specific curve ootation (no change in alignment) safety visual sensitivity; erosion into river; spoil disposal safety visual sensitivity (6); inpacts on river Haguire Primrose threat to threatened species W ood Camp turoout sign: "Wood Camp 1/4"; and plow parking area in winter Camp, slow veh. turnout 00 change downstream of Burnt Bridge pave present gravel turnout; plow in winter Burnt Bridge widen to 28' on same alignment; clear span structural integrity sign: "dangerous curve"; sign: "no parking" sign: advisory speed; no alignment change safety Logan Cave Cottonwood area: (a) structure law enfo rcement; vista; parking distressed vehicles not applicable not applicable visual sensitivity; damage to river safety widen to 28' on sarre alignment damage to river; visual sensitivity (7) ! (b) parking pave bNo areas: one on visitor access to cave river side downstream \ from structure, 150' X ~O; one on rrountain side at (Old Cottonwood road, 100' X 5', tapering downstream to 100' X 20'. Plow in winter. Forest Service and volunteer groups construct trail to cave entrance. above Cottonwood no alignment change; replace 20 mph advisory sign (386.6) safety damage to river; spoil disposal; visual sensitivity ----------~-+_------------- ----~ ·-·----- ll__·-----------~----- -------+------------- above Cottonwood (387.1) no alignment change safety (avoid speed) erosion from loose ma.terial �PROPOSED AcrION LCCATION beloW Lower Twir Bridge; Lower Twin Bridge R<TIONALE M ove roadway wax. 20' toward river before cun Ie begins; widen existing cut so alignment meets new bridge parallel to present bridge. 28' width; no pier in river I IMPAcrS AND PROBW1S v,lITH ALTERNATIVES ~D I I replacement of bridge wi th least environmental damage, consis- l tent with safety visual impacts; excessive spoil I I I place downstream of above Lower Twin Bridge--slow veh. bridge, where present road goes through cut turnout less cutting; rrore sight distance visual impacts; excessive spoil -----------------;------------------------+---------------------------~------------------------- Dugway climbing l:me N Change o prevent excessive speed damage to river; damage to visual quality - ---------------_._---- --------------+-----------------+----------------- --top of Dugway 1'-0 Change prevent excessive speed damage to visual quality; excessive spoil _ --+------ - --+- - - - - - t - -- -- - --Upper -TWin Bridge widen to 28' on new structural integrity; alignment immediately safety downstream of present bridge. No pier in rive ~_.....-_-==____:::::__;_t_--- ---------- - - - - --r-.---- - .--------'--------f.---------------- - above Upper TwiI Bridge (387.7) damage to visual no change in alignment safety 1 quali ty ; excessive add signs: curve; icy road spoil I I . I Temple Fork intersection advance signing: Fork 1/4" Ricks Spring are,,: (a) bridge 28' on sane alignment (b) alignment (c) parking ~ "TemPl~ add sign: "N Passing" o maintain as is (both sides); add signs: "Ricks Spring 1/4" "Pedestrian Crossing" safety safety safety safety vehicles crossing traffic lanes to park ______________~~-_--------------------1-.------.----------------- .----------------------- "Table 2-5," B-1: bridges and struct ~es 28' maintain uniformity of bridge widths alignments: 1:elow North Sink no change safety encourages excessive speed below M iddle Sin '- :00 change safety encourages excessive speed �PROPOSED Ac:r:'ION lOCATION RAT IO}1ALE JMPACTS AND PROBLEMS WITH REJECTED ALTERNATIVES "Table 2-5," continued: Intersections: ~a) Tony Grove as in B-1 (b) Red Banks 00 (c) Franklin Basin (d) Beaver change insufficient traffic no change no need (wide enough as is) as in B-1 i safety would necessitate 3-lane bridge over Beaver Creek Climbing Lanes: (a) Red Banks tp near Franklin Basin road (b) Stump Add climbing lane from m.p. 395 to cattle guard Add climbing lane from just above Amazon Hollow fill (401.5) to 402.1. Hnlln17 to maintenance shed (c) to surmnit Add climbing lane from 404.1 to short of Sink:: Road I safety; minimize cut; safeguard river and riparian zone Safety problems with high-speed traffic approaching both Red Banks and Franklin Basin turooffs; damage to river and riparian zone safety; minimize cut visual quality damage safety; minimize cut excessive spoil; danger at snowmobile parking area Note: Passing lane ;t end short of surmnit, and there must be .::l", ~'.::lte signing, regarding the transition back tp 2-lane road, to safeguard the Limber Pine 'I~ail turooff. Signs: "Sinks Roa~ 1/4"; "Limber Pine Trail 1,114" Table 2-6: Sunrise LLLP:JLuLnd OVerlook 00 change safety 2 skewed approaches as in B-1 (sign & stripe) multipurt=Ose parking: (a) m.p. 392 pave; plow in winter (on side opp. river) safety (b) Bunchgrass pave; plow in winter (on river side of road) safety added sign: below Ricks Spring "Narrow winding road next 7 mi." safety driver confusion possible �... -.... TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LOGAN CANYON AN ANALYSIS The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) asserts the Logan Canyon highway is dangerous, with a significantly higher accident rate than an average Utah highway. This assertion is used as a reason for undertaking highway reconstruction and realignment in the section of the canyon between Right Fork and Ricks Spri'ngs . This assertion, however, i~ in fact not supported by traffic accident and traffic volume data supplled by UDOT, Division of Safety and office of the Engineer for Transportation, respectively. This is analyzed in the following discussion . Data. The number of traffic accidents for any period is easy to obtain and is quite accurate (it comes directly from investigating officers reports). Accident rates, however, are reported on the basis of each million miles of vehicle travel (MVT) and require good estimates of the average daily traffic (ADT) in a particular section of the highway. There is only one perm anent counter in the canyon, located at Card Guard Station, located approximately at mile post 10 in the canyon. Values of ADT for other sections, which differ considerably, are estimated on the basis of temporarary counters, spot checks and extrapolations from the permanent counter (UDOT, e.g., made a check of relative volumes of traffic in the canyon at various locations for one week in June, 1976. Many of their conclusions are based on this inadequate sample). As a result, there is considerable uncertainty (error) in the numbers, an uncertainty that may invalidate in some cases the conclusions based on the data. This caveat must be kept in mind at all times when examining the data. Accident Rates. UDOT has divided the canyon into 7 sections, and reports accident rates for each section as found in table 1 for the 7 year period, 1971-77 inclusive (data from update to "Preliminary Proposals and A lternati ves SR-13 (U. S. 89) Logan to Garden City, UDOT, 1977", provided by Gary Lindley, Project Engineer): Table 1 UDOT Accident Rates 1971-77 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Section Logan City to Dewitt Campground Dewitt Campground to Right Fork Right Fork to Upper Twin Bridges Upper Twin Bridges to Tony Grove Tony Grove to Beaver Mtn. Road Beawer Mtn. Road to Summit Summit to Garden City distance 4.8 miles 4.3 miles 5.1 miles 5.3 miles 6.1 miles 5.1 miles 7.0 miles average State average, 1971-77, all highways, Accident Rate per MVT 3.40 2.90 6.10 5.80 3.40 2.15 5.00 . 4.1T + 1.52 3.85 It thus appears sections 3 and 4 (the proposed project includes all of section 3 and part of section 4) have a significantly higher accident rate than the state average, and that the distribution of rates is biased towards higher values in these sections. �Our analysis of the data, based on the best ADT figures and a number of consultations with the UDOT Engineer for Transportation, gives lower values for the accident rates in all sections of the canyon for the 6 year period, 1973-78 (table 2): Table 2 Accident Rates in Logan Canyon, 1973-78 Section Accident Rate per MVT l. 1.99 2. 1.64 3. 4.98 4. 5.61 5. 2.60 6. 2.97 7. 5.28 3.56+1.64 average 3.85State average It can be seen the average accident rate in Logan Canyon is slightly lower than the State average. Sections 3 and 4 appear to be higher. This difference, however, is not significant statistically for section 3, as determined by a standard statistical test ( t test, 6 year average vs. state average, 90% (or higher) confidence level), while the difference for section 4 is just barely significant at the 90% confidence level, but not significant at higher levels. It may therefore be concluded section 3 is not significantly more dangerous than the average Utah highway , while the evidence for section 4 is inconclusive. Another statistical test that may be applied measures the significance of a distribution, in this case accident rates by section, vs . an expected frequency if all sections have equal rates. The results of this test (chisquared test)show the distribution of both tables 1 and 2 have a probability between 60-75% of being random: that is, the apparent difference in accident rates by section for the whole canyon has a 60-75% probability of being due to random statistical fluctuation, and not to any real bias in favor of high rates for sections 3 and 4. This test supports the conclusion that the Logan Highway is, in fact, no more dangerous than an average Utah highway . Fatal Accidents. In the period 1971-78 inclusive (8 years) there were 26 fatal accidents in Logan Canyon, distributed as follows (table 3): Table 3 Fatal Accidents Section Number Death Rate per MVT . 174 1 8 .030 2 1 .1A4 3 4 1 . 042 4 5 0 .232 6 4 .339 7 8 Death rates were calculated in the same way as for accident rates in table 2. Combining the death rates for sections 1 and 2 (improved sections) and 3 and 4 (propesed project) gives identical values , 0.105 MVT . Drawing conclusions from such small numbers of data is statistically suspect ; the death rates �for the improved and proposed project sections do suggest that improvement of the highway (sections 1 and 2) does not improve the death rate (sections 3 and 4). If these numbers have any significance, they indicate improving the highway from a 35 mph speed to a 50 mph speed, the relative speed limits on the improved and proposed project sections, has no effect on the death rate. Similar results can be anticipated for sections 3 and 4 if the project is undertaken. Again, any argument based on death rates for the two sections as support for the project is invalid. Conclusions. The results of this analysis of all available data are clear. Logan Canyon highway is not more dangerous than the average Utah highway, assertions to the contrary by UDOTnotwithstanding. Considering the highway is a winding mountainous road, often covered with snow and ice during Winter months in the upper sections, the accident rate is surprisingly low . It would be of interest to compare Logan Canyon with similar highways (Sardine Canyon, Soldier Summit, Little Cottonwood Canyon, e.g.) with respect to accident rates. Similar arguments used by UDOT based on Logan Canyon highway death rates are equally false: improvement of the highway has no effect on death rates. The proposed construction project for sections 3 and 4 cannot be justified as an improvement in safety of a dangerous highway. �Accidents and Traffic Volume in Logan Canyon UDOT asserts a definite relationship exists between the accident rate and volume of traffic in Logan Canyon . Since the volume of traffic becomes quite large on a few weekends in Summer , it is argued by UDOT the highway needs improvement to prevent excessive accident rates during these periods . This assertion may be tested statistically by plotting accident rates by month vs. traffic volume per month (data from UDOT report "Preliminary Proposals and Alternatives, SR 13 (U.S . 89) Logan t~ Garden City , 19771~, p. 23 and p. 41). The coefficient for this plot , r , is a measure of the cor elation be ween accident rates and traffic volume . Such a plot gives r 2 = 0. 37 (r 2 = 1.00 for a 1:1 correlation , and 0 for no correlation; values less than 0.90 are suspect). Clearly, no significant correlation exists between accident rates and traffic volume in Logan Canyon , and such an argument cannot be used by UDOT to justify the project. / " �TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY UDOT assumes an exponetial growth rate of 4% annually for traffic volume in Logan Canyon. This growth rate is used as an argument to justify the proposed highway improvement project in sections 3 and 4 (Right Fork to Ricks Springs) of the canyon. An analysis by Dave Schimpf based on UDOT average daily volumes of traffic (ADT) indicates the growth is better expressed by a linear relationship than the exponential relationship used by UDOT, at least through 1975. This gives a significantly lower prediction for traffic volumes than the exponential model . More importantly, however, recent data for 1975-79 indicate traffic volume peaked in 1977, and has in fact declined in both 1978 and through July, 1979 (last data). Clearly, the effects of fuel prices and potential shortages have not been taken into account by UDOT (table 4): Table 4 Changes in ADT, 1978-79 Date 2.4 % decrease from December, 1977 December, 1978 July, 1979 3.0 % decrease from July, 1978 data from Card Guard Station, Logan Canyon. Clearly, in contradiction to the forecasts of UDOT, traffic volume in Logan Canyon has decreased significantly in the last 2 years. If this trend continues, and considering the world petroleum situation this appears probable, future use of the highway will be less than at present, and any argument seeking to justify construction of the proposed project on the basis of projected increases in volume of traffic is invalid. � 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/1746">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1746</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 1370614751 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 15008196 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 Alternatives to proposed Logan Canyon construction Description An account of the resource Several alternatives to the proposed construction in Logan Canyon including: concern over the expansion and curve reduction in Logan Canyon, Agency Alternative, Additions to Conservationists' alternative for US 89, Environmentalists' alternative, Conservationists' alternative for Logan Canyon Road between Right Fork and Garden City, Conservationists' spot improvement alternative, traffic accidents in Logan Canyon, and the traffic forecast for Logan Canyon Highway. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon 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 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 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 MSS314Bx1Fd2.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/803d1968e2d6911e6f55128c3093bd97.pdf 2fbb8450935b3d55b155feb525d1fbdc PDF Text Text November 21 , 1961 Mrs. K thryn H. Young Triple H Ranch Stanley , Idaho Dear Mrs. Young: Thank you for your lett r r questing a copy of th -tudy made by our Univ rsit st ff on he imp ct of hi wa on natural r so reese the pr sent tlme this is in h hands of th print cs • A s on as copi s are availabl w ill be glad to s nd you one. It should b in a very short time. A to be pub · ish incerely your , Eunice Peters n , S cretary o the Dean ep ,.t �November 14, 1961 Dean J. Whitney Floyd Utah State University Logan, Utah Dear Mr . Floyd: A recent editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune dis· cussed your study and report on the damage being done by highway builders. Since some of us in this area are very much interested in this same problem----both on our own lands and on Forest Service lands, I would like to obtain a copy of the report. May I have a copy, and may I quote you? Sin erely, It -U Kathryn H Triple H Ranch Stanley, Idaho e � 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/1747">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1747</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 2728535830 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1045967 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Eunice Peterson to Kathryn Young, November 21, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Eunice Peterson, Secretary to the Dean, to Kathryn Young, Triple H Ranch, November 21, 1961 abot the study on impact of highways on natural resources. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peterson, Eunice Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Young, Kathryn H. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Stanley (Idaho) Custer County (Idaho) Idaho United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 9.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/42c9ee243341c20effea01d43d00362c.pdf 9949b0181a1da1a66dd22d1086f04bec PDF Text Text DATE: [tee. TIME: 7 :00 - 9:00 PM 1994 PERSONS PRESENT: Lauren keller, Ka~ny Gilb ert, Shawn Swaner, M ark Bowen, Nathan ~uit, Dianne Sigirled, Gordon SteInhoff, Merv Coover 1. Shawn discussed t ne upcomIng Transportati on CommIssion MeetIng on Dec. 15 in Salt Lake City. He agreed to be the spokesperson for CPLC at tne mee~lng. He was asked by UDOI ~o present our position. Todd Weston, a memoer 0+ tne Transportation Commiss Ion naG presented hIS preference for tne Preferreo AlternatIve at tne Cache County CounCI l meetIng on Dec. 13. weston wan~ed the council's support for the Preferred Altern ative to ensure federa l nighway fundIng . The counCI l vo~ed (S-2! for the modified ROD as negotIated bv CPLC w I~h UDO I In order ~o get tne project mOVIng. 2. KeVIn kobe, Dan MI ll er, Lil l lane Bowen oresented the Dositlon of t ne Logan Canyon Coai ltion. Their POS I tion was to coooerate fully wlth CPLC ana no~ to JepOrdlz e ~he bargainIng POSItIon of CPLC. They dIG no~ wan~ to stop th e project but WISneG ~o pursue other Issues such as a tores~ service appeal when ~he Forest SerVIce Issued a modIfIed forest plan In oraer for tne road construction to Oegln. Thev would I Ik e to get more compromIses from UDOT . They left the meeting after tne i r presentatIon. Laure n ied the discussion ior Incorporation. The fo l lOWIng were agt-'ee,j upon: a. we would Incoporate as a non-p r ofIt, educatIonal organization . O. the board would conSlS~ of 9 members. c. board terms would be staggered witn 2 year terms. d. aC~lng offlcers were e lected as out! lned by the procedure In tne Nay. 17tn mInutes. ChaIr - Shawn Swan er, Vice-Ch aIr - Lauren Kei Jer, S e cre~ary - ~a~hy GI l bert e. ~he meetIng was adjourned before all the Items for lncorooration were dIscussed. It was agreed ~o complete thIS bUSi ness at the Jan. j 9~ meeting. 4. 1'1EE;TING i~AfL?C:HfDU_LEQ.. £OR.;.. JAN. 12,_J. 1 9j AT 7:00 f'i"l . H I The agenda will Include: "t"f..IE NEXT BOARD kATHY'S hOUSE. a. the remainIng items for IncorporatIon. b . selectIon of the CAT team member. c. plannIng for general memoershlp mee~lng. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1748">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1748</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 1280167987 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 367618 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, December 15, 1994 Description An account of the resource Minutes of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, December 15, 1994 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Swaner, Shawn Kobe, Kevin Miller, Dan Bowen, Lilliane Keller, Lauren Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Gilbert, Kathy Bowen, Mark Hult, Nathan Sigfried, Dianne Steinhoff, Gordon Coover, Merv Subject The topic of the resource Minutes and proceedings Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Department of Transportation--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Agendas (administrative records) Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd3.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/2e888296eca409e02326889d21e36640.pdf 0ef547ce94e904223ead108032730516 PDF Text Text COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS STATE OF UTAH EXTENSION SERVIC E UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY u. AND LOGAN. UTAH S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING M E M 0 To: M rs. -ladys Harrison Fro~: Mr . Jeck H. 8· rr~an \G... J.\ttochcd Ejr~ t wo copi s of Road Constr uct· on c . d ResDur c8 ~se , a contrlbutiofiCif £he Ext ens i on-- S_tvic ~ and th _ Cn lege of Forest, R3ng~ , nd 'ildl if 8 r·1a n ngem~nt , ,lubIluhnd joi ntly F~S Exten- sion Circuler 297; olso as no . 3 in entanninl Oiemo d Jubilse Geri~sD th~ L ~nd Gr8nt Thio is th G ctement that fi ttr a ct ed 80 much newspaper pub lici ty hen rol l~sed in typed arm in sarlV No vember. It i s a vaila Ie for dintributio n through the publicat iuns room of ,he Extens i on :-erv · C8S in -- he Agricultu r ~ l ScienCES Building. JH8:js ~ cc: Dean J . ~hit n ~v Fl oyd Dean Culms8e � 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/1749">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1749</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 3736303556 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 537183 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Gladys Harrison, No Date Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Gladys Harrison about copies of the Road Construction and Resource Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Harrison, Gladys 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. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 6.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/6f6c0e97fba6e59f7904091c75888862.pdf d7a2d7e787119890ac2a9c3d2ab387a6 PDF Text Text December 1 , 1961 Mr. S . G. M rryman, Man ger Timber and Western Lands Northern Pacific Railway Co ., Seattle , Washington Dear Mr. Merryman: Attached is a statem nt hieh I hope you will find of interest-- contribution of th College and th Extension Services to ard bett r land us , pecifically dS it r lates o rOdd construction . It is our hope that it will contribute to a b tt r und rstanding of one of the many complexities of highway planning_ Sincerely yours, J. Whitn y Floyd , Dedn College of Forest , ange, and Wildlif Mansq m nt JHBsep e enclosure � 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/1750">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1750</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 446329421 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 551691 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to S. G. Merryman, December 1, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife, to S. G. Merryman, Northern Pacific Railway Co., on December 1, 1961 about the Road Construction and Resource Use statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Merryman, S. G. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Seattle (Washington) King County (Washington) Washington United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 8.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/bceaadcb2460eb208583666e08888437.pdf 05bae2309f7fe2934085b02054d0c079 PDF Text Text UTAH STATE EXTENSION IN UNIVERSITY SERVICES COOPERATION WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND U . S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUl TURE t pril 4, 1962 . cony Mr . James Garner Deane , 4200 Cathedral Avenue, N. Washington 16, D. C. It! w . , De r Mr . Denne: Thank you for your letter of r arch 20 . Please excuse my d lay but I ha ve been in the field . Our pamphlet was stimulated bV he Logan Canyon road improvement project but it was intended to have broader implications . uite obviously, there was a direct connection and a direc im act . There was no public resistance to the first strip of the construction work. Th ~ re was concern by the fish and Gar e Department , the Forest ~ ervice and this Univer sity . The publ c could not be stimulated until construction actually beg8n . During the one-year period of construction and during the planning stages of the second phase, the public did gXP es~ conce rn through the pre~s and resolutions from private organiz a tions . Frankly. the public reaction was lead by professional 0 sons inter ested in land use . It is difficult at this point to mako an appraisal but I think it is fair to sa y that the attitude of highway plannors has and 1s changing . Perhaps not as far as we ltlDuld like, but progress 1s noted . The design for Logan Canvon is being modified and there ore cartaln . other evidences that more consideration will be given to ~th8r resourceS . This change in attitudes, however, will not take the place of adequate legislati on • . Dr . Theral R. Black of our Department of ' ociology rec nt1y dellv red a paper entitled 'Tho Impact of Highways Upon oCiety's Spacial Living rrangements with Special Emphasis to Utah's W awatch Front Count! 8 . II Thio is a fine and internstlng presentation . r"'ay I suggest that you request a copy? I hope th s answers you questions . of when your book is complete . I would lik~ Sincerely, Jack H. Berryman Wildlife Spec! list JH8 : jwt to be advised � 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/1751">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1751</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 2277270978 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 771053 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence for Jack Berryman to James Deans, April 4, 1962 Description An account of the resource Correspondence for Jack Berryman to James Deans, April 4, 1962 about the public opinion of the highway construction in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Deans, James Garner Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Wilderness areas Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Washington D.C. United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 44.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/44186100bae44ec54de6b2fd8e6ae351.pdf 919eb952a79f67e37e2cbbb839d5930e PDF Text Text Dec rob r 2, 1961 Dr. Daryl Chase , President Utah state University Campus D r Presi ent Ch. s : ttached are fifte copi s of our printed list tement on Road Construction ~nd Resource Use". We suggest th..l.t copies be for rd d with your card to the Utah congressional del gation--Senators Moss and Bennett, nd epresentatives King and Pet rson. Also to S cr tary ' of Commerc Luther Hodg s , Secretary of griculture Oe ville Freeman, and Secretary of the Interior stewart Ud 11. I m today transmitting copies to bure u chiefs within these dgencies. Sincerely yours, J. Whitney Floyd, Dean College of For st , Range , and Wildlife Management JHB:ep Attachm nts-lS � 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/1752">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1752</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 1379519837 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 556179 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, December 2, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, December 2, 1961 discussing the Statement on Road Construction and Resouce Use and its dissemination to the Utah congressional delegation. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chase, Daryl 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. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 5.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/b4885cb7df20b07b79a6e9db0c9e1749.pdf e3b3d546309f408aedd7aade291efc6d PDF Text Text �CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS Sedona, Arizona Home of the Spiritual Life Institute Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig PLACE STAMP HERE POST CARD ~ <U 0. 0. o "" .a; z Photograph by Neil Koppes 55329 � 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/1756">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1756</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2215 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3403 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2917244521 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 9204349 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 Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, exterior front view, postcard Description An account of the resource Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Koppes, Neil Subject The topic of the resource Church buildings United States Highway 89 Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Neil Koppes Photography Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Sedona (Arizona) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 006 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1AZ_006 https://highway89.org/files/original/0136abd11528120deff86fa23446bf5c.pdf c9d6fd6e7db3caf0ecb26047b8d0435d PDF Text Text �CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS Sedona, Arizona Home of the Spiritual Life Institute Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig PLACE STAMP HERE POST CARD '" 0. '" 0. o '" z '" Photograph by Neil Koppes 52329 � 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/1759">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1759</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> https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2203 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3415 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 538865105 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 8166519 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 Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, exterior back view, postcard Description An account of the resource Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Koppes, Neil Subject The topic of the resource Church buildings United States Highway 89 Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Neil Koppes Photography Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Sedona (Arizona) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 007 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1AZ_007 https://highway89.org/files/original/5eb578c8e74bf5cc791709adc3e7c8d9.pdf 8eea520138b98d735380ba1556c78b0e PDF Text Text �CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS Sedona, Arizona Hom e of the Spiritual Life In stitute Memorial to Marguerite an d Luci en Brunswig PLACE STAMP HERE POST CARD z '" Photograph by Neil Koppes 51329 � 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/1762">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1762</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 3392 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2226 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 556574912 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7655745 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 Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, interior view, postcard Description An account of the resource Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Koppes, Neil Subject The topic of the resource Church buildings United States Highway 89 Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Neil Koppes Photography Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Sedona (Arizona) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 008 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1AZ_008 https://highway89.org/files/original/a3383fdb6003d97b55d3efce03c9fdba.pdf a8a7a7092eb5561e0957ee56bb69ecdf PDF Text Text �CHAPEL Of THE HOLY CROSS Sedona, Arizona Home of the Spiritual Life Institute Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig PLACE STAMP HERE ~ .<:: 0. ;-. '" .s o .<:: 0.. ., '" 0. 0. o '" 'iii z Photograph by Neil Koppes 56329 POST CARD � 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/1765">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1765</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 3403 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2215 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 3403756945 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7716571 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 Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, interior window view, postcard Description An account of the resource Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Koppes, Neil Subject The topic of the resource Church buildings United States Highway 89 Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Neil Koppes Photography Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Sedona (Arizona) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 009 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1AZ_009 https://highway89.org/files/original/a06b82c72b85fd7d7b40ac5fa59e88e8.pdf 4e8a109b375643088193b5957de26ba1 PDF Text Text The Falls in Winter. Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho �� 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/1768">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1768</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> https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 3346 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2192 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 392464432 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4656974 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 The Fall in Winter, Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho, 1909 Description An account of the resource The Fall in Winter, Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho, 1909. Signed and inscribed on the back from Anna to William. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Greaves, William C. Subject The topic of the resource Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Montpelier (Idaho) Bear Lake County (Idaho) Idaho United States Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah 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, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 014 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1ID_014 https://highway89.org/files/original/a87c5e19092a4f3cef5fb5593e4d96bf.pdf 8301e2a7fb578fcb130c89a2959c0e9b PDF Text Text �<0 ... A PLACE A z STAMP z o HERE .. CORRESPONDENCE Y:vr o...! ~ , In !VI ~I'/) Sii~e. t Pr ~ So f A DRESS 0 r' f a,(, 0 A Z 0 � 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/1771">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1771</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 1915 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3196 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 3424269023 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1617993 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 RRP of Parade in Preston, Idaho, picture postcard Description An account of the resource Real picture postcard. Inscription on back reads: "Parade in Preston Idaho Main Street." Embossed with emblem and probably the designer name on the front. Subject The topic of the resource Postcards United States Highway 89 Parades Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Preston (Idaho) Franklin County (Idaho) Idaho United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 20th century 1920-1929 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, 1895-1990, P0031, Box 1 ID 003 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1ID_003 https://highway89.org/files/original/2f1d8a4972e2b19f1b5b364378746c4d.pdf 0e20a5fc1c35535491da3a2face3b3e0 PDF Text Text OF Ot'f.IOfi ~i,qfre 191811 1~~~6 �PLACE P(~TAG£ CORRESPONDENCE ~. NAME AND ADDRESS ' SIA,"P HERE � 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/1774">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1774</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2192 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3426 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 3912403006 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2346832 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 RPP of Preston First Ward Chorus Girls, 1913 Description An account of the resource Real Picture Postcard of Preston First Ward Chorus Girls, Champions of Oneida Stake, 1913. Four unidentified women. Subject The topic of the resource Music Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Preston (Idaho) Franklin County (Idaho) Idaho United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 004 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1ID_004 https://highway89.org/files/original/760e54695e7ce31c2730ae0fae91ef71.pdf b001c96027ade715d7fa8edd24805b52 PDF Text Text �o , :3 POST eARD 1"S~ ) . -< ,; z � 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/1777">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1777</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2215 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3438 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2623561619 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4476200 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 Aerial postcard of Montpelier, Idaho, 1908 Description An account of the resource Aerial real picture postcard of Montpeiler, Idaho. Written from Anna to her brother William Greaves. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Greaves, William C. Subject The topic of the resource Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Montpelier (Idaho) Bear Lake County (Idaho) Idaho United States Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah 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, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 015 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1ID_015 https://highway89.org/files/original/a8ad0f1fe1e076715d72b2d0aac4f0fb.pdf 98e7b4e127c5e963013869ed2709d50e PDF Text Text �lHI S SPACE FO R WAiliN G R-57458 POST C!\l~J) PI A(f-. S I r HIS SI Df ~ ,oom ?Jro.s.Co. 'lUil1f(1opo/i I~ FO R TH E ADDR ES S A~ lP HFR f- � 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/1780">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1780</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2215 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3473 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 339526045 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7694793 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 Sponge Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912 Description An account of the resource The Sponge Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Bloom Brothers Company Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 022 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_022 https://highway89.org/files/original/b728824e3d6a69c73c72ce0f36009609.pdf d8e3ccb2c62befa5460261a705cc1b23 PDF Text Text �T H IS SPAC E FO R WRITING R'57476 C;\I~D PI A GE hER\- I _____. _ 1 _~ T AMP ,-'1I S SI DE I ~, FOR THf ADDRES S � 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/1783">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1783</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2203 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3450 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2148043154 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7051329 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 Dome Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912 Description An account of the resource Dome Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Bloom Brothers Company Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 019 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_019 https://highway89.org/files/original/1172eca9f986a83e533e6780b5075764.pdf 7a0e2a00110e0a919f12c29abbd111c6 PDF Text Text 13065. OLD FAITHFUL. INN-YELLOWSTONE PARK. HAYNES-PriOTO. �Pt-641 20 POST CARD [Stamp Here] Domestic, \c MESSAGE. ADDRE SS foreign, 2c � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1786">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1786</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2250 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3461 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2337135783 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5693177 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 Old Faithful Inn postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 13085. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Hotels Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 015 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_015 https://highway89.org/files/original/fd58b8a865d3f836673ff6e21685191b.pdf 3e27b4a9750112c436c67f2e71d1d7a8 PDF Text Text NO.122. MORNING GLORY SPRING. Y ELLOWSTONE PAFPO( . �POST CARD [S tamp He re] Dorneslic , Ie MESSAGE. ADDRE SS. fore ign , 2c . ( ( -'> � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1789">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1789</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2238 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3426 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 4205183069 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7125714 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 Morning Glory Spring postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Morning Glory Spring, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 122. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Tourism Yellowstone National Park Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 009 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_009 https://highway89.org/files/original/335f5d64c7cad057cf9e2b2a33210f3a.pdf 5e65a8de1ee653b35c5b316f19485d19 PDF Text Text �r I II 1 .I I A ( A o cor. ~~ iE, A~ c ~ A 0 � 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/1792">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1792</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 3357 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2180 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2766062598 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1566976 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 RPP of unidentified Preston Idaho young woman playing trombone, ca. 1910 Description An account of the resource Real picture postcard of an unidentified young woman playing trombone, from Preston, Idaho, ca. 1910. Subject The topic of the resource Music Postcards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Preston (Idaho) Franklin County (Idaho) Idaho United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 016 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1ID_016 https://highway89.org/files/original/d2caeaaed93721ac7744d62c6f136d0d.pdf f87f3ffb19e071faa16a025ac16fd207 PDF Text Text �THIS SPliCE FOR WRIlING R-S7463 POST T H I S SIDE IS FOR THE ADDRESS ~ 0/oom 2iro.s.io. ~ � 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/1795">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1795</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: https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2203 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3461 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 55912363 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7085515 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 Jewel Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912 Description An account of the resource Jewel Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Bloom Brothers Company Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 018 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_018 https://highway89.org/files/original/b1c6d6dcc5c70e02b7dce3e3c4db4304.pdf ab1ad5491dd83fca1bfcdc3be96841c5 PDF Text Text NO. 212. GRAND CANYON HOTEL LOUNGE FROM OFFICE-YELLOWSTONE PARK. HAVNES-PHOTO �R-64135 POST CARD MESSA GE. ADDRE SS. � 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/1798">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1798</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2203 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3461 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 758086981 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7293060 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 Grand Canyon Hotel postcard, lounge from office, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Grand Canyon hotel, lounge from office, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 212. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Hotels Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 010 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_010 https://highway89.org/files/original/0e652634b9bedccfd86a91150c87426c.pdf d4f7a4fabbed4eef57447da28be4c41c PDF Text Text ~, ~ NO. 'SO. LAKE HOTEL COLONIAL~YELLOWSTONE PARK. HA YNES-PHOTO �R-64124 POST CARD [Stamp He re] Domestic, 1c MESSAGE. ADDRESS . fo reign, 2c � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1801">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1801</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2215 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3426 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 889619075 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5780244 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lake Hotel Colonial postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Lake Hotel Colonial, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 180. Haynes, St. Paul offical photographer Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Hotels Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 008 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_008 https://highway89.org/files/original/35bc0fe88daed31dd5e1e0c860abc561.pdf 4fac842e8adf8e39e9241e9c1b2a2d86 PDF Text Text �R-&41!8 POST CARD [Sta mp Here] Domestic, Ie MESSAGE. ADDRESS . foreign, 2c � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1804">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1804</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 3415 Width Width of digital item in pixels 2261 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2685697134 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6227738 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 Golden Gate Canyon postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Golden Gate Canyon, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 10079. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 013 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_013 https://highway89.org/files/original/8918b15a0a6ea8b6f0b8bed0e0811af7.pdf 12cc7a4ff51282ba29db0634ab7527c7 PDF Text Text �POST CARD [Stamp Here] Domestic, Ie MESSAGE . ADDRESS. foreign , 2c � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1807">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1807</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2226 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3450 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 3050897246 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6851702 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 Mammoth Hot Springs postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 10072. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Haynes, Frank J. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haynes, Jack Ellis Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Haynes, St. Paul Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 012 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_012 https://highway89.org/files/original/c718b882ea528c973e518b1b9c9022f5.pdf 0f20af89d9545106de7ee2c0e92dfbf1 PDF Text Text MORNIN G GLOR.Y POOL" YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK . �THIS SP ACE FOR WRITING R-57 444 ( j\I~l) " ,"c .<;I AMPhfP.L -'1 1:) SI DE 10; FO R T HE AD DR ESS 1 I .. J � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1810">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1810</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2238 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3450 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2970164729 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7050140 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 Morning Glory pool postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912 Description An account of the resource Morning Glory pool postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Bloom Brothers Company Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1910-1919 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 021 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_021 https://highway89.org/files/original/5af092d0a9e9d053378684a81c36ef6a.pdf 6d588ec4a1ac2baa74487961e42e74bd PDF Text Text MAMMOTH HOTEL . YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK . �FOR CORRESPONDENCE I MAMMOTH HOTEL. One of the most remarkable features connected with this wonderful park Is the number of modern and eommOdlOUSl Inns and hotels found here for the· bene-' fit of the visitors. This beautiful hotel at Mammoth has in its foreground. three hundred feet high. the wonderful. many-colored and bea.utlfully-formed Hot Springs Terrace which belong In the list of the water made wonders of the Park. o o I 'i r I I POSTCARD ADDRESS OOM£;STIC: ONE CENT STAMP FOREIGN; TWOCENTS � 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/1813">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1813</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Height Height of digital item in pixels 2203 Width Width of digital item in pixels 3415 Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 3793091121 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5344332 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 Mammoth hotel postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920 Description An account of the resource Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Mammoth hotel, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 4300. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park. Subject The topic of the resource Yellowstone National Park Hotels Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Yellowstone National Park Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1920-1929 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 016 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context P0031_Bx1WY_016