9 50 1396 https://highway89.org/files/original/499c2afd997060a778a95c2618ccda39.jpg bf1e4f5a7331ab539e865ad1895e58c1 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 3663 Image Width Image Width in pixels 4615 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 959e3e11ddbec5f254d960b4ffe75916 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 33585734 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16264">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16264</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Ariz. - Bridge at Cameron. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Bridges--Arizona Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white film (unidentified) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Cameron (Ariz.); Navajo Indian Reservation;United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_38687.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/f74f3a1c0c268910d231a7566adbc01f.jpg 4a8d1208b1428c175e884e2f5f622e08 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4718 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6743 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum fe4e2b867671363ae3ba0a96b0bee7ff File Size Size of the file in bytes. 33824648 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16452">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16452</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Wupatki National Monument. Ariz. Entrance Sign to Wupatki Mon. on US 89. Car Joe. [Caption by Josef Muench] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Signs and signboards--Arizona; Indians of North America--Antiquities; Pueblo Indians--Antiquities; Muench, Josef Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white polyester film negative Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Wupatki National Monument (Ariz.); San Francisco Peaks (Ariz.); United States Highway 89 Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_39374.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/54649b0dd476c36914e8415b58bf8c6a.jpg 2691be6008597df917bd49036ca44d84 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 3669 Image Width Image Width in pixels 4637 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 98cf6b2a973755036074166cd5e08d39 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 33812906 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16926">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16926</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pinal Pioneer Parkway between Florence and Tucson. (Evening) U.S. 80 + 89 + Thunderhead Clouds. [Caption by Josef Muench] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Arizona; Highways--Arizona Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white polyester film negative Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. United States Highway 89 Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_42487.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/1e90486fa92574fbea5d0ba2992909c1.jpg ad662b9ad50e5492714dfa7827fe90e9 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4658 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6806 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum e7f48a92a2102e53b8b5b656e63675cc File Size Size of the file in bytes. 34030686 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16510">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/16510</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Jerome City Population- Ariz. Ghost City of Jerome- sign. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Cities and towns--Arizona--Jerome; Signs and signboards--Arizona--Jerome Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white polyester film negative Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Jerome (Ariz.); United States Highway 89A Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_46742.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/e42d488ebe506ee3afe7a02cd8c86639.jpg 65aa5df3608081cd52b7989767003380 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4666 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6771 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 54605a37af953b65396414b80862b2b0 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 34177498 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/22330">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/22330</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Man & burros- Jerome main street. Ariz. Ghost City of Jerome. Burros + prospectors. [Caption by Josef Muench] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Muench, Josef Subject The topic of the resource Historic buildings--Arizona--Jerome; Burros Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white polyester film negative Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1950-1970 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Jerome (Ariz.); United States Highway 89A; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Muench, Josef Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_46743.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/353d2c0f249ddc22f881107f5a0d721a.pdf 2f75124efac04345ff4790cf127e1398 PDF Text Text TRANSPORTATION COMMIS~IO~ EUGENE H. FIND LAY , CPA SAMUEL J . TAYLOR DIRECTOR CHAIRMAN GENE STURZENEGGER, P.E. WAYNE S. WINTERS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR VICE CHAIRMAN R. LAVAUN COX TODD G. WESTON JAMES G. LARKIN ELVA H. ANDERSON SECRETARY UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 841 19 December 14, 1987 Rudy Lukez Sierra Club P.O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Mr. Lukez: On behalf of the three agencies involved in preparation of the draft EIS for Logan Canyon, I express appreciation for your effort in the study. During a 'meeting on Friday, December 11, the consultant presented a preliminary draft of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service), and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Great respect was voiced for your technical and judgmental input and it was recognized as being very beneficial to the study. Fulfillment of the charge given to the 10 team to assemble and review the technical data will have an influence in selection 0 f a preferred al ternati ve. Thank you for your personal dedication of time and money to this effort. Now FHWA , the Forest Service and UDOT will proceed in selecting a preferred al ternati ve considering all issues you have helped identify. Al though the task of the 10 team has been completed, we will be most interested in your comments as the public review process continues. The agencies agreed that since the Draft EIS is still in the development stage, release of the preliminary document might be premature and cause confusion . Therefore, the preliminary draft will not be released at this time but copies will be available at the FHWA in Salt Lake, the Forest Service in Salt Lake and Logan, UDOT in Salt Lake and Ogden, and the consultant's offices in Salt Lake and Logan for review. Thank you again for your efforts in putting together the technical information which makes possible a rational decision on the improvements to be made. E~~or le, ' poEo, Environmental ~~dies RJN/ps � 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/152">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/152</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3577483338 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 879286 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 James Naegle to Rudy Lukez, December 14, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from James Naegle to Rudy Lukez stating the intent to not release the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Naegle, R. James Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon Environmental Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah. Department of Transportation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-12-14 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 27.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0cbde6f2cdb563db3c7e1f1833be2999.jpg e53638d8b8fac4f318c835ab8a69ac62 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/129">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/129</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hercules Hydro-Power Plant at mouth of Logan Canyon, Utah, between 1895 and 1905 (2 of 2) Description An account of the resource Hercules Hydro-Power Plant at mouth of Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (4 x 5 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Napper family Subject The topic of the resource Hercules Power Plant (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Hydroelectric power plants--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1890-1899 19th century 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Napper family photograph collection, 1895-1905, P0359 1:03:02 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Napper family photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34826">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34826</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Napper family photograph collection, 1895-1905, P0359 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 P035910302 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1895 and 1905 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/a67fea608d93b360f07b0768c4995009.jpg 3d41127cfed7e62e31254c244b9feb63 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/249">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/249</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Hercules Hydro-Power Plant at mouth of Logan Canyon, Utah, between 1895 and 1905 (1 of 2) Description An account of the resource Hercules Hydro-Power Plant at mouth of Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (4 x 5 in) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Napper family Subject The topic of the resource Hercules Power Plant (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs Hydroelectric power plants--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1890-1899 19th century 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Napper family photograph collection, 1895-1905, P0359 1:03:01 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Napper family photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34826">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv34826</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Napper family photograph collection, 1895-1905, P0359 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 P035910301 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. between 1895 and 1905 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/6f955bf7e2d5232ceaff24de6b058560.pdf ff4c94fa95182f831fde328ba39e3f5f PDF Text Text CHMHlll l~EMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROt>1 : Stan Nuffer DATE: April 29, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The twentieth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. at the Forest Service District office in Logan, Utah. This meeting was followed by a daylong field trip in the canyon on April 21. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached 'for review is the Technical Memorandum on noise prepared by John Neil of UDOT. The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 4, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of April 20 and 21 meetings. 2. Discussion of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. 3. Discussion on spot improvement alternative. 4. Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil. 5. Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections. Future meeting schedule: May 27 June 27 SLC99/d.1901 - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING April 20, 1987 Attendance: Arlo Waddops- Valley Engineering Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Duncan Silver - FHWA Clark Ostergarrd - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Mark Shaw - USFS John Wise, Herald Journal Steve Flint - Audobon Society Jack Spence - Utah Wilderness Society Bill Helm Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M .HILL ITEM 2 - REVIEW OF TRAFFIC FORECASTS Cliff Forsgren reviewed a memo he had prepared that dis- . cussed . forecast traffic volumes using annual data from 1940 through 1985 and population data for the same period. Two forecasting methods were discussed, the "past trends" and "population correlation" methods. Jack Spence indicated, that based upon the data he had seen, a linear function describing past trends was. probably as good as we were going to get using that method. He suggested that population and traffic be compared to see what kind of correlation, if any, could be established. If there is a reasonable correlation between population and traffic volume, the forecast will be used with past trends forecast to establish a range that future traffic is expected to fall within. Cliff will prepare some correlation comparisons for the team to consider. ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF SCOPING COMMENTS Stan Nuffer distributed summaries of the comments made at the scoping meetings and a partial summary of the written comments received. Duncan Silver pointed out that the number of people who commented on a specific issue was not as important as the fact that the issue was raised. For that reason, the most important part of the summary was the table column headings that named the issues raised. Jack Spence pointed out that big game was an issue that had been raised 1 �MINUTES INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM FIELD TRIP APRIL 21, 1987 Attendance: Jim Naegle, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Richard Harris, USFS Duncan Silver FHWA Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Arlo Waddups, Valley Engineers Jack Spence, Sierra Club Steve Flint, Audubon Bill Helm Tom Lyon John Ellsworth The team met at 8:00 a.m. at the F.S. District Ranger's office. Transportation for the field trip was in two vans provided by UDOT. Weather conditions for the trip were ideal. Stop No.1 was at Lower Canyon M.P. 382.8 to consider the possibility of a slow vehicle turnout prior to the beginning of the study area. A slow vehicle turnout in this location would be marginal due to the curvature in the roadway and the limited s~ght distance back along the roadway. Stop No.2 was at M.P. 384.0, or curve No.5 which is the first sharp curve encountered in the study section. Valley Engineering had previously marked the location of the centerline and the limit of the cut for both a 35 and 40 mph design. Red and white flagging marked the 35 mph centerline, yellow marked the 40 mph centerline, blue marked the 35 mph cut slope, and orange marked the 40 mph cut slope. The cut slopes had been staked for a 1/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) which assumed a rock cut. Both the 35 and 40 mph design results in the removal of the ' existing vegetation which would be difficult to re-establish on a 1/4:1 slope. A flatter slope could be considered to allow more revegetation. Stop No.3 was at China Row, M.P. 385.35 and curve No.7. China Row is the location of a picnic area and also the tree canopy over the roadway formed primarily be black willows. The trees immediately adjacent to the road would be removed by any roadway widening or alignment improvement and would also be more greatly impacted by the 40 mph than the 35 mph design. The black willows are advanced in age and no secondary or replacement growth is apparent. If the canopy effect is to be maintained, replacement growth should be started that would conform to whatever alignment is selected. Because of the existing limited size of the picnic area, the Forest 1 �Service would like to discourage its use. Curve No. 7 immediately upstream from China Row was marked for both 35 and 40 mph designs and a 1-1/2:1 cut slope. There was a difference of opinion regarding the relative significance of the visual impact between the 35 and 40 mph designs. Stop No.4 was at Logan Cave, M.P. 386.3 or curve No. 22. Any flattening of the curve to achieve 35 or 40 mph design speed would result in encroachment into the river. The existing channel is already confined with haphazard unattractive riprap protecting the roadway. Several options for flattening the curve was discussed including the following: 1. Place the roadway on a bridge-type structure that would cantilever out over the river. The structure would extend out to about the center of the channel and would apply only to the 35 mph design. The roadway profile would have to be considerably higher than the existing roadway to provide hydraulic clearance beneath the cantilevers that would support the structure girders.· Clark Ostergaard showed an artists rendering of what the cantilever structure would look like. 2. Move the channel of the river by cutting into the bank opposite the roadway. This would require a channel change up to 500 feet in length for the 35 mph design speed and up to 600 feet for the 40 mph ·design speed. A retaining wall along the roadway would be included£or both design speeds. 3. Retain the existing river channel and construct a bridge over the river for the roadway. This would require a structure up to 400 feet long for the 35 mph design speed and 550 feet long for the 40 mph design speed. The bridge would extend out to the center of the existing channel for the 35 mph design. For the 40 mph design the bridge would essentially cover the channel ~or about 300 feet. In both cases the roadway profile would be at least 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile to provide for hydraulic clearance under the structure. 4. Switch the locations of the river and the roadway by constructing bridges at each end of the roadway curve. Due to the skew angle at which the roadway would cross the river, each of the bridges would be up to 200 feet in length. The bridges could be shortened by reducing the crossing skew angle by making some fairly sharp bends in the river at the structures. 2 �The advantages and disadvantages of each of the four options was discussed, but no clear consensus was reached. It was agreed that additional studies should be done in this area to better define the options described above. The Forest Service would like to discourage parking immediately adjacent to the cave and provide parking near Cottonwood Creek. Stop No.5 was - at Cottonwood Creek and curve No. 24 at M.P. 386.45. The narrow structure should be replaced. At curve No. 24, the relative impacts of both the 35 and 40 mph designs were discussed. Both would result in considerable excavation into the hillside with the difference being in the amount of cut. An additional option identified in the field was to cut through the ridge that separates the Logan River and Cottonwood Creek drainages which would probably involve no more earthwork than the other options. It was agreed that it should be evaluated. Stop No.6 was at M.P. 387.1 at curve No. 29. Both the 35 and 40 mph alignments were staked. The Hillside at this location is less vegetated and has no unusual or distinguishing features. Little difference is evident between the 30 and 40 mph designs. The field inspection showed that it would be des~rable to have the 40 mph design align with the tangent to the west to eliminate the reverse curve. Stop No. 7 wa~ at M.P. 387.6 just below the lower twin bridge. It was concluded that the existing alignment should be followed to eliminate the need for additional fill, and if possible to flatten the existing man-made rock fill slope so that it could be revegetated. Stop No.8 was at M.P. 387.9 just above the lower twin bridge in the dugway. Replacement of -the lower twin bridge was discussed and consensus was reached that the best option is to replace the bridge with a structure on new alignment upstream of the existing bridge. This would require a new cut through the hill next to the existing cut, which could be filled and shaped to a naturally appearing contour with material from the new cut. At the other abutment it would be desirable to flatten the fill slop- s, which would result in e encroachment into the flats at the base of the fill. In the dugway itself, the development of a climbing land was discussed which would require either a retaining wall on the downhill side or cutting further into the hillside. Clark Ostergaard showed an artists rendering of how a retaining wall would appear. Cutting into the hillside in the lower portion of the dugway does not appear feasible because the slope is less stable than the upper portion of the dugway where the existing rock cuts appear stable. The most feasible solution may be a combination of widening the rock cut 3 -I �in the upper portion of the dugway and constructing a retaining wall in the lower portion of the dugway. Stop No. 9 was at M.P. 388.4 at the upper twin bridge. The most feasible location for replacement of the upper twin bridge would be down stream and as close to the existing bridge as possible to avoid the riparian areas of the river. The new bridge location would result in less shading of the structure which should alleviate some of the icing problems experienced by the existing structure. Stop No. 10 was at M.P. 389.9 at Ricks Spring. There appeared to be consensus in shifting the alignment of the road as close to the river as possible to permit parking to be consolidated on the same side of the road as the spring. Stop No. 11 was at M.P. 393.8 at Tony Grove Creek. The existing narrow structure would need to be replaced. The roadway in this section could be widened to provide for a continuous climbing lane with essentially all of the widening being done on the roadside away from .the river. Stop No. 12 was at the M.P. 396.9 at the lower Beaver Creek bridge near the Franklin Basin Road intersection. The existing narrow structure would need · to be replaced on the existing alignment. The Franklin Road intersection would also be improved. Stop No. 13 was at M.P. 397.7 along Beaver Creek. DUe to the relatively narrow area between Beaver Creek and the hillside, it appeared to be difficult to develop a continuous climbing lane along Beaver Creek from just above the Franklin Road intersection to just below the Beaver Mountain Road intersection. Also the modified typical section should be considered for this 2.5 mile section. Stop No. 14 was at M.P. 405.1 or Curve No. 85. Both the 35 · and 40 mph designs would result in considerable new fill. The existing fill would need to be removed and used to restore the cuts on either side of the fill to a more natural contour. Stop No. 15 was at the Bear Lake Overlook at M.P. 405.8. The location of Alternative G-3 was pointed out, particularly the area where the deep cut through the ridge below the lookout would be located. Stop No. 16 was back down the canyon at the Burnt Bridge at M.P. 385.7. The options for replacement of this bridge were discussed with the consensus being that the bridge should be replaced at the present location with a temporary bridge located downstream to carry traffic during construction. 4 �Stop No. 17 was at M.P. 384.8 in the area just abbve Wood Camp campground where the McGuire Primrose is located. The plant was not yet readily apparent but the known locations were pointed out which extend westerly down the rock outcrop to within about 40 feet of the existing road. Any proposed road improvements should avoid this area. The potential location for a slow vehicle turnout at 389.9 should be far enough upstream to not adversely affect this area. SLC99/d.1902 5 �LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * N0 I S E * * * Prepared By John D.A. Neil, P.E. UDOT April 1987 �LOGAN CANYON TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * NOISE * * * Introduction Acoustical Environment. Logan Canyon's acoustical environment has three parts - natural, human and mechanical. sounds come from birds and other (usually small) denizens of the rushing water, wind, and rustling leaves o~ trees. Human sounds canyon include .conversation, laughter and play, to name a few. (sound) Natural forest, in the These first two parts of the acoustical environment together can be called background' noise, background sounds, or just simply the background. Whether or not the background is "noise" (unwanted sound) is according to one's own likes and dislikes. Intruding into this background is a third part of the acoustical environment, namely noise from machinery. Included in this category for Logan Canyon are such things as highway vehicles , off-road recreational vehicles, , overhead aircraft (usually high altitude and not a very signi ficant part' of the soundscape), temporary construction acti vi ties and small power generators. Sources of intruding noise studied in this report are restricted to those sources under some ' jurisdiction of the Utah . Department of Transportation - namely, highway traffic and highway construction. Animals. It is common to assume for environmental reports that animals are not harmed, stressed, or annoyed any more than are humans by highway traffic noise and construction noise related to highway improvements. This same assumption is made here. Related to the above assumption is another - that animals are · as adaptable to intruding ' noise as are humans. To date, no experience of this author suggests the contrary. Scope of Study. No generally accepted research findings seem to be available that contradict the two assumptions just made. Consequently, the major task of this report is simplified to accomplish the following: to understand and mInImIze noise impacts of highway improvement alternatives affecting people using Logan Canyon. Methodology This noise study is consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procedures and standards contained in its Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7-7-3), 1982 revision. �, I Traffic noise calculations and predictions are based - upon FHWA's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Nomographs. Noise levels used in this report are in terms of "Leq," representing "equivalent" (average) noise levels. Leq is a commonly used indicator of general human sensitivity to traffic noise. Spr. p (~h interference is particular ly vulnerable to noise, and speech relates well to the Leq parameter. Land Use and Sensitivity to Noise Classification. The FHWA has classified human sensitivity to traffic noise into the following broad outdoor land use or activity categories, and has set a corresponding upper noise limit (or standard) for each category. These upper limits are used as criteria to determine when measures need to be considered to reduce noise. Table 1: Activity Category FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Leq Criteria Sensitivty Examples of Activities A High 57 Outdoor theater B tvloderate 67 Residences, libraries, parks, picnic and recreation areas C Low 72 Shopping mall, Service Station o None Undeveloped land .In the following table is a general catalog of land uses adjacent to US-89 through Logan Canyon. Land uses, quantities and percentages shown are estimates only; they are not intended to show an exact description of current usage, since change is expected as development continues in the canyon. Also shown in the table are corresponding FHWA activity categories and noise level criteria. 2 �Table 2: Section 1: Logan Canyon Land Use & Sensitivity to Noise Right Hand Fork to Twin Creek (Est.) (MP~ 383 . 5 to 391.6) % (est.) of FHWA Activity Leq Criteria AdJacent Land 97.1 Categor~ 2 1.3 B 67 Designated picnic areas 2 1.2 B 67 Scenic turnouts, parking 2 0.4 C 72 Land Use Undeveloped U.S. forest land Quantit~ Designated campgrounds D 100% Section 2: Twin Creek to Summit (MP~ 391.6 to 404.8) 96.6 Undeveloped u.s. forest land D Designated campgrounds 2 1.4 B 67 Cabins (seasonal homes) 13 1.2 B 67 4 0.8 B 67 Homes 100% Section 3: Summit to Garden City (MP+ 404.8 to 411.8) Undeveloped -private/ local land 59.0 D Undeveloped u.S. forest land 33.9 D Designated campgrounds I 2.0 B 67 Designated picnic areas 1 1.4 B 67 3 �,/ • I Section 3 Continued Cabins (seasonal homes) 10 1.4 8 67 Commercial 3 1.1 C 72 Cemetery 1 0.5 8 67 Scenic turnouts, rest area, parking 2 0.4 C 72 Homes, contiguous ranch land 4 0.3 8 67 100% Sensti ve Oevelopments. Acti vi ty category "8" developments are the land uses most likely to be sensitive to noise in Logan Canyon. Therefore, the remainder of this report only discusses " these "8'~ activities. Table 3 identi fies many speci fic developments near enough to the highway to be noise sensitive. It is possible that more sites have been developed than are included on the list, and it is very likely that more si tes will yet be developed. The noise criteria already discussed and the noise p~edyctions found later in this report may be generally applied. Consequently, it is hoped that architects and users of new developments utilize the results of this report to aid them in the design of new homes and recreation facilities in Logan Canyon. Sites likely to be impacted. From Table 3, only two sites are likely to have some detrimental noise impact, resulting from changes in highway alignment. "These are both in Section 1: * * China Row Campground Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area Before studying these special sites, traffic noise in general will be analyzed. Traffic Noise in Logan Canyon Generally Affect of Level of Service and Volume. The combination of traffic volume and speed that give the most noise for Logan Canyon is not likely to occur during "the peak traffic hour, when the road is utilized to near capacity (or "Level 0 f Service E"). Instead, the worst noise situation usually occurs during periods of "Level of Service C" (LOS-C), which implies a situation of substantial traffic volume without severe restriction of speed and maneuverability. 4 " �~\ Table 3: Section M.P. Developments Likely to be Sensitive to Traffic Noise, and/or Construction Noise L/R Vicinit:i Oescri~tion Dist.+ to Exist.-Hw:i CL Dist.+ to Altern-:- CL's Impact by Change in Alignment Disbenefit No change Benefit Uncertain 1 384.4 384.6 386.7 387.8 R L R L China Row Wood Camp Cottonwood Canyon Lower Twin, Bridge Pic"nic Area (1 site) Campground (10 sites) 2 cabins , Picnic Area (6 sites) 70 90 110 160 60 90 115-200 135 2 393.2 393. 8 394.8 396.1 396.6 396.9 401.0 402.4 R L L R R L R L USU Forestry Station Tony Grove Red Banks Rigby Hollow Brash Canyon Franklin Basin Amazon Hollow ';Jillow Spring Cabins (seasonal) Home (guard station) Campground (16 units) Cabin 3 cabins Cabin 2 cabins UOOT tvlaint. c,amp 750 470 160 210 120 1,450 170 600 750 475 160 210 120 1,450 170 600 3 405.1 405.8 408.0 408.2 408.3 408.4 409.1 409.1 410.5 411.1 411.1 411.7 411.7 R R R L 700 430 500 130-800 250 170 350 520 420 230 200 100 170 900 630 600 125-800 250-310 170 350-900 520-1,000 420 230 200 100 170 Ul R L L L R L R R R Summit ' Summit Bridgerland Village Bridger land Village Bridger land Village Bridgerland Village Bridgerland Village Bridgerland Village S. of Garden City Garden City Canyon S. of Garden City Garden City Gard'en City Sunrise Campground Sunrise Picnic area Cabin 5 cabins Cabin Cabin Cabin Cabin Ranch home Ranch home Cemetery Home Home No No No No No No No No change change change change change change change change Benefit Benefit Benefit No change Benefit No change Benefit Benefit No change No change No change No change No change i 1 ! I 1 ! ! I �Intui ti vely, this assertion seems reasonable when one recalls these two facts (assuming a road of fixed capacity): (1) that traffic volumes exceeding LOS-C cause congestion with a corresponding decrease in average vehicle speed; and (2) that noise is related to both volume and speed. It follows that a gain in noise from more vehicles is compensated by a noise loss from speed reduction. Thus, the maximum volume at LOS-C (also called the maximum service flow C· or MSF -C) typically gives the worst noise scenario. If improvements are made to increase the capacity of the road, then the MSF-C and corresponding maximum noise level also increase. However, it would take a doubling of volume to increase noise only 3 decibels (a barely noticeable increase). MSF-C values for the three sections in Logan Canyon have been documented in CH2M Hill's _U_S_-8~9~,__L_o~g~a_n~_C_a_n~y~o_n__~S_t_u_d~y_:~__ T_e_ch_n_l_·c_a l __ Memorandum (Draft, December 1986), pp. 6-12 and 6-17. They are as follows: Table 4: Maximum Service Flow C (vph) Section 1 Existing conditions Maximum improvements* Section 2 Section 3 386 · 532 Roadway Geometrics 306 412 267 412 *(Include: 4' shoulders, 12' lane width, increased passing.) Affect of Vehicle Type. The summer average weekday traffic composi tion includes approximately 84% passenger cats and light trucks (IT), according to the CH2M Hill study previously cited, p. 5-15. This is the least noisy class of vehicles (on a per vehicle basis). Recreational vehicles (RV) and medium trucks (MT) are similar enough acoustically to be combined; these represent 13% of the traffic mix. The noise emission level of an average MT is about 11 decibels higher than the average car. The remaining 3% of the vehicles are heavy trucks (HT); they are the noisiest class because they are typically diesel powered. In the proportions indicated, the MT class as a whole contributes slightly more noise than ei ther the HT · or automobile class. This fact may have significance in the discussion of noise abatement. Table 5 uses the traffic composition just described to portion the MSF-C traffic volumes from Table 4 into flow rates per vehicle type. 6 �,--_..- _ .. . Table 5: Traffic Mi~ for Maximum Service Flow C (vph) Section 1 Existing Conditions Maximum Improvements Cars & LT MT & RV HT 324 50 12 447 69 16 257 40 9 346 54 12 224 35 8 346 54 12 Section 2 Cars & LT MT & RV HT Section 3 Cars & LT MT & RV HT (LT = Light Trucks, MT Recreational Vehicles.) = Medium Trucks, HT = Heavy trucks, RV = Affect of Speed. Noise is related to vehicle speed; and average vehicle speed is related to highway design (affecting level of service), vehicle type, and gradient. Table 6 (on the following page) gives the estimated average speeds for these three parameters. Although the effects of speed on traffic noise are somewhat different for various vehicle types, approximate general effects may be condensed into the following rule of thumb for Logan Canyon: for each 5 mph increment of average speed increase, the overall average noise level will increase about 2 decibels. Affect of Gradient. Climbing a' grade takes extra power, and a byproduct of power is noise. Published research findings have shown that at normal highway speeds, only heavy trucks have a signi ficantly higher noise level on grades. F:HWA' s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-l08) suggests the following HT adjustments for uphill grades: Add dB 0 +2 +3 +5 Grade 0-2% 3-4% 5-6% 7+% The FHWA makes no adjustment for downgrade direction. However, heavy trucks frequently use engine brakes, particularly on the steep grades in 7 �Logan Canyon. Engine brake noise can vary considerably because of variations in engine and muffler design, load, speed, and driver. Consequently, the noise emission level for downhill trucks is not as predictable as is noise for uphill trucks. For simplicity in this report, it is assumed that heavy trucks in both directions emit noise that increase with gradient, according to the FHWA values given above. Table 6: Estimated Bidirectional Average Upgrade Speed for MSF-C Section 1 Cars/LT Generally 2% average grade 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements 40 mph design option 45 mph design option 50 mph design option Twin Bridges locality, 5.5% average grade 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements 40 mph design, option, climbing lane 45 mph design option, climbing lane 50 mph design option, climbing lane MT/RV HT 39 39 39 39 39 39 41 43 45 41 43 45 41 43 45 30 30 35 35 37 30 30 30 31 32 39 41 43 45 39 Section 2 Generally 2% average grade 55 mph existing design 60 mph design option Beaver MP-404 50 55 60 49 Mtn. Road to UDOT Maint. Camp and to Summit, 4-7% grade mph existing design mph design option mph design option 49 49 51 51 51 32 47 32 40 42 32 34 35 30 35 35 37 30 30 30 31 32 49 Section 3 Generally steep (to 7% grade) 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements, ample passing 40 mph design option 45 mph design option 50 mph design option 30 39 41 43 45 39 Affect of Road Widening. Adding shoulders or widening traffic lanes symmetrically in both directions from the centerline of the Logan Canyon highway will not significantly change the noise level heard by a receiver who is farther than 25 feet from the centerline. 8 �However, adding a passing lane to one side of the roadway will shift the noise in the direction of the passing lane. For receivers at a distance of 50 feet or less from the highway centerline, a passing lane (nearest the receiver) can add nearly 1 decibel to the overall Leq. This noise effect · rapidly diminishes at increasing distances from the highway. At 100 feet there is essentially no noise increase. According to Table 3, only one site is close enough to be affected by noise from a passing lane - China Row Campground. However, no passing lane is proposed for the vicinity of China Row; therefore road widening has no significant effect on noise for this project. Noise Level Predictions. Traffic noise is related to the distance that a receiver is from the highway, as shown by the following chart. Affects of Level of Service, vehicle type, speed and gradient (previously discussed) are included in the approximate generalizations on the chart. Sound decays at a predictably uniform rate with increasing distance. For Logan Canyon vicinity the rate is estimated to be about 4.5 dB loss for each doubling of distance. Unimproved road sections one and three are described best by Line C on the chart. Line C intersects the 67 dbA standard at a distance of 40 feet from the centerline. Any human activities farther than 40 feet will likely not exceed the standard if the ·adjacent road section does not exceed a 35 mph design. Although Section Two (unimproved) is a high speed design, other factors in general reduce the noise to that of Line B. Any improvements to Section Two will likely increase noise to Line A. Line A receivers need to be at least 75 feet away from the centerline in order to minimize speech interference. General Noise Impacts There are three criteria that determine the severity of noise impact: absolute level, relative increase, and fluctuation. All three are interrelated. Absolute Level. Interference with speech is the basis for the standard or criterion level of 67 dBA. This criterion affects many human · activities in the canyon. China Row campground is near enough to the highway to be impacted· by highway noise, especially if some highway improvement alternatives bring traffic somewhat closer to the campground. All other developments seem to be at sufficient distance (greater than 75 feet) to not be seriously impacted by the average traffic noise level. 9 �_10.!....:! • ...!.~~~..j, . ..! ....) ....... "J ..... _o....L." .. _ '"""-_ ... .. ·_ ............. ~_ v_ . . . ... ~ -..J .......... ' - ' ..... ~ . . .. . . ....... ~ ••••# . __ • • - - . - •• - - - - . _ _ - - , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _•_ _ _- . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~---- - - .._-_ ~ ~ II",,,.,,,. I,'·· ...... '.~ 'IF ··11·' II ( " 'h / ...) .",.il iI ·I. Line A Line B Lin e C 50 40 35 to I :t.~. ~. to 60 mp h d e sign a lternatives. mph des i gn alter na t i ves. mph d e sign a lternatives or posted speed restricted 40 mph or le ss. ~ ,.Q ro tJ1 60 Q) H rl Q) :> Q) H Q) 50 til -.-; 0 z 40 100 Distance to Highway 10 1,000 CenterliI ~ e (ft) �Relative Increase in Noise. Long term residents would be more likely to notice a traffic noise increase resulting from a highway improvement than would seasonal residents, campers and other recreation oriented users of Logan Canyon. However, any change in traffic noise level in the vicinity of permanently occupied homes is not likely to be noticed by the residents. Many cabin .dwellers at Bridger land Village (Section 3) may notice a drop in traffic noise, if the alignment is shifted from its present location. Generally, cabin dwellers will benefit acoustically from either of the two most feasible alternative alignments (F-3 to the north of the village, or G-3 to the south). Fluctuation. Although the level of noise is higher in daytime than nighttime because of higher daytime use and daytime traffic in the canyon, heavy truck noise is more noticeable at night. This phenomenon is in part because there are less cars to partially mask the peak noise levels of the trucks. Consequently, the difference between highest noise peaks and background level are much more in contrast and therefore, noticeable at night. This type of noise impact will generally affect residents and campers more than day-use recreationalists. So the people to benefit most are the ones who ' can be farthest from the traffic. Again, Bridgerland Village is a beneficiary of a change in highway alignment. Special Problem Sites China Row Campground. A shift in alignment of about 10. feet closer to the campground is one option being considered for highway improvement. From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen that shortening the distanc~ to the highway centerline fro~ 70 feet to 60 feet will increase the noise level about 1 decibel to 64.5 dbA on Line C~ ·If highway improvements also ' cause the noise to raise from Line C to Line B (40 mph design), then the Leq will increase 2 additional decibels to approximately 66.5 dBA. Any highway improvements to a higher design speed than 40 mph (Line A) would have to consider noise abatement at this camp site. Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area. A shift in alignment of approximately 25 or 30 feet closer to the picnic area is being considered as part of a new bridge and roadway alignment. From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen that shortening the distance to the highway center line from 160 feet to 130 feet will normally (at grade) increase the noise level nearly 1.5 decibels from 58 to about 59.5 decibels on Line C. However, the picnic area is at least 30 feet below the grade line of the highway. Thus, the picnic area is in an · acoustical shadow zone, causing an approximate 7.5 db reduction of the Leq on the existing alignment to about 50.5 dBA. 11 �Neglecting any vertical change in alignment, the horizontal shi ft will cause more of an acoustic shadow. The result would be a Leq of 59.5 . - 9 (shadow) dB = 50.5 dBA approximately, which is the same Leq as for the existing alignment. Thus, the Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area will not be seriously impacted by tra ffic noise from any of the proposed improvements. Even with a change to Line A (worst noise situation), the predicted Leq will not exceed 63 dBA, which is below the 67 dBA standard. In summary of noise impacts, . only China Row Campground may need to consider noise abatement, and this will be only in the case of greater than 40 mph design. Noise Abatement Noise abatement will not need to be planned into the project design for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area (one table) will need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over 40 mph. The feasibility of physical noise . protection (wall or berm) at China Row is poor. A noise wall or berm would crowd the already very small picnic site, and would be likely out of character with the surrounding trees. The most effective noise control is speed control at this location. Therefore, it is recommended that the d~sign speed not exceed 40 mph at this location. Construction Noise Construction is likely to occur on a piecemeal si te-speci fic basis, beginning with bridge replacements and detour roads. Perhaps as early as summer of 1988 if funds are available, a specific site improvement could get underway. Acoustically, there is an advantage of this pattern of construction. People can still use the canyon in general for its diversified recreation and avoid noise from specific sites under construction. Construction · noise will probably be quite localized for two reasons. Sloped terrain and canyon walls will reflect the sound vertically and away from sensitive activities. · A few sites do have vertical cuts through rock which tend to channel sound horizontally; however, these sites are only found occasionally in the canyon, and fairly restricted to Section One. The second reason why construction noise will probably be very localized is that there is an adequate amount of shielding from vegetation and natural topographic features to impede sound transmission. 12 �Equipment used for construction will be very diversified to meet the needs of the various types of construction acti vi ties and in various types of terrain~ Explosives and rock drills are expected to be used in various places. Standard precautions will be implemented to protect people from shock _waves and noise. All construction activities are subject to UDOT amended standard speci fication Iil07. 25' "Noise and Vibration Control." Summary Noise Abatement will not need to be planned into the project design for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area will need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over 40 mph. Because of the impracticality of physical noise barriers at China Row, it is recommended that the design speed not exceed 40 mph at this location. No serious noise problem is expected from construction activities. 13 �TYPICAL SOURCES Gunfire (to mark8man) NOISE LEVEL (dBA) HU~IAN RESPONSE CONVERSATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS at 3 feet 140 Painfully loud Noise loudness or intensity is measured in units called decibels, abbreviated dB or db. It is logarithmically based, so 10 decibels increase in sound intensity level means 10 times the acoustic energy from the source(s). I-bwever, human ears perceive the increase 0 f 10 db as a doubling of loudness. The db scale covers the range of human hearing from 0 (the bottom limit of hearing ability for an average person with good hearing) to 130 (when sound energy causes pain to the ears). The following table relates noise levels associated with typical noise sources. Typical human response and conversational problems are also given. Just as the human eye sees the color yellow best because it is in the center of the visible spectrum, so the human ear hears sounds better that are in the center of the human audio range of musical notes or pitches. Consequently" a weighting scale has been devised, and is internationally used in many sound measurements that tries to take this unequal human pitch perception into account. It is called the "A-weighted decibel scale" abbreviated "dbA," "dBA" or sometimes "dB(A)." 130 120 , Di8cotbeque Auto Horn (3') Hearin/Z Damage (leu than IS min/day exposure) 110 100 Hearing Damage (l-hr/day exposure) 90 Rearing Damage (S-brs/day exposure) SO Food Blender Annoying Sbouting Heavy Truck (50') Very Loud Car 40 mph (20') 70 Telepbone Use Difficult Railt'd Voice Normal Voice Office 60 Low Voice Ligbt Auto Traffic (100') 50 Quiet Whisper 40 All sound measurements and predictions in this report use the standardized dBA. Very Soft Wbisper Library 30 Broadc8Stin/! Studio Very Quiet 20 10 0 Just Audible Thre~hold of Hearing �APPENDIX TO LOGAN CANYON NOISE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * * * * SPEED ANALYSIS This Appendix is to determine approximate vehicle speeds throughout thp canyon for various scenarios. The results are for use in Table 6 (on page 8) of the ·oise Technical Memorandum. Advisory speed signs for specific curves are ignored for thee noise analysis. Average speed for sections of roarlway under LeveJ of Service C maximum flow is the target of thjs Appendix. highl-lay can he Each of the three main sections of a nontypical subclassified into a typical gradient type and gradient type as follows: a. h . Section 1: Mountainous terrain Generally 2% average grade. T\,J i 11 B rid g e s ] 0 C 8.1 i t .Y 5. 5 % (a. p pro x . ) a v e rag e g r ad P. 1 • Sectio~: Nostly roll ing terra in some mounta inous Generally 2% average grade. Beaver Mtn. Road to UDOT Maintenance Camp, and MP-404 to summit· 1 4 -7% grade (4.5% average) 1 a. h. a. b. Section 3-: Mountainous terrain Generally steep, to 7% (5.5% avg.). Base of mountain to Garden City, 2% average grade, restricted speed. This is a relatively short section and can be jgnored. Existing Conditions Since passing lanes are not provided anywhere in Logan Canyon above Right Hand Fork, it follows that cars must fall into gueues behind heavy trucks and slow recreational vehiclesa (RV's) on uphill gradients. Since heavy trucks (HT) are the slowest class of vehicles on uphill grades, HT speed also is the limiting factor for all other vehicles on uphill grades. The AASHTO Green Book" (A Po 1 icv.~~1.~Geo~.~ r ic___~ s ig_ of. n Highways and St.reets, 1984, p. 255) sho\.;rs that. H1' on long grades steeper than 2% will travel about 20 mph. 1/ For downhill and on grades less than 2%, it is assumed that all vehicles can go the speed consistent with level of service C, as det.ermpned by TAble 8-] and footnot.e b of the Hi d"hwav~aci ty f"] a !!.y a 1 ~ T R B S .~ cia l_y e J2 0 r t , #: 2 0 9, p . 8 - 5 : �Cars/LT Section 1 3f> mph de9, j gn MT/RV 50 mph design opt>ion 8 . 39 41 43 45 41 43 45 3f> mph design 39 35 41 35 ~~ 7 39 improvements 40 mph design option 45 mph desjgn opt, j on b. improvement,s 40 mph design opt. ion 45 mph design opt. i on 50 mph design option Se c tion 43 45 39 HT 39 41 4 :i .:If> 30 30 31 32 OJ L., a. 60 mph design option . b. 55 mph design option 60 mph design opt. ion 51 51 49 40 42 34 35 39 41 43 45 35 35 37 39 47 Sect/ - -- -- - - - - ion :3 35 40 45 50 mph design opt. ion mph def i gn option s mph design option mph design option 30 30 31 32 Conclusion and Summary For acousticaJ evaluation, speed nf vehicle classes have been calculated at JJoS-C condi~jons for various riesign options . These speeds are compiled int.o Table 6 (p. 8) of the Technical Memorandum for Noise. �Design Speed Level nO 55 52 50 50 4:1 48 46 40 35 44 40* 30 35* Rolling Mountainous 51 -1-9 49 ,~ 'I 47 45 43 43 40 35* :39 45 -ll :35* * Hi"I C 's Average speed has been c hanged from directions given 1n t.han footnote b i n order to not exceed the design speed by more 5 mph. Average speed of both directions of traffic for each section or subsectjon of roadway is sufficiently accurate to estimate noise levels. Co nsequently, the didirectional average speeds for pxisting conditions are calculated to be as follows: Sect jon 1 a b 39 30 Section 2 a 49 b 32 Sect jon 3 all 30 It is assumed for the noise study that all design jmprovemen t options will include at least som e li mited passing opportunities in all sections of the c anyon . Co nsequently, heavy trucks no long e r "'Tould Ijmit the speerJ of fast.er vehicles totally . The AASHTO Green Book, p. 258 shows that for long steep RV's (and medium trucks as s umed) cannot maintain a speed greater than 40 mph. grades~ In t he following table, as done for existing co nditions, a hidirec tjo na] average speed is estimatpd for the given de s ign speeds . Medium trucks and recreational vehicles are assumeed to have speeds betwee n those o f cars an d heavy trucks . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/84">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/84</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2337523283 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 14625351 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, April 29, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the review of traffic forecasts, scoping comments, dates for meetings, technical memorandum on noise and speed analysis. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Neil, John D.A. Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Environmental Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-20 1987-04-29 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_010.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/6c0494b3102cbdb8ac9feef5c11a1070.mp3 1eda16ac17d7fc51187ea7bd5dee80b6 https://highway89.org/files/original/790e78acba7c8721b35f2fb27b213c3a.pdf 06eda37c1313d5ef77ccc9238375a4d7 PDF Text Text LAND USE MANAGEMENT TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: John Neuhold Place of Interview: John’s home in Logan UT Date of Interview: April 11, 2008 Interviewer: Lyra Hilliard Recordist: Lyra Hilliard Recording Equipment: Marantz PMD660 Digital Recorder Transcription Equipment used: Express Scribe Transcription Software Transcribed by: Glenda Nesbit Transcript Proofed by: Elaine Thatcher, Randy Williams (2011) and John Neuhold (July 2011) Brief Description of Contents: personal background, but mostly his professional life and education, his mentors, his work in Wisconsin, but mostly in Utah, including project with the Deseret Livestock Company (intensive grazing), working with fisheries, dealing with impact of various activities on rivers, including the construction on US Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, development of departments in Natural Resources at USU and politics of natural resource management and the legislature. The interview also references to the Mossbacks group of retired natural scientists. Work creating and work as first director of USU Ecology Center and participation in the Utah Democratic Party. Reference: JN = John Neuhold LH = Lyra Hilliard (USU graduate student) NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as “uh” and starts and stops in conversations are not included in transcript. All additions to transcript are noted with brackets. Tracks 1-3 are preliminary to the interview, sound testing, etc., and not transcribed. TAPE TRANSCRIPTION LH: This is Lyra Hilliard with the Logan Canyon Use and Management Oral History Project. And we are here with… JN: My full name is Matthias Johann Werchnig Neuhold –it is different—A KA John M. Neuhold. I was born at an address on Cherry Street in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on May 18, 1928, my mother’s birthday. Both my mother and father were Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  1   �immigrants from Austria and they came to this country right after World War I. And shortly after that I was born. My earliest memory of Logan Canyon is when I came out here and I left the University of Wisconsin to come out here to attend the, then, the School of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management. I drove down Logan Canyon with two friends, Ed Harvey and Gene Holenstein. Ed was from Milwaukee and Gene was from Rice Lake, Wisconsin. And it was on June 11th we came down from Milwaukee with our jaws agape because we were just absolutely fascinated by the scenery. We had come across the United States on US 30, Highway 30, the Lincoln Highway, and deviated from it to 30 North and crossed into Utah. What was then basically a dirt road came down Low Canyon. Saw Bear Lake again, we were astounded and then climbed the mountain and came down Logan Canyon and found lodging on 4th North. And in the morning when we got up there was four inches of snow on the highway on June 12th. My family’s land use traditions really started with my grandfathers, both by grandfathers, who were game keepers in Austria. And my maternal grandfather had a farm in a valley called the Valley of the Gailtal, Austria, and worked for one of the estates. At that time it was still a royal estate. And he was a game keeper for the royal estate. My other grandfather was killed in a mountain climbing accident when he was serving as a game keeper; he was killed on Mt. Dobratz in southern Austria, which is right on the Italian border actually. The land use traditions actually continued although. My father got work as a construction worker in the Milwaukee area. He loved to hunt and fish and the family always was out on weekends or when he had vacations. Why, we took off into northern Wisconsin and out there. And of course as I grew older I was farmed out and began to work as a farm hand in southeastern Wisconsin on several different farms. I came out here as a student from the University of Wisconsin in the area of, I thought initially, as forestry. And then began to deviate from that into the wildlife area and gained my degrees in Wildlife Management, Fishery Management and then finally Aquatic Toxicology. My Ph.D. was in Aquatic Toxicology. My hobbies and recreational pursuits followed my father’s lead and that was basically hunting and fishing, expanding into such things as skiing, outdoor hiking and basically just taking advantage of the outdoors. I’m an outdoor person. Let’s see we got through the professional part of it. LH: So that first day that you drove through Logan Canyon, that June 11th, coming here to, as a transfer student, to go to school. JN: Uh hum. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  2   �LH: Were the other two people with you? JN: Yeah. LH: They also were students? JN: Yeah. They were students. Yes. We came out here, at that time the School of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management. We didn’t have a college at that time. This was still called the Utah State Agricultural College. It was still called the Utah State Agricultural College at the time. And that was in 1950. The students that were present, we came out here to attend summer camp which was held up Logan Canyon, where I became introduced to a variety of things. I should point out that before I left University of Wisconsin, my mentor or professor at the University of Wisconsin was one Phillip Whitford who was a student of Curtis’s and whose area was ecology – plant ecology. And I worked for him; I took classes from him of course. But then I also worked for him doing a lot of forest surveying, identifying trees in the winter time. He was laying out basically plots for forest growth, woodlots and farms and that in southeastern Wisconsin. And my job was there was basically to go out and identify trees and plot areas and measure the sizes of the trees and so on. And we were doing that winter and summer. So I became very adept at identifying the vegetation in southern Wisconsin. But I came out here in the summer camp. We of course were introduced to the plants out in this area. Most of which I knew so that was not much of a problem. And that was really a very interesting time for me. Then when I was out here after summer camp, Dr. Ted Daniels and Ray Moore hired me, along with Sam Jackson and Sterling Rickman, to do some plot layout work for them on the school forest. And again their concerns up there was looking at forest growth and the way we did that was basically to lay out the plots along a line that we used with a chain, that we measured with a chain. And then identified the trees at the end of, I think it was a hundred meter chain. Yeah, it was a hundred meters. We identified the trees in that particular area. Measured them, took their DBHs. That is diameter-breast height-and estimated the height of the trees and the species of the trees in the area. That was my introduction to the forest part of the area. And then I got into the wildlife management. That’s where I did my Bachelor’s degree was a matter of two more years of training in that area. And then my Master’s degree was in fishery management. And then I went to work for the State of Utah Fish and Game Department at that time. And I had, I was hired by the Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator: Jay Udy in Salt Lake City, along with Bill McConnell who was a fellow student of mine. And we were put to work. We, basically what we did was design and implement the Stream and Lake Survey in the state. And that was really a marvelous experience for me because I went to work with crews. We hired crews. Most of the work was in the summertime when Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  3   �we could hire students to help us work on the statewide lake survey, part of it. But it took us into every corner of the state. And our procedures were basically to do sections of streams and lakes. We used electro fishing to find out what kind of fish were present in the streams and we used nets in the various lakes and reservoirs to identify the lakes. And it was the first time that an inventory was taken of lakes and streams in the state. The most interesting part of that, well there was a lot of interesting parts to it really. One was getting acquainted with the rural part of Utah and the people living in those areas, which was really quite interesting. The area, the people there, of course, were mostly all Mormons and part of the culture, but unlike the . . . let’s say they were not as rigorous down there as they were up here in Cache Valley or in Utah County. It was . . . you could have fun with them. It seemed that the higher in the mountains they got, the less strict they became. It was something that . . . actually it was a comment that was made by Frazier Darley who happened to be a British, English ecologist who made a tour of this country. And when he got to Utah he was hosted by three of the state’s worst reprobates: Lee Kay from the Fish and Game Department, Rasmussen from US Forest Service, and Art Smith from the Utah State faculty. They guided him around the town and he’s the guy that made the comment that he recognized that he understood that the Mormons were strict teetotalers, but it seemed that the higher in the mountains they went the less strict they became, and out came the bottles. I worked with all three of those guys and they were a lot of fun. They were all Mormons but they were backsliders basically. LH: So you were talking mostly down in the southern part of the state? JN: Oh all over the state. LH: All over the state. JN: Yeah, all over the state. We, I was with the Department for a four year period and during which time I had finished my Master’s degree and I led that Stream and Lake Survey for a four year period and then when I left it was taken over by another student of mine who at that time was working for the State of Washington. Albert Regenthall, who happened to be from New Jersey, he took over my position here and then the other fellow that took over was Don Andriano who was also a former student, and a fellow student, who happened to be from Iowa originally. And he became the Chief of Fisheries here in the state where Albert became kind of all, basically in the waterfowl area. After my four years with the Fish and Game Department I came back to the University and did, I did my work on my Ph.D. and finished that up in a two year period, after which the University hired me as an Assistant Professor in 1958. And I’ve been with the University ever since that time. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  4   �A lot of the work that I did with my students was done in on the forest. A good deal of it was done in Logan Canyon on the Logan River. And it, well, it dealt mostly with fishery management questions and aquatic ecology in the river. And since my doctorate was in aquatic toxicology I did a lot of work with basically testing the various species that we had in the area for their susceptibility to the various different kinds of toxins. We did have at that time a lot of fluorides being emitted to the environment by the steel mills down in Utah County and by the phosphate fertilizer plants up in the southern part of Idaho. And a lot of the fluorides would be part of the stack emissions which would settle down on the watersheds and then when we did have a freshet come on through, a rain storm of one sort or another was washed into the rivers and we’d suddenly find a lot of fish kills. And so we tracked those questions down quite a bit. That led on to quite a lot of work. I should maybe continue on. A group of us got together on the campus, all faculty, and began to discuss the things that we had in common relating to the ecology of the area. So we had people from agriculture, and people from the, by this time we were a university so it was the College of Agriculture and the College of Science and College of Natural Resources. All the faculty that were involved in these lunch meetings were ecologists or were working in ecological areas. And from that stemmed the concept that what we needed on the campus was a thrust in ecology. So we made a proposal to the State Legislature and to the National Science Foundation to create an ecology program. Initially it was the Center of Excellence in Ecology. We did have what we considered to be a sizeable group of people that worked in the area, in all aspects of the area, autecology and synecology. And felt that we deserved recognition as a center. Well, the National Science Foundation didn’t consider us quite that good yet. However, they suggested that we apply for a departmental program in ecology, which we did. And we won that. And the same time the state allocated to us a biennial sum of continuing support in, I think it amounted to $200,000 per a biennium: $100,000 a year which was matched then by the National Science Foundation. We created the Ecology Center here. And I was named the first director of it. And as a director of it I got into a wide variety of things. Obviously one of the things that I was mostly concerned with was trying to build expertise that we did lack in the area. So I managed to talk David Goodall, an Australian ecologist who was at that time at Riverside, California, at the University of California at Riverside, to come to this campus and with the monies that we had built the faculty portion of the program. We were successful then in obtaining a big grant from the National Science Foundation in the International Biological Program. And our program here was desert ecology. So we basically built the consortium of universities from California, New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah. We had some 60 different Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  5   �faculty members involved at these institutions. And the program was a multimillion dollar program and that’s, we started off with that. And it was a very successful program. And we made a pretty good name for ourselves in this area. The Ecology Center persists and it’s under, it’s now under the direction of Jim McMahon who is the Director and who is also working to get a program that’s dealing with, basically dealing with mapping and changing ecological structures in the United States, or in North America, really, when you get right down to it. And that’s been going on now since… let’s see the Ecology Center was initially formed in 1956 I think we got our initial appropriation from the state and in 1957 we got the initial appropriation from National Science Foundation. And so on. So we’ve produced a lot of students from this in the ecological area in, mostly in desert ecology, but also in aquatic ecology. A lot of my activities, because of that, became involved with the National Science Foundation; I took a two year appointment with NSF and spent some time as a Program Director for Ecosystem Analysis in Washington. After which I became a consultant to the Department of Energy and their board of consultants as an ecologist. And, I served on the EPA Science Advisory Board for a period of 22 years. Basically in the ecological arena, but I also served on their central committee which basically guided, or I should have said guided by giving advice to the agency concerning ecological involvement in the environment and how their charge basic regulation of environmental aspects infringed upon the ecosystems. So that was basically what I did until I retired. Then when it comes to my activities here on the Cache – Cache National Forest, I think perhaps one of the major things that I was involved in was road construction – highway construction on US Highway 89 going through the canyon. We were very much involved in trying to keep the engineers at bay. They were basically concerned with putting a highway through and not really caring a hell of a lot about what’s happening to the river and this sort of thing. So we went to work on that and the primary worker on that incidentally was Dr. Bill Helm – William Helm. I suggested at one time the lower portion of the highway should have been named after him because he did --- he did a lot of work on it. And actually was threatened by the highway people. They got to the governor and the governor came down and wanted to have him fired. And thank goodness the president that we had at the time refused to accept that and the governor finally backed off. But yeah, we were concerned with basically what was happening to the highway. And the thing that was happening from a policy point of view in the forest was the fact that it had been utilized basically as grazing grounds for cattle and sheep. And as a matter of fact when in the early 50s (you can still see the trails on the side of the mountain) the sheep were being grazed on the face here and they’d also trek the sheep down the canyon. Now they have to, they have to truck them down. But at that time they trekked them down and you can see the trails – trail markers that they made walking on the face. You can still see along the face here that where Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  6   �they would, where the sheep would basically create a trail a little bit, kind of like terracing going up and down. Here you can see some of it back here. That was all private land incidentally. And it hadn’t been fenced at that time yet to keep the elk and deer out of the area. LH: And that was private land? JN: Well, it was private land then but it hadn’t been fenced. So they’d come off the forest and come on the private land and down through this area. That was only in the fall when they’d take them off the mountain, or in the spring when they’d put them up in the mountain. Because they’d start to unload them here and then take them up the mountain. They’d trek them up the mountain instead of trucking. The amount of grazing that’s gone on has really been reduced drastically. Mostly, because the area has been basically converted over to a recreation area. So it’s basically outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, camping, hiking, all sorts of things that would lead to the recreation aspect of the Forest Service’s charge. LH: Do you consider that a loss that it’s not so much grazing anymore? JN: Oh yeah. Grazing has been reduced a lot – a tremendous amount actually. There’s, I think, only about two or three sheepherders on the mountain now and it amounts only to some 10,000 sheep something like that where there used to be up in the hundreds of thousands of sheep. And there’s still cattle grazing going on up there, but it’s a small amount – relatively small amount. And in my opinion it’s still too much. LH: So it’s good that there’s less grazing. JN: It’s good that there’s less grazing, but I think because of the change of emphasis in the people’s use of the area, I think. I feel personally that there’s still too much grazing going on up there. There’s also certain aspects of recreation that there’s a little bit too much of which I disagree with; a lot of motorized access to the area. ATVs, all terrain vehicles, and in the winter time, snowmobiles have taken over a big portion of the area, and the people that use it, that use ATVs for example, a lot of them are pretty responsible. But there’s always a portion of them that want to make the place into a motorized playground so they like to drive up hills and they gouge the hell out of things. You go up the back of Mt. Logan and you can see where they, they just basically devil the hell out of the place. And it’s unfortunate but that does happen. And in the wintertime of course, the snowmobilers do, like they infringe upon the wilderness areas which you shouldn’t be doing. And actually the current ranger in the area, I think, has been a little bit too sympathetic with the motorized folks and not enough with the hikers and the horsemen in the summertime. And in the wintertime the skiers, the snowshoers that I think cause a lot less damage to the area than do the motorized vehicles. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  7   �LH: You were talking about testing, sampling the fish in the area for the toxins from Idaho and from Utah County. And you were talking about we’d get a big rain storm and flushing those toxins into the water, which led into quite a lot of work. Well, before we get there we should back up a little bit and I don’t know if you wanted to talk more about that and what you found and if people didn’t like what you found. JN: Well, one of the things that we did find was that the source of the toxins hit the watersheds and of course rained into the river. But when they were on the watershed they were also exposing grazing animals to the area. So we found a lot of fluoride intoxication, for example, in cattle and in sheep, and also in some of the wild animals: the sheep and elk and so on. And our findings basically caused the Environmental Protection Agency and the state environmental agency to put limits on what could be done in that particular area so that the steel mills had to put up capture devices to keep the fluoride from going out. And the same thing was true up here with the phosphate plants. So that you know, that was successfully taken care of. LH: And when was this? When would this have been? JN: Oh this was back in the 1950s basically. And by the end of the ‘60s, the start of the ‘70s, most of that had been pretty well taken care of. Fluoride intoxication was pretty well put under control. Let’s see what other things did we have? LH: Well, I wonder about attitudes and changes over time. I mean, when I hear “Well we were looking at this in the 50s and by the end of the 60s and the early 70s most of that was under control.” And I think of just nationally, anyway, a shift. Thinking about environmental consequences, and I’m only assuming, of course, that there was this national shift. But I don’t know if it was as pervasive, if it took longer a time in some areas. If people were resistant to the ideas. JN: Oh, there was a lot of resistance to the idea. That’s no question with that. But the federal government, the Congress did pass some very important legislation concerning the quality of the rivers and well, basically the waters of the United States. And I served on the, as Chairman of the Ecological Committee for the review of the legislation that came out in this area. The, I forget now the name of the act. But it had to do with the quality of waters that came out. And then, and some of the things that this act did was basically gave the charge to the Environmental Protection Agency, the charge to regulate the quality of the waters in the . . . For example, the Ohio River back in the 50s and 60s was basically an open sewer, and somebody estimated that the water that was taken out of the river for drinking purposes at Cincinnati had passed through someone’s bladder about 4 or 5 times. So there you go. The quality of the fish in the river was really something. You know, it was basically introduced carp in a river that at one time Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  8   �held some very important types of game fishes. And when the Act was finally enforced those game fishes came back. So you got up there to Pittsburgh, that was basically an open sewer and you can find black bass and muskellunge and things like that occurring now in the river. But they had been completely eliminated from the area before. So a lot of that work was really fairly important. And it was a substantial change in the way people looked upon their own waters. You know. The Environmental Protection Agency has done an awful lot in that particular area at that time. Until the Bush administration came on and then things went to hell again. Well, I shouldn’t say went to hell-- they became so damn lenient in allowing continued air pollution, for example, that caused a lot of the lakes in the US northeast in the New England states and New York to acidify. A lot of the waters in the lakes up there acidified to the point where it killed off a lot of the plants and animals in those waters. That was mostly a result from all of the manufacturing activity that was going on in the Ohio River area. The Ohio belt and the steel belt – the Rust Belt they call it. And up until the time the Bush administration came along there was substantial progress being made in trying to clean this up. Trying to clean up the air pollution in the area and so on. And when the Bush administration came in, why, they relaxed a lot of the rules for emissions or relaxed a lot or didn’t enforce them, basically is what it amounted to. LH: This is the current Bush administration. Not 1988, but 2000? JN: Yes, the stupid man that we have leading the country now [George W. Bush]. LH: Now were rivers out here in the, I mean we talked about the Ohio River, but were there rivers out here in the west that were . . . JN: Oh sure. We had the Bear River was a real open sewer for a pretty long time: starting up in Idaho and coming on down. The Bear River is an interesting river. It starts in Utah and comes on down and goes through Wyoming and then comes back into Utah, goes back into Wyoming, goes into Idaho and then comes back into Utah and ends up in the Great Salt Lake. But it starts up in the Uintah Mountains. And so there was a lot of activity that affected the water; number one irrigation diversion. A lot of that came apart and then grazers were allowed to hit the river and the river banks to a point where the river became fairly silt laden. A lot of silt was dumped into the river and that has slowly improved. The irrigation diversion has not, but it has slowly improved other than that. And grazers have been somewhat more careful about doing things on the river banks and in many areas the river bank has been fenced so that the cattle don’t get to it except at very specific areas where they could get to the water and so on. LH: Because of course that contributes to erosion. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  9   �JN: Yeah. Well that was – erosion was the result. When an area became overgrazed why, the erosion became pretty drastic. LH: Right. JN: And a lot of mud came into the rivers on that basis. We had, our graduates went to work for the Deseret Livestock Company which is a huge operation. It’s got 325 square miles of property on the Utah; I think it’s mostly all in Utah, border here in the eastern – northeastern part of the border. And they have a big chunk of land in the Uintah Mountains and they have a big chunk of land out in the West Desert. But the training that the people who went to work there got from Utah State University, the land managers that they hired really did a lot of things to improve things. Where, prior to really regulating the grazing, especially in the sump area and wet areas, the grazing basically stopped water production in those area. Now Deseret Livestock came in and they basically ponded many of those areas so that they have little lakes now up in many of these washes. And with a certain aspect of controlled grazing of cattle in the area, the way they do it now is basically put the cattle into an area and allow them to graze intensively for a very short period of time and then move them onto another area. That allowed some of those springs to come back up again. So where the springs have been completely dried up because the area was compacted by the grazing, the year round grazing was actually producing water once again. And so that sort of thing has improved substantially. Oh, one other thing that I should mention. This was done experimentally. Dr. Wayne Cook who was a professor in the Marine Science Department was trying to improve the grazing aspects of the watershed where many of the grazing areas were overgrazed, and when they were overgrazed a lot of the undesirable plants came in; like mule’s ear for example. Wyethia [mule’s ear] was a plant that came in and basically crowded out the grasses that the animals would normally graze upon. And Wayne’s idea there was to cover the area with a pesticide or with an herbicide I should say, to kill off the Wyethia. Being one of the nasty plants, one of the most nasty plants up there. And allow the grasses to come back in. Well, that worked fine except that the herbicide that he put in also was washed down into the Logan River where we used to have a really good stonefly population in the river. The so-called salmon fly. It wiped those out almost completely. Well it did wipe them out completely to a point where Trout Unlimited – members of a Trout Unlimited chapter here in the valley got together and gathered stoneflies from over in Blacksmith Fork River and reintroduced them into the river and I think that’s been fairly successful. That was done over the last 5 or 6 years. LH: Wow. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  10   �JN: Well, I mentioned the aspects that influenced policies in the Logan Canyon were basically the force of recreation use in the canyon basically crowding out the grazing use. That was a change of land use in that respect. There’s still grazing going on in the canyon but it’s been much reduced. LH: Since, I mean gradually over the last… JN: Well, gradually over the last few years. Yeah. The Wellsville Mountains over here on the west of us was really badly grazed. And we went over into the mountains back in the 1950s, the bare ground. There was virtually no vegetation growing on it other than the big shrubs. The oak, not oak but maple and conifers, so on. And a lot of that was being washed away, the ground underneath that was being washed away down into the valley bottom. Well, the Forest Service finally cut out the grazing in the area completely. The area, it’s a very steep mountain, and, matter of fact, in the United States it’s the steepest mountain range that we have any place in the United States. So they cut out the grazing on the darn thing and allowed it to recuperate. And as a matter of fact now it’s a wilderness area: The Wellsville Wilderness Area. LH: Hmm. So recreation is… JN: Recreation, I think, is probably the most important thing that’s going on in the area. And depending upon who the ranger is and his background that comes in to take care of the area, why, it tends to increase more and more toward recreation. I think the last ranger, the current ranger that we have in the area is a little bit more lenient on motorized use in the area than I would like to see happening. They’re supposed to, the Forest Service is supposed to open up any land use decisions to public discussion. And they try to get away from that. Of course the Environmental Protection Agency has a love of . . . let me call it the, well before a policy is put into action a study has to be made of the area that is being affected from an environmental point of view, looking at the specific impacts of it. And coming up with a decision as to what those impacts are and if the policy is one that would impact the environment too much, that lays the Forest Service open to suit. And many of the suits that have been brought against the land use management agencies, Forest Service, BLM, Indian Service, and so on, have been brought by basically recreational use, people like the Sierra Club, people like Trout Unlimited, various other land use agents or interest groups, have successfully knocked down some otherwise disturbing policies that could be taking place. So I think the agencies have become a lot more aware of the impact that whatever policies they make does have on public lands. And try to avoid, they try to avoid the suits as much as possible. LH: It’s different out here. You know just how much land is public land and who’s land is it. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  11   �JN: Well, in the State of Utah 80% of the land in the state is public land. And that’s you know, there’s probably more public land in the State of Utah than any other place except Alaska. LH: Hmm. JN: [Reading question:] Have I ever tried to influence government actions? Yes I have. I became very active as a Democrat: ran for office three times for the State Legislature. Twice as a representative and once as a senator; and was defeated three times. I was chair of the Democratic Party here in Cache County for a number of years and a member of the state central committee as a Democrat. But this is, we are, the Democrats here who are very strong on land use issues have been defeated most of the time. But the State Legislature is really a dictatorship of the Republican Party. And most of the land use issue is really that is basically for land use. They would love to see the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management all privatized. And we’ve always been against that; that’s one of the reasons we don’t get elected to office. LH: So how do we affect policy in other ways? JN: One example is, I was appointed to the-- can’t name the, remember the name of the committee I was appointed to. It was a land use policy committee that looked at the utilization of state lands. When Utah was created a state the state was allocated, I think it was one section of land in each township. And so we have blocks – the state has blocks of land all over the state; checker boarded basically. And those lands were really misused. Number one a lot of them were in the middle of federal land so that a lot of them were in Forest Service lands or Bureau of Land Management lands and were really unaccessible to state management control. And where they were accessible the state really blew it. The state sold off the property in such a way that the state didn’t make much money. The monies that were supposed to have been made off of those were supposed to go to the school fund and support basically schools for the state. And when I served on that particular committee to look at this and come up with suggestions as to how this might be improved, the amount of money that was in the school fund was only like about $600,000; whereas, in the state of New Mexico it was almost a billion dollars. And we came up with a scheme that allowed the state, the State Land Board to the school trust, it’s called School Trust Lands Board now. [This] allowed them a good deal of latitude so that they could sell or consolidate their land so it could be more easily managed. And those proceeds that come off the sale of those lands or the utilization of them for grazing purpose and this sort of thing, that would build the School Fund, and the School Fund has been built now. It’s up into the millions of dollars where, over the last 20 years. I think it was about 20 years ago that we did this thing. And that was I think a fairly important move. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  12   �One of the things that happened on the Cache, for example, was that school trust lands existed in the Forest Service areas that the Forest Service agreed to trade off lands so that where the school trust land had been surrounded by school forest it could be blocked off into a different area and the area that had been school trust land would be reverted to Forest Service land. So in other words, there was a trade made and they’d trade off Forest Service land for School Trust lands and vice-versa. And a batch of trust lands was centered around the Beaver area, the Beaver skiing area that was basically taken advantage of as a recreation area now. So that they can develop recreation aspects of that particular area, which includes some summer home development and so on that the monies that are made off of it would then be reverted to the school trust lands. And that I think was a fairly important thing that I was involved in. We covered how the policies have been changing over the years. And I hope it continues to change in that aspect. I think one of the things that I would like to see happen is the Logan River and the Blacksmith Fork Rivers being considered as Wild and Scenic Rivers. And they’re still talking about putting dams up here in the canyon. That would be terrible if they did that. It’s a poor place to put up a dam anyways. The area is basically Mississippi and limestone which is really subject to water solution so that the area is undermined with caves and whatnot that leakage from a dam built in that area would be tremendous. And put my little house here in danger of a catastrophic flood if it should break. We are as it is, we’re in danger of a 500 year flood, which is pretty rare. That’s why I built here. LH: Wow this scenic river. Now that’s been proposed, I imagine, or are there… JN: Well yeah, we have proposed it as a Wild and Scenic River but the Forest Service has ignored us on that and I don’t know why. They should be really looking at it from a recreation point of view. And that would be a recreation thing. Of course I think the fact that it has some dams on it now, these basically run the river dams of our generation. And the highest one is up here at the Third Dam. But the river up above that could certainly qualify for a Wild and Scenic River. And it should be. And there are other rivers that come into both the Blacksmith Fork and into the Logan River. The Right Hand Fork is another one that could be classified as wild and scenic. Temple Fork would be wild and scenic. And that is basically being treated as such. There’s an interesting thing about Temple Fork and Spawn Creek that goes into Temple Fork. The Trout Unlimited has worked hard to preserve the Spawn Creek as a spawning creek for the native Cutthroat Trout in the area. [It] has prevailed upon the Forest Service to allow us to fence the river, Spawn Creek, away from grazing. And when the grazers come up in there they have a rider that’s supposed to be up there guiding the grazing. But they seldom do. They, would like to get them down to the green grass as much as possible. And they mash the hell out of the Spawn Creek to the point where it actually endangered spawning in the area. It’s a tiny little creek and it’s hardly any wider than this Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  13   �room in a lot of areas and the cattle were grazing right up to the end of it, right up to the bank and into the river, the creek itself. And the net result was that what had at one time been grass was turned over to various kinds of rushes that are not palatable to plant, to the cattle or the sheep that use the area. And so we prevailed upon them to fence it and they did. That was nice. Temple Fork is another one that the, I don’t think they’ve fenced that one yet. But they may end up putting some kind of obstruction on it. I know they wiped out the road that went along side of it and moved the road up on the mountainside a little bit further away from the river, which was important because the road was built over some pretty permeable soil and it washed into the creek. It should not have. [Reading Questions:] Let’s see what else is? Who were some of the most influential teachers that I had in the area and stuff in your field. Oh, there were quite a few actually. Starting back in Wisconsin it was Phillip Whitford who’s now dead unfortunately. But he really perked my interest in ecology and that’s where I became basically an ecologist even though I went to work as a fish manager initially and then later on as a aquatic toxicologist. But the aquatic toxicology part, well, both of them. Fish management did rely much on the ecology of the area and so on. And the toxicology part of it was basically an autecological approach to the populations that lived in these aquatic environments. Then out here, when I came out here, I think the major, one of the major men was William Sigler who was Head of the Wildlife Department and also my major professor in my graduate degrees and also a very close friend that we maintained through the years until he died. He was very important. Then I had two other mentors here on the campus that I felt were extremely important. They were not even in the College of Natural Resources. One was Wynn Thorne who was in Agriculture. He was an agronomist, a soil agronomist, but he was also head of the experiment station and he was just a marvelous scientist and he was a person who, you know, I just loved to associate with him. He was just such a neat guy. And the other one was Dean Peterson, who was Dean of Engineering. And he and I became very close friends and again he was a very open-minded sort of an engineer. Although he was a Republican and I was a Democrat. [Chuckles] That was the only difference we had between the two of us. But he influenced me a great deal, especially in the administrative areas. Those were the three I think most important guys that were my teachers. Then among my colleagues there were, well there was Bill McConnell who was my compatriot in the stream and lake survey stuff. He ended up being a professor at Colorado State University and we maintained the long friendship and peer relationship over the many years. He died here a couple of years ago. And then a lot of the people that were my peers are dead. I mean they died. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  14   �Oh I should point out that I had, I put together every year a group of alumni and we meet up in Bear Lake. We call ourselves the Mossbacks. They come from-Bill Mcconnell was one of them--from Colorado State, from Wyoming, from Idaho, from the state of Washington, from Alaska, from Arizona, and throughout Utah. There’re about, at our biggest number I think we had about 16 guys that used to go to get together up at Bear Lake. I used to rent a house up there and then some units, some motel units and then I did the cooking, and we’d sit around for two days and in addition to renewing the acquaintances we’d always have something to talk about. We were mossbacks so a lot of it was basically curmudgeon type talk, but a lot of it was also dealing with, discussing various land use policies, and in a very informal sort of a way. We’d sit around in the living room and then talk about these things, take walks and talk about them. And there were always some musicians in the group and we’d also play music and sing about them. That’s still going on. I’ve got the group getting together on May 9, 10 and 11th up at the Ideal Beach again this year. And I’m preparing an Austrian kraut dinner for them for one dinner and the other one is, oh it will be a beef dinner of some kind. LH: Nice. JN: Breakfasts are sour dough and quiche. Sour dough pancakes and quiche. Doing all the [cooking], you know that’s part of the old man’s thing. [Reading questions:] Particular stories. What do we have? Well, the critical policies that were enacted in the canyon was the creation of wilderness areas. We had the Swan Peak Wilderness Area, not the Swan Peak, the Gog Magog area up here and then the Wellsville area. Those were important policy changes that took place. Highway construction: we did have a big impact on highway construction in the area. And with Bill Helm’s initial phase in the lower portion of the canyon and then when they began the work on the upper portion, up above Right Hand Fork, we were very active there to make sure that they didn’t encroach upon the river in anyway. And the cost of building the highway was increased substantially. But we did manage to get the beauty preserved in the canyon. So that was an important policy thing that we were involved it that. And that was basically a citizen originated, well, I should say a citizen, it was not official input. Let’s put it that way. It was not agency input that was basically individuals. Although some of us were associated with the university, it was on our own volition that we went to work on this and tried to change the way of doing things. And we were successful. They increased the cost of the highway but it was well worth the expense. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  15   �LH: JN: It sounds as though the Legislature has always been, you called it dictatorship, I believe earlier. Like just this Republication bastion of … Well yeah. I am down on the Republican Party here in the State of Utah because it is ultra-conservative. It is use oriented, development oriented, and all of this sort of thing. And there are members of the party that are much more liberal, I should say, they’re not as conservative. And as a matter of fact, one such, [David] Hogue from Salt Lake City, he helped us a great deal when we were working to get a fish disease policy board established. That’s another story that was kind of long. A fish disease control was handled basically by Ron Goede in the Fisheries Disease Laboratory here west of town. And the private growers became incensed that some of the rules and regulations that were created by the laboratory. And Ron was extremely effective in getting this established nationally, not just as, within the state of Utah. So that various barriers were established disallowing any diseased fishes from going from one state to another. And the growers here in the state of Utah, the private growers, became incensed at that so they prevailed upon the Legislature to take that away from the Division of Wildlife Resources and put it into the Department of Agriculture, the State Department of Agriculture. And when they did that initially, they created a system that was dominated by private growers and basically under the dictatorship then, it was basically that dictatorship of the Department of Agriculture. Well we were incensed by that and began a movement to create input by the, continuing input by the Division of Fish and Wildlife—the Division of Wildlife Resources into disease control issues. And so we went to work and had this fish disease policy board created. And Hogue was very instrumental in that. He was a Republican but he was very instrumental in helping us do that. And he got so incensed with the conservative nature of the Republican party that he quit the party and is now running as a Democrat. So some changes like that have taken place in, and I’m going to send him some money so that… But at any rate we were beset upon again by the fish controllers. Which is a $600,000 a year business. And recreation fisheries is a $600,000, 000 a year business here in the state of Utah. And the main bone for contention is the spread of whirling disease, which we have been controlling very nicely in the state because of the fish policy board as it was created. But now the private controls prevailed upon the legislature to loosen that up substantially. And a guy by the name of Mike Noel from Kanab, who doesn’t have any water near him at all, is the guy that is responsible for following the dictates of the Farm Bureau in creating a program that is not very good right now. It’s in bad shape again. But you have these sorts of things going on politically in the state that are really difficult to handle from a really wise land use policy. And it pervades, it goes beyond the fisheries area. I mean it goes into virtually all aspects of land use. The Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  16   �ranchers, they feel like they have a special interest on the federal lands surrounding their area of operation and only their opinion should count; this sort of a thing. Mike Noel is a rancher from down in Kanab and with the State Legislature and he’s one of these people that does that sort of thing. When I sound bitter about politics in the State [Utah] then it’s because I am. One of the particular stories that I like to share, God, I’ve got so many of them. And I pointed out that I am politically active. Or at least I was. I kind of retired from it because I’m getting too old and my back hurts me too much to get out and do stumping. LH: We’ve covered a lot. Do you want to close with a little story or a little hope? JN: Well, I know one of the favorite stories I like to tell is when I left Wisconsin to come out here, before I left I went to say goodbye to a friend of mine who ran a sporting goods store just a few blocks away, half a block away from where I lived at the time. And as I walked in to say goodbye to him, he was talking to a customer there who just happened to mention Utah. Well, God, when he mentioned Utah my ears perked up since I was coming out here. And I bust into the conversation and asked him if he was, where he was in Utah. And he said, oh he’d just graduated from Utah State, he said. “Oh my God,” I says, “that’s where I’m going.” And this was . . . I asked him “Is there any good fishing out in that area?” And he says, “Oh yeah.” He says, “Right in the city of Logan,” he says, “or the town of Logan you can walk to some very good fishing.” And he described a spot. He says, there’s a beautiful spot with a nice fishing hole just above a fox farm. Well, there used to be a fox farm right across the river here. The farmer Liechty, he was raising fox and mink and the hole was right up here. And lo and behold, ten years later I bought a lot on the property and built my house on it. So that was from a story that occurred in Milwaukee of all places. LH: What luck. JN: What other stories. Well, a lot of the stories that we had were related. My early stories were related with my stream and lake crews. And we used to go out and do things. At that time the State Fish and Game Department, we were paid $2.50 a day per diem and that was, that was to buy our lodging and food and everything on the road. Well you couldn’t do that for $2.50. So we camped out all the time. And we would buy groceries and we’d, and then we’d make do with that. And we’d supplement our groceries with anything that we could catch that was edible. Or we thought was edible. So our crews would go out and we’d bring back to camp rattlesnakes that we’d skin and section and fry, cook, eat. Grubs that we’d dig out of logs and we’d roast those and eat those. Locusts; we’d catch those and fry those and eat them, that is, the grasshoppers. Oh, boiled owl. We’d catch an owl and boil it. You know what a boiled owl tastes like? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  17   �LH: No JN: Boiled owl. Yeah, we’d do all kinds of things like that. And then of course to entertain ourselves we’d, well, one of the guys would go out and we’d rob sparrow nests and bring the fledglings back to camp. And then train them to go falconing with. But you falcon with, we’d go after grasshoppers. Put them on your finger. They were a little bird. They were only about that tall; tiny little thing. And we’d go, “Kill, kill.” It’d go after a grasshopper and then we’d go and pick up the grasshopper from, and that worked out pretty well actually. LH: Did it really. JN: Yeah. And the other thing we had, we caught a big old golden eagle one time, which now is illegal. You can’t do that. We caught a golden eagle that had been stuffing himself on road kill jack rabbits. It couldn’t fly. So we put a fish net over his head and brought him back to camp. And then we’d feed him. We’d put him on a perch there and feed him. And we had a little sparrow hawk that shared the perch with him. This was a little sparrow hawk – like that and a great big old eagle like this. And the sparrow hawk, we put a piece of meat down between the two of them. The sparrow hawk would go like this and go peep, peep, peep. And the big old eagle looked down and go peep, peep. The little sparrow hawk would fox out the, bluff out the eagle, got the piece of meat. LH: Wow. JN: Oh and we’d have altercations in the field. Bill McConnell and I also took on a lake rehabilitation task that was basically done in Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lakes in Southern Utah. Why, those lakes were taken over by Utah chub and they were basically trout lakes. And we couldn’t, they couldn’t support trout anymore so what we did was to go in there and reclaim the lake by poisoning out the chub. We’d use Rotenone which is a toxin that was taken out of the cubé root of the cubé plant in southern or in South America. It would be powdered up and then dumped into the water with an emulsifier of some kind. And it would kill all the fish that were in the lake. And then we’d start over by putting in just straight trout. And in doing that, let’s see, how many times was I accosted? I was accosted three times in the state of Utah by rifles. One guy had a pistol. And trying to get work done and I remember one, down at Panguitch Lake, there was a spring pond that had to be cleaned out and it happened to be on private property, and the cabin was on it, and it was inhabited. And I went up there and the guy knew that we were doing this apparently. And he came to the door with a 30/30 and put it in my chest. And I had to talk like a Dutch Uncle before he finally allowed me to clean out the pond. And the other time was on Strawberry Reservoir when I was, had a crew out there. We were building a fish ladder so that we could access a stream for spawning purposes. And it happened to be right through a fishing camp that was built there. And the owner of the camp was really getting nasty with my crew Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  18   �out there. So I, I told him to layoff. And I told him if he didn’t layoff he would end up getting a bath in the river. And he came out with his pistol and he threatened me with his pistol. And I went over there and tried to grab him by the collar and he turned around and ran. LH: So there. JN: I was a big guy. Well, I was a big strong guy. I was a paratrooper during WWII and was strong as a bull so I could do a lot of things like that and get away with it. I was a big person. LH: [Laughing] Wow. JN: Oh. There’s so many stories that I could tell. Here in the Cache most of it was really pleasant. I hunted a lot up here and fished a lot in the stream. And of course I had my students fishing in the streams up here, or working in the streams up here. I had a lot of good times. When I was an Assistant Professor here I used to, I had a laboratory in the old part of the Natural Resources building, that is the blue panel thing that was there. And I was the first person to move in there. And then I had a laboratory down in the basement of that building. And a bull pen that I housed my students in and we’d, every morning we’d get together and spend most of the morning hashing one thing over or another. There’d be half a dozen students and myself. And it was basically a kind of a free forum. Discussed just about everything, you know. It was fun. We learned a lot. And the thing is that the students also, because of that kind of a communal arrangement, partially because of it, and the fact that I was pretty liberal about letting them do things that they liked to do, they’d help each other out a lot in the field. The guys would get out there and help one guy up at the, working over at Hyrum Reservoir was trying to, gill net fish out of it, so a group would go over and help him with the gill nets. Some guys working up at Bear Lake and they’d do the same thing you know, and so on. And every once in a while we’d have a party; we’d hold the party up at Guinivah. One of the guys would get a beer keg from over in Wyoming, and then we’d if we caught a lot of fish out of Hyrum Reservoir, and at this particular time you caught a lot of fish out of Hyrum Reservoir, and bring those over and we’d clean those up and fry those and my wife Ruth would end up making a bunch of potato salad and other wives would bring, it would be kind of a catchall of everything. We used to have a marvelous time. And that was a little bit different than what it is now. The students up here now tend to be pretty much independent, they don’t tend to help each other a lot. At least that’s the way it seems to me. Of course I’ve been away from it for pretty long. I retired 19 years ago. LH: Wow. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  19   �JN: Well, retired is one way of saying it. But I went on emeritus status in 1989 and then for the next three years I worked pro bono for the university writing proposals. LH: All right. JN: So there you go. LH: They lure you back. JN: The reason I came out here in the first place, I guess, was kind of an interesting one. I was president of the Forestry Club at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. And as president it was my responsibility to bring together once a month a speaker, and one of the speakers that I brought together was, or brought to the University was the Regional Forester for the US Forest Service in that area, in the central part of the United States. And after he gave us a talk about how nice it is to work for the Forest Service and all that sort of stuff, I took him aside and I said “Where would you suggest would be a good place to go to school in the forestry or the natural resources area?” And he said, “Well, you ought to consider my alma mater,” he says, “Utah State.” And he says of the nine regional foresters, seven of them are Utah State graduates, and the head of the Forest Service in Washington is also a Utah State graduate. So I said, “My God.” With that kind of a reputation I’d come out here and go to school. And I did. Well actually it was a very tiny school. At that time it was, let’s see. Faculty members, in the Wildlife Department there were three faculty members. In the Range Science Department there were three faculty members, and in the Forestry Department there was one, two, three, four faculty members. And so it was. And then there was a Dean of the College: Dean Turner (Louis Turner). That has grown into, oh my goodness, I don’t know how many faculty members we have now, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or 50, something like that. And you know a big student component. Actually we were the first college to produce a doctoral student in the entire university. LH: Really? JN: Kim Wolfe was the first Ph.D. And he was in the aquatic, he was one of Dr. Sigler’s students. Bill McConnell was the second Ph.D. earner and I was the third. And this was in the entire University. So we kind of were pioneers in developing the graduate program at Utah State University. Oh I should say another mentor of mine was Stewart Williams who was the Dean of the Graduate School at that time. He and I became really good friends, and he was a geologist and I’ve always had a kind of an abiding interesting in geology of this particular area in particular. And so he took pride in the fact that he was Dean when the first PhDs were offered by Utah State University and they were offered in our department. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  20   �LH: That’s nice. JN: High jinks; had a little student high jinks. We did; a lot of students here. But I did my undergraduate work here. My last two years on it, sophomore and senior as an undergraduate student. And we always had a battle between the engineers and the foresters. We called ourselves the foresters at that time. And we’d play all kinds of high jinks on each other. The engineers who used their engineering talent at one time turned a bunch of chickens and sheep loose in the old forestry building, which is now gone, it’s no longer here. And then they bricked up the entrance of it. This was during the night. And we came there in the morning. We had to break down the brick walls to get into the building. And then found it was loaded with sheep and chickens. And then of course we did the same thing to them. Some things were kind of cruel. Like the cruelest thing that we did, I wasn’t involved in that because I couldn’t have done it. But they took a horse in the engineering building; an old nag that was over at the mink farm, and then killed it in the men’s room. They had to drag a dead horse out of the building. But those things don’t happen anymore. LH: Oh! JN: So you got enough? [Reading question:] Oh, books or writings that influenced the land use. LH: Oh yeah. JN: Well of course there was always Leopold’s. LH: Sand County? JN: Well no. He wrote initially a book on wildlife management. [Game Management] That was the important book actually. The artsy book was his Sand County Almanac. He did another one that was finished by one of his sons. Moon River [Round River] I think it was called. LH: Oh yeah. JN: That was one book that influenced me a lot. Then there was a book on animal ecology. There were not very much written about ecology at that time. The book on plant ecology by Üosting from Duke University was available. There was a Weber and Clements that was written by Weber at the University of Nebraska and Clements who was part of the Ally, Emerson, Park, Park, and Schmidt book that was written on animal ecology out of the University of Chicago. And that was about it. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  21   �Oh, there was another thing that I did in ecology. I looked into the origins of ecology on the Utah State University campus. And that was, I looked into our archives and wrote a little piece on the origin of ecology. [Ecology Center review documents: USU Special Collections 17.12:63 NO. 20] It turned out that there was a professor that was hired from Cornell University in 1902 that taught the first course in ecology on the campus. And it was fairly short lived because he wasn’t here that long. I think he was here only about three or four years. And then when he left the course was no longer taught until I think the late teens, when, I can’t recall his name right now. But he started, he was in range management and he started and taught a course in plant ecology. And that kind of persisted, I think, through the years until we got the first dean and then the school of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management was created in 1926. And the dean of that school later on became the Chief Forester of the United States. And he was followed by Ed Cliff who was from Heber City and a graduate of this institution who became the Chief Forester. (He was the Chief Forester when the Regional Forester told me that I was, or that this was one of the best places to come because of the reputation of the Regional Foresters and the Chief Forester.) And Ed Cliff was an interesting guy. He was a Mormon; he was from Heber City, Utah, and graduated from this institution when he became the Chief Forester. Well, he was a forest ranger here first. And he, he and his wife spent their honeymoon at the Forest Service cabin at Tony Grove. The cabin is still there. And so actually it’s a historical site now. And it’s still active. It’s still being used as a, by the Forest Service as a base of operations of one sort or another. But it was a very primitive thing, you know. They had a wood stove in there that served as a cook stove, these big wood ranges. When he [Ed Cliff] came back and looked at, when he was Chief Forester of the United States, and he came back to visit the ranger [up at Tony Grove] that was present at the time [thinking of his name]. (Oh god, he’s retired down in New Mexico now. I can’t remember his name either again.) But anyhow, he happened to be the ranger out there and they had replaced the wood stove with a gas operated, propane stove and so on. [Chuckles] And when Ed came out there and he saw this and he said, “That’s unmentionable. You should not have a gas stove. There’s got to be a wood stove.” And he ordered them to take the gas out and put the wood stove back in. So it’s still there. It’s a wood stove and if you want to cook back there you have to cook on the wood stove. LH: That’s awesome. JN: There were a lot of colorful people that came out of this institution. Well, many of them worked here initially as, related to the forest, or they worked on the forest. In the late 1920s and through the ‘30s the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps was really active here. And a lot of the people that became well known in the field were part of the CCC operations. Ken Wolfe who earned his first, was the first Ph.D. granted out of the Utah State University was a bad boy in Chicago. See, he was from Chicago. He was a bad boy. He was given the choice by the judge to Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  22   �either go to jail or join the CCC and he could come out here and do some work out here. So he opted to come out here. Well, he not only came out here and went to work for the CCC, he met his wife out here, got married and when he got into the service he became a Lieutenant in the service, discharged. And when he was discharged he came here and earned all three of his degrees here at Utah State University. And he became a world-renowned virologist, especially in the aquatic area. He worked out of Leetown, West Virginia [Leetown Science Center]. Wrote a number of books on virology and was the first to develop a cold water cell line that they could deal with in the laboratory. LH: The bad boy from Chicago. JN: The bad boy from Chicago. Yeah. When I started off school here back in the late 40s we were all, all of these students were returned veterans. And it was quite a different bunch. They all became, upon graduation they all achieved leadership positions one way or another in the field. We had Bud Phelps was one my costudents, he became Director of the Fish and Game Department here in the state of Utah, and then later on was Director for Ducks Unlimited. And Don Smith was a football player here. And he became Director of the Fish and Game Department here. I think most of the directors of the Fish and Game Department that we had here were graduates of ours. But then we had [graduates that became] Directors of the Fish and Game Departments in many other places. Iowa was another one that was one of our graduates. Ohio was another one that was one of our graduates. Nevada was . . . he was a graduate. He was a football player and Director of the Fish and Game Department in Nevada and one of our graduates. And they had a relatively big impact on the development of educated natural resource managers in the State. Up until World War II most of the resource managers that we had in the United States were basically patronage type people. They’d come up through the ranks as Fish and Game wardens of one sort or another, or when they went to work for the Forest Service, why, they were basically field hands to begin with and so on. But once the programs got started and they started educating people in the scientific way of managing the resources . . . why . . . A great influx came right after World War II when the veterans came back and the GI Bill allowed them to get an education in this particular area. So the field, the Fish and Game Departments, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, all of those Federal agencies and state agencies became permeated with our graduates. And we were, Utah State was one of the biggest institutions developing these. There were other institutions that were doing the same thing but I think as far as really making an impact early on, Utah State was probably one of the biggest contributors in this particular area. So that was nice. LH: That is nice. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  23   �JN: It was nice to be part of it, too. LH: Yeah. Well. JN: That was kind of rambling but… LH: I like rambling. I’m sure I get the good stuff. Well it’s all good. Thank you so much. I think we’ve certainly touched on all this. This is such a rich, rich interview. Thank you. JN: Well, I’ll be happy to go over any part of it with you and clean it up somewhat if you want me to. LH: That would be great. And, well, I don’t know that I’ll be doing the transcribing. I hope to a little bit. But no matter how it happens you’ll get a CD so you can listen to yourself and the transcript as well. JN: Okay. And make necessary changes or additions. LH: Yeah. Sure JN: Sure. LH: Thank you. Well then I will sign off of this. It is nice. It is 11:00 and closing the first interview with John. Thank you. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  John Neuhold   Page  24   � Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/328">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/328</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Hosted by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Recording equipment: Marantz PMD660 Digital Recorder Transcription equipment: Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2012-10-08 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 John Neuhold interview, 11 April 2008, and transcription Description An account of the resource The interview includes some personal background information, but mostly discusses John Neuhold's professional life and education. He also talks about his mentors and work in Wisconsin, but mostly his work in Utah, including a project with the Deseret Livestock Company, working with fisheries, dealing with impact of various activities on rivers, including the construction on US Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, development of departments in Natural Resources at Utah State University and the politics of natural resource management and the legislature. The interview also references the Mossbacks group of retired natural scientists. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Neuhold, John M. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Hilliard, Lyra Subject The topic of the resource Bear River (Utah-Idaho) Neuhold, John M.--Interviews Neuhold, John M.--Family Neuhold, John M.--Career in Ecology Logan Canyon (Utah) Plant ecology--Research Fishery management--Research--Utah Lake ecology--Research--Utah Stream ecology--Research--Utah Utah State Agricultural College--Alumni and alumnae--Interviews College teachers--Utah--Logan--Interviews Utah State University. Ecology Center--History Roads--Utah--Logan Canyon--Design and construction United States Highway 89--Design and construction Roads--Widening--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Environmental aspects--Utah--Logan Canyon Grazing--Utah--Logan Canyon Recreation areas--Utah--Logan Canyon Environmental toxicology--Research--Utah Water--Pollution--Law and legislation--United States Water quality--Bear River (Utah-Idaho) Land use--Utah--Logan Canyon Public lands--Utah Environmental policy--Utah Neuhold, John M.--Friends and associates Fishes--Diseases--Law and legislation--Utah Utah State University--Students--Anecdotes Utah State University--Alumni and alumnae Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Oral history Interviews Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan River (Utah) Cache National Forest (Utah and Idaho) Bear River (Utah-Idaho) Rich County (Utah) Uinta Mountains (Utah and Wyo.) Temple Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah) Wellsville Mountain Wilderness (Utah) Navajo Lake (Utah) Panguitch Lake (Utah) Spawn Creek (Logan Canyon, Utah) Temple Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah) Blacksmith Fork Canyon (Utah) Right Hand Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah) Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections & Archives, Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection, FOLK COLL 42 Box 2 Fd. 6 Archives, Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection, FOLK COLL 42 Box 2 Fd. 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection can be found at: <a href="http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php">http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Fife Folklore Archives Curator, phone (435) 797-3493 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context FolkColl42bx4fd3JohnNeuhold Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/88136ff162b8d3c36ce24a36615574b5.jpg d1743e3485b51fd4780dd055c6ddc91d Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4867 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6911 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum b0fe0d044fd59425ea940aaad8dcee21 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 193037058 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/19216">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/19216</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource [Aerial view of Colorado River, Navajo Bridge, and Marble Canyon Lodge.] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nichols, Tad, 1911- Subject The topic of the resource Marble Canyon Lodge (Ariz.); Bridges--Arizona--Grand Canyon; Rock formations; Rivers--Arizona; Canyons--Arizona; Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color Slide Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1958 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Colorado River (Colo.-Mexico); Marble Canyon (Ariz.); Vermilion Cliffs (Ariz. and Utah); United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/nichols_tad.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Nichols, Tad Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_11310.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/d45c6d9eb513d3aa33f33a88d84ee7c9.jpg f5dcfaa4f32b27db9366c1865b442c74 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4841 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6840 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 5000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 6cde5429e379daecaf8dc2497bb1bac7 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 194854168 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/18418">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/18418</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource [Road to Page, AZ - October 1958,] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nichols, Tad, 1911- Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Arizona--Coconino County Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color Slide Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1958 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Echo Cliffs (Ariz.); United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/nichols_tad.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Nichols, Tad Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_12388.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/f772f80354b948facab5cecbdb677c76.jpg 147b9a211bf1d8c1cfcba86ce88cbb08 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4728 Image Width Image Width in pixels 3761 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 1000 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 08667b31724fdf84fcef5c46a79a9995 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 191533862 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Imacon Flextight 848, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/11363">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/11363</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource [Pickup truck on bridge across the Little Colorado at Cameron - 1952.] Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nichols, Tad, 1911- Subject The topic of the resource Bridges--Arizona--Cameron Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color Slide Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1930-1975 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Cameron (Ariz.); United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1940-1939; 1940-1949; 1950-1959; 1960-1969; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/nichols_tad.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Nichols, Tad Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_26990.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/7f4ccb975a1d6d0c415510807a6bcbe3.jpg c28aec9197c610b1062f44ee874e7c56 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 4908 Image Width Image Width in pixels 6072 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 600 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 815a4e59a8c9e462d9725c37bfaa2a30 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 17292736 Conversion Specs Scanned by Northern Arizona University. Cline Library using Epson Expression 10000XL scanner, display file is JPEG. Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/17238">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/17238</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource [Chris Craft at Navajo Bridge]. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nichols, Tad, 1911- Subject The topic of the resource Boats and boating--Colorado River (Colo.-Mexico); Outboard motorboats--Colorado River (Colo.-Mexico) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Gelatin Silver print (black and white) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1953 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Grand Canyon (Ariz.); Colorado River (Colo.-Mexico); Navajo Bridge (Ariz.); United States Highway 89 Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/nichols_tad.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Nichols, Tad Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_101139.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/b9cf9fd3e27f005d9b3809b8d62df26c.pdf 1d19cf63268fadc4fef8d6710015baf4 PDF Text Text _ l~:ff~l:lI" _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah John 4570 Bear Legislative Delegation Holmgren W. 5400 N. River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Depar t ment of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be direc t ed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. ~e~ Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2931222100 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 576226 Bytes Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah Legislative Delegation John Holmgren 4570 W. 5400 N. Bear River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be directed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 208.345.5310 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East 801.363.0200 P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Lettter from Stanton S. Nuffer to Senator John Holmgren, dated July 25, 1986 Description An account of the resource Lettter from Stanton S. Nuffer, Project Manager for CH2M HILL, to Senator John Holmgren, regarding the impact study of Highway 89 in Logan Canyon, dated July 25, 1986. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource CH2M HILL Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States United States Highway 89 Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, COLL MSS 133 Box 10, Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context USU_MSS133Bx10_Item_2.pdf Highway 89 Impact studies Letters https://highway89.org/files/original/8ca5b92e3b38014f4d3d3345e7729f9e.pdf f50cd3b91e60d1c467a1a3c951d44d32 PDF Text Text f ' MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fourth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 28, 1986, at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. Also enclosed is a draft traffic forecast technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on August 11, 1986, at 7 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of July 28 meeting 2. Preview of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum 3. Review of manual traffic counts taken on July 19 and August 2 4. Review of draft maintenance technical memorandum 5. Review of accident data Future ' meeting schedule: August 25 September 8 September 22 October 6 BOC4/085 SLC82/d.201 ( 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , District District District District office office office office � 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/10">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/10</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1523339101 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 462950 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 Cover letter for August 7, 1986 minutes Description An account of the resource A cover letter from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary Team summarizing the minutes from the previous meeting and the schedule for subsequent meetings. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-08-07 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_16.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f1b99e446ebd4a29ef8effa3a88c7e01.pdf e61f1f7142d5f498b55a3a09701ce4de PDF Text Text ClfMHlll. MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 6, 1987 RE: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 31, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. at the UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also enclosed for review is the following: o Corrected Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 to be inserted as pages 6-8 and 6-9 in Chapter 6 Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum. o Written comments on the Visual Technical Memorandum from Jack Spence. In the July 31 Id . ..-. Team Meeting, copies of Table 4 showing an initial evaluation of impacts of spot improve~ent alternatives were circulated. The Id. team members were invited to make their own evaluation and respond in writing by August 14. An additional category "X" was suggested to cover more severe impacts. Therefore in responding, please use the following categories. + o x BOT600/037 Generally favorable Insignificant or none Moderately unfavorable Severely unfavorable �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES July 31, 1987 ATTENDANCE Todd Weston/UDOT Howard Richardson/UDOT Lynn Zollinger/UDOT Jim Naegle/UDOT John Neil/UDOT Dave Baumgartner/USFS Clark Ostergaard/USFS Larry England/USF&WS Stan Nuffer/CH2M HILL Arlo Waddups/Valley Engineering Rudy Lukez/Sierra Club Steve Flint/Audubon Tom Lyon/Utah Wilderness Association Bill Helm/Unattached Duncan Silver/FHWA ITEM 1--REVIEW OF MINUTES May 18, 1987, minutes approved as distributed. June 22, 1987, minutes approved with one correction: Item 4, page 5 to mention conflict with existing forest plan. Duncan Silver requested that a complete summary file of minutes be circulated. ITEM 3--DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (ISSUES AND CONCERNS) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM This item was moved up on the agenda because we wanted Clark Ostergaard to arrive before we discussed Item 2. The reference to environmental groups in the second paragraph, page 2, is to be dropped. The Corps of Engineers needs to be involved in the delineation of wetlands. Additional documentation of emergency medical service was requested. A section on endangered species needs to be added to USF&WS list of concerns. The summary of Logan city comments should differentiate between mayor's and city council members' statements. Issues need to be identified independent of source. Summaries from Cache County, BRAG, and Chamber of Commerce need to be included in the agency responses. The forest plan needs to be 'clearly recognized. Any conflicts with it that exist in the alternatives should be identified. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that the issues and concerns should be grouped into five broad categories: o Scenic values o Safety and traffic flow o Ecological considerations--river, riparian areas, threatened and endangered species 1 �o Regional economics o Compliance with existing plans, specifically the forest plan Additional specific concerns that were mentioned in the scoping process included pedestrian traffic, recreation parking, bicyclists, road cross sections, economic impacts in Rich County, Rich County road maintenance, and mitigation difficulties. The issues discussion should possibly be moved to the front of the document. ITEM 2--VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FHWA versus USFS classification systems discussed. The FHWA system applies credit to improvements. The document adequately met the needs of both systems. The various alternatives need to address retention and document which visual categories can be mitigated. The impact on the affected areas must be put into perspective by identifying the number of acres total in each category out to an arbitrary line (30 feet from the roadway). Copy of Jack Spence's written comments is to be circulated to the team. ITEM 4--SPOT IMPROVEMENTS Raising of the road grade in selected areas needs to be included as a spot improvement. Stage construction may be a means for mitigation. Copies of Table 4, which shows a summary of positive, negative, or insignificant impacts of the spot improvements, was circulated. The table is a start toward identifying impacts; the team will respond in writing in 2 weeks with their own evaluation. A suggestion was made to mark with an "X" those impacts that cannot be mitigated. The . possible development of a second spot improvement alternative that is more limited in scope was discussed. We decided to go ahead with the evaluation of the full list and then see if it would be advisable to include more than one spot improvement alternative in the DEIS. Larry England reviewed the Macquire primrose biological assessment provided by Dr. Stanley Welsh. He indicated that the USF&WS does not completely concur with Welsh's conclusions. Other sites (outside the project area) have experienced a significant decline, apparently due to climatic conditions. The USF&WS would not like to see a passing lane in the area, but road widening would be acceptable. England would like to work with others involved in the process so a jeopardy opinion could be avoided. 2 �ITEM 5--ROAD USER BENEFIT AND COST COMPARISON The cost comparison memorandum was discussed briefly. A request was made for more information on cost background, and for an example of how the cost benefits were obtained. ADDITIONAL ITEMS An accident analysis for Logan Cave area and mile post 384 was circulated. The predominant accident type involved vehicles running off the road. Sketches of the various concepts for flattening the curve at Logan Cave were circulated. The sketches illustrate the concepts outlined in the Technical Memorandum Chapter 8, pages 8-9 and 8-10. Steve Flint pointed out a discrepancy in Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 of the traffic capacity Technical Memorandum. Corrections will be circulated. Time of a future meeting was left open pending assessment of responses to the spot improvements evaluation, and additional comments on the technical memoranda. BOT606/008 3 �Table 6-1 HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS USED IN LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS Traffic Direct Distrib ComEosition RVs Trucks (%) (% ) Percent Terrain Type Section MileEosts Length (mi) I 383.47 to 391.60 8.13 60/40 1 12.2 Rolling 83 11.0 1.0 2a 391.60 to 399.70 8.10 60/40 1 12.2 Rolling 61 11.50 1.5 2b 399.70 to 404.75 5.05 60/40 1 12.2 Mountain 56 11.50 1.5 3 404.75 to 411.78 7.03 60/40 1 12.2 Mountain 66 11.5 1.5 BOT606/009 0\ I ex> No Passing Lane Width --- Shoulder Width �BEAVER RICKS SPRING: LOWER TWIN BRIDGE LOGAN CAVE WOOD CAMP ~ CHINA ROW RIGHT FORK RANGER STATION FIGURE 6-1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SJ~CTIONS BRIDGE LOGAN CANYON STUDY �,. \ RECEIVED VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO . : .. ,i~ '. "..J~-' . . . wl CH2M HJLl / SLC 1. An important consideration with respect to the extent of various impacts is the relative amount of area affected. This is particu- larly critical for riparian areas (visual sensitivity rating 6 or 7). For example, in alternative Cl, the total riparian area affected is estimated at 9.5 acres. This calculates to be a strip approxi- mately 9 feet wide for the entire middle section of the canyon, and agrees closely with the amount of riparian area affected by addition of a strip 8.5 feet wide to the highway (modified standard). Since the middle section is very narrow, all land between the road and the river is riparian (U.S.F.S. standard is anything less than 100 fee t ) . How mu c h in this alternative? 0 f the tot aIr i par ian z 0 new 0 u 1 d .b e a f f e c ted 50%? 75%? For alternative 0, 40 mph, it must approach 100%, since this calculates to be a strip 13.5 feet wide for the entire section. In order to evaluate the impact, an esti- mate .of the amount (%) of total riparian zone destroyed in each alternative needs to be given. 2. The t maps showing the area to be affected are somewhat misleading, since they indicate, e.g., riparian zone only exists where the R/7(6) symbol occurs. In fact, in the middle canyon, the entire area between the road and the river is riparian zone, and any widening of the road will affect it for the entire length of the section. This should be clarified for Cl, 01 alternatives. 3. No accounts is taken of the impact on visual resources for those using the canyon but not driving. Campers, fisherman, hikers, etc, not on the road may have their visual resources adversely affected �· \ by the various alternatives, but in a different manner than drivers. How is this to be evaluated? 4. Page 6. Evaluation Criteria. It is stated: "Roadsides with a 3-5 rating can absorb alternations, but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc)." It is hard to understand how a retaining wall or a bridge can mitigate the loss of naturalness. 5. The memo indicates all alterations in areas with a 6 or 7 sen- sitivity index (which includes all riparian zones) cannot meet the f. /\ VQO or Retention, which is required by the Forest Plan. These amount to a considerable amount of the total area affected, particularly in the middle canyon (35% for Cl; 34% for 01, 35 mph; 35% for 01, 40 mph), as well as parts of the upper canyon (Franklin Basin road to Beaver Mountain Road, Summit). however, as to how this C impas~ No indication is given, is to be solved. Clearly, this will require a revision of the Forest Plan for these alternatives, since such a large part of the total area will be affected. The implica- tions of this must be spelled out in the OEIS. This is a critical omission. t 6. The spot Improvement Alternative (B) appears to include all spot alternatives in the form originally proposed. There is no such alter- natives, since the number and extent of each improvement must be agreed upon. It must be made clear this alternative includes all spot improve- ments at the maximum level for each, and the final alternative will be for fewer and smaller improvements. As it now stands, there is little to differentiate Bl from Cl in the sections affected: the only difference is in the width of the road between improvements. ~o// (// � 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/16">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/16</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2872464200 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4315904 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 31, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from the 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting on July 31, 1987 at UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. Also included is a corrected Figure 6-1 for Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum and labeled map, and written comments on Visual Technical Memorandum from Jack Spence which includes a section on spot improvements. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource England, Larry Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-08-06 1987-07-31 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/35879ca4c8baffe03362f2eac3da7293.pdf 1eff64f0d7c823f37dd8eea6894b8f52 PDF Text Text AGENDA ( US 89 - LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING #1 Tuesday, September 23, 7:30 p.m. Logan City Hall Utah Department of Transportation CH2M HILL - Consulting Engineer 1. Welcome - Introduction of Participants 2. Project Background - Purpose of Meeting 3. Presentation of Transportation Needs Data and Findings a. Existing Roadway Conditions b. Safety c. Maintenance d. Traffic Characteristics e. Roadway Capacity f. Conclusions 4. Environmental Concerns - Preliminary Findings 5. Public Questions and Answers 6. Future Tasks and Public Involvement Opportunities �CHMHILL MEHORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: October 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The eighth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on September 22, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on October 6, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2• 3. ( 4. Review minutes of September 2 2 meeting. Review of Public Information meeting and comments received since the meeting. Review material prepared by Clark Ostergard describing the important visual considerations in the Canyon. Discuss possible public meeting in Garden City area. Future meeting schedule: October 6 October 20 November 3 November ]7 SLC-STAN/07 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , District Office Brigham City Hall District Office District Office �CHMHlll MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: October 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The tenth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on October 20, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on November 3, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Forest Service's Logan Ranger District office in Logan, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of October 20 meeting. 2. Report on study of alternatives to Logan Canyon for through traffic - , John Neil, UDOT. 3. Continue discussion of goals and objectives for component and alternative development. Criteria for design speed and typical section enclosed in draft Technical Memorandum. 4. Outline of criteria for development of slow-moving vehicle turnouts and climbing lanes. Criteria enclosed in draft Technical Memorandum. 5. Status report on development of alternate alignments from Bear Lake 'S ummit to Garden City. 6. Review presentation for the Graden City public information meeting, to be held at 7:30 p.m. November 3. 7. Catered dinner will be brought in at 5:30 p.m. to enable timely departure to Garden City at 6:00 p.m. Future meeting schedule: November 17 December 8 December 22 January 11 SLC-STAN/07 7 3 3 3 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �CHMHlll MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: November 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The eleventh Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on November 3, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Forest Service Logan Ranger District Office in Logan, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on November 17, 1986 at 7 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of November 3 meeting. Discussion and action on alternatives to Logan Canyon for through traffic. Memorandum enclosed. 3. Discussion of issues and concerns resulting from the public involvement program. Draft Technical Memorandum enclosed. 4. Outline of schedule for completing the scoping process. 5. Review of inventory of existing roadside parking areas. 6. Areas within Canyon meeting criteria for climbing lanes. 7. Introduction of layouts of component for widening and improving the existing alignment from Right Fork to Ricks Spring. Future meeting schedule: December 8 December 22 January 11 January 25 SLC-STAN/07 3 3 3 7 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office Brigham City Hall District Office District Office �INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING December 8, 1986 ADDITIONAL DATA FOR AGENDA ITEMS AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2. Public Involvement - Transcript of public comments received at the Logan meeting on September 23 and the Garden City Meeting on November 3. Copies of written comments received to date since September 23. Copies of summaries of written and verbal comments. 4. Copies of revised "Landscape Management" for roadsides in Logan Canyon. SLC90/09 ( ( ) �CNMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: December 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Thirteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on December 8, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on December 22, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall, Brigham City, Utah. agenda will be as follows: The 1. Review minutes of December 8 meeting. ·2. Follow up discussion of visual impacts in the middle canyon 3. Fred LaBar presentation of the recreation plan. 4. Mark Hill presentation of a summary outline of acquatic resources. 5. Tom Haislip review schedule for completing the environmental technical memorandum. Future meeting schedule: . January 12 January 26 February 9 February 23 SLC91/d.1101 - 3:00 7:00 3:00 3:00 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office District Office District Office Brigham City Hall �/ AGENDA - LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM MEETING NO. 3 - OGDEN, UTAH July 14, 1986 - 3:00 p.m. 1. Review minutes of June 23, meeting. a. Revised outline of role of Interdisciplinary Team b. Revised outline of Public Involvement Plan 2. Discussion of traffic counting and forecasting. 3. Outline of transportation needs analysis. SLC77/59a ( �l MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The third interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on July 14, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. The next meeting will be held on July 28, at 3:00 p.m. also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: Review minutes of July 14, meeting. ,/ Traffic count data at various permanent stations. Presentation of proposed traffic forecasts. Discussion of highway capacity and level of service determination. Review of accident data. Update on status of Base Map preparation. Future Meeting Schedule: - August 11 August 25 September 8 September 22 SLC77/59a 7:00 3:00 3:00 7:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. District District District District Office office office office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fourth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 28, 1986, at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. Also enclosed is a draft traffic forecast technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on August 11, 1986, at 7 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: Review minutes of July 28 meeting Preview of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum Review of manual traffic counts taken on July 19 and August 2 ~~ Review of draft maintenance technical memorandum ~ Review of accident data Future meeting schedule: August 25 September 8 September 22 October 6 BOC4/085 SLC82/d.201 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p. m. , District District District District office office office office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 21, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fifth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on August 11, 1986 at 7 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on August 25, 1986, at 3 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of August 11 meeting Continued discussion of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum 3. Review of manual traffic counts 4. Review of existing roadway design features Future meeting schedule: September 8 September 22 October 6 October 20 SLC82/d.201 3 7 3 3 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District District District Disctict office office office Office �MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: September 4, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Sixth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on August 25, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on September 8, 1986, at 3 p.m., at the Brigham City Hall, 20 North Main Street. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of August 25 meeting Review of traffic accident data 3. Set date for first. general public information meeting. Review of presentation format and discussion of issues Future meeting schedule: September 22 October 6 October 20 November 3 SLC82/d.201 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , District District Disctict District Office Office Office Office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: November 26, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Twelfth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on November 17, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on December 8, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of November 17 meeting. 2. Continued discussion of issues and concerns resulting from the public involvement program. 3. Discussion of schedule for completing the scoping process. 4. Update of visual classification by Clark Ostergaard, USFS. 5. Introduction of layouts of component for widening and improving the existing alignment from Ricks Spring to Garden City. NOTE: Preview at 2:30 p.m. of a computer simulation technique for depicting topographic modifications by John Ellsworth, Landscape Architect at USU. All those interested are invited to attend. Future meeting schedule: December 22 January 12 January 26 February 9 BOC3/106 SLC91/d.ll0l - 3:00 3:00 7:00 3:00 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., Brigham City Hall District Office District Office District Office �OfMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: September 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The seventh Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on September 8, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall in Brigham City, Utah. Enclosed are the meeting minutes for your review. Also enclosed are draft technical memorandums on traffic characteristics and traffic capacity. Please review these memorandums prior to the meeting because we will have a lot of material to cover. The next meeting will be held on September 22, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be · as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Review minutes of September 8 meeting. Discussion of traffic characteristics memorandum. Discussion of traffic capacity memorandum. Review and discussion of presentation for the first public information meeting scheduled for September 23, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at the Logan City Hall. Discuss possible public information meeting in Garden City. Future meeting schedule: October 6 October 20 November 3 November 17 SLC-STAN/07 3 p.m. , District Office 3 p.m. , Brigham City Hall 3 p.m. , District Office 3 p.m. , District Office � 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/19">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/19</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 370649004 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5982366 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Agenda and memorandums, July - December 1986 Description An account of the resource Ten memorandum cover pages from Stan Nuffer summarizing the minutes from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Interdisciplinary Team meetings. Also three agendas for public meeting No. 1 in Logan City Hall, additional data for agenda, and agenda meeting No. 3 in Ogden, Utah. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Logan Canyon Study Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-09-23 1986-09-22 1986-10-20 1986-11-03 1986-12-08 1986-07-14 1986-07-28 1986-08-11 1986-08-25 1986-11-17 1986-09-08 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Logan (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_18.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/427a20f2239b956265550f2ab74f2c44.pdf 4dfd848d38115792fe33006f6e5810b4 PDF Text Text ClfMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DA'rE: July 22, 1987 RE: Spot Improvements PROJECT: B21163.FO Attached is a listing of the potential spot improvements that have been identified through the scoping process. These will be discussed at the upcoming ID Team Meeting on July 31 (Agenda Item No.4). Each of the spot improvements will be discussed and evaluated for positive, negative, or insignificant impacts in each of the following areas. Transportation Level of Service Travel Speeds Emergency Services Right-of-Way Estimated Cost Energy Socioeconomics Relocation/Community Disruption Community Facilities and Services Safety Land Use Recreation Air Quality Noise Visual Quality Water Quality Hydrology Natural Resources Threatened or Endangered Species Vegetation and Wildlife Fish and Aquatic Habitat Historic and Archaeologic Resources BOT600/031 �Table 2-4 POTEN'l'IAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--MIDDLE CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Potential Action Existing Condition Bridge/Structure Replacement a Burnt Bridge Cottonwood Cree k 385.7 386.5 98.5' long, 21.5' width a 15.0 long, 25.5' width Lower Twin Bridge Upper Twin Bridge Rick's Spring 387.7 388.4 389 . 9 180.0' long, 21.5' width a ll5.0 long, 21.5' width 16.0' long, 22.0' width Above Right Fork 384.0 Exst crv--25°, 229' radius Logan Cove 386.3 Exst crv--26°, 220' radius Cottonwood Above Cottonwood 386.5 386.6 Limited parking Exst crv--23° , 249' radius Above Cottonwood 387.1 Exst crv--23°, 249' radius Below Lower Twin Br. 387.7 Exst crv- -23°, 249 ' radius Top of Dugway 388.2 Exst crv--19°, 302 ' radius Above Upper 'I'win Br. 388.7 Exst crv- - 200, 286 ' radius Rick's Spring 389.9 Parking both sides highway a New 28' New 28' river New 28' New 28' New 28' river wide bridge on existing alignment wide struct. --Slight shift toward wide bridge--New alignment upstream wide bridge--New alignment downstream wide structure--Slight shift toward Roadway Alignment Climbing Lan e (dugway) Slow Vehi c le - 388.3 22 ' pavement width Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 30' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 30' lateral cut Shift roadway up to 12' toward river Flatten curve to 19°, 302' radius, 30' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 35' lateral cut Flatten in connection with bridge realignment Flatten curve to 12°, 477' radius, 90 ' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 302' radius , 40' lateral cut Shift rdway up to 15' twrd river to consolidate parking . 34' pavement width , 3,500 ' long climbing lane 384.8 - 384.95 387.85 - 388.0 390.65 - 390.8 22' pavement width 22 ' pavement width 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 400' long, 195' tapers 34' pavement width, 400' long , 195' tapers 34' pavement width, 400 ' long, 195 ' tap e rs 387.6 Turnout Above Wood Camp Abo ve Lo we r Twin Brb Above Ri c k's Spring �Table 2-4 (continued) POTENTIAL SPOrr IMPROVEMENTS--HIDDLE CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Intersection Improvements Right Fork Road 383.5 Wood Campground 384.6 Temple Fork Road 389.15 Recreational Parking 386.5 Skewed intersection Provide 100' taper, improve angle Standard Approach 275' and 375' deceleration lanes, ISO' and 250' tapers Skewed intersection Provide 200' taper improve approach grade Picnic area--160', north improve parking on north side of highway of . highway with alignment shift Recreational Parking Cottonwood/Logan Cave 386.5 Ricks Spring 389.9 Small Drainage Structures Signing/Marking 383.5-391. 6 383.5 - 391.6 aExisting width is distance between parapets. Picnic Area--160', north of highway; Park on both Improve parking on north side of highway with alignment shift toward river Parking on both sides highway Improve parking on north side of highway with alignment shift toward river 50± years old Replace as warranted Current UDOT/MUTCD Stdandard According to MUTCD Clear distance reduced by 1.0± by recent installation of steel guard rail. bwould not be considered if dugway climbing lane is selected. BOT597/029 �Table 2-5 POTENTIAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--UPPER CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Bridge/Structure Replacement Tony Grove Creek Red Banks Bridge Beaver Creek Bridge Beaver Creek Street Amazon Hollow Street 393.8 394.6 396.9 397.5 399.3 a 15' long , 25.5 ' width a 45 ' long, 24.0' width a 32 ' long , 25.5 ' width a 15 ' long 2 5.5' width a 6' long 25.5' width New New New New New 28 ' 28' 28' 28' 28' wide wide wide wide wide structure bridge on bridge on structure structure on existing alignment existing alingment existing alignment on existing alignment on existing alignment Roadway Alignment Below north sink 402.1 - 402.3 Below middle sink 403.9 - 404.1 Existing curve 10°, 573 ' radius Existing curve 10°, 573' ra d ius Flatten curve to 5.5°, 1 , 042 ' radius Flatten curve to 5.5°, 1,042' radius Climbing Lanes Above Red Banks Above Beaver Mountain Below Summit 394.5 - 396.5 400.0 - 402.1 403.4 - 404.7 22' pavement width 22' pavement width 22 ' pavement width 34' pavement width 8,500' long climbing lane 34' pavement width 11 , 000' long climbing lane 34' pavement width 6,800' long climbing lane 15° skew " T " intersection 90° " T " intersection Poorly defined intersection 35° skew "T" intersection Provide Provide Provide Provide lalles Intersection Improvements Tony Grove Road Red Banks Campground Franklin Basin R~ad Beaver Mountain Road 393.5 394.8 397.0 399.7 deceleration lanes and tapers deceleration lanes and tapers deceleration lanes and tapers 90° intersection with deceleration Small Drainage Structures 391.6 - 404.75 50 ± years old Replace as warranted Signing/Markings 391. 6 - 404. 75 Current UDOT/ MUTCD standard According to M UTCD aExisting width is distance between parapets . BOT597/030 Clear distance reduced by 1.0 ' ± by recent installation of steel guardrails. �Table 2-6 POTENTIAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--RICH COUNTY Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Roadway Alignment Existing curve 27.3°, 209' radius Existing curve 28.5°, 201' radius Flatten curve--15°, 382' radius 407.4 - 408.0 409.6 - 410.6 22' pavement width 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 3,000' long climbing lane 34' pavement width, 5,300' long climbing lane 406.0 - 406.1 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 400' long, 195' tapers Above subdivision 407.85 Below subdivision 409.55 Flatten curve--15°, 382' radius Climbing Lanes Above subdivision Below subdivision Slow Vehicle Turnout Below overlook Intersection Improvements Sunrise Compound Scenic Overlook 405.6 405.7 20° skew "T" intersection 2 skewed approaches Subdivision Access 408.8 10° skew "T" intersection Subdivision Access 409.0 Poorly defined "T" intersection Provide deceleration lanes and tapers Define approaches and provide driv e way and parking markings Provide 90° intersection with decelera tion lanes Provide 90 0 intersection with deceleration lanes Small Drainage Structures 404.75 - 411. 78 50 ± yeras old Replace as warranted Signing/Markings 404.75 - 411. 78 Current UDOT/MUTCD standards According to MUTCD Unstable, wet slide area Grading and udnerdrain installation Slide Area 407.2 - 407.3 BOT597/031 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/28">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/28</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2778659942 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2241248 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 Spot improvements list from July 22, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary Team on July 22, 1987 with an attached list of the potential spot improvements, mile posts, exisiting conditions and potential actions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-07-22 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 20th century 1980-1989 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4038b7921c9612c213b6165be6f65f44.pdf e4730b7646d6b520ab44b840022ec1c5 PDF Text Text 'i ClOd HIll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the first Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 10, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on June 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. BOC5/025 slc76/d.101 �AGENDA - LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM MEETING NO. 2 - OGDEN, UTAH JUNE 23, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. 1. Review minutes of June 10, meeting. 2. Discussion of role of interdisciplinary team. 3. Discussion of Level of Documentation required by NEPA for environmental studies. 4. Public involvement program outline. 5. Schedule of interdisciplinary team meetings. BOC5/026 slc76/d.102 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING June 10, 1986 ATTENDANCE: Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Jim Naegle - UDOT John Neal - UDOT Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club Todd G. Weston - UDOT Al Stilley - Northern Engineering & Testing Dave Baumgartner - USFS-Logan Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Howard Richardson - UDOT Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL Tom Haislip - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Frank Grover - USFS-SLC Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked members of the group to introduce themselves. Following the introductions, some of the members were asked to briefly describe their views of the project and its objectives. Jim Naegle indicated that UDOT wants a thorough investigation and has no preconceived idea as to what, if anything, should be done in the canyon. He expressed appreciation for the interest of the environmental cowmunity and the public in general. He also wants members of the I.D. Team to have full input into all phases of the project. The most serious problems in the canyon presently are narrow and obsolete bridges which are in need of repair or replacement. Lynn Zollinger explained that UDOT has a responsibility to the traveling public to provide safe, efficient transportation. UDOT wants to satisfy the needs of the traveling public and the environmental community. He expects an openminded study with adequate input from all of the interested public. Dave Baumgartner said that the rules of the environmental "ball game" have changed since the '70's. A successful study is dependant upon public support and understanding. This project will be a challenging one and standard solutions will probably not work in every instance. 1 �Todd Weston stated that he does not have any notion that there will ever be a freeway or a 4-lane highway through the canyon. He feels that there are more problems in the canyon than old bridges and the study must address those problems without being locked into one concept. He does expect ideas to improve transportation can be implemented. Rudy Lukez stated that there are many personal feelings about the canyon and that some people will be upset if there is a large construction project in it. The canyon is an environmentally sensitive area and there is a need for careful study and analysis before any work can begin. The environmental community desires to be kept informed. Rudy also expressed concern that meetings held during the day may be difficult for those who work elsewhere to attend. Steve Flint stated that there were many people who questioned the transportation needs in the canyon. Stan Nuffer then explained the I.D. Team and the role of each I.D. Team member. The I.D. Team is to function as the group which reviews scope, data, methodology and conclusions of the study and determines whether each stage of the study adequately addresses the critical issues and meets the objectives of the study. Gale Larson said that Valley Engineering's office in Logan will be the local contact point and someone will be available for questions at least 10 hours per week. Valley Engineering will also perform the field surveys and traffic counts. Some traffic counts were conducted during the ski season in order to have the information available for the study this summer. Gale expects to work closely with Sheldon Barker with the public involvement task work. Stan Nuffer then introduced the Scope of Work, as included in the consulting agreement between UDOT and CH2M HILL, and led the discussion on the tasks outlined in the agreement. Task 1 - ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS The discussion covered the major areas of potential need covered in the agreement; safety, maintenance, substandard geometrics, and congestion. If areas with substandard geometries are identified, options to correct the problems will be identified, these may include road re-alignment. During the discussion of congestion, Rudy Lukez asked what was meant by levels of service c,d,e. Stan Nuffer gave a brief description and said that detailed descriptions will be provided to members of the I.D. Team in a Technical Memo. Rudy Lukez also asked how traffic projections were determined. Stan Nuffer said that UDOT uses projections of population 2 �prepared by local councils of governments and other agencies who are charged with the task of preparing proj'ections of that type. TASK 2 - LOCATION STUDIES The study area will include the roadway between Right Hand Fork and Garden City. The alternatives listed in the contract scope will be evaluated as well as others identified during the course of the study. New roadway alignments may also be considered from the summit to Garden City. John Neal asked what the termini of the project were. FHWA must approve the termini in order for the project to be eligible for funding. Lynn Zollinger said that Logan City to Garden City had been proposed to the FWHA and he expects approval shortly. Since Logan to Right Hand Fork has already been improved there would be no action considered on that stretch of road. Tom Haislip said that the development of the alternatives will be one of the biggest phases of the project. Mapping was also discussed. Existing mapping available through UDOT will be used on the project wherever possible, however adequate mapping is not available over the entire route. As the mapping is completed, maps will be made available to members of the I.D. Team. TASK 3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS The extent of the geotechnical investigations will be determined as alternatives are developed. It is expected that they will be needed primarily in areas where re-alignment is considered. Dave Baumgartner expressed concern about the role of the I.D. Team in this study. If the team is to be advisory only, he does not think a satisfactory solution to identified problems can be found. To be successful, the I.D. Team should have a role in establishing study criteria and in formulating recommendations. Other team members expressed their views on the subject, and expressed their belief that the I.D. Team would function in a manner that would lead to a successful resolution of the transportation problems identified in the study. TASK4 - PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Sheldon Barker said that CH2M HILL would make three promises in the public involvement program; (1) to be a good listener, (2) to get input from all interested individuals and groups and to treat each with respect, 3) when the report is prepared, it would contain no surprises because everyone had been involved in the process. 3 �The scoping process was also discussed. It will include the development of the project objective, holding informationai meetings to educate the public, meetings with small groups as well as large, preparation of a video tape, and maintaining a project office in Logan where interested parties could come to obtain information on the project. Rudy Lukez suggested that information also be made available at the USU Library and the Logan Public Library so that it would be available during evening hours. Sheldon Barker said that the suggestion was a good one and it will be implemented. There was considerable discussion on the number and scheduling of meetings. Rudy Lukez did not feel that a lot of meetings was necessarily a good thing. He used as an example the recent meetings held by the Division of Water Resources on the proposal to build a dam on the Bear River. Meetings should be proceeded by 2 or 3 weeks of media coverage and should be well prepared. Rudy was also not certain if there would be any value to meeting with small groups because it would not give people with differing views an opportunity to hear the opinions of others. Sheldon Barker indicated that the different views would come out in the larger public meetings and that meeting with small groups would give the project team the opportunity to better prepare for the larger meetings. Rudy Lukez said that fall would be the best time to hold the scoping meetings because more -people would be able to attend. TASK 5 - COORDINATION Tom Haislip discussed the I.D. Team and its organization and the need to have each member involved. TASK 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSl-lENT Tom Haislip said that the I.D. Team would playa key role in the project by providing input and direction to the study team. Tom also asked for help from the environmental community. If there were any data or studies that are available and not in UDOT files, they may be of great help in the study. Rudy Lukez said that there was a study underway at USU investigating the impact that high speed traffic has on deer. Tom Haislip indicated that field studies were not planned because there is extensive information available. Tom also explained that it is intended that Technical Memos be prepared presenting in detail the findings of each phase of the study. After the I.D. Team has reviewed, discussed, and revised the Technical Memos, the information would be summarized and placed in the report. 4 �There was more discussion on the role of the I.D. Team. Dave Baumgartner again expressed his concern that I.D. Team members be in a position to do more than simply review conclusions and give their comments. Stan Nuffer said that study data, methodology, and conclusions would all be presented to the I.D. Team and discussed before incorporating anything into the report. Tom Haislip said that CH2M HILL's job would be to the "doers" who would gather information, review data and prepare Technical Memos for the I.D. Team. The I.D. Team would then review and discuss the memos and hopefully resolve any differences. Dave Baumgartner said that it may be necessary for superiors in each agency to resolve conflicts if they could not be handled on the I.D. Team level. He also indicated that the whole process would work much better if each alternative developed offered a real solution to the problems so that the alternative evaluation would be believable. Todd Weston pointed out that the Forest Service, UDOT, and FHWA must all agree to whatever solutions are presented in the report. If any of the three agencies disagree with the findings, the project will never be completed. In discussions at the end of the meeting, there was no agreement as to when the first public information meeting should be held, or what purpose it should serve. After further discussion, it was decided that the date of the first meeting should be set after the next I.D. Team meeting. It was recommended that a feature article on the project be prepared for the Logan paper. This should be published prior to the Logan public information meeting. The next meeting will be held on Monday June 23, at 7:00 p.m. at District 1 headquarters in Ogden. SLC73/39 5 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/40">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/40</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 46884717 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4338797 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from June 10, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource A memo from Stan Nuffer detailing the minutes from the Interdisciplinary Team meeting from June 10, 1986. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Neal, John Larson, Gale Lukez, Rudy Weston, Todd Stilley, Al Baumgartner, Dave Silver, Duncan Richardson, Howard Barker, Sheldon Haislip, Tom D'Amico, John Grover, Frank Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-06-19 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/002e1b75bcad0d6da7a2dc2e7b4f612a.pdf 1d19cf63268fadc4fef8d6710015baf4 PDF Text Text _ l~:ff~l:lI" _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah John 4570 Bear Legislative Delegation Holmgren W. 5400 N. River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Depar t ment of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be direc t ed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. ~e~ Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2931222100 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 576226 Bytes 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 Holmgren correspondence on the Highway 89 study Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stanton S. Nuffer to John Holmgren of the Utah Legislative Delegation detailing the intent of the study by CH2M HILL and the Utah Department of Transportation on Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear River City (Utah) Utah United States Box Elder County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 133 Box 10 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS133Bx10_Item_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ddc3fc4d5a3433a18034865c40721cac.pdf 2056a87832e0d0170f0edffef4b89c8d PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: January 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Fifteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on January 5, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of January 5 meeting. 2. Outline of public presentation for scoping meetings to be held March 3 and 4. 3. Review of notice of scoping meeting. 4. Continued discussion of alternatives. t Future ~eeting schedule: January 26 February 17 March 9 March 30 SLC91/d.ll0l - 7:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. , , , , District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING January 5, 1987 Attendance: John Neil - UDOT Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Fred LaBar - USFS Clark Ostergaard - USFS Jack Spence - Sierra Club Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Mark Shaw - USFS Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Gale Larson - Valley Engineers Steve Flint - Audobon Society ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES Jack Spence commented that if a 50 mph (AASHTO Standard) alternative on a new alignment was to be considered in the Canyon, then an alternative route such as Blacksmith Fork should also be included in the study. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that a 50 mph alternate on a new alignment would be feasible only on the Rich County section. The previous technical memorandum would serve as the basis for no further consideration of that option. The scheduling of the scoping meeting was discussed and due to conflicting schedules and the need to allow an adequate review period, the scoping meetings were shifted to March 3 and 4, with the tentative schedule as follows: Logan Scoping Meeting, March 3, 7:00 p.m. Government Agencies - Logan, March 4, 10:00 a.m. Garden City Scoping Meeting, March 4, 7:00 p.m. A draft of the notice of intent was circulated and comments on the wording received. ITEM 2 - ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION There was some discussion about how the alternatives would be defined and potential impacts evaluated. Howard Richardson pointed out that the highway, as it is now, is adequate for some disciplines and not for others. The objective of the I. D. Team is to do the best we can to meet the needs of all, realizing that no one is going to get everything they want. Howard also indicated that the official design speed for the previously improved lower Canyon was 40 mph. Any curves that do not meet the 40 mph criteria are then posted with a lower advisory speed. SLC-STAN/17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1169439087 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1134591 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, January 21, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the minutes from the January 5, 1987 meeting attached and time and location for the next meeting, and schedule. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack Richardson, Howard Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-01-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_008.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/45567e2889d98a2ba23bf38e0fc70b2f.pdf 1d8561f0241bc01d3905d1777a88f03a PDF Text Text CNMHIIl MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: April 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The nineteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on March 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at UDOT District Office in Odgen, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached for review is the Technical Memorandum on the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m .. at the U.S. Forest Service District Office in Logan, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of March 30 meeting. 2. Final discussion of traffic projections. 3. Discuss summaries of scoping meeting testimony (to be distributed at the meeting) . 4. Discussion on Chapter 7 - components of roadway improvement. 5. Discussion of the existing conditions portions of the aquatic resources, recreation/land use and socio-economic technical memorandums. 6. Outline for day-long work session session in Canyon on Tuesday, April 21, starting at 7:30 a.m. Future meeting schedule: May 4 May 18 BOT538/043 - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TE~l MEETING March 30, 1987 Attendance: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Arlo Waddops, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA Bruce Brotherson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc. Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Bill Helm Item 1 - Review of Minutes Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and approved, with some minor changes. Item 2 - Scoping Meeting Summaries Copies of the meeting transcripts were distributed. Team members were informed that copies of the written comments will be distributed after April 6. It was reported that the Cache County ~ouncil is going to request an extension of time to comment. Stan Nuffer indicated that the objective is to obtain as much input as possible and that comments will be given consideration even if they are received after the deadline. Hopefully, there will not be too many so that the summary can be prepared and some decisions made on the ' major issues. Item 3 - Discussion of Alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3 There was a discussion about these alternatives in preparation for a trip to the Canyon. Duncan Silver asked how the impacts of a 35 MPH alternative would be evaluated and compared to a 40 MPH alternative. The impacts would depend upon the amount of additional area affected due to flattening Visual impacts would be evaluated using the USFS system that was described by Clark Ostergaard. Steve Flint wanted to be sure that the accident data on the 16 sites that have higher than average accident occurrences was available when the team went into the Canyon. He also 1 �asked if it would be possible to consider spot improvements that were outside the project boundaries. There is a location approximately 0.7 miles west of Right Fork that might be suitable for a slow vehicle turnout. In preparation for the meeting in the Canyon, some sections will be staked to show the construction limits of the alternatives . . Project maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were distributed and locations to be staked identified. Valley Engineering will survey and place stakes at those locations a few days prior to the I.D. Team meeting. Item 4 - Aquatic Resources and Recreation/Land Use Technical Memos Copies of the aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos were distributed to the I.D. Team members. There will be some discussion on these after team members have had a chance to review them. Item 6 - Continued Discussion of Traffic Projections Cliff Forsgren distributed some additional information on traffic projections. A range of future traffic flows were developed using traffic volumes and northern Utah populations from 1940 to the present. The team members were asked to review and give their comments. Duncan Silver indicated that he felt that there was no real benefit in continuing to rework future traffic projections. The road cannot meet todays needs, even with a modified standard and he could see no benefit in spending more time working to precisely determine future volumes. Item 7 - Comments on Chapter 7 Due to the length of the meeting, discussion was postponed to a future date. BOX18/D.1401 2 " � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 782905033 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1696924 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Attendance, review of minutes, scoping meeting summaries, discussion of alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3, aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos, and continued discussion of traffic projections. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Silver, Duncan Ostergard, Clark Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-15 1987-03-30 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cd6efe244de617807eba980ea5ae5f21.pdf 8f09d4bab7e3fc9d96f44c6f84ee8e8b PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Study Team Members FROM: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL DATE: June 22, 1987 RE: Public Comments on the Proposed Logan Canyon Road Project PROJECT: B21163.GO Comments received at the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City during March 1987 are summarized in the attachments. Separate sheets are presented for each public meeting site and date. Written comments that were submitted following the public scoping meetings are summarized in two additional attachments (one for individual responses, one for group and governmental agency responses). These comments form the basis for completing a portion of Section 7 of the DEIS (Public and Agency Involvement). Please contact me if you have any questions. SLC-STN1/02 �encourage. exoect positive .f~ect dlscourage. ex~ct negative effect neutral. exoect no su~nif' • . or 1· 5t inq .ef·fect a ......-a~ .. ~ CANVON E.I.S. SCOPING MEETI ....G NU. 1 MRCH 3 • . - _______ z~ _ _=_a_K __ ~ __ ~--------------------~-~~---~--~--- _________ ~ ________________________ ~p----~-&------------------1987 l:OGAN. UTAH __ma____ 1<:1 II II II I " . _ .......H.L DESlU. II ACTIlJN f4...TERtIIATlVES Trno~t_ A/~t" 11-R~F~IC C~II--~.-------.--~-------- EX~'ANOED I.~t;rloesl ~ .----.--------.----.------.--~--.-------.-------II-------.-------.-------.--------.------.-------.--------11 I_===.-~""""=""""""==""=== I I "'=========== I I ===_ ===£"',."::,,.O:=-""=_-==OZE===="",.== .... =====O:==;.=..O: .....O:=s ....O:====c'= ======= I I __.. ~.. ~cc== .. =========.. ="' .... ===== .. =""=="'.. -====== .. "Marqar-et Pett is I I IICindy II I I Geor"e W. P .... est.:.n I I 1, IRichard Ca",oar,ellall I Johr. D •.Je .... sch I I IE .... i c Hash i I 1 John Pau 1 Reeus I i I Cor.rad Pete.'soY. I I IBetty Bc.el<.e.' II IT i M Dav is I I IRudy Lukez II I Ke"i~s ISteve Flint IClyde Hoth IBlair Francis IBruce Brotherson IDa'vid Buys IAI ice Stoke s I Nancy Warne.' I Mi ke Jabl.::)y,sk. i • I Ka,·er. Kroah I IToM Lye.n I I Shawn St arks I I L. C. Demars IIRussel1 Goodwin liKen Theis I Mary I Bedir.t;JField-Srn i th IScott Smith IDougl.AS Brin9hurst I I I I ? e __ c _____________________________________________ -------------------------------------------~----~-- IHEtiLIGNMNnWiOe;"IU H PHMorovel sP£EO.. II EXD@Ct Slonlfacant POSITIVE OR NEGETIVE IMPACTS Fro. Action Alternatives II WANT sco.:.E 0: sruUy TO I'klRC:: FULLY COVtR: - . It I Saeed I blans ______ " I iScer.ic I Nec. I I No I &t"09 t I "& ILoaanl thch I .. I LiMit I 1-----. - - - - - I 19ii;! IFiora &ltOOar.a Soec Scenic I H2O I Rivr Ecol Mult IA11-Vr IE_rg I ECOnoMY I EconQ!llY I I TouriSM I Tt"afficlScenic I &lcks...tn I Enoar.g ICost vs!" Pub! i c l I' 15oo ., \ I IHiwavl River I IAct:1 Reo.llirnorl(;l iMO Lr.1 Lan. I Coo I Laroes' t:.r.frc . Lower I Ralsel. 1 GaMeIHaoi tat ''':·'ar.1: " Ar.l 1 Dearad IO .... allFishing IUse ISafetYI Trar.s I Rich Col Cache C I 11Moacts I .. L 0 51 Rat ings Ifork Car. I I Benefit Hiuopc..... t ' I / . "~OMM~""TS 11------.-~--II---.~--.----.~--- ---I~----.----IFull . · NAME ________ I I .. II'" I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I I'" Refe.· .... ed I I I I I I i I I; I'" ... - I I II II I II ... I " II ... ... ... ... I ... I I I I ? ,, ... II II ... II II II ? ... ? ? ? ? ? ... ... ... I· I ' II II ... - II I' , I I' . f. ? 2 I' II Cost/BeneFit ~> ! _ 1.. - I 1/ i/ +t?- . -~ Study needed ~! ~. \ with D : I D ,, t ! I' II II ... 3 ~ ). i: , , stacewide cc·,.,oarisol'"••=.f needs :; 4 · I' I' 2 I' , i' I· II 2) I I II II + II ... II II II II II ... I' II II II ... " , I II 1 II ... Ii II II II ' ;I , I , I , I ... ... i i , I II II II II I I· '11 II ... II II II II ... II II II ... ... ... Ii I' ,, II II ... , I " II II II .... II I I II It II II II II ... I I I I i I II ... ; , , ; I ! II : I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II ... ... I _. I II ? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I II ... ... 1f If · I II , I , I I II i I ... ... . II II ... I ... I'" I I I i I ... I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ? I' II ... I I I I I I , I II I I ,. I I ======""====~"""",.,==== .. ="'=====:===,::-o:;: .. ====:o:=== .. = ........ ~=c==="" I , I I .- 1 -, II I I I I II t I ... I I ' -I I I I I'" I I I'" I I I to oreviously stated c.:once .... r.s and ey,dc"'ce'(fe.r.ts I I IRoy Hugie II i I ICrai'l Pil'",der IMonte Freeman I' II I Er i c Hansoy, II ICraig CaUDO , I IRon Ryel Ii IJiM Frankenfield II 1M. P. Co.:ove.' IRichard K. Winte.'sll I Bruce Pendery I I lOon Cundy II IDean F. Peterson II IDarrel1 Kunzler II IMay Coover II I Joyce Anders o n II I B r uce Bucbee II I I , II i I II II II II ' i I II II I I S~c. ""-_s'"'z= ........ ",_ce .. ';'_===_",,, •• ,,,,,,,===== -f- q 3) I j Olve Dreference to bicycle I.tses. �r:-' -8S 'LOGAN CANYOfIf E. I.~. 1P1ING MEETING - WAITTE;N R£SPONCES •__.-'_____________ . , ' '" " . . :' + , " , ' , , :, - , ' • , , ' , , , ? - .ft~~. I ------------It------___ 1----.-------.---------__ .________ ~.--------.----.------.~----.-------.---~---II-~-----.-------.--~----.-------~.------.-------.---~-.--" 18iq .IF.1or. . . . .:.¥.d.nq SO~i:&ceniC~~ ' i~ivr EcoIMu.t -'AI1-Yt", 'C:_ruIECOf'tOM¥.EconoMVII Touri ... ITr.ff'c'SC.ni~ , . 11Hck~tnIEno.r.qICOst v.," Puol lcl I & A" 11D.ur.d IQuAllf'isninQ IUse c ____ ___ :________________________ ' IS.fet,,·, Tr.r•• , Afch ColC.cne CII I - - - -____________ ______________________ & I IMPacts' &' L 0 SIR.I; ir.t;JsIFork C .... ISoec. Il<enefit ISUODO."t ,I •• :1 ~ , \ \ , Raise •_____ ______ R____ "Hiw.y I River' I,Act I Real ' ,hlor c ______ Lr. I Can. I Co. c _ c ____ c ____ I SI;t;'l DeS 'Lower __ ___ I 'Gi...e IHabi t'.t I;:>lant c _ c s ICI ifllb __ ________ I Lenes 'E.nfrc __ ~ ' encour.qe. eMa.ct oo.~tiv• • t~ect di.co~":-.D. . . . . . pect .... Q.t~v• • ffect . . nautr., . . . . o.ct roo stQn~t'. or ta.tl.n!tl --~-------------~---~---.-~------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~-~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------~----------IINAT'L OESUi. II ACTION ALTERIllATIVES I wEf.lLIGNMNTlWid.nIU H ~11"'Drovel SPEE:.O £ II t::Mpect SiQnl flc.nt ~S ITIVE O~ NEG€TIVE IflWACTS FroM Action Altern.tiv.s' , t I , IoIAIIIT ElCPAfIoQtD ~'Or-' SrUUY TO' rwRc: FlJl..LY COVt::R. I: ~~S 11--'----.-----II-,-.------.----.--------I-----.----IFull I Saeed I Sipns ITRAFFIC CAPI \\ IIScenicl Rec. IINo I Brag I~DOt I Trnout &ILog.nl Richl ~ ILi_it'l &Ior 1----. -----I t.,-1. Allen - ' , irwee P-.nderv ~ ~R ~ c_ccc~_=c_= I 1/ I I , ' I'" I + I I I , Wri1:ten resoonce duolicates statement or ser.teo at' Scooinq l'Ieetina I , I I I I " ~ I .,_2C~&&C~_=_=_c==~_.~. I I' ._.e ____ e___________________________ s~ I ' , I I I , II " II i II II ' I I I I I I I a~ I I , 1\ : I :: 'I I i : II II II I I ,' I 11 1I I 1 II I ' I , I I i I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I! ; // II I, , I , 1 II II 0 I I i 1i ; I " " I I I I : I! -I 1i ! ! ; 1i II II II 11 II I I II i I /1 , I : I I II I. I I II II Ii II ; I : ; : I t I. I . ~ I 'I i I . :,' L "' ( : l 1 I' t I t' (' a ....... ~ a ,... .. i I a �, ts-'89 1:...OGAM cANYON E. I. S.- + SCOPING MEETING NO.2 ' ~ ---------~-------~----~-- _______ r - -____ =~~~ __________________c MARCH 4. 1987 - , LOGAN_ UT~ " II : I " " COMMENTS \\ IINAT'L ~SICi. II -ocnlJrf ALTERNATIVES IfCE~IGNI'INrIWloenIU H PII.orovel ___ ~ ____ ~ __________ c ___ c __ ~ SPEE.D .. 'II Expect exoect positive .~~ect exoect negatiye e~fect eKoect no signi~. or la.tinG_ .f~Wc~ encour.ge. ~iscour.pe_ ___________________________________ ~ ______________________________________ a a . ___ ~~ __________________________ _ ? SiQn~hcan:...~;TIYE OR NEGETive II'IPACTS FroM Acti~n AlternatiYes • I -neutral. '-'ANT I:JePANDED 'SCOPE Or"" sruuY TO ...<lAl:: fULLY _ COVERs I 11------.-----"---.----.:~--.--------,-----_----IFuJl I~ORedl Siuns 'TRAFFIC CAP"----.-------.-------______ - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - 1 I l~er.lcIR~. IINo tliroplSPOt I Trnout "ILoganl R1C",1 ~ IL1Mit' &/~r 1-----. -----IIB1Q IFlora &IEnclanu &:J~SceniCIH20 I Rlyr E:.co'l'Iult IAl ,I-:'trIE_rg I EConoMY 'ECOnoMY' • TouriSM' Tr.~flcIScenlc f~lcksM~nlE.no.naleo.t vs'" Pubilcl .:---~--.ac_-~~~c::~::::=~~!:::::~~~~~::~~~:::!~!~::c~:!c::::~_~~~!~::::~~:~~~~!:::::~~::::~::!::::~:::!~::~~::~:!:::c~~~:~~:::~!~~:~~~!:~~::=~~:==~~:~::~~~::::~~!~=~:~~:~:~::!:::~::~~::~~=~~~::!:::~~~~:=~::!~~:c~~::~!!!~~~::.: • I Georue- Preston I I IIRobOt Fothet-inl;maf'lll I I Bryan Booth I I 1 I Richard De r-,t or. I j I I Bt-llce K i r.Q If I -I Newe 1 Da i nes , f I I Ted Wi Isor-, , I I I Gc.rdc.r. Lowe II ? I I I II I I I I II I + I + , f • ,- I , I ,+ I, I I I I II 'f I.. I + + " II f + J.,~ , .;.. v be issuinQ wt'itten recomrner.o a t i or.s 0/ - II I .. -f't \ - I , 1 -} +- I I + II I ..... / L/ .f~ i- ---i .:. i / " (/ ~ // () .J. , II I ' I I. + I I + I I Lache Countv G.=.v't wi 11 I + I I II I I + I I . II II I I , I 2 ..,111 enec.uraIJe sahle fron4 r/layors ar,eI ci ty _ cour-.ei Is I , + f ' I , I ? , I 1) f l l l actlc·r-, a1ter-r-.atives will ~.; '.! ./ 2) flll action alternatives will ,- 0 c/ I " ." ( ( ( ( i, -. I I I I t i l , _ , I II II II II + t-eouit-e State Engineer's clearar-.ce fc·t' ar-.y wc.rk c.n the river. reouire Bureau of water- Pc.llution Cc.ntrol cleat'ance. + ~\ + o II II o �$ LOGAN _ _ £.1.6.. INS MEETING NO. 3 ~. 1987 GARDEN -CITY. UTAH _ ___________________ I I " ~ + ~---~--------------------- _______ ~ ____ ~---------~--------~-------~---~----~na~----------~-------~----------------------~--------~ encour.qe • • M~ ~Itive effect discour.ge. exoect ne9ative .ftect neutr.1. exoecC no .aDni~. or la.tinQ .ffect ________ ? .~ ___ ~~----------------------------- IINATtL DESII3. II ACTION ALTERNATIVES IREf.LIGNMNTIWide"IU H PllMOrovel SPEEO & II Expect SiDnificant ITIVE OR NEGETIVE II'tPACTS FrOM Action Alte~tiv_ ... WANT ~X~D ~ OF ,srUlJY TO I'klRc FUi...t..YCOYER. - II , , 'CQI'IMENTS II--!--. IFull iSoeedl Sign, ITRAFFIC CAP I 1 - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - :-.----. - - . -...:----. - - - . ------. - - - . - - - - - . - - -- 1 1 - -- - . '-----~. - - - - - - . - ...- - - - . - - - - . - - - , - - . --,-~. --I, ' ' ' IISCanicIHec. llNo IBrdglSootlTrnout &lLoganlRichl ~ ILiMitl &/ar 1---.-----IIBig IFlora &IEnaan~ 5 ISceniclH20 IRivr Ecol"ultIAll-VrIE~~r9IECOnoMyIEconoMyIITouri5MITr.~~icISCenic l&lck~Mthlcnd.n~ICo.t vsl~ Publici I " " IIHi ....v I River. tAct I RepillMDrlCI iMb Lnl Can.' Co. IL.na.Uin1'rcIS~ripesILowerl R.i~eIIGa_l~bitat IPleant & .... 1 I Degrad I Queal IFishin" IUse ISa~etvl Trans I Rich Co'-Cache en IMoaCtsl& L 0 51 Rat inoslFork' Canl5oec. IBena~it ISupoort U ---.11--. --. -:----. .--,--. - - lOtto Mattson IKl'!'n Brown IDee Johnso .... I Barrv Ne,,'.ls IVaI Petersc..... IBryce Nielso .... ITed Seeholtzer IEcryce Stringham I John Fla .... nery lGeorge ~resto .... IRuss Currel lOwen Wahlstrom IPaul Webb IEcil1 Peterson ICathy Webb IRay Elliott f Lynr. Hi 11 sma .... lOon Huffner ' .. .. .. .. .. + f. + I II II A. v- 0 ... ... I II II II II II II II II I .. + + ? ? .1 II ... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? II II II II I I II . .. .. ... II II II II II ? It t I + ... + II II + ...... ,r: ;,-' .... t ·~· I ~" o I o c· . .· 6 - d \ , ----- ---- ~--- ( (, ------------------_. I ,1 : �) ) . ) ) ) \~ \ I I ~3 y. ~ I .r l/?- . -tZ .3 <~ 1-1'5 /-1- { -; 7- . . . .-::.... j I i ~ 2 (r)... I . . . .3 \ u ·r").... ~~ -fJ..1.t(/!-tJ,'). ~4; ' '- H '.. I· ( " ", I I!;~ I'. . ') . . (" j). --ll \ A ;;/10 I 2\ I l'1-"}7 I I ,:) i h 3 I I ~ ~I - r; t= positive effect ~ 3 r • did,,,,., "~,,,I neg.1i ,..if.ct .\ \.r I l' ,l \ ' :UDit! pt;bilC;; ;;5cenic;Rec. ;Brdg:Spot;Trnout ';Logan:Rich ;' > :Floril. Spec ;Scenic;H20 :Rivr ECC';I\Ult:lll-vriECerglECOnCIY;ECOnOIY;;TOuris.;Traffic:scenic ;Slcksmth:Endang:Cost vs;,; :!Hillay :Ri'/er: :Ad:Repl:hlpr-:Clia:b Ln: Can.: Co.:Lanes:Enfrc:Stripes:lower:Raise::Salle:Habitat\Plant ft AnI :llegrad:Qual:Fishlng :Use lilfetY!1rans/Rich Co:Cache c::rapacts:L L S:Ratings:Fork etc:Sllec. :Benefit:Sapport :: ::==================: :============: :================================================================: ~======================= ==========================T=====;:=====~===============: : ======================================================::: : ::Karla Allen" :: ! :: : !: : + : +: : : : : :::: I! :! : r -+! ! : :: ! : : : ::: : ! Brilce Pennery :: : :: : !: :: l : : : i !~ !: :: : :: ;?: :! : : : : +: ;: II :: ) I - ' ~f I l~-:z.' ~.h I ~ ( ~ en[()~rage, e~pect 1 ( r I ,\ ~~;;;~~~:~~~~~f~f~~~~:~~ J~~ ~~~~~~~:~~~t~~,~~;;~~:~:l;;;;;;;{:L~ic;~:;:::~!~~~1~~~~~~:~~ i;~~;:i;;f,~;~~:~~~;~'i~~:~~t;~m~;t:::i::=~~~f~~~~~;j;:~~~~~:~:~~1~~~:~~~~~:~mt:=~ C~~!'!ENT5 i~~~s ;-~-~-:----~;;Bi9 ~~Endang LJ5-89 LDSAN CANYON E.I.S. SCDPING ""WIS - 'R ITTE. RESPCOCES ) 1" \ D ~s I ~> I \\ NAME \\ ! : ! Eerdon LO)l :: : : Robert Eri ckson " : !llennis Pi=per " " : !Da:liel Horton " : : J. Steven Larsen :: : !Wil SOIl Wahi stroll " : :Doug S?ence II ., : : E. H. Berry : :Eric Hash " ! : T Wi 1son 01 ::Til Davis ! : Don Hancey " : : 6eorge Roohr : :Don Huefner I. : :Pilul Johnson : :Eldon Stubhs : !Keith Stubbs : !Rcss Wilson : :!'!i ke Lockhart : !!!ar jorie !lizard : :C. 5harpsteen + : !Anne Jones : : Boyd Bradford : :Larry Jardine : :C. Val Grant :: Ja:tes Frankenfield:: : :Richard Calpanella:: : : Lilrri ssa Pl!tko :: : : : Stephl!n Boyd : : D. Brent Jensen : :Julia Sold : :Sandy Borthwick : : Alan Carpenter + : !Karri Sli th : :Frank Salisbury : IPatricia Sordon : : Jaaes WilsDn : : Kathy lIebb : :John Spic:Heaan ':: .. : :IIargaret Pi ersall :: ! :Allen Stokes I: -n : :IIax Lyon : :Nancy lIillius ' II I II .. + ., II II I I " II ., .. .. ., I. . I. II II II " II II II II II II II II II II II II II !! t ,. II II II II ., II ., .. ., ., II II I I II II II II II I I .. .. + ,. II .. .. II '1 I. + II + II II ., ? II " II II " II II + .. : :Sadfi! Hanson II " ., .. II II II .. II II II " + II II .. I I II I I " II II II II " " " II II II II " II II ? . II " " II II " II II II I "I :+/- II II II II II II II II II II II .. :+/- ? +/+/- .. ? II II • I II II I ?I+ I ' " II - I , II II .. + II II I I +/- ' 1 .. I .. II II II I. II II II :: .. II II .. II I II : :Russ Lirson II " II I • +/+/+ II .. II .. I. ? II II II II II :: II I ) II II " " I + " II II I! ! I + ,. " II II II ., + + .. II " :~ :: .. " II I. " I. II II II II II II " II II .. II I. .1 I I " II :i " II II II II II ) + II II ) + II II II :: II I I II I. ) II II .. II II .. II :! II II " II II ) !: -+ II II ) + :: (14) II I L II II + II II :: :: :: I I ' 1 .. :: ? II II ? 1/- :. : .. 1 II II - II " II (15) II II I I , .. I · I : II \ : .. :: :: ' .;~ : J'~ l: --~ II It -/ - . I �'::: ..::::.J :' ' "."'~'''''_''''''''''''''''...,__....... . ..... . . . .....";.; . ....'...(.'."..:.":''';.'' . ..~ ........ ~ . ) " ) II II ., II II .1 ., .. ., II :Seorgie Leighton II I. : Steve Ryder ., II II II II II II .. ., ) l :Bonnie Hallin ) ) .J ) .) II II II II II II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., :: Ann Spring : :Eric Rexstad : l Di ane Behl : l Jehn Nicholson : : Daria Wighhan : l Ri chard Perkes : :Sylvia ilight=an : :Paul ilighhan : l Bruce Bugbee II II " II ) .) + " II ., II .. : l Cathy Welsh I. II I I : : lIayne Padgett :'l J. R.Allred : : Margaret Petti 5 :: + l l 11. Bedingfiel dSlith: : l : Jerry Jayne :: : l Ri chard Cazpanell a: l : : IIi II i am Boy 1e l: :: Al ice StoKes :: : : !Ireta Satterwai te :: II l : Dave Burkhard I. II :: J. Kent Hartin : lilendell Anderson ., II : ~J. lIaidl!r II I. : l Alice Lindahl I. : : Ll yn DwelUs :! II + +/- " II II II II " I I " " +/- " : " " II " " :: + II II II ? +/- + I. .. " II " :: II II II ., ., .. .. ., II ? II ., " " .. :: + " I" + - ::- I ? + n I · +/- ,. ,. + II I (113) II II' I I . ., , " II II .. " .. I " II ., II II I I + " I. II II , I I II I. II II II II II II I ' :: + II II " " " .. II , II II II II .. .. .. .. I. II I. II I. II I. (15) I ". II + II II I • " II +I? II .. II + I I " ., .. .. .. .. ... .. I. II (t!4) I' .. ., i .. .-' II II II I • 'l'J\ I I I I . .J " !I I. II ., ., " I II II " ., II .. .. " II II II I. II II II II ,. I. II I. " II I • I ". I I .. ., ., .., . II + II I. .. II II ., ., (1m II I' " +/- (113) II I • + . .., !I II I I :! + ., ~: .. .. .. ... .. .. ., + II II II I . II + ., " II ., II II " " II II II II II II " ., ., ., + II II II II II II '1 " +/- II II II " " II I "I II II II I' + II II :: I I II I. II ., ., " ,. ., + II II ., .. ,. I I I I + II : :Rebert CaldlieH : l Char Ies Carpenter l : James Ri chards : : El don Drake : : Ri chard !'Ii chaud l :Charles Salzberg l l Lucy Jordan : : Mar jori e Lelli s : :Ron Hinkley l l Lei h Shultz " II ., II II '1 ., + .. .. (tb) II I. I. " II II II I' II II I I II (to) I I II II ) : (46): .. II II II " II II II l : Ronal d Lanner l lililliam Furlong ) +1- ., ., II II : :Ken Theis ::Eric Johnson +,\'i: " " '1 II I' I. : (t6) l II + I I II .. II I. II .. .. ., " "I I ., " .. ., .. '1 II II II II II + II II II I. '1 II II .. .1 .. .. .. (is) II II I I " " II I I II II I II ., II I. r I " " I I '1 + " " ., " '"t' •...... /l .. >." II I. .. + II I. •••• , ..... ~)~ ••••• ,., • • • II +/- :: II II oJ · II II I. ., .~. II ?I- ., " : : Karen Leach . II '1 " II II : : Mark Hashovsky l :Danald Sanda l: Roni PeKins : : Judy !'Ioff att I -"" " II II II .. : : Sarth Bar ker + I , "' I' '1I ' '1 " II : : Bryan Booth ) " .. .. IBetsy Neely :Lee Hiller : :Anon. ) " " II I' " I • ....... .... , - . ,- -' ' i ' \ II I. I. II ~, II : Terry Hall ) . - -' - -' - ! .. .. .. +f- : Jose~h Weston ~ ' - \ i i +1- II I . : Karen Sanz .11 ez :ThaClas BakI er -, (IW illS) I. ., ., ., ., II ' .. II �) ) : :!1adeline Mazursh : : Des:lOnd Anders:);) ! : Jales Haefner : : Rebert Niel son : : Cl a~ke Cam~bel! : :t!e~d2l1 Morse ! :Craia Caupp ::£. A. Soeker : : Jan Yaung ., " " " " " " " " " " " " : + " " " " " " f/- :+ I "I " " " " " I + " .., ] 1 . , : .,: ~ . .'~'. ,. . } m6 ) " I I ., II " II II " " " , . II II II I I " " II " ., !I " II ed!1catior.~ etc. t2l rllpro.es $ liabihty for safety of eller. trans. personnel 13l Modify cross-drai nage structures to allow -Ii sh passage into vi abl e side streams t4l Re=edial mitigation in tOKer canyon (beloll Right Fork> IS) McSui res Pri IIfOSe ibl Highly detailed specifics in the final LI.S. m Fer.ce or bar livestock grazing in canyon (conflicts tr1ith vehicle traHid tBl Expect no illpacts IIi thir. Agency jurisdiction II " " " ., " " " " II 1 Upgrades a vital link for gov't services, . , ,. I I II ., " " " ~ I; " " .~ I, ,. II " " !, +1- " 19) Cor.cern e;! Ki th wetland d!' l ini ation/mi tigatio:\ ptan clearances E ~ p"ct no i~voJveite;)t of ~i3tin!1al Natural La;;d:arks, b:: t need more details #11) /1i tigat ion :;:easures suggested - olant salt-resista:1t .eg. 112) Int2rfe r!!~[e ~i th a~uders ~ear Bear La ke SlJui t; affects on groundwa.ter recharge i13) Study p r2fere~:::e5 ·to bi~y::les ! _r.d closure of Logan Ca:lyon b motor v"hides 114) Close ~ D to tr~d traffic ute t15) Statew; d<? crior i ty - Cocpare IIi t h other canyon roads. U6) Re::ledii I :;ti tigaticn fer Logar, River - restore past highway-related channelization. I HM II II �() 5 ) ) f, "t - (0 <:r AIJ (!.J...~ Y<J /J £" L S . . . . • _ + ~!:"~,.~OCQ.1 ..,~~~t P¢ S; +; v ~ "'_!.~ c-14., . , .. . " ~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~§~¥~~~~~~~~ :--.----I--'-----1~---.----:FUl1 \\ COtl!!EHTS : :-----.---: :Spe!d: Signs :TRAFFIC CAP: :---.----j-------.------. ---.------.----.----.:----:------.-------, ,-------·-------·r------!-------·-----·---·----·--, \\ : :Scenic :Rec. : :No' :erdg:Spot !Trnout I: Logiln :Rich: 4 :Lili t: "or :---.--:--: :Big :FIon rr:Endang Spec :Scenic: H2O :Ri vr Eco:lM t:All-Yr !Elerg !EconoIlY: EconolY! :Touri ~.:Traffic}Scenic ~Blds.th:Endang : east vs:t PubliC: ItA~E \\ ::Hiuy :River::Act:Repl:lllpr:Clilb Ln: Ciln.: Co.:Lilnes!Enfrc:Stripes:Lolfl!f'lRai51!::Sale:Habitat}Phnt rr AnI !Oegrad:l2ual!fishing !Use lS~fety:Trans:Rich Co:Cache C!lIlpad!l:z. L 0 ~:RatingslFort etc:Spl!e. !Bl!nl!fit:Support : ::==================: :==========: : ======================================================: : ==~================= ===============':===================================: : ======~===::====r=======================~==========' ::n PRIVATE SRmJPS, ASSOCIATl!l~5, ETC. ! f 2+ : :!..ugan High :! !: !2f! b+ bf 9+ 1+ B+ 3+ 1+ 3+ 2+ 3+ :: 1+ " II 4I I School Students :: !: 1-: 4313121- " 47" (36 letters) 3? 1? 2? " 1?: 3? 1? I? I? :: 2? ., II I, , (13) : :A:er Fisheries Soc:: + , " II + + : :Friends Bear Lake :: + " +~ ;; +/::c. Prot. Logan Can:: + + " "I tl I II + +/: :Suui t Cycli sts " ? ? II +/+ : : eri dgr la~d Auduhon:: + ., " " :: :: :: ., .. .. ., ,. ., If .. It II " ., .. If ) ) ) ) ) J ) ) " " .. .. .. II .> .. .. .. ,. .. .. " " II ::+1 + " , "' ,. ," ~ + + I (m .. .. .. " " " " " .. " .. + + + + I . " " + + .1 i. :: + + + ? -~ + + " STATE II FEDERAl SDVER~ME~TS, : :ut.SLllildlife Res:: : :Ut.St.Lands It For.:! ::Ut.Off.Mang't Bdgt:: : :U. S. Bureau of Ree:: {tlB : :U.S. ArlY - C.O,E.:: ::Nat'l Park Service:: ::Fish z. IUdlife Ser:: : :Farlers HOII! Admin:: (IB) ,. " II " " II " II " II : ,. ,. .. ., " " " " -(131 :(m: ;(11): : <121: " " Upgrades a vi tal link for gllv·t services, education, etc. hproves S liability for safety of Her. trans. personnel lIodify cross-drain~ge structures to alllMl fish pilssage into viilbll! side streams Reledial litigation in lower canyon (bdow Right Forkl . ItcSuires Prilrose ~ " " " " " .. " :. II II II II II II " II II II " " " "I I II " " (19) : mOl (15) " " II II " II ,. " " " " " " " " .. II II II It + " " " " II + II II II , .' I. II It II , ,. :: " " II " " " II + + + ., " II . " II AGENCIES, SERV!CE DISTRICTS, ETC. h ., + II ., " " + I. II " " " " " II .. .. '"" ., + II It " " " + ? ? :Ull! + + +/? ? ? + + II II " " " , " II II 19) Concern ed lIith wl!tland deliniation/litigation plan clearances 110) till 1121 113) Expect !litigat Interf Study p no i nvol velent of National N~tural landurks, but nel!d lore details ion lI!~sures suggested - plant salt-resishnt veg. rence .ith aquifers near Bear Lake SUlli t; affects on groundllater recharge references to bicycles, and closure of Logan Canyon to lIotor vehicles I _ '1. !' J i ) ) 161 Highly "debited specifics in the fin.} E.I.S. I7J Flnee. or bar livestock gruing in canyon !conflicts with vehieh traffic) . 181 .Expect no i.pacts within Ac]rncy jllri'di~ion ',' ~:. . II II " " ) ) " II + ~ !~ ? II II II " " " " II + • , , II II tl . " II ,. 111 121 13) 141 151 + " ., <tIl :: II I ". II II {Ill (111 ? " I • " + :! II " II ? ? " " I. ~ .. ,. II II :: II " I • II " " ::ff LOCAL SOYERNMENTS, AGENCIES, SERVICE DISTRICTS, ETC. : :Hyrul Ci ty Mayor : :Fur Lake Co. COI=:: : :Rich County COli. :: : !Bear lake S.S.D. :: : :Sarden City !!ayor :: : :Rich Co. SheriH I I ! : Hyde Park llayor : :a.R.A.S. : :logan "ayor :: ::Logan City Council:: : :Sci thfield !layer :: : :Ri ver H2ights !'Iayr:: ::C.of C.- Bear Lake:: ::C. of C. - Cache Co. :: : : Cache Co. Cound 1 :: : :Logan Hospital :: : :Bl!ar River R.C.1f D:: II " " " II IW C1OS. r out. to trud traffic 1151 Sht",. dl priority - Colpare with other canyon roads. U61 Reletlil 1 Ii tigation for Logan River - restor! past highway-related channeli zation. .~I .;. ..1 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/66">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/66</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1085875997 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7576656 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Summary of public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City Description An account of the resource Summary of the comments received from the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City in March 1987 concerning the proposed Logan Canyon Road project. Legend deliniates + as improvements encouraged, - as improvements discouraged, and ? as neutral expecting no signficant or lasting effect. Graphs are broken down between individuals and groups. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Garden City (Utah) Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_006.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0b9488c88e01aa2a27762ee383469a7e.pdf 2339a53ab2d0cca68b18ec4a5f95d6ac PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING F~bruary~, 1987 17 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 2. Distribution of Revised Outline for Scoping Meeting 3. Distribution of copy of Notice of Intent from January 23, 1987 Federal Register Distribution of Legal Notice of Scoping Meeting sent to media. Distribution of letter sent to agencies Distribution of draft of fact sheet Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative Development Dated February, 1987. SLC-STAN/14 1 �LOWER CANYON SECTION 1-MIDDLE CANYON SECTION 2-UPPER CANYON SECTION 3-RICH COUNTY LOGAN CITY TO RIGHT FORK M.P. 374.62 TO M.P. 383.47 8.85 MILES RIGHT FORK TO 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING M.P. 383.47 TO M.P. 391.60 8.13 MILES R 0 A D WAY ST A. 482 + 00 TO 920 +·00 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING TO BEAR LAKE SLNMIT M.P. 391.60 TO M.P. 404.75 13.15 MILES ROADWAY STA. 920+00 TO 1690+00 BEAR LAKE SUMMIT TO GARDEN CITY M.P. 404.75 TO M.P. 411.78 7.03 MILES ROADWAY STA. 1690+00 TO 2068+00 .... C Ol E C CJ)CJ) W c= ..... S2 c:x: c:x: z c:x: CJ) () COMPONENTS a: W ..... c.~ Ol'O.~ Ol .... en ..C Ol o W - Q)- 0 OOl >c .,... Ol a.E EC -.2> .c:x:. '0< . C zcuCJ) c: c.S W Ol"- ~ ~~ c:x: ~w ..... 'O.~ .....J .- X C\I c:x: en :::J:2 ~'3 W .... co ..... en C\I W .... C Ol ~ a.E EC w -.~ co E W o La. .c:x:. '0< . E c: c.~ W Ol"..... 'O.~ .....J .- X Ol > ..... c:x: 0 c:x: z .sz z c: cu- a: ..... . ~ 0 .....J CU:::J c:x: ~a en >c W ..... .....J c:x: +-' o a. en E Ol > o ra. E ..o C ZCUCJ) c.. c:x: ~. W (J) Q)- ~c C")L-Ol o c.E EC W -.2> C") C") C") W LL.c .... c W :.: Ol o C).c ... .c:x:. '0< . .....zE w"5c: o Ol .~ (J) E c:x: C C z ~ CJ) z a: ~ .~ a:Ol= wzC:X: w O l < C ZCUCJ) c: c.S W Q)..... 'O.~ .....J .- X ..... z ..... .....J c:x: ~w .....J c:x: c:x: CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS - No Widening (Maintain Existing Surface) .--~------~----~I~~---~--=---+------+------~--. -Widening-Standard (40' Pavement> ~------------~~----~------~------+------+------~----~~-----+------~----~~- Widening-Modified Std (34' Pavement) - C lim b in 9 La n e s (S eIe c ted Are as ) -Climbing Lanes (All Possible Areas) ~------------i~----~------~------~----_+------~----~~----_+------~----~~-= --+-----~------~~------+-----~~----~--~--_+---.~_+---.--~~~.--~ · . • • • ROADWAY CURVATURE (ALIGNMENT) - Retain Existing Alignment -Improve Alignment (Selected Areas) -Improve Alignment (35 MPH) -Improve Alignment (40 MPH) -Improve Alignment (60 MPH) - New Alignment (40 MPH) -New Alignment (50 MPH) ROADWAY GRADIENT - Retain Existing Gradient - Adjust/Raise Gradient (Selected Areas) -Improve Gradient (35 MPH) -Improve Gradient (40 MPH) -Improve Gradient (60 MPH) - New Gradient (40 MPH) - New Gradient (50 MPH) MAJOR BRIDGES - Repair Existing Structures - Replace on Existing Alignment - Replace on New Alignment MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY FEATURES - Retain Signing and Markings -Improve Signing and Markings - Slow Vechicle Turnouts -Retain Existing Recreational Turnouts - Provide New Recreational Turnouts (1) SOME CURVES HAVE AN ADVISORY SPEED OF LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SHOWN. •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~------------i~~L-~-------~------~----_+------~----~r_~--_+------+_----_+------~------r_----~t-------~----~------~------~----_+----~~----~ • • • ~------------~~----~------~------~----_+------+_----~r_----_+------~----~~----~------+_----~I~----~------+-----~------~--- • • • • j • • • • • (1) • • (1) .(1) -• • (1) • • • • • • • --- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (1) -- • • (1) • • • • • : • • FIGURE • • • • • COMPONENT AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOGAN CAN ·YON STUDY FEBRUARY 1987 c'::¥.U:mf �.OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION MARCH 3, 4, 1987 u.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 I. Introduction A. Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS - Tod Weston B. Introduction of speaker (others?) C. Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping meeting to be held after publishing notice of intent, before preparing EIS 1. 2. Obtain input on issues that · should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for project alternatives 3. D. Share results of study to present, project alternatives developed Answer questions on the alternatives and the EIS process UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three major study efforts 1. 2. Development of transportation plan (alternatives) 3. E. Analysis of traffic constraints and needs Preparation of environmental document (EIS) Previous public information meetings have been held from which input will be used for scoping EIS, along with this input; this meeting will 1. Quickly recap results of study to present 2. Review goals and objectives 3. Explain project alternatives developed to the present 4. Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps more specific to alternatives 1 .. J �II. Project Setting A. Relation of U.S. 89 to Region B. Most of project area lies within Cache National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating agencies on EIS III. Study Findings A. Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource designated by the USFS as a scenic highway B. U.S. 89 serves traffic 1. Utilizing canyon for recreation 2. From regional communities accessing the regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake 3. Through traffic from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks c. Resources of canyon and population increase will increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future D. U.S. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial" E. Classifications carry standards to be met; U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial F. Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most of project area; gradient and curves add to problems G. Commence existing, standard, and modified standard, typical sections H. Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in 16 areas than the average for the Canyon I. Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions J. At present volumes, road falls into Level of Service D K. By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout project area Results of traffic needs study presented at previous meetings; fact sheet is available L. 2 ... j �IV. Goals and Objectives A. Primary opjective of study is to achieve balance between transportation needs and scenic and recreational resources of canyon B. Transportation needs - rural minor arterial standards 1. Achieve a level of service C wherever possible in the Canyon through year 2010 a. b. Widen and improve alignment Provide climbing lanes 2. 3. Improve safety in any identified hazardous areas 4. Improve roadside turnouts and parking areas 5. Improve major intersections 6. C. Replace substandard bridges and drainage structures Keep highway guardrails to a minimum consistent with public safety Scenic and aesthetic values - recreation and water quality are resources ~hich require greatest protection 1. Manage corridor as a scenic highway 2. Avoid Logan River channel changes and protect the riparian edge 3. Mitigate any encroachment damage to fisheries and wildlife habitat 4. Minimize cut and fill slopes 5. Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics, including abandoned road sections 6. Control runoff on cut and fill slopes to minimize erosion and protect water quality 7. Protect existing and potential recreation sites, and provide suitable access 8. Dispose of surplus material in designated areas 3 .J �v. Alternatives Development A. Study area can be divided into three sections based on terrain and road design characteristics 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring ') L. • 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City B. Different alternatives are appropriate to each section C. Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/ decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings D. Alternatives generally cover wide range of options to provide good comparison of pros and cons of each E. Sect.ion 1 - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs 1. 2. Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and parking; signing and marking improvements 3. Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements 4. F. No action - maintain existing road Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve (straighten) alignment; passing lanes; particularly in areas of sustained grades; improvements listed in 2 and 3 Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake -Summit 1. No action - maintain existing road 2. Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment, provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades; raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 4 �G. Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 1. 2. Construct road along new alignment to north 4. IV. Widen and improve along existing alignment to design speed of 40 to 50 mph - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten) alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades, raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 3. H. No action - maintain existing road Construct road along new alignment to south Use of an alternate canyon for new road for through traffic such as Blacksmith Fork has been suggested as an alternative by many in the past. Has been determined economically infeasible. Therefore, must do best we can to balance local recreation/ through traffic needs on existing U.S. 89 Procedures to Submit Comments 1. Sign up 2. Step to microphone 3. Give name, representing what group 4. Want to give everyone chance to speak before allowing anyone second opportunity 5. Not looking for whether you favor project or not, but what issues should be examined in ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that should be considered 6. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at back of room. SLC94/d.ll0l 5 - j �LIST OF SLIDES TO ACCOMPANY PRESENTATION AT SCOPING MEETINGS MARCH 3, 4, 1987 LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 Slide No 1. US-89 - Logan Canyon Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Utah Department of Transportation in cooperation with United States Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration Consultant: CH2M HILL 2. Purpose of Scoping Meeting o o o o o o Comply with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review study approach Review public involvement program Review results of study Review alternatives developed to date Obtain input on alternatives 3• Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M . .) 4• Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.) 5. Function of US-fr9 through Logan Canyon o o o o o o 6. Designation by USFS as a scenic highway Recreational access within canyon Regional recreational traffic Regional business and service Serves interstate through traffic Classification "Rural Minor Arterial" Roadway Characteristics o o o o Substandard cross-section Low design/travel speed Low level of service - delays Traffic volumes will increase 7. Typical Sections (Figure) 8. Goals and Objectives o SLC-STN/18 Transportation needs 1 �Level of service C in year 2010 Replace drainage structures Imp" ove hazardous areas r Improve turnouts and parking Improve major intersections Minimize guardrailing consistent with safety 9. Goals and Objectives o Scenic and Aesthetic Values Manage as a scenic highway Protect river and riparian edge Mitigate damage to wildlife habitat Minimize cut and fill scopes Landscape disturbed areas Control runoff Protect water quality Protect recreation sites and access Surplus material disposal 10. Study Area - Three Sections Section 1 2 3 Description Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 11. Site Map (Showing three sections) 12. Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. E. 13. No action Spot improvements Widen along existing alignment Widen and improve existing alignment New alignment (Section 3) Alternatives A. No Action (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Maintain Existing Road 14. Alternatives B. Spot Improvements (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Replace bridges Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements SLC-STN/18 2 �15. Alternatives C. Widen Along Existing Alignment (Section 1) Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 16. Typical Sections - Widening on Existing Alignment (Figure) 17. Alternatives o. Widen and Improve existing alignment (Section 1, 2, and 3) Improve alignment - Section 1 35 - 40 Section 2 55 - 60 Section 3 35 - 40 Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 18. Cross Sections - Widening and Improving Alignment 19. Alternatives (Section .3) E. F. New north alignment G. 20. New north alignment New south alignment Alternatives Summary Alternative Categories A. B. C. o. E. F. G. Section 1 (Middle Canyon) No Action Spot Improvements Widen Exist. Road Widen and Improve: 35-40 mph 40-50 mph 55-60 mph New North Alignment New North Alignment New South Alignment SLC-STN/18 Al Bl Cl Section 2 (Upper Canyon) A2 B2 Section 3 (Rich County) A3 B3 01 03 02 E3 F3 G3 3 �(Notes Slides 21 . - 31 to be made from Figures) 21. Alternative B1 - Middle Canyon Spot Improvements 22. Alternative C1 - Middle Canyon Widen Existing Alignment 23. Alternative D1 - Middle Canyon Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 24. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (lower Half) Spot Improvements 25. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (upper Half) Spot Improvements 26. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (lower half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 27. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (upper half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 28. Alternative B3 - Rich County Spot Improvements 29. Alternative D3 - Rich County Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 30. Alternative E3, F3 Rich County New North Alignment 31. Alternative G3 - Rich County New South Alignment 31. SLC-STN/18 Alternative Summary (repeat of slide 19) 4 �L/s/ (7/ jJn;;/ #1eck~ r.4t/ reee<:C/-ed 0- :: C-e;P[1 of ~ ~,6 6/ /<fF7 .£ ep( ~#ce ' LOGAN CANYON PROJECI MAILING LIST MEDIA Organization ~ Logan Herald Journal ~ Contact Phone Cache Citizen v' Lake Tribune - Sa-If f4k Tl,bu~ (80l.) 752-2121 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 485 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Uinta (Evanston) County Herald (bi-weekly: Wednesday and Friday) v - Salt ~ Tim Vitale - Address - Mel Baldwin (307) 789-6560 (801) 237-2045 Utah State University The Statesman (Lc7~~) P.O. Box 867 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 750-1759 C h Y;J j~nJR-1.f~"­ P.O. Box B Evanston, Wyoming 82930 UMC 0165 Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322 Salt Lake Deseret News Joe Bauman (801) 237-2150 P.O. Box 1257 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Ogden Standard-Examiner City Editor (801) 394-7711 455 23rd Str. Ogden, Utah 84402 Box Elder News and Journal (801) 723-3471 55 South 100 West Brigham City, Utah 84302 V Bear Lake Gazette (208) 847-3077 484 Washington Str. Montpelier, Idaho 83254 ~ The News Examiner (208) 847-0552 847 Washington Str. P. O. Box 278 Hontpelier, Idaho 83254 KSL Television Channel 5 (801) 237-2500 145 Social Hall Ave. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 KTVX Television Channel 4 (801) 972-1776 1760 S. Fremont Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 KUTV Television Channel 2 (801) 973-3000 2185 S. 3600 W. West Valley City, Utah 84120 KVNU Radio (801) 752-5141 1350 N. 200 W. Logan, Utah 84321 KVEZ Radio (801) 753-8210 26.00 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-3143 University Hill Utah State University Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 752-1390 810 West 200 North Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-5018 606 North 500 East Logan, Utah 84321 j,/ - ~ ( KUSU Radio Therese Stamm Editor Lee Austin KBLQ Radio Salt Lake Tribune (Local Correspondent) SLC-STAN/BIG Chris Jorgensen 5 �_ _ l ~:£~ lillI' _ . Enginee~s . Planners ' Economists Scientists February 6, 1987 B21163.DO Logan Herald Journal 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 Attention: Legal Advertising Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Meeting. We would like this notice to appear in the next possible issue of your paper. Please invoice us fo~ the cost of the advertisement and send and Affidavit of Publication to my attention at the address shown below. Sincerely, Sandy Leonard Office Administrator . SLC94/46 t Enclosure CH2M HILL Utah Area Office Associated Plaza. Suite 500. 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218. Salt Lake City. Utah 84101 801 .363.0200 �NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS US-89 Logan Canyon The Federal Highway Administration (FHW~), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environ~ental Impact Statement (ElS) being prepared f9r U.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah, on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. The general public, interest groups, and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans for improvements, and evaluate the impact of those plans on the environment in an ElS. The FHWA and the USFS will be cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will -be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the conduct . of an ElS. It is the purpose . of the scoping meetings to determine ' from the interested community what are perceived to be the sensitive resources of the project area and what environmental factors should be studied most closely in the ElS. Several public meetings discussing the project have been held previously. Other scoping meetings will be held as determined necessary, and information on time and place will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the -Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along the the road constraints, often results in delays of traffic. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn- �... " outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment is selected areas, etc. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs, 2. 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit, and 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City (Rich County). Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No action Spot improvements Widening along the existing alignment Widening and improving the existing alignment Constructing the road along a new alignment in the Rich County section A fact sheet providing information about the project will be available at Valley Engineering, in Logan; Utah State University Library; Garden City Hall; the U. S. Forest Service, Ogden; and CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City; approximately 3 weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. Written comments or questions will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be directed to: Stanton Nuffer or Clifford Forsgren P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 363-0200 SLC60/72 84110 �_ 1~:ft~ ,",,, _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists c;orJy o f LErrG~ S:£/\/T TO 77 OFP/ce.S, February 13, 1987 B21163.DO Economic Development Administration Denver Region Office of the Director 909 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Federal Highway Administration, u.s. Forest Service, and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold an agency scoping meeting for the environmental impact statement (ElS) being .prepared for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon (Summit and Rich Counties, Utah). ' The meeting will be on March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in Logan City Hall, Logan, Utah. Agency personnel are invited to attend . and provide input regarding major issues that should be examined in theEIS and concerns about impacts of road improvements. Public scoping meetings will be held on March 3, 7:00 p.m., at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4 at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. You are also welcome to attend these meetings. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting f~rm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans ' for improvements,' and evaluate the impact of those plans on the environment in anEIS. The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Forest Service will be cooperating agencies on the ElS, which will be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Several public meetings discussing the project have been held. Notification of other scoping meetings will be . provided ·through the local news media. Meetings will also be held when the draft ElS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork, about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway are a CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lone, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Soft Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East p.o. Box 2218, Soft Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801.363.0200 �Page 2 February 13, 1987 B21163.DO narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is travelled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along with the road constraints, often results in traffic delays. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn-outs, provision of climbing lanes, and constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1) Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring; 2)1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit; 3) Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1) no action; . 2) spot improvements; 3) widening along the existing alignment; 4) widening and improving the existing alignment; 5) constructing the road along a new alignment. A fact sheet providing information about the project will be sent to you in the next few days. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be addressed to: James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, utah 84119 We request that you advise us at the above address by March 1, whether your office will participate in the scoping process. Questions may be directed to James Naegle, telephone (801)965-4160, or CH2M HILL, telephone (801)363-0200. Stanton Project Manager BOC5/026 �lh,j LOGAN CANYON US-89 FACT SHEET TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIS L + - .s7{o~"f-, '" ~ "' L -:J .ec. -' f' ~ f) . r r, 1f - ~P,S (if This fact sheet is the third in a series that has been developed to inform the interested public on the progress of The previous fact sheets outlined the scope of the study and reported the result of the transportation needs and traffic volume projections. This fact sheet outlines the tentative alternatives that are under study and provides the means for the public to evaluate the progress of the study and comment on important environmental issues and other possible alternatives at the project scoping meetings on March 3 and 4. The development of alternative plans for the improvement of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is dependent on the identification of feasible improvements. "Improvements" refers to separate actions that can be taken to improve the road, such as widening, straightening, providing slow car pull-offs, etc. "Alternatives" are "combinations of improve- ments proposed to be applied in specific locations that would result in a certain level of improvement of the road. ~hese alternatives and others that may be suggested in the scheduled scoping meetings may be evaluated for environmental impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A preferred alternative will be selected in conjunc- tion with preparation of the draft EIS. In the case of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, feasible improvements have generally been defined as (1) actions that will correct problems identified in the previous transportation needs study; (2) actions that will result in a reason- able cost to benefit; and (3) actions that will not result 1 ./ ; l f-of- C),u~ e5 n,.it A fk h.Nf". February 1987 the Logan Canyon Study. I �in extreme environmental impacts. u.s. under study for application to o Improvements that are 89 include: " Widening of the roadway, shoulders, recovery areas and ditches to normal UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainoHs terrain, or to a modified (narrower) standard that would be less disturbing to the environment of the canyon. o Widening the roadway to provide passing lanes in all possible or selected areas. o Improving the alignment (straightening curves) and the road gradient (degree of slope) to increase the minimum design speeds. o Developing all new road alignments and gradients to 40 mph or 50 mph minimum design speeds. o Repairing existing major bridges. o Replacing major bridges. o Replacement of small drainage structures. o Developing slow vehicle turnouts. o Improvement of signing and pavement markings. o Providing recreational parking. Each of these possible improvements was considered in terms of the opportunities and constraints posed by the existing road and Logan Canyon. 2 �It has become obvious during the study of transportation needs that the roadway consi~ts of several sub-sections :. based on 'the physical characteristics of the terrain. These sections, as shown in Figure 1, are: o Section 1. Middle Canyon - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring o Section 2. Upper Canyon - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit o Section 3. Rich County - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City In the analysis of improvements, certain improvements were identified as more appropriate to certain sections of the road than others. As a result, separate sets of alterna- tives were developed for each of the three road sections. These are summarized in the following table. TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES US-89 - LOGAN CANYON Alternative Designation Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. No Action Spot Improvements Widen Existing Road Widen and Improve Existing Road E. New North Alignment F. New South Alignment G. New South Alignment Section 1 (Middle Canyon) Section 2 (Upper Canyon) Section 3 (Rich County) Al B1 Cl A2 B2 A3 B3 Dl D2 D3 E3 F3 G3 3 �The alternatives proposed for each section of the project area are descr,ibed below: Section 1. Middle Canyon The Middle Canyon is environmentally the most sensitive section of the project road. The narrow canyon floor, confined by steep slopes and the Logan River, limit the road improvements that can be made without substantial affect on visual quality and other attributes. The range of alternatives considered for this section is therefore limited to more conservative improvements that would provide somewhat limited benefits to travelers, but that would protect the environmental qualities appreciated here. AI. No Action - Routine maintenance including resurfacing would ' be continued. Repair of bridges where possible and improved signing and marking would be made. , Geometric constraints (road width) and winding alignment would continue to result in a low level (D-E) of service (LOS) on the highway. B1. Spot improvements - Turning lanes at intersections, slow vehicle turnouts where space is currently available, bridge replacement in existing locations, and improved signing would be carried out in this alternative. Most geometric constraints and alignment problems would continue to exist, and the overall level of service would therefore be unchanged. C1. Widening along existing alignment - The current road would be widened to a standard that is modified from UDOT's normal standard for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain. Figure 2 compares these two standards 4 �and the existing roadway width. lanes would be provid~d Additionally, . climbing in selected areas (specifically in the Dugway between lower and upper twin bridges); gradient will be adjusted in selected areas, bridges would be replaced on the existing or new alignment, depending on each situation, signing and marking would be improved and new recreational parking provided. This alternative would widen the roadway and provide limited improvement to geometrics, but most alignment problems would remain. Improvements to the roadway width would improve the level of service to LOS C through 1995, when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. 1D. Widening and improving the existing alignment - In addition to the widening and other improvements included in Alternative 1C, this ' alternative would improve ·the entire alignment of this section of roadway to . a 35 to 40 mph minimum design speed. This would be the same design speed as the improved section of the highway below Right Fork, which is designed to 40 mph standards with a few curves at a lower speed. The more extreme curves on the road would be softened to achieve this design speed. Up to 18 curves of the 51 curves ·would be modified to attain the 35 mph design speed. An additional 12 of the 51 curves would be corrected to attain a 40 mph design speed. Geometric and curvature problems would be improved with this alternative to raise the level of service to LOS C until the year 1995 when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. Alternatives that would improve this section to a higher level ·of service have not been included at this time because resulting environmental impacts appear to be unacceptable to most people. 5 �Section 2. Upper Canyon While environmental quality is still considerable and important in this section, it does not limit possible improvements to the highway as much as in the Middle Canyon. A smaller range of proposed alternatives are therefore necessary for this section. A2. No Action - The No Action alternative for this road section would be the same as described for Section 1. B2. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, replacement of bridges on the existing or new alignment, depending on the specific conditions, and improvement of signing and pavement marking. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D2. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and improve existing alignment - Widening of the road to UDOT standard for a minor arterial road in mountainous terrain would be done for the entire length of this section (see Figure 2). Climbing lanes would be provided in all possible areas (upper portions of this section). The alignment and gradient would be improved to 50 or 60 mph minimum design speed. of the 20 curves would be modified. Up to 7 Bridges would be replaced on the existing or an altered alignment, depending on each case. Improved signing and marking and additional recreation parking will be provided. By correcting most geometric and alignment problems, this alternative would maintain the level of service on the road at Level D through 2010. 6 �Section 3. Rich County This section is relatively free of environmental constraints to road improvement. The Sunrise campground and Bear Lake viewpoint near the summit are important features to be protected. The existing road is below standard in width, has a number of curves that lower the minimum design speed to 25 mph, and has a steep gradient that also lowers the travel speed. Since environmental constraints are not particularly limiting here, alternatives that would correct only portions of the problems identified are not seen to be worthwhile. A3. No Action - The No Action alternative for this section would be the same as for Sections 1 and 2. B3. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, and improvement of signing and pavement markings. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D3. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and Improve the Existing Alignment - The entire route would be widened to UDOT standards for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain (Figure 1). A passing lane would be constructed for the entire length. The horizontal and vertical alignment would be straightened to a minimum design speed of 35 to 40 mph. Up to 11 of the 34 curves would be modified to the 35 mph design speed. An additional 16 of the 34 curves would be modi- fied to the 40 mph design speed. Signing and marking would be improved, and additional recreational parking provided. 7 �- New alignment to the north of the E3. New Alignment F3. identified, and a new road existing road road would be " constructed. Road width would be based on the UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainous terrain (Figure 2). A climbing lane would be provided for the entire length of the route. Alignment and gradient would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational parking provided as needed. G3. New Alignment - A new alignment to the south of the existing road for a portion of the route would be identified and a new road constructed. A possible route that would leave the existing road below the Bear Lake overlook and rejoin the existing road just below the residential area has been identified. Alignment and gradient has been identified that would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved and recreational parking provided as needed. These alternatives plus any other feasible alternatives resulting from the scoping meetings on March 3 and 4 may be evaluated and compared in the environmental impact statement for the project. Graphic illustrations of the specific location of proposed curve improvements, new alignments, etc., will be presented at the scoping meetings. may be directed to James Naegle, UDOT (801)965~4160 Clifford Forsgren, CH2M HILL (801)363-0200. BOT538/017 SLC95/d.201 8 Questions or to �"'-./. '.---./ BEAVER MOUNTAIN LOGAN CANYON SECTION 3 RICKS SP-RING UPPER TWIN BRIDGE LOWER TWIN BRIDGE CHINA ROW -~...J- -""---....~ RIGHT FORK CARD RANGER STATION FIGURE 1 STUDY S. CTIONS E LOGAN CANYON STUDY �.~ t: (1) 5:1 SLOPE I·VARI:sJ· 5'+ 29' MIN 55 MPH 23' TO 25' 24' MIN 50 MPH · 18' MIN 40 MPH ~~-------.. I 16 ' MIN 35 MPH ~ (2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1 (A) EXISTING 24-29 ' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13-16' 35 MPH 40' (2') 12' 12' ~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~ ~~ RECOVERY AREA __________________________________________________~10~:1~ .-<\-? ~~ (' (8) STANDARD 0...0 (HOURLY VOLUME OV ER 250) - """ -- RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN 1100. CUT DITCH _5' .... -, -- -- 34' 12' -- -?~ ~ ?'~ - ~ ...... RECOVERY AREA - - _1100. 12' -- _5'_ ~ S· "\ ~ 70:7 (C) MODIFIED STANDARD FIGURE 2 \ J ~ CYl TYPICAL SECTIONS _______________________________________________________________________________ LOGAN CANYON STUDY L.::"~.WI" • '- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3469863492 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 16261148 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Information about Logan Canyon, February 1987 Description An account of the resource Outline for scoping meeting presentation, list of slides and the print media that received legal notice, findings from the Logan Canyon study, goals and objectives of the study, alternatives for development, notice of public scoping meetings (and letter to media), tentative alternatives to improvements, map of sections to be studied, typical sections of existing, standard, and modified standard conditions in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-02-17 1987-03-03 1987-03-04 1987-02-16 1987-02-12 1987-02-06 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Rich County (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8ce4c5180b73097b145f0fd547c9d7a4.pdf caabb2b949352f8947a4764bb1422296 PDF Text Text /, / CIOAHILL ME. ORANDUM M TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROEJCT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the second Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 23, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on July 14, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. SLC77/59a � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/69">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/69</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1776426114 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 418004 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum July 9, 1986 Description An account of the resource Memorandum July 9, 1986 from Stan Nuffer thanking participants for their attendance with attached minutes and agenda review. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2af4e42beaecdeaf61c9374e230e3eef.pdf 7beae6f3d27e14514fcaba6889b8de7a PDF Text Text ClfMHILl MEMORANDUM c.. TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: ~kev(~~( t2/~ UQA) B21163.FO The following items are submitted for your review in preparation for the next Interdisciplinary Team meeting scheduled for June 22 at 1:30 p.m. in Brigham City. Your support and cooperation are appreciated. We realize the agenda for the meeting is a very ambitious one. 1. Minutes of May 18 meeting (page 2 was missing from the June 4 mailing) Alternatives Technical Memorandum (Chapter 8) 3. Air Quality Technical Memorandum 4. Land Use and Recreation Technical Memorandum 5. Terrestrial Resources Technical Memorandum 6. Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum 7. Biological Assessment by Stanley L. Welsh The Socia-Economic and Visual Resources Technical Memoranda ......... will be sent as soon as possible. BOT538/063 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES May 18, 1987 ATTENDANCE: Jack Spence, Sierra Club Clark Ostergaard~ USFS Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Don Duff, USFS Bill Helm, Unattached John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Margaret Johnson, CH2M HILL Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 4 meeting were reviewed. ITEM 2 - DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Margaret Johnson led the discussion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Margaret ' distributed an updated draft of the memorandum which addressed the vlri tten comments received from Steve Flint. Jack Spence had a number of additional comments which were discussed. One of the primary items to come out of the discussion was the need to provide information on driving times, using alternate routes, from various locations on the Wasatch Front to Bear Lake. This is not information that is generally available. It was suggested that the "Friends of Bear Lake" a property owners association with many members in Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties be contacted to see if they could provide some information. The Friends of Bear Lake may also be able to provide information on the number of recreational homes in the area which are owned by people along the Wasatch Front. ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING NOISE John Neil led the discussion. The memorandum focused primarily on picnic and camping areas. John indicated that the only problem area would be at China Rowand that it would be impossible to mitigate above 40 mph because the picnic area SLCI02/32.1 �l MEETING NOTES Page 2 was so close to the road. He also expressed an interest in locating areas of the river near the road where there might be some fishing. The memorandum does not address fisherman, because John does not know specifically where they are likely to be. It is also not known if the background noise from the river is great enough to· muffle roadway noises. There was some discussion of dispersed recreation (hiking, crosscountry skiing, etc). Jack Spence was not sure that it had been addressed. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were enough sites evaluated and enough information presented to allow someone to estimate the noise level at a particular location where someone might be hiking or skiing. ITEM 4 - REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANQUM Jack Spence indicated that bald eagles used Logan Canyon (as well as Blacksmith Fork) and that he had seen Peregrine Falcons in Tab Hollow. It was also reported that Stan Welch from the BYU Herbarium had been in the Canyon and had located two additional sites with Maquire Primrose. He will finish his report within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Mr. Welch has indicated to UDOT that his primary concern would be during construction. Increased dust during the pollination season could cause problems. More detailed information will be in his report. ITEM 5 - TRAFFIC FORECASTS Cliff Forsgren and Jack Spence will review the traffic projections and Cliff will report at the next meeting. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Duncan Silver asked for a list of uncompleted items. There have been a number of things discussed in meetings and no record kept ot their completion. (Note: the list will be distributed at the next ID Team meeting) . Duncan Silver also told the ID Team that FHWA was going to require FHWA visual resource criteria be used in the study. A copy of the criteria had been provided to UDOT. BOX16/D.501 2 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/74">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/74</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1390690475 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1732213 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum, review of the technical memorandum addressing noise, review of the existing conditions portion of the terrestrial resources technical memorandum, traffic forecasts, and other items of discussion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Spence, Jack Neil, John Silver, Duncan Welch, Stan Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-06-11 1987-05-18 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_004.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/18a671942273c903cff34bf4901f3f6d.pdf b08d06f3d0f26743c0364751834e77a3 PDF Text Text CHMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: May 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The twenty-first Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review, as well as the corrected minutes for the April 21 field trip. The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 18, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of May 4 meeting. Ten minutes. 2. Dis~ussion 3. Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil, which was distributed with the previous meeting announcement. Twenty minutes. 4. Review of the existing condition portion of the Terrestrial Resources Technical memorandum that was distributed at the previous meeting. Twenty-five minutes. 5. Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections. minutes. of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Sixty minutes. Five Future meeting schedule: June 8 June 22 - 3:00 p.m., Bugham City - 3:00 p.m., District Office NOTE: Since we have been having difficulty getting through our meeting agendas, it is hoped that we can adhere to the time limits shown. SLC-STAN/d.601 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3661776395 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 538217 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, May 15, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary team with the agenda for the next meeting on May 18, 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-15 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/9d0de3d794fd228a2ab6cc2354de0d41.pdf ca8ca012fa908af6ed1da874d1958888 PDF Text Text _ _ l'::¥.~ _ 11/'" Engineers Planners Economists Scientists March 11, 1987 B21163.DO Mayor Newel C. Daines P.O. Box 527 Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Mayor Daines: Subject: Logan Canyon Study We are looking forward to meeting with the Logan Municipal Council on March 19·, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers to discuss the Logan Canyon Study. The study interdisciplinary team is also invited to attend and participate in the discussion and I am sure many of them will plan to be there. Enclosed are 30 copies of the fact sheet and maps describing the study alternatives that have been developed to date. These are available for your distribution to the council members and also for distribution to the Cache Valley Mayors Association meeting that you will be attending on March 14. As we discussed, the agenda for the meeting will be .as follows: 1. Presentation by CH2M HILL - basically the same as used at the previous scoping meetings. ') Discussion of issues, concerns, and alternatives developed to date. L.. • ~ ..J. Identification of additional study alternatives if any. We thank you for providing this opportunity for the interdisciplinary team to obtain additional input into the study. ~ S~~~A~lY~L// , st:::~f:~ Project Manager cc: Interdisciplinary Team Members SLC-STN/19 CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/133">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/133</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2369883211 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 602898 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Mayor Newel C. Daines, March 11, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Mayor Newel C. Daines mentioning the agenda for the upcoming meeting on March 14. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03-11 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 9.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fa769dd6dde8d2c0de96f2adba06989b.pdf 51408f3328f7cdbaa9a51c4227254d9c PDF Text Text I _ _ Engineers Planners l-::f,~IIII" Economists _ Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Rudy Lukez P.O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be directed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. Sincerely, ~~b Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/153">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/153</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3228110164 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 536285 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Rudy Lukez, July 25, 1986 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Rudy Lukez, explaining that Lukez's name has been included in the mailing list to receive information on Logan Canyon study with an enclosed introduction to the study (not included with this item). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 20.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4f0f81808d834be2796fd11a56e8e7ab.jpg 6d96dbff1218f0d0ae0665bbf355dda0 Moving Image A series of visual representations imparting an impression of motion when shown in succession. Examples include animations, movies, television programs, videos, zoetropes, or visual output from a simulation. Embed ID The video ID used for embedding. hYBRIil41LY Player html for embedded player to stream video content <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hYBRIil41LY" frameborder="0" width="640" height="360"></iframe> 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 ILEAD Utah - Highway 89 Description An account of the resource Presenters: Dustin Olson, James Earl Kichas, Clint Pumphrey, Liz Woolcott, and Paula Mitchell. This video presentation outlines the creation of the Highway 89 website. October 23, 2013 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-12-14T09:52:31.000Z Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYBRIil41LY Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms">Standard YouTube License</a> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Olson, Dustin Kichas, James Earl Pumphrey, Clint Woolcott, Liz Mitchell, Paula License A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms">Standard YouTube License</a> Date Submitted Date of submission of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Submitted may be relevant are a thesis (submitted to a university department) or an article (submitted to a journal). 2013-12-14T09:52:31.000Z Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available ILEADUSA Language A language of the resource eng Highway 89 Highway to Grandue ILEAD Library Initiatives Llibrary Collaboration Road Trips Utah Libraries https://highway89.org/files/original/6f05335e76d97b4c65650df77b6ecd1a.pdf b7f5ed30584e80515047302111f5f8be PDF Text Text August 12, 1994 Mr. Dave Berg Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Dave: Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint, and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery cc: Nathan Hult Jeff Appel EPA Denver Office EPA Washington Office FHWA Region Office FHWA Washington Office �COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) SHOULD BE PREPARED The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the DEIS and FEIS). More particularly, the letter from Appel and Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as DEIS, and so forth. This is not a matter of quibbling over details. At the core of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed public participation. By placing the whole NEPA process with regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS. Safety provides a major illustration for this contention. Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see ROD, FEIS, DEIS). to the project. It is not a peripheral concern, it is central It is not a stretch to say that for many people the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts. 1 Yet �the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative) have been and continue to be seriously in error. As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the project, despite knowing the data were flawed. Environmentalists were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as to get UDOT not to use it. And even at this late date in the process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD Appendix B). Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in the FEIS). Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained herein, points out. So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need for the Logan Canyon Project. And the significance of this is that informed public participation in this process cannot take place. All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as 2 �the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates. And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned about this project. ROD's--almost by definition--are not intended to be vehicles for public participation. Thus, the significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer people are able to review the project, and those who previously reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative. Therefore, an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly supports. UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that certain individuals have been closely involved in the development of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places in the ROD). But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery, Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an SEIS process. As has become clear recently, public sentiment 3 �regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has never been adequately presented to the public. While we are viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon. If UDOT wants informed public participation in this NEPA process it must provide for that via and SEIS. In addition to the fact informed public participation has been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a arbitrary and capricious decision. The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred alternative is implemented., But what basis can there be for that assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed? I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed. However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f) sites and to wildlife. The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected (see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD itself). Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon (see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35). The ROD contains some information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological 4 �Assessment). Thus, just as for safety, informed public participation could not take place in regard to these critical issues because the information was wrong or absent. Moreover, simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem. CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been reached with the environmental community with regards to the modified preferred alternative. That is an incorrect statement, which we have made clear to UDOT. Not only is it incorrect, it makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally announcing that consensus exists. Let me be clear. discussions with UDOT. Since last December we have had a several The tone of those meetings has been constructive and positive. I personally want that process to continue because I believe compromise is preferable to confrontation. However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable compromise has not been reached yet. Let me explain why. As the modified preferred alternative stands, conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts we don't believe are necessary). UDOT gets everything it wants 5 �in 42% of the canyon (full u.s. highway standard between mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles having a passing lane). Neither UDOT or conservationists get exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts 387.5 to 399.8). At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along toward compromise we were. Based on the above considerations, I said I thought we were 75% of the way there. about where we still stand. I believe that's Seventy-five percent of a potential compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus. Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely manner. To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been reached. RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16) The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive comments on the FEIS. I was the author of that letter, although I no longer hold an official position with BAS. Unfortunately, I believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular 6 �reasoning. While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to them. What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I feel are particularly significant. It is not nearly an exhaustive list. 1. Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not genuinely standards. Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT has given to the public over the years is incorrect. Moreover, UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has, perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17). 2. On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD. Even if true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no longer part of the process. prepare an SEIS. That is, its yet another reason to Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public participation. 3. On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation area. That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores 7 �the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation. Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas). I prefer the more pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., it is a duck. area. Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it clear that when the managing agency designates an area a recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f) area. 4. On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to concern itself with "hundreds" of species. Only 27 species were asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix A, USFS Biological Assessment). Moreover, not only does the Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the decision is made which certainly has not been the case here. 5. UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan Amendment will be required, not a revision. However, conservationists have long contended a much more significant revision will be required. Revisions are required when the basic 8 �output of goods and services from a forest are altered. I believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is. In fact, Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national article will demonstrate. 6. Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on about Appendix B page 29 to 31. 7. While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has also said that new information could cause a reevaluation. Such information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers. He concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area qualifies as a recreational river. to the Forest Service. His report has been submitted UDOT should more fully consider the ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that there will be no effect due to the project. 8. Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs. The land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. And to compare Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide 9 �which is the benighted agency). There will be changes in land management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact. In particular, the need for "laydown" fencing should be reconsidered because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the highway. 9. On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the 4(f) issues that are raised. As indicated above, all of Logan Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites. Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and exploration. These are the protected features or activities (see Appendix B page 34). Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely unusual situations precluding its selection. And when a feasible and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done. Failure to meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its selection. 10. The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all of our concerns would be addressed. 11. Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider 10 �slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes. However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD pages 32 to 34). As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states. And UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use slow vehicle turnouts. Therefore, they must be used in preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur. Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was incomplete. UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon (mileposts 387.5 to 391.6). If 26-feet is a practicable alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great? Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor . . . felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation success. However, it was not a matter that I poor likelihood of success. "felt" there was a Rather, I cited recent scientific - iterature--produced by scientists working for the very agency l whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas 11 �such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37). If the scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should cite "better" information. That's how science works. demands the use of good science. And NEPA Until then, it appears UDOT has no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb. Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32). otherwise. The law is Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6) which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts of the project. Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this project. That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to proceed. 12. An inability to do a "before and after" (ie, cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38). However, I believe that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened ' section can also be estimated. For example, there are certainly many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints" 12 �of their existence. While not an ideal scientific situation, to simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the situation. UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38). Why did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS that this was not a more illuminating approach? MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in the ROD. 1. Again, this is not an exhaustive list. On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to 4(f) designation. Actually the test is whether designating a 4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The selection--or more importantly, lack of selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA. 2. On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will issue a transportation easement not the special use permit described in the FEIS. What is the significance of that change? If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant 13 �change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be involved in this decision. 3. As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out. This is a major project impact that has not been previously addressed. 4. I have already mentioned the tendency towards unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS letter was addressed. That same problem is particularly evident in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29 of the ROD. As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not alleviate that problem. Likewise, the discussions related to traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory. 5. On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT memorandum. First, under the logic developed in this memorandum, there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon. All of the remaining proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide. UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a generally acceptable compromise in the canyon. However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this memo. It is stated: "[A]nd given the fact that we would be able to proceed with the construction of the project . . ." if the 14 �road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is acceptable. Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if they did not make this change? The sentence quoted above certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists. 6. The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read. In essence, not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet nonexistent design phase. We mentioned earlier how UDOT has marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process by its out of sync NEPA process. It appears UDOT is doing the same with expert agencies that should have input to this project prior to its approval, not after. A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project. That's because I feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS and FEIS. However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a suggested approach. When the final ROD is issued it should only approve 15 �construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and Lower Twin Bridges. These are the "scary" bridges in many people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in need of replacement due to their age. UDOT apparently has funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that replacing these bridges would take about two years. During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a decision is made and when it can still have a major effect. Many of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS could be corrected in this process. The numerous other flaws pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed. The EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B pages 1 to 4) might be addressed. Additionally, the constructive and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences. In any event, UDOT does not have funding for nonhridge portions of the project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right" should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally. You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal. There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges 16 �mentioned above. Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem" with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would like. However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know. Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise might be reached for the Logan Canyon project. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery 755 Canyon Rd. Logan, Utah 84321 17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3787997956 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 10610610 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg, August 12, 1994 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg stating the reasons why a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared, explaining that flawed data and lack of public involvement have made the current EIS unusable. Suggests a compromise in which the three "scary" bridges be modified as UDOT has stated while the SEIS is prepared. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pendery, Bruce Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994-08-12 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/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/5272e8f3fb152a9d52e6501adfbfbd30.mp3 b358b8eb86aa017cc0492b9827feeece https://highway89.org/files/original/cd49883a39193e69d7a86a876837bf0f.pdf ad96ab86186c719d10c5e18a2c1dd1a6 PDF Text Text LAND USE MANAGEMENT TRANSCRIPTION COVER SHEET Interviewee: Bill Petersen Place of Interview: Mr. Peterson’s home Date of Interview: 14 April 2008 Interviewer: Recordist: Rebecca Smith Rebecca Smith Recording Equipment: Marantz PMD660 Digital Recorder Transcription Equipment used: Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Transcribed by: Transcript Proofed by: Chelsea Amdal Randy Williams (2/23/09; July 2011), Bill Peterson (3/09) Brief Description of Contents: Mr. Peterson talks about growing up in Hyrum, Utah; his father’s ranching and farming operations; working with his families’ sheep ranching operation in Cache National Forest and in Box Elder County. He talks about getting out of the sheep business due to a mysterious event that killed over 300 sheep in the mid 1950s that also caused many of the sheep to become sterile. After this, the family got out of the sheep ranching business. He also talks his education at Utah State University and University of Utah and going into the real estate business in Bear Lake. He also talks about local land conservation issues. Reference: BP = Bill Petersen RS = Rebecca Smith (Interviewer; USU graduate student) MP=Mary Peterson NOTE: Interjections during pauses or transitions in dialogue such as “uh” and starts and stops in conversations are not included in transcript. All additions to transcript are noted with brackets. At the end of the transcript is information on “Willard Petersen and Sheep Creek Cove” supplied by Bill Petersen. TAPE TRANSCRIPTION RS: OK Bill, I would like to start by asking what your full name is. BP: My name is Willard Reed Petersen. RS: When and where were you born? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  1   �BP: I was born in Logan, 11/22/1926 RS: How long have you lived here? Have you lived here this whole time? BP: I lived in Hyrum ‘til about 20 years ago. RS: Ok, so you were born in Logan. BP: I lived in Hyrum ‘til I was . . . no it was longer than that I guess. I lived in Hyrum for say forty years and balanced a life here, in Bear Lake. 30 years here. RS: What was your earliest memory of Logan Canyon? BP: My earliest memory of Logan Canyon was driving up in the canyon with my father when I was probably eight to ten years old, delivering supplies to the sheep, which were raised in Logan Canyon. We had four permits on the Cache National Forrest. One in Dip Hollow, one in Boulder Mountain and one in Mount Logan, and one Pete’s Hollow. RS: In Pete’s Hollow? Ok. What was your father’s name? BP: Willard Petersen. They called me Bill and him Willard. RS: And so you grew up, you say, in Hyrum? And you spent some of that time going up into the canyon with your father? BP: Oh a lot. Yeah we would go up Logan Canyon; a lot in Blacksmith Fork too. We had a private range up Blacksmith Fork Canyon and then we’d drive, we’d range the sheep from Blacksmith Fork Canyon over, drive them over into Logan Canyon for high summer mountain grazing. RS: I’m not really familiar with a lot of the canyons, so I’m trying to figure out where your father’s land might have been. You don’t happen to have a map of that area do you? BP: Oh yeah I’ve got them. RS: Ok let me pause this and maybe we could look at a map. Do you have them really accessible? Or we could do it afterwards. BP: Let’s do it afterwards. RS: Ok BP: But anyway, the private range that we would go up to in the spring and early summer was south of the Hardware Ranch. And we would be there in the springtime and out in the desert or out on the Spring Range in Box Elder County. And we would truck the sheep, or trail them. Earlier we would trail them and later we would truck them, from Box Elder Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  2   �County into Cache County and up onto the forest range. And the sheep from Rattlesnake Mountain, Box Elder County would either go to private range or directly to the forest depending on the time of the year or what’s going on. And our private range was 7 miles south of the Hardware Ranch. This is where it started and we extended through another 7 to 10 miles along the Aunt Valley road. And then in the first of July when the forest permits became active and we could go to the forest, we would trail the sheep from our private range there over to the Hardware Ranch, stopped at the Hardware, Curtis Creek, Rock Creek and then Left Hand Fork; and, then into our different permits. RS: What was that like growing up helping your father? BP: What was it like what? RS: What was it like to help your father with the sheep when you were growing up? BP: It was just like a summer or year round vacation being with the sheep. I loved being in the mountains or in the desert. RS: Were there different aspects that you liked more than others? BP: Oh, I liked actually being out herding the sheep in the summer time, but we didn’t get much opportunity because there was farm work to do. We had a farm that helped support feed the sheep. And we would raise hay and alfalfa and grains for the sheep and the horses and later on cattle that we had. RS: Was that in Hyrum? BP: That was in Hyrum, our base in the summer. Our base in the fall and early spring before we got up here was in Hansel Valley out in Box Elder County. We had land with sheds and a cabin, we had kind of a head quarters there. Then in the winter time we went clear out to Nevada to Ely: between Ely and Wendover. Trailed our sheep out to there, we had a permit out there and then we had one in Utah, close to Snowville, towards the Utah Nevada Idaho border, out in that area. RS: What were your families’ land use traditions? Were there any annual or periodic events that you did? BP: I still don’t get the question… [Trail the sheep from summer to winter range; trail back in the spring.] RS: Are there things that you or your family did, or continue to do today on an annual basis, or like special events. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  3   �BP: Yeah, we go up to the forest. Forest permits would open up on the first of July. So that was an event that we would keep in mind and would plan our activities so that we go to the forest on the first of July. We came off; our permits would expire about the 15th of September, if I remember right. And we would have to be off the forest, well, the 15th or the 30th, I can’t remember exactly, but we’d be off of the forest at that time. And go back over to our private land for, oh ‘til October, just for deer season. We’d try to be out of Blacksmith Fork Canyon down in the Cache Valley, away from the deer hunting. Because the deer hunt was quite dangerous up there for the sheep, the hunters would shoot them. So we’d try to get out of the canyon before the deer season started. RS: Ok, so let me just make sure I understand. Your family had a farm in Hyrum. And you had land in the canyon, where you would allow your sheep to graze. And then during the time of the year when you could get permits for the forest, then you would trail your sheep to different forests and let them graze there. BP: [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] After the summer season we trail the sheep out of the canyon. We would rent fields (farm ground) down through Wellsville, Mendon, over to Fielding, Garland, Blue Creek and finally end up on our private range on Rattlesnake Mountain. After staying on our private ground a short time we would continue on the BLM trail to our private range on Pilot Mountain. We would stay there for a short time, and then continue to our winter range. This would take about 45 days. RS: Were there other members of your family that took part in this trailing the sheep? BP: My father; and I have two brothers and they would occasionally help. RS: And what are their names? BP: Howard Clark Petersen, he lives in Nibley Utah. He has a dairy farm there. And then there’s Stanford B. Petersen and he lives in Salt Lake. RS: Were they older or younger? BP: Younger. RS: Can you tell me what your hobbies or recreational pursuits are? BP: Oh I love to fish. I used to golf. I always hunted: many outdoor type activities. I like to watch the Jazz now. RS: (hehehehe) How are they doing? BP: Good. Just got back; just went down and watched the game night before last, down in Salt Lake. Just got back yesterday, spent the night down there, it was fun; a good chance to get away. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  4   �RS: Sounds exciting. Can you tell me about your profession? I know you’re retired now, but what your profession… BP: After we had our problem with the sheep and I got out of the sheep business, I did have an education. I graduated from Utah State University. And I, along with range classes and stuff I took, political science, and I had a good background in law. [I] went to law school for two years down at University of Utah. And that gave me a background to where I could go into the real estate business pretty easy, and I went into the real estate business and became a real estate partner at a firm here in Logan. And eventually a real estate broker. RS: How did you decide to go to school at Utah State University? BP: Well, my mother always believed in education. And living in Hyrum, that’s the place to go. RS: How did you get interested, when you enrolled, how did you get interested in range classes? BP: Well, that being, having my father having farms and ranches. I decided that’s the place to spend part of my time anyways. So I did. I didn’t major in animal husbandry or range management, but I took enough I could have minored in range management. Had a number of classes from Dr. Wayne Cook; [he] was very good. And he had a graduate assistant and they did range work out on our—some of our BLM ground permits in Box Elder County. And I got to know them quite well. And I enjoyed their company and enjoyed taking their classes. RS: And you were also studying Political Science at that time? BP: I majored in political science and minored in economics and business and stuff. I had all kinds of minors. RS: All kinds of interests. So then how did you get interested in real estate? BP: [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] With the problems we were having at the sheep ranch, I could see the writing on the wall, that our sheep ranch would not be viable very long. I could see that it was not going to be economically possible to keep it going. I started looking around for other employment options. We started selling parcels of land to cover expenses. One of the gentlemen who handled the sale of our property was real estate broker Mel Squires. The land he sold for us extended from North of Richmond on the foothills extending to the Idaho border and up to the forest. I admired the way he did that. Selling caught my interest and I thought “I think maybe I could do something like that.” I had a friend who was a real estate broker and I asked him if I could join his firm, he said yes and that is how I got started in real estate. Some years later I became a partner in the firm. We later dissolved our partnership. I became a broker and took over Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  5   �an office we had in Bear Lake. It worked out good for both of us. It was an enjoyable profession. RS: Ok, so when you were talking about your profession and you went into real estate, you said that’s because there was a problem with the sheep, so could you talk about that? BP: Well in about, let’s see 1947 or ‘48, I’m not sure about the exact date. But I was in law school at the time and we were trailing the sheep out to the desert as usual. We were out just north of Rabbit Springs which is right close to the Nevada boarder. And the sheep were coming through a pass and my father was going to meet us out there. I had been out to the head quarters at Hansel Valley, spent the night there, and one of the ranch hands and I were gonna meet dad. He went from Salt Lake around the south end of the Great Salt Lake up back. And we went around the north side of the lake. From our Hansel Valley, anyway we were going to meet out at this Rabbit Springs and count the sheep. And we got there before day light and we met and had breakfast. The sun started coming out. We looked out and we saw a bunch of dead sheep. And we had never seen anything like it before. We couldn’t tell what it was. But we looked at them, tried to figure it out. There was nothing we could do, they were dead. It was at least 300 of them dead. Their heads had kind of swollen up and lost some hair around their head. And they looked terrible. And we could not figure out what it was. We took 3 or 4 carcasses into Utah State University, who had a poison control center and the best one in the western United States. And I asked them to tell us what has happened. And they sent back a report saying it was inconclusive. They couldn’t tell us. After looking and watching and thinking about the situation 20 years too late, we kind of figured out that it was radiation from one of the atomic bombs that they were testing in the Nevada test site. And it killed about close to 300 give or take some. The rest of the sheep were sterile but we didn’t know it. And they went on their way, went out and we wintered them out there of course. Some died during the winter and we had a higher than normal, quite a bit higher than normal death rate that year. But then the spring came; we had a new lambing shed, best of facilities, and we couldn’t get 50% lamb crop. And usually you get a hundred and twenty percent in a shed environment. Well, without a lamb crop and with expenses still coming in, there is no way you can still continue the sheep business. [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] Finally we had to sell our sheep and get out of the business. We had no idea what was causing the problem. We had never heard of radiation at the time and the government never told us about a problem. The fellow we sold the sheep to went broke, no lambs. He never figured out the problem either. After all was said and done and much reading the only conclusion I could come up with was the problem was caused by radiation. The sheep herders who were with the sheep both died of cancer. My father and I both had cancer. We are pretty sure that it was a radiation caused incident but there is [no] proof after this much time. RS: And you were in law school at that time? So how old do you think you were? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  6   �BP: About 23. MP: I think Bill was more like in ‘54, because we got married in ‘48 and we lived up on the hill and Pat was born in 50. I think it was more like in 1954 than in‘48. BP: Well I graduated… MP: You graduated from Utah State in 1950. Yeah, you’re right because ‘55 out of, in 1955 I would have graduated from law school, but before I would have graduated from law school. So it would have to be 1953-4. RS: Ok. And so how did that impact your family then, your father? BP: Nothing you can do. RS: Did he keep using the land for his livelihood? BP: Well, we had quite a debt load so we had to unload most of our properties. You have to pay your bills, and the only way you can do it is to sell the land. One time he was the 2nd largest tax payer in Box Elder County. Petersen Land & Livestock Inc. was the 2nd largest and we were one of the larger ones in Cache County. We had about 12,000 acres of private property in Cache County. And we had about 50,000 acres out in Box Elder County. RS: So going back to talking about your profession, what were some of the major influences that helped you choose your profession? BP: Which one? Ranching or real estate? RS: Let’s start with ranching. BP: Well, I love to be out in the mountains, and I love to… I didn’t like the farming part of it as much as the ranching part and we had both. Plus then my brothers took over the farms, and I took over the sheep. And one of my brothers still has the dairy farm, in Nibley that was part of the operation. And my other brother, he didn’t like to dry farm, we had dry farms and he didn’t like that as well, so he sold those and he went into real estate: in apartments and motels in Salt Lake City. And he’s still doing that, he’s still a real estate broker. In fact when I retired I transferred my license over to his company and I’m a licensed real-estate agent now with his company. And we just had to go our merry ways without the ranching part of the operation. RS: You said your brother was working, did you say dry farms or dairy farms? BP: Both. One was a dairy farmer, one went into dairy farming. We had farms in out of Hyrum, well Hyrum was the main area. We had farms in Mount Sterling and down in Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  7   �Hyrum’s north field, which is quite close to Nibley. Actually in Nibley right were the dairy is now, where his dairy is now. And he still has that; still runs the dairy. He runs three hundred milk cows out there now. RS: And what’s a dry farm? BP: The Nibley Farm was irrigated. You have irrigation water out of the Blacksmith Fork River that irrigated the Nibley area. The dry farms were out in the Mount Sterling area. And they were like the name implies: dry. They didn’t have any irrigation rights. So they call those dry farms. And we had dry farms out in Box Elder County; had a number of them out there. And that’s where my 2nd brother was but he didn’t like the dry farms too well so we sold those off. RS: In terms of the ranching, are there people who were mentors to you in this or who influenced you in terms of your hobbies/interests? BP: My father of course, yeah. RS: And how did he do that? BP: Well, he took me with him. He took me with him when he’d go up to the canyon to the different sheep herds to deliver supplies, when he’d go up to count the sheep, when he would do any of the work up there, I would always ride in the truck with him. And I got to enjoy the mountains and that’s how I got started. RS: So how long was your family running sheep? BP: My dad started with his father when he was, he was actually out in the mountains, up on Mount Logan, herding sheep when he was 12 years old, ALONE. RS: Your father was. BP: And he’s been with the sheep on and off ever since. And he died at 97. But he, after we lost all those sheep we got out of the sheep business, it kind of, he was getting old then anyway. He was 65 or something. MP: No he was 60 when we got married. He was in his 80’s. BP: Ok, he was probably 75-80 when we… RS: when he stopped with the sheep. BP: Yeah. RS: And what was his father’s name? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  8   �BP: Lorenzo. RS: Lorenzo Petersen. Ok for the next question, are you a member of a religious community? If so how does your religious affiliation affect your land use beliefs? BP: I’m not a member of a religious community. [I told you we are “Mormons” but we really are Christians.] RS: Ok. Do you think that your religious or spiritual, if you don’t have religious beliefs, do you think that there’s been some influence whether it’s spiritual or not? BP: Some influence on what? RS: Some influence on your beliefs about land use? BP: No. I believe land use is governed by laws of nature. I believe land use is a science to be studied and learned. RS: Ok, in what areas of Logan Canyon, I know you talked about some of the areas, but maybe you could talk about other areas where you were also active. BP: Well, along with the ranching, I’ve always liked to fish. And I’ve always fished Logan Canyon and Blacksmith Fork Canyon, both. I’ve fished on the Curtis Creek, Rock Creek and Left Hand Fork. They were all really good little streams when I started out fishing, along with Logan Canyon. At the present time, I still like to fish Logan Canyon. I used to fish the river all the time, but not now I’ve switched to were I can sit down and fish from a chair in the dam. RS: What kind of fish do you get out of there? What kind of fish do you catch? BP: Oh we catch trout, either German brown or rainbows. Used to catch a lot of red cutthroats but they’re kind of a thing of the past. RS: I know you said that you like picnic there as well. Were there other places in the canyon where you would go for that sort of activity? BP: Yeah, we still picnic up there. We take our family and go up at least once, twice, three times a year. Take our great grandkids and go up and have a picnic and fish and every one of the kids has caught a fish in Logan River, grandkids have caught, great grandkids have caught a fish in Logan Canyon. And we usually go up to the 2nd Dam and the picnic areas where it’s real nice and we can fish and picnic and keep the kids occupied there. [In our younger days we used to go up to Tony’s Grove when we were younger.] Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  9   �Left Hand Fork is really good up Blacksmith Fork too. We used to go up there, some real nice little place up there, it was quite secluded and a little stream going by there; and real nice fishing up there. RS: How have those places changed over the years? The places that you and your family—when you were a kid—visited. Are those the same places you visit now or has that changed? BP: The facilities are much better now. Earlier there wasn’t areas for camping and picnic tables, there wasn’t fire pits that they have now. They are a lot better. The major change I can see though when I started with dad in the sheep business, they had started permits. And before it was just open. And they could run sheep wherever they wanted, when my father started. And that meant that with a lot of sheep on the easy access areas and it was over grazed. But when they started the permit use, they cut the sheep numbers down and the forest has recovered a lot. You can see the improvements from when I started, shortly after they got the permits until we quit. I can see a big difference. Ranchers were required to take care of their permitted area. RS: How has it improved? BP: Your vegetation is allowed to grow up and to germinate. And grasses are coming back, much more prevalent than they were before. Your forbs are in better shape. Just your whole growth pattern in the whole forest is better. There was better distribution of livestock RS: What’s your favorite place in the canyon? BP: Oh I’ve spent time in a lot of them. But probably one of my favorite places is a White Bedground up on the Mount Logan permit. Right close to there is an area about 15 acres, 10-15 acres, of great big tall beautiful yellow flowers! And I don’t know the name of the flower, should have checked it out, but they are absolutely beautiful. And they are very good forage for sheep and elk and deer. But when we first went there, there wasn’t too many elk. The elk population has increased since. And they may have killed those 15 acres out. I’d like to go up there this summer just to check it out and see. But that was quite nearer this spring which is just South of the White Bedground. And there was a big meadow there just of flowers, and that was one of the prettiest sights I have ever seen. Those flowers were 6 foot tall. RS: 6 foot tall yellow flowers? BP: Yeah, gold, kind of beautiful. In fact we have some same type out on the side of our house. And they are beautiful in the summer. RS: How do you think that you or your activities have contributed to land use changes and policies in Logan Canyon? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  10   �BP: Well, the land use policies are already determined by the foresters. And by following the rules and regulations that they lay down I think it’s improved the general welfare of the canyon and are befitting for all of the people, for the recreation users, which I am one, and for the grazers, for which I was one. I think it’s improved it for everything. I think they are doing a good job with multiple use. RS: How have land use changes impacted you? BP: [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] I think that without land use changes the quality of water we have in Logan City and the surrounding area would be much lower, that we would be more prone to flooding in our canyons and waterways. RS: What was the erosion like before? BP: [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] The stream banks, waterholes and easily accessible ground was overgrazed. The Forest Service did not have the money to fence, make roads and fix the springs to get good distribution of the livestock. Most of this work was done by the ranchers. The fences separated the sheep from cattle. This made it possible to have accountability for permitee’s. We fixed the springs on our allotments. We would dig out the spring, lay in perforated pipe, cover it with gravel and hook it to galvanized pipe. This would lead to ponds or troughs for the livestock and wild life to drink from. Because of increased water sources, trailing to water was not necessary erosion of trails and riverbanks was reduced. Vegetation was not trampled down. RS: Did you have just sheep up there? BP: Yeah. That’s another good thing. Before there was cattle and sheep all mixed up. Now they have separated the cattle and sheep into different allotments. So everybody’s responsible for their own individual area. And that makes for better management for both cattle and sheep. And it separates them from the stream users which is good. RS: So what is your overall impression of how land use policies are determined in Logan Canyon in the Wasatch, Cache, Uinta National Forests? BP: Well, they are determined by professionals. Professional foresters whose job it is to make sure that the forest is used to its best potential. And I think they are doing a pretty good job of doing it. RS: What has been your relationship with forest service personal? BP: It’s been very positive all the way through. RS: And other land managers in the canyon have you had relationships with other ones? BP: [This paragraph was revised by Mr. Peterson] The Soil Conservation Service has always been very helpful. I had a closer relationship with their representatives than with Forest Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  11   �Service of BLM employees. They worked closely with the ranchers explaining and showing us the results of different grazing programs. RS: How has land use policy influenced change over the past 50 years? BP: I think their realizing that recreation is a larger part of what the land use should be aimed at and are developing the parks and developing the picnic areas which is a good thing. And separating the cattle and the sheep from the riparian areas, I think are real good. It should be done and its being done in a pleasing manner that is acceptable to the stream users, picnickers, and to the livestock owners. RS: What changes have you seen in the land use policies in the canyon in the last 50 years? BP: Like I said the main thing I can see is permits and the separating of the sheep and the cattle and getting the permits and keep them off the waterways. I think all that is going to improve the canyon. RS: What other aspects have influenced land use policies in Logan Canyon? BP: Well, there’s always wilderness areas. Wilderness in Logan Canyon I don’t think is a viable option. Looks to me like the best use is a multiple use and when you create wilderness areas, if they expand the wilderness areas like some people want them to do, it could be a disaster for recreationists and the livestock industry too. I think the wilderness area is limiting the recreation use, to where a person my age can’t get up and use the ground. It’s much better to have it opened up to motorized vehicles so I can get up and see Mt. Naomi. If I could go up on a 4-wheeler I think it would be really great. And I think a lot of other people would go there if there was an improved trail for A.T.V.s so you could go up there and take a look. I think it would be a wonderful thing. I think wilderness is ok in its place but I don’t think any wilderness expansion should be taking place and maybe some areas declared wilderness should be eliminated. RS: Ok so do you have any personal involvement in land use or management in Cache Valley? BP: Not at the present time, no. RS: Have you in the past had an involvement in making decisions about land use or management? BP: Well I was President of the Cache Wool Growers for years… which consisted of the wool growers that ran sheep in the Cache National Forest. I was president of the Logan Board of Real Estate for two years. When I was in the real estate business, I wanted to develop a Planned Unite Development. I helped write a PUD ordinance for Cache County and put in the first PUD development, Sheep Creek Cove. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  12   �RS: Have you had personal involvement in land use or management in other areas not in Cache Valley? BP: No. RS: Are you a member of any associations that are involved with decision making? BP: No. RS: Have you ever tried to influence government actions, possibly thru an organization or writing letters, going to meetings? BP: No. Well, I did when I was president of the Cache Wool Growers, and I was director of the State Wool Growers for a number of years. Most positions I would write letters and try to influence public opinion. RS: And what was that like? BP: Well, we just wanted to make sure all of the rights of permit holders were recognized and it wasn’t a real active campaign but it was in case a wool bill or a tariff bill or something came up we’d be interested in writing letters to a congressmen. RS: Do you have any special stories to tell about that? Any gains that you made while doing that? BP: I don’t. I, we didn’t make too many gains. RS: Who were some of your most influential people in instructing you in your field, in the ranching? BP: Wayne Cook and Halie Cox. Oh and Ben Haywood. Benjamin Haywood. He was good. He was with the Soil Conservation Service. RS: Ok let’s just start with Wayne Cook. Is that C.O.O.K.? BP: Yeah. He was the professor of Range Management at USU. Halie Cox was a graduate student. And he was a ranger, he was a graduate student when we were running sheep and did experiment work on our range in the deserts. And he was quite influential in my thinking about range management. RS: And then you said Ben Haywood. BP: Ben Haywood was a range specialist for the Soil Conservation Service. He worked mainly with private ground. He had real success in showing ranchers how to improve grazing practices. And how to get better returns from practices. Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  13   �RS: So he worked toward… BP: He worked for the Soil Conservation Service. RS: Can you tell me again why Halie Cox was so influential. BP: He was doing experimental work out there and I just got to know him and he would explain things to me and help me out. RS: What kind of experiments would he do? BP: Grazing experiments on range use and plants and [?] the different grazing levels and lower grazing, things like that. RS: Ok and Wayne Cook. Why was he so influential? BP: He was my professor that taught me range management courses that I took. RS: Who influenced you the most to continue in the ranching business? BP: Probably Ben Haywood. RS: What was the most critical policy that was enacted while you were working in Logan Canyon? BP: I think the most critical thing was keeping the cattle and the sheep off of the riparian areas of the streams. That’s when that started. And improving the watering holes so that it was better distribution of livestock. RS: And was that the land management policy that impacted your operation, your land use the most? BP: Mmm Hmm. RS: Do you have any other particular stories you would like to share? BP: Not that I can think of at this time. RS: Are there any books or writings that influenced either your land use beliefs or your management practices? BP: Not that I can think of right now. RS: What world events have had the most impact on your professional life? What world events have impacted your professional life? Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  14   �BP: Probably that sheep kill was the most important. If you have any other questions don’t hesitate to call. RS: I will. I don’t want to be here too long today and I will take a look at what we have and see if I did a good job or not since it was my first one. I appreciate you talking to me though! BP: Well no problem at all! And anytime you need some more information if I can help don’t hesitate to call. RS: Ok thank you very much! Land  Use  Management  Oral  History  Project:  Bill Petersen Interview     Page  15   � Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/340">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/340</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Hosted by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Recording equipment: Marantz PMD660 Digital Recorder Transcription equipment: Power Player Transcription Software: Executive Communication Systems Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2012-02-10 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 Willard (Bill) Reed Petersen interview, 14 April 2008, and transcription Description An account of the resource Mr. Peterson talks about growing up in Hyrum, Utah, his father's ranching and farming operations, working with his families’ sheep ranching operation in Cache National Forest and in Box Elder County. He talks about getting out of the sheep business due to a mysterious event that killed over 300 sheep in the mid 1950s that also caused many of the sheep to become sterile. After this, the family got out of the sheep ranching business. Additionally, Peterson talks about his education at Utah State University and University of Utah and going into the real estate business in Bear Lake Valley, as well as, local land conservation issues. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Petersen, Willard Reed, 1926- Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Smith, Rebecca (Interviewer) Subject The topic of the resource Petersen, Willard Reed, 1926- --Family Logan Canyon (Utah) Sheep--Utah--History Sheep industry--Utah Sheep ranchers--Utah Sheep ranchers--Cache National Forest (Utah and Idaho) Sheep--Feeding and feeds--Utah--Hyrum Land use--Utah--Logan Canyon Land use--Cache Valley (Utah and Idaho) Grazing districts--Utah--Logan Canyon Grazing--Cache National Forest (Utah and Idaho) Canyons--Utah--Cache County--Recreational use Ranching--Cache Valley (Utah and Idaho) Farming--Cache Valley (Utah and Idaho) Fishing--Utah--Cache County Cache Wool Growers Association Petersen Land & Livestock, Inc. Range Management--Utah Allotment of land--Utah Natural resources--Management Rangelands--Utah--Cache County Rangelands--Utah--Box Elder County Sheepherding--Utah Petersen, Willard Petersen, Howard Clark Petersen, Stanford B. Sheep--Mortality--Utah--Box Elder County Real estate business--Bear Lake Valley (Utah and Idaho) Land use--Law and legislation--Utah--Logan Canyon Utah State University--Alumni and alumnae Rangelands--Multiple use--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Oral history Interviews Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Bear Lake Valley (Utah and Idaho) BearLake County (Idaho) Rich County (Utah) Blacksmith Fork Canyon (Utah) Hardware Ranch (Utah) Box Elder County (Utah) Rattlesnake Mountain (Utah) Curtis Creek (Utah), Rock Creek (Cache County, Utah) Left Hand Fork (Logan Canyon, Utah) Utah United States Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1940-1949 1950-1959 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 & Archives, Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection, FOLK COLL 42 Box 4 Fd. 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection can be found at: <a href="http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php">http://library.usu.edu/folklo/folkarchive/FolkColl42.php</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Fife Folklore Archives Curator, phone (435) 797-3493 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Logan Canyon Land Use Management Oral History Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp3 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context FolkColl42bx4fd4BillPetersen Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 14 April 2008 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2008-04-14 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/ba1945118e4348d825c089bacc96fdf9.pdf 33894449f839afde1847ac4121c35df7 PDF Text Text PROJECT CONFERENCE RECORD 1 7 project: U5-89, Farmington to South Ogden Place: Date: December 29, 1993 8031 Farmington city Hall Conference Room No. : . Time: 9:00 am Attending: Brooks Carter, Corps Jeanette Gallihugh, Corps Max Forbush, Farmington City Greg Bell, Farmington City Earl Kemp, Farmington city Marda Dillree, st. Rep. Joel Hall, Versar Lindi Gregory, Versar Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Dist. 1 Denis stuhff, UDOT Dist. 1 Dave Berg, UDOT Environmental Congressman Jim Hansen Peter Jenks, aide Aaron Richards, property owner Craig Peterson, Versar Subjects Discussed: Following introductions, Craig Peterson, Versar, explained the purpose of the meeting was to select an access option from 115/US-89 for the west Farmington area. Access is needed to reduce future congestion through Farmington and along 600 West . Wasatch Front Regional Council projects 30,000 daily vehicle trips in this area within 15 years. All traffic from the west Farmington area must currently pass through Farmington City, with much of it passing through the Clark Lane Historic Homes District and travelling in front of a junior high school and near an elementary school. The road will be built and maintained by the state. A handout showing the three options was passed around and the pros and cons of each option was explained. The reason for the variety of options is avoidance of wetlands. Two of the options tie into Clark Lane at 1100 West, while the third option ties into Clark Lane east of 1100 West. Wetlands Discussion - Brooks Carter, us Army Corps of Engineers (COE) , took a few minutes to explain the regulations concerning wetlands. First, you must look to avoid wetlands if at all possible and practicable. If you cannot avoid wetlands, then you must minimize the impacts in the most practicable manner. Finally, you mitigate by creating new wetlands to replace the lost and impacted wetlands. Currently, the COE does not prefer anyone option. If one option which impacts more wetlands then another option is selected, then UDOT and Farmington must prove to the COE, by providing safety standards, traffic projection, and air quality information, along with City planning information, that option is the most practicable option. 1 �Aaron Richards, a resident of the area where the access road would be located, stated that his fields are wet because they have been farmed and irrigated, not because they are wetlands. There are some drains through the fields and he pointed out their locations. He is not happy about his fields being called jurisdictional wetlands. Congressman Jim Hansen explained in general terms problems that have arisen with the Threatened and Endangered Species Act and Wetlands under the Clean Water Act. He stated that both these acts will be in for some congressional changes during 1994 because they create a land "taking" without offering just compensation. Mr. Hansen feels that economic impacts need to be weighed along with biological impacts. Marda Dillree, state Representative for Farmington, expressed her belief that wetlands are taking economic value from Davis County because of the costs involved to identify and avoid or mitigate. Farmington city Transportation Master Plan Issues Mayor-elect Bell explained the importance of the Burke Lane access to Farmington's transportation master plan. Access over 1-15 between Farmington and the developing west Farmington area is limited to two streets - Clark Lane and Glover Lane. Connections between Clark Lane and Glover Lane on the west side of 1-15 is also limited to two streets - 650 West and 1525 West . The City's master plan calls for the development of something like a loop system around Farmington to improve traffic circulation and emergency response times. The streets involved in this would be 1100 West, Clark Lane, Glover Lane, and Main Street/US-89. The Burke Lane access needs to tie into this loop to take west side traffic away from schools. Burke Lane Access Options option "A" is the original access proposal. It is the most direct access to Clark Lane and 1100 West, with one long, gentle curve. However, it impacts over seven acres of wetlands. Option "B" has been dropped from further study because it does not provide reasonable access to the projected growth area in the west Farmington area. Option "c" has two curves and impacts less than one acre of wetlands, but it does not tie into Clark Lane at 1100 West. option "C" creates two intersections which will decrease safety and increase air pollution problems. Option "D" is a compromise between options "A" and "C". It is estimated to impact approximately four acres of wetlands by snaking around them before tying into Clark Lane at 1100 West. 2 �Closinq Comments Versar will provide the COE with user costs and safety ratings for options "A," "C," and "D". Farmington City will provide the COE with a copy of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. The COE will use this additional information, along with the wetland impacts information, to determine which option is a "practicable permitting" option for the Burke Lane access. 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1698">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1698</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2915598555 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1859226 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden Description An account of the resource Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden, suggesting an access option from I-15/US 89 for the west Farmington area with a discussion on the wetlands, transportation master plan issues, and Burke Lane access options. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peterson, Craig Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roads Improvement--Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Versar, Inc. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 12/29/93 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Farmington (Utah) Davis County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS351SerIBx85_Item_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/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/6e7f694f412c4710899ab30ac1b76591.jpg 484eaa84125f5123ec8bd91767b13eb3 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale File Size Size of the file in bytes. 86.018 KB Conversion Specs Black and white images in this collection are stored as archival TIFF and access JPEG files. Using a Creo-Scitex Eversmart Jazz+ scanner, they were scanned at 600 dpi (5 x7 or larger) or 1200 dpi (smaller) with 8-bit grayscale. Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2007-07-19 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/index.php</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Bear/id/11965">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Bear/id/11965</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Main Street, Logan, Utah, May 9, 1908 Description An account of the resource Street scene of Main Street looking north from Center Street intersection, Logan, Utah, May 9, 1908. Electric power poles line both sides of the street which contains several horse-drawn wagons and buggies. Photograph taken by W. L. Peterson. One black and white photograph (6.5 x 10 inches) mounted on board. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peterson, W. L. (Willard L.), 1886-1979 Subject The topic of the resource Logan (Utah)--History--Pictorial works Overhead electric lines--Utah--Logan--History--Pictorial works Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic prints Black and white images Photographs Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1900-1909 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboards Collection A-3756 Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Bear River Watershed Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context A3756.jpg Highway 89; Logan; Main Street; https://highway89.org/files/original/04705c7695d5631d94491798ebce05b1.jpg d0950ecb19faafe716af21eab845fb10 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Where else is this found? Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm) <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/154">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/154</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi) display file is JPEG2000 Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2011-11-02 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peter Peterson family from Petersboro camping up Logan Canyon, Utah, July 1908 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon, Utah. Camping, 1908. Peter Peterson Family from Petersboro camping. July 1908. Note tent and poles. Photo by W.L. Peterson. Black and white photograph (6 x 10 in) mounted on board Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peterson, W.L. Subject The topic of the resource Camping--Utah--Logan Canyon--Photographs Peterson, Peter--Family--Photographs Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1900-1909 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Historical Photoboard Collection, A-3772 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Historical Photoboard Collection Type The nature or genre of the resource Image StillImage Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context A3772 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. July 1908 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-03-22 Is Version Of A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format. Logan Canyon Reflections https://highway89.org/files/original/424d0a3caf74f075aa29f1258fdfaee7.pdf fdd7ccb5b1897669795551f7529073b2 PDF Text Text Utah Wilderness -. . . . . . . ~ Association . 455 East 400 South · ,306/Salt Lake City,UT 84111/(801)359-1337 Uran Department ot Transporrotlon 4501 S. 2700 V.I. Sal t Lake Ci tv. Utah 84119 Dear Mr. ZhllCk: ' \..fe have long been conGerned about the future development UDOT plans for the widening of Hwy. 89 In Logan Canyon. And wnlle It seems that tew it anv at our comments have e ver been taken Into consideratlon In the oasr. we cannor be remISS In contInuing to tell yOU that the degradatIon of the natural beauty H) Logan Canyon IS unacceptable. We offer the follm..ying pOInts that \:"Ie feel can be accommodated by the conStructIon work y.;hlle preservIng the Integrity of the canyon that means so much to so many folks fIndlng beauty ands solace in ItS verdant summer magic. its wonderful trails. Its winter austerity and its scenlC UnIqUeneSS recommended nearly 15 years ago by a district ranger and Logan users. Under the current plan or development. wlldlife habitat and fisheries will suffer. Cut and fill will adversel v affect ll'later QualltY. fisherIes and ungulate canyon migratlon patterns. Nearly 100 acres of deer and moose v-llnter range (!"Iould be destroyed. ThIS seems so contradictory given the \--Iork on habItat pro.lects bv others In the valley who are trYlng to rehabilitate deer and elk WInter range. Just as DOT destroys it . .~ SIte where material cut from the roadSIdes Will be depOSIted has as vet not be identified. ""'his is Just one area I,..yhere NEP~. YVas skirted in order to obtaln approval of the EIS. Statlng mItIgatIon will occur does not guarantee It. There.' lS too long a hlstorv of the agency buIlding then abandonIng a prO Ject e xcept ror snow removal and line painnn9. NeIther of those actIVltleS provide for damage guaranteed to Impact wildlife and fish for the comIng ·,Iears. The (l'Iildlife portion of the EIS is woeiully Hladeouate. And the bottom llne IS that Increased tunding and proviSIon of more routes for Utah Hignwav Patrolmen In rhe canyon could really solve the speeding problems and e i lminate driver error that has been blamed for a need In canyon road Irlldening. Build It "faster ,1 and t hus they will drive ! SoeGliicallv. oea ver and trout wIll surfer tcllO(,·'llng constructlon at the retaInIng t'Jalls. It is : estImateo that ~lstl populatIons v-lould be reduce;:; UP to 705~ i---,lnen n parIan vege tanon IS re moved In the ::'N O ;'rHle S or that dama.ge or'·o .lecred by the E IS. RlP-rap :;annot crovide the ecologIcal subst Itute tnar llv e plants and soi l s and F over can ror healtnv fISh populanons. ThIS IS part of the nearlv 20 acres or: 'r"-ietlanas ana ripanan . habltat tha. t y..lO uld be coll ecn v e~ v destroyed. ,.qnd in a tIme when i1um ans are supposedlv 2Hare or these losses and "CrY InC ·1:0 act upon past errors. such damage IS CallOl.iS a na Lnccnr::eIvabl e. . . ~[ <:O[J5~2 . :ri e~:e IS S Ue S 'ost J:cu(;n the :::urt:3.Ge. The!::e . .::tr·e r.tle r eC09nlz ed unpacts. Be l/ond the orOiJle ms Hlt!l t h e process ln .Q ene raL th e .:as ua l 013;:=9 2ro ot pub lic Inout bv so manv who ha ve , (~onr.; : J · _I ;:ec Sl n J~?;p ; '/ Tn ~ :~ ; s p [ i !) r r I p orn&::r r,.-, n[~ :::.r ~ r· easonab l ~ ("onServatlonists ' aitern,:ttive 'r~hICn tne utan \rhld er ~e~~ .;;s~~~~· t~o~ :; "\ih;len e"';rr~;; l ~ ;=~;orts. UDOT'"' ~~st go back to the dr aY·l lng bocrd ana !.;'/ :::J f"1 21·:e rtHs c oro )ec r trli.H T.rle t;once nsus Clr users wlll find legitimate. It is too lmpor~ant to 100% Recycled Unbleached Paper �sluff ott as angrv resldents. dlsgruntled (r'llldlite supporters and obstructIonlst polltlCS. There lS only one Logan Canvon. And we want to preserve the beautv. the wlldness and the essence ot 11:5 grandeur tor all who en.Joy It. No one comes to See-a road till or a great retalning wall. It is the water. the trees. the wildlife. the autumn leaves at slo~-J speed that make Logan Canyon a-gem of Utah. ·The EIS misses the mark. Yet agaIn v-Ie ur ge YOU .to -take t:"lese comments- and the Incredible number YOU recelved that express slmllar OPPosItIon to sUGh ma.Jor alterIng ot the canYon- lnto serIOUS conslderatlon. Please keep us on the maIling list to -receIve all related documents on the Logan Canyon pro.)ect. - - Slncerely. Margaret Pett1s Board Member. AprIL 27. 1993 - � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/124">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/124</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2968122756 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1230712 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick, April 27, 1993 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick requesting to be kept informed on the proposed changes of Logan Canyon and expressing concerns about widening the road and increasing the speed limit. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pettis, Margaret Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Environmental policy Traffic engineering Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993-04-27 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0cc857cb278984a44025bdaabe7c83a3.jpg a705cc79f53c4d375b22aacb78193b19 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 844 Image Width Image Width in pixels 584 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Checksum 7304d651dd7c03bc20669ea81ff399bd File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3471230 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2334">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2334</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Cameron Trading Post and Gallery. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Polvere, Anthony M. Subject The topic of the resource Trading posts; Stone buildings; Cameron Trading Post Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color transparency Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Cameron (Ariz.); Navajo Indian Reservation;United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/United_Indian_Traders.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. United Indian Traders Association Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_5855.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/2b4328722ee81a795bdf757ebefd4724.jpg 5a4b3bd14ca87d329bfd318db8098eeb Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 1071 Image Width Image Width in pixels 1670 Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Checksum 0156d27635f1da3825cbd3bbf0b17579 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3293994 Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order a print or digital file of this item, please see Northern Arizona University. Cline Library's Reproduction Order Form at: <a>http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm/ordering/#ordering</a> Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2388">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2388</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Gap Trading Post Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Polvere, Anthony M. Subject The topic of the resource Trading posts; Stone buildings; Gap Trading Post Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color transparency Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Gap, The (Ariz.); Navajo Indian Reservation;United States Highway 89; Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/United_Indian_Traders.xml Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. United Indian Traders Association Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_5875.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/9ffe57417302dbc8276239c7d2cc735f.jpg b6e60f1f813ed229fa23a47b5d793b4d Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Image Height 846 Image Width Image Width in pixels 572 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 2e1e55bb62b65e5679809377570f4c2b File Size Size of the file in bytes. 791646 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2473">http://cdm16748.contentdm.oclc.org:80/cdm/ref/collection/cpa/id/2473</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Sacred Mountain Trading Post billboard on Highway 89 north of Flagstaff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Polvere, Anthony M. Subject The topic of the resource Billboards Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Color slide Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Coconino County (Ariz.) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999; 20th century Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Northern Arizona University. Cline Library. McKee, Barbara and Edwin McKee Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/nau/United_Indian_Traders.xml Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital surrogates are the property of the repository. Reproduction requires permission, please contact special.collections@nau.edu. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NAU_5986.jpg https://highway89.org/files/original/7e88fcb2fa53f47468301291c2363ce1.jpg 84eb3ab434725d5983e63a731230e9dd Moving Image A series of visual representations imparting an impression of motion when shown in succession. Examples include animations, movies, television programs, videos, zoetropes, or visual output from a simulation. Embed ID The video ID used for embedding. B8WMgJDytao Player html for embedded player to stream video content <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/B8WMgJDytao" frameborder="0" width="640" height="360"></iframe> 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 Highway 89 Digital Collections Description An account of the resource The Highway 89 Digital Collections project team created this video for ILEAD USA, Utah State Library, March 25-28, 2013. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-03-28 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WMgJDytao Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms">Standard YouTube License</a> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pumphrey, Clint Mitchell, Paula Kichas, James Earl Woolcott, Liz Wesolek, Andrew License A legal document giving official permission to do something with the resource. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms">Standard YouTube License</a> Date Submitted Date of submission of the resource. Examples of resources to which a Date Submitted may be relevant are a thesis (submitted to a university department) or an article (submitted to a journal). 2013-03-28T14:40:31.000Z Type The nature or genre of the resource MovingImage https://highway89.org/files/original/8c767d0ce0d2331b3d76880d3599e772.pdf 3283bf1ffb9c375f0d039bc1cc044583 PDF Text Text OFFIC E OF THE CI T Y COMM I SSION ERS Calgary, Alberbl, Canada September 3 , 1957 . K. Ford , Esq ., Industrial Co- ordinator , Calgary , Alberta o Dear Sir :Re : Contribution for Tourist Brochure of Sgers International Hip'h.:av Association The Commission~rs have agreed to your request that a Grant of ~300 . 00 be river to tris Organization towards a "sponsored tl photo in their brocr.ure . Yours truly , BOARD O COWlISS!ONERS , F !l~t? ~".~ Ln1.. 1/" _ ~l!')J~ secreta~ 'Y PAIL . BENTLEY: This is the oonfirmation on order from the City of Calgary. Attaoh to your copy ot the order. I have billed them, and check y should be comming along any time •• M commiss i on has been paid on this , s i '- M t n. ar S ----. L �/ '......... II" III. II . " EDMONTON LAND DIVISION ALBERTA September 24th, 1957. Mr. Bentley Mitchell, 89 ' ers International Highway Association Inc., 89 Highway Pranotion Fund, Mitchell Motel, LOGAN, Utah, U. S.A. Dear Sir: We enclose herewith Imperial Bank of Canada Cheque No. A292053 dated September 20th, 1957 for the amount of $300.00 (THREE HU/IlRED DOUARS) in payment of ' Sponsorship Grant' re advertising in the "Boulevard of National Parks" . Yours truly, tor .~ DIRECTOR RAM-me Ene. ALL SA L ES. H'CLUDINO PRICE. T£RJ04 1 AND CQNDIYIONS, SUaJIlCT TO II"VI S ION .. "'0 .. .. ""OV ... L flV THII: C:ITV COUNCIL OR C:ITT CO"'''''''Q'''''''' AT "'NV TIIU. WITHQUT NOTICE �M ltrch 24, 1958 Dear Bentley: IA tt.ached is a letter from lim . E. Fr aser, Manager of the Pr escott Chamber of COlIlDerce s t ating t ha t their Board of Director::! have a pproved the sponsorship of a pic ture in th e brovhure . iihUe the aJWunt is not stated. in t pe let t er , the A dve t i sing I nsertion Order Mr. FrClser -'refers .., to (which I l eft with him) is f or t he usual $ 300 pictur e sponsorship grant . Sinc e this letter i s II valid varification U of the or der . I am pr es enting it for payment of thee 166.00 commission. Si nce the check might not reach me by mail before we leave for M exiCO, I am wondering i f you could br ing enough additional money along to cash th e chec k , which I will endo r se when I s ee ~u . �PRESCOTT'S I CLII'IATE CH p, 0 , BOX I I 47 • PRESCOTT, ARIZONA r~rch 18, 1958 ~~rti n H. Cantwell, Exe. Secretary 8gers International Highway Ass., Inc. 140 \T. 2nd South Street ~T . Salt Lake City 1, Utah Dear Mr. Cantwell' The Board of Dire ctors of the Prescott Chamber of Commerce has approved o ur participation in your ne\,1 brochure and as soon as we get a picture and decide on the copy we want inserted, I \,Iill send along the advertising insertion order . \'lhen production has been started, lie will send along our check . lIit h every per sonal good \'1i5h, I rema in , Cordially, ~\I/(~ Manager l'IEF/vg HORSE SHOW • SMOJO • PARI-MUTUEL • FRONTIER DAYS • COUNTY FAIR �. ,,"" , , • , ~ . . . . ~ .. .... . 'C'< , A" .... 0 Kanab Chamber of Commerce • , · KANAB. UTAH lVrart: n H. Cantwell Exe t- utive Secretary pn t er~ Hi~hway Association 1 , • , De a r Mr . Cantwell : , our desire to participate in the 89 ' er br r chure . , · 1 , • i • , , · 'T'he purpos e of this let t er is t o inf erm ycu of \"e wish to reserve Sl)ace in the utah section . Det a ils of the copy to be worked - cut . Upon reciep t of confirmaticn frC'm you that 6T'aCe is a vailable we wi l l forward ven the Rum of ~l(,II"! . OO . It is our unde r stand i ng th~t the total cost is aprroxima telv ~300 . 00 -- inclu d ing the rictorial display and c opy . We wi ll a l so appreci ate ycur ccnfirmati~n of the aforementicned costs The balance of th e cost of our A..d is to be obtai n ed from f und s in a 'Previouslv exjc:: ting R9 ' er orga nizaticn in Kanab and from the Kane county , county c~mmissioners . In any event the tctal cests \"i 11 be , • ~a id . --- T tru t tha t this lett er wil1 reach you in t ime and will appreci a te your reply in confirmation . Verv trul" yours Kanab Chamer of Cemmer ce ~.-~~ 'R . E . BCldvi n Executive Se cretary "THE HUB OF' THE PARKS IN SCENI C AMER IC A " ... ,,~, .",.,. '~ ""f ".,. '....... , .-~ �, I June 11 , 1958 • R. E. Bodvln , Executive Se cretary Kanab Chamber of Comme r c e Kana b, Ut ah Dear • Bodvin : Many thanks tor your letter reserving space for Kanab in the 89 ' ers broohure . W hile- we ha ve started production , you are in time , since the Utah Se ction has been held to l ast . You are correct a s to the cost . ' financi al grant of $ 300 will se cur e p ublica tion of a pi cture of your choice lith a ca ption describi ng the Bcene • • • al so listing of your city in the panel a t the right of the double s pread with a short paragraph mentioning some ot your major tourists attra ot i ons . The Chamber , as one of the sponsors of the Utah section will be l i s ted a t the bottom ot the page . In add i tion t o the mai n picture be i ng s pons ored by the Chamber , I would s uggest thnt you s ubmit n add it ional pr int just in Case Y/e have room to work it in s omewhere . For the proteotion o f e veryone concerned , we are on a "pay as we g o " basis with our art agency a nd printer . All revenue trom the brochure is bei ng hel d in a npecial promotional a ccount , and we pay pay in insta l lments aD produotion pr ogresses . The t l OO advance payment is tine , and your terms a re a oc eptable pr oviding we can reoe ive t he bal anoe ot $ 200 in time to make our final payment to tho printer •• • proba bly about J uly 20;h. or s ooner i f i t i s a vailable . I understand that the Kanab 89 ' ers Club has a bout $ 135 lett over whioh s hould make it no problam t o raise the differenoe . I 8S am inclosing nn insertion order , e nd i nst ruotion sheet to wha t we will need in the way of o opy . Als o , sinoe a ll Chambers of Commeroe in 89 ' er a reas are Honorary M ember s ot the As sooiatl on , I am sending your M bership Pl aque under separate em oover . ~ ost sincerely your a M rtin H. Cant we ll a �YELLOWSTONE PARK COMPANY V£ltOWSTOtH PARK , WYOMING DON l. WATK INS O'Rlcta~/pu'LlC 'U lATlON I lOx a'9. ~OC"TlllO. IDAHO Hay 5, 1958 II:artin H. CantHel l Executive Sec r et ~ ry S9 ' ers International 140 \'1 , 2nd South Salt La ke City , Ut a h Dear Nartin : I ' m pleas ed to report that I at l east "las successful in getting an oke h fo r a 0200 produ ct i on charge on your new brochure . Just bi l e when ou het it out . I talked ,..lith Jack Hayne s today nnd he has had t o send to Chicago for color trans parency of Old F ~ ithfu l . He doesn rt ha ve one in his s hop at t he time . He \"iill ha v e i t this ''1eekend . I 1m go i ng up to the park .rvlonday so he ".1 .11 hold on to it until I come up . Hope things are s hap i ng up ,·.,rell with you . Best pe~~tnal regards, Don L . D Ul/m HOTELS· LODGES ' CAMPERS C AB INS · C AF E TER IAS \~in S TRANSPORTATION . BOA T S HORSES �~RAnD CAnVQn WILLIAMS GRAND CANYON Chamber of Commerce Williams, Arizona " GA 'I'E IVAY TO GlfA N D OANI'ON NA'I'ION AL PARK " June 18, 1 957 Uesr Bentley : ~nclosed br ochure . is our check for adve rtis ing i n the new Highvrey 89 Ma rtin Cantwell was here a few weeks ago and gave Qur Boa r d of Virectors 8 very good idea of what this new promotion will mean to those along Highway 89 . W all feel sure that B9 is the "corHng " highway es p ecially e since the adven t of the Glen Canyon Dam. I hope I can be among those who a t tend the Fall meeting at Jackson Hole. I ha ve never been up in that co untry and then too, it is so nice to rene'N friendships Bnd meet ne w peopl e. rs. M1 ta h ell whose first name I am sorry Best to your fa mily and M to sa y 1 can ' t rec a ll. I li k: ed her so mu.ch "uhen we met in M exico . ti incerely , -tn aA.'[..."..:t.. - - M r ga r et L. W ght , Mgr . a ri ,vill ia ms;-Gr and Ca nyon Cha mber 'o f Commerce. • GRAND CANYON • LABOR DAY RODEO • BILL W ILLIAMS • � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 4369 Image Width Image Width in pixels 3395 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/1534">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1534</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 400 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 1471708469 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 89'ers International Highway members Description An account of the resource Correspondence from 89'ers International Highway members confirming membership, paying dues, and requesting mention in the 89'ers brochure. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rault, Norman A. Fraser, William E. Bodvin, R.E. Watkins, Don L. Wright, Margaret L. Cantwell, Martin H. Subject The topic of the resource Tourism Accounts United States Highway 89 Alberta Route 2 Mexico Route 15 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1957 1958 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Calgary (Alberta) Edmonton (Alberta) Alberta (Canada) Canada Kanab (Utah) Kane County (Utah) Utah Grand Canyon (Arizona) Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming) Teton County (Wyoming) Park County (Wyoming) Prescott (Arizona) Yavapai County (Arizona) Arizona Utah Wyoming United States Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Edgar Bentley Mitchell Papers, 1950-1959, COLL MSS 322 Box 1 Folder 25 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv06356">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv06356</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS322Bx1Fd25 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/d26a45e111cadfb3aa723fa60e3fb68d.pdf 197389592bf6f59a17ff7e001ad0f11d PDF Text Text BEAR LAKE SINKS" BRIDGES ~~ Jt LOGAN RIVER BRIDGE I ~ ~ GROVE CREEK BRIDGE / __ LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY ~ BEIRDNEAU BEGIN STUDY PEAK RIGHT FORK MT. LOGAN J~N ·87 J . P.R . �CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Scoping Hearing Schedule Loglln March 3 7 pm Mountain Fuel Supp l y Aud 1.tOl- llIlII 45 East 200 North Garden City March 4 7 pm Garden City Hall Building BEAR LAKE _ __ ~\l'» 'tl..J . TONY GROVE ~ ~ D~I\'(" BRIDGE Q) tIl~ Q) Q) > Q) . Q) ~ Q) .. P:::O ~ Q) ,a ~ o LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY BEGIN STUDY . ~- -.- -- -RIGHT rORI< QS ~~ ~~ AA ~~ ,abO p...-I QS til ~ Q) bO'tl o +J 0 ~ bO cO 0 U~ J~"" J .P.' . �CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon is a citizens' group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward longterm protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat , recreational opportunities and naturalness. The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Yood Camp recreation area, this ancient but beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery . CPLC's proposal for Logan Canyon o The protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildl i fe hab i tat, rare plants, recreational sites and naturalness must be a prime concern . a An Environmental Impact Statement (ErS) must be prepared fa l ' <t ny sig n ificant road modification proposals to protect Logan Canyon ' s natural surroundings from haphazard road modifications . Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and R i ck's Sp r ing should o remain as currently posted . This area is very scenic and too se nsi ti v e 1. 0 PlIl"lII l. t any 'significant roadwuy 1II0dific ll tioll!> . o Bridges which cannot meet struc~ural safety requirements should be replaced when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wide only . Min 0 r a 1 t era t ion s t 0 b rid g a a p pro a c h e S w0 U ] d h 0 il C C e p t: iI h 1 l~ . o Turning lanes at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beuvut' Area may be constructed to facilitate turning traffic . MUUlIt H l Il Sk i Parking araas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood o Canyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and safety . o Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic, . pulloffs and pedestrian travel. o The road should be resurfaced and restriped where required . This will improve through traffic travel and nighttime safety t hroughou t I.Ogllll Canyon. c 1 1m bin g ( pas s 1 n g ) 1 a n a ~hould be built uL the J)lI~way (1H.:L Wl·l'1I and Upper twin bridge~). A eli IU b 1. n g 1 Lill cwo u 1 d a f f (: C t <I V l : ry sc e nic area by requiring lBaj or cut and fill operation~ with unsightly reti1ining walls . o N0 l t OW C 1' o No road modifications should alter the Logan River's watercours e Alterations could since the river is a major recreational resource . destroy important streambanks. o No new roads or major changes to the existing road should be constructed from the Bear Lake Summit to the Bea r Lak e Ov er look . Thi~ ItlglawllY section is in II very populLlr LInd s(:l~ lIle 1~ \~l! I'Ull t 1011 ~ 1I· l ~ a . o Congress should de.signate Logan Canyon Highway as Ut a h's first National Scenic Highway. This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to units in our National Park System . Logan River above Third Dam should be considered for National o Recreational River designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . This federal designation will protect the river's quality for all future generations. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/83">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/83</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 627818694 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1745890 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon handout Description An account of the resource Illustrative map of Logan Canyon from Garden City to Logan with a description of the purpose of Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. Also included are alternate suggestions and requests about the construction and proposed improvements in Logan Canyon road, Highway 89. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Reeves, John Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource O'Keefe, Jane Subject The topic of the resource Cartography--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5aab344d3634f7655550fdfa87e5896c.pdf 7f099836ad910d87ddeb8ff9372ec974 PDF Text Text , • Sept . 23 , 1955 !'lagstaff , iz . Board lieeting Filagste ! f , Ariz . Re y St uart , Pre s . presiding Board M embers }r e s ent- ott Ray W m. W m. 'orrow - Fl ags taff Stuart - W illiams f a l t. - Tucson Bass - W ickenbur g r eport W r ea d • as • Ott ~ o rr ow mov ed t o ~ c ept the treasurers ' r epoDt , 2nd . Bill W l t. a mot i on . LS carried. ~Trea8urer8 1 , • Perki ns t he s ec r etary arriv ed l a t e t o' excutlve board a ccompan ied by 8 guest . M Stewar t ca l led for a c l osed r. and a s a r esult • Per kin s l e f t wi t h the guest and up on • f or deliv ery of seeretarys books , retu81~ 1 W 8 made, and 8 he lef t t he meetin g with the record s and not ac co~tin g fo r incorporate funds . • meet ing s essi on r equ e st M . W lt z moved Secr etary to r eoord t he f act tha t Pres . Ray r a Stewa r t, by phone r ec e ived authori t y of Board M embers for r eemburaement by .88 0. for expenses t oM ontpie l lor , Idaho f or preconventi on rou~dup for M , Ba ss and Mr . Stewart . 2nd by O M r ow, r tt or '. motion c ar r ied . Bil l s present ed to be paid . Otho Booka c o r~ oration a ttorn eys s ubmi tted i t emized ment for ar tic l es of the inc or poration . Sea ls, ec t . Expen ses fo r bu *iness trip to ~uc50n 6~a~e ~ and N ogales t or M . Stewart in connection wi th Annua l M et i ng . Gas , .ct . 27. 65 r e 12 . 0 0 Stamps Printing of notices and env elopes fo r annual me eting 23 .18 Badges 7 .18 Idaho f or Pres . aod Tr ea surer 30 , 000 c opies of 12 page f ol der broc hure ~ on t p ielior , M . W l tz move A to pay bi ll 2nd by Ott r a ~ orrow, 99 . 95 7 U(. , t)o otion Car ri ed . �, ( 2) It has b e en/~~v~ . M orrow and and by Wm . W altz that payment in full be m ade upon delivery of the copies of t he brochures to Mrs. Repony. M otion c arried A bill received by A~ Bass (Tfeasurer of 89 'ers ) Me sa, Ariz. from the Guerrero-Lind s ey Sign Co ., M s a, Ar iZD The ree cords s how payment of this bill was made to Mr. Perkins upon his presentation of said bill t hat he claimed he personally paid. Since the Treasure Trail News has been publi shed very irregJlarly and not at all since July 1955, the board feels t hat DO further subscripti on to the Treasur e Trail News be p aid for. As it was the understanding of the Board Me eting in Sept . of 1954, that the above p ap er would be published m onthly and it has not been so published the above acti on has been taked. M oved by M Waltz ana 2nd. by Ot t M r. orrow to be exc epead, M on carried . oti . Board r ecessed 12 : 45 A. M. until 8 A.M. Sept . 24 , 1955 . fl.""""" M eeting reconveened 8 :15 A. M. Sept 24 1955 . M otion by W Bass To retain l egal services of 1tt . Mangrum m. torepresent 89 'ers Association on lega l m t ers at the Annual at Board M eeting Sept.24, 1955, 2nd by Wm. W altz, M otion carried. By r e a s on of fa ilure of the Sec re t ar y t o a t t end the duly noticed meeting of the Bo a , d of Directors and hi s refusal to subm the record of the minutes of previous meetings a s well it as otherax r ecords to tae board of Directors and because of his f a ilure and refusal t o account to the board ~corporat e funds ef any in his po ss ession, As well as his previous atti tude of non cooperation wi th the Board of Direc tor s, It was moved by W W m. altz and 2nd by Ott Morrow th at John Perkins be remov ed f rom the off ice of Secretary and t he Pres . be directed to demand t he i mmediate sa r render of a ll corporate recor ds i n hi s posses s ion as Secretary of the corpora tion and to r ender a full and comp lete ac counting of any and a ll c o or ate f unds , heretofore c o l lect ed and i n hi s ~ osse ss i on. �, , pon b eing put ~ o a vote by the rresi dent t he Yotion wa s U unaai mou s ly adopted . emberships receied to date have be en approved by the Al l M Board of Directors . ' ot ion m d e to adjourn the meeting was mad e by m. Bass a and s econded by Ott ~ orrow . Yot ion carried . Respectful ly submitt ed Isabel Repony Correspondence Secretary • • • , �Sept . 23 , 1&55 Board \!eeting FlAgstaff Ari zon a Bo~~ ~~obers preaent - Flagstaff Ott Morl~w nay &/owart - W l liams i \'Jm. Wal tz - Tuc son ;"};..: . !h,:':J ~ - '1 1ck onbu , Ueotir-e: '. :allod t.o ordor .:i.t 8: 00 P . !4. by Pra s i dent St ewart Traa.:rurer3 repor t wa a l'Gad. O Morro" mo'vo::l tt •r, (~ rKlns the t .) accept t he Zecre ~~ r eport 85 read , sec;tnded by tir . ilnltz • arrived lnte t o oxecutiv3 BOurd [!ua et. Mr . St ewart called f or a ~~ . Tt' c asurel"'~ clo~od ~e6 t ing ~cc ompanl eJ by a se s sion and r equ e sted t be gues t kimlly l eave. Per kjJl s announced t hat i f t he guest l ef t be would a l so . Tho Pr es i dent stated t hat tbe Board .a~ j n Executtv e se s sion H.Tld 'l. gu_st could not be all owl'd t.o renmin. j.s a r e sult !Jr . Perkins l eft wi th the gu03t &Dd u pon reques t f or dativ e books , r efusal Na.t ~ade by ~r. of the Secret a.rye Perkins, & he l e ft th e Dee ting with the r ecords nd l:.nd. not :l.c counti ng f or in corpor ate fun 8 . Yr . ,ialtz m oved thnt acting Secretary Mrs . I ~ obel Revony r ec ord t he f a ct tha t Pr e s . Ray Ste .otart, by phone rocol v ec. Bu thority of D08l"d !:embcrs f or r ei mbursement of expenses f or himself and M Bas s tJle Treasurer to t he pre-convention r oundup a.t r. tbntpel.i er Bsho. Sec onded by Ot t. ll:arrol'f . a o t.i on c &rri ed . 6illd pr e6ented f or p~m e nt- ;;;''<?Cnses tor businfl s 3 t r i p to Tuc son a nd N ' ogales t or Pre sident in c onnection with Annual ~eetlng Otbo Books , Corporation A ttorney submi tted itemized statemont fo r Articl es of Incor por at ion 27 . 65 200; '0 �l'r1utl ng notice s il.nd el ,velo~5 L~ee t ill.r1" r.ue l f or St.amps 7 .18 (l.(lgel3 llot.pe11ar IJuho t or 1'rOlJ8ur e r fl.nd r r ",!1 ant 700 . 00 Ho rton 1.'o's :.l.W!.e by ii.r . 'J.ut':l to Pl'y bills hIS roud , oo(.-t.nusu by Ott MorNlT . ,A t i OD carried. o o s aco})tled ' y ~ r. \~ .. tz thCft VO}'1I\8D t men'tiouo.J hrochure s bu marie i n ful l on deliver y of all of f or above tIll:' bro,,:,ur,-,~ to j, r~ . nopon,y . '«otion car!'l eJ. a b11.1 re "' 6iV'~l b"r the Tr aeuurer M BU158 from t.htt Guarror o- Lind.Boy 5 1 .>0 Co . r. 1 his pl' ;,Jent.a U QC! of tho bl.ll °l!l . .~ l' r ~a sW" i t wat:! Tr nil r~N8...1 t l'J'.HJ the t th Th& '!'r n:::uro Tra i l .'O'ii then ~t e. prov l0U3 B".f!:. t"d, t1l.!o tin:s <wi . hi ah he Clllr.,!'! papal' ur f Ol' .o"\.!. ' ' l1 a cus ~ :1oH. bo ! ubl1 :J h~~l "!"U,;; been !lIJbl16he Vtil"f !l!.vll t.1f lnJ i (a.t~ be At t be t,1 e t he ,\s 3ccia.ti on J.y . 'i'hl !! t 3 4.Y'.1'l:r; ul u,r ly a ni fl ot not Dtwr; lone . Ilt nil since July. I t. WaG t heT'Gt or m.? 'I'ei by Air • .Ial ta o.r.d em~olHej by ':r. :.!OT't'o"" that no. f u rther j ' at-in.; BOGr ot the ~~b er6 30Cl"~. l'C C on-:oll~d. ilt ;~ :1 5 A.. !J . !)ept . 24 , 1:;55 prooen t Roy ,St~"'''lt'(' ~ .)".t. ~ , .Im. Mr a ~ '')l~['\) W t"in"! t z. BDS:} Isobol 1\8 ""ny E',3 .cUue: e CN tary �Pa;;:e Th r ee Hay Stewart J Presi d ent proal di ug. i:\:e to the c cmHnued absence of tho Cor,a r a t.ion Secre t a r- ;Jr . Perkin s 8_ -t he i illsbility to r ea ch h im. i t was m ove'! by :Jr. Bas s en 1 seconded by { . ';icl.tz t hat r rr.- t tj> ~: A~ ' l'Joc:latio n rotdu .. Csr1 fh mgulU to repre sen t t he As soc i n tion 1n any 1<>:111 l!l:ltt.eJrs br01l{!ht bef or e t he Boar ,1 oeObers called f or 1 1r. )tallf,'.L 'lI ~oetillg' . 9 8 ~e Mr . vm s So pt~ 24, 1955. .!l ~c or~l ing lj' L~eot ing or the A nnual M t:lng of t he ee ~o tlon c srri ed ~ called in l mJ wa s present a t the rom"' i nde r of t '1e Bot.rd He a lso agr eEd to a ttend t h e A nnual !.foot i ng called f or 10 : )C A. M. t hat " ·, "'ni ll;'; . roll" . 1i~ ntr.1.l1 ~':l.s compl ete l y bric f e i on the ac tions of t.h e Sacre t. .... ry Perki ns. By r ea SOll of the in cd.II)O f ail ure of t he SBcr e t,ary t o Btte nd t he J uly not icoJ :Ilee ting of the iloard of ) irac tor3 ani.! hi s 1":.l fu3a l to subrai t t ho r acor o of minut,:H J of prov i ou s m ssti ngs, as we ll ae other r hcoro s to t l18 Boa r 1 01 ~ Oi l' ct.)r:; , 2nd bS(; tlu se of hie f ailure and N ius a l to ac coun t to the B:)a ru f or corpor ate f unJ 5 i f (my in his l'Os se ssion, as well a s hi s previous a ttitude o f non-coL' pe r a tion with t he B(lllr d of o Dir octors, the m tion was made by Iih- . Ife l tz and s e cor..d c d by J r. ,01'1'0.. ~.hat J ohn PorkinB be rer.tovtY.i fr om t he offi ce of 3ccre tery a nd t h11 t. t he n -e al _ent bo di r ec ted t o Jsm!iOd t he immedi a t e s urren:ls !' of all c orpor a t o TlJ.COX- g i n his tOs s c:isi on 11 :':1 ':ec r o tary J of t he Co r por ntion a nd to r ende r a f ul l El nd c omj l ate ac co\JIi U nt of Wly ond t~ll c orpor · t-" f'UJlds , here tofol" c ol 1<;1 0 t ed. and i n hi ::J pos ses a1 on ~ Upon beir~ }JUt t o a '1;.')te by the Pr s d den t t he m t ion ,va s un :;nimous l y ad opt eJ . o All !.1el'llba r shl ps r e c e ive d to da Le ha ve b ee n aI.·prov e.! by t hf:: M on oti a s ruaJe to a.djourn t h e maetir.g oy ill' . ~ et1ng a JlS ~ nI)ri H ~·c.rd . "ujournoJ. n t 1 0 : 4 ::; A. ti . s ec onJ&i. by flr . M r ow. or Rc s r.ac t f u ll.,v :5ubm .Utod Isabol r..epony Ac ting St~ cr ot..ary � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 3132 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2350 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/1416">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1416</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 2473768491 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 Annual 89'ers Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, September 23, 1955 Description An account of the resource Annual Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, September 23, 1955 (2 copies). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Repony, Isabel (acting secretary) Subject The topic of the resource Minutes and proceedings Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 9/23/55 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Flagstaff (Arizona) Coconino County (Arizona) Arizona United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Edgar Bentley Mitchell Papers, 1950-1959, COLL MSS 322 Box 1 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv06356">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv06356</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS322Bx1Fd2 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5d4a14929815213f29def081e8a72146.pdf 67fa9052444d4b7d3b45c35d604bd546 PDF Text Text WILLIAM D. HURLEY, P.E. TRANSPORT A TlON COMMISSION SAMUEL J. TAYLOR CHAIRMAN WAYNE S. WINTERS VICE CHAIRMAN ClEM H. CHURCH R. LAVAUN COX TODD G . WESTON Director GENE STURZENEGGER, P.E. Assistant Director H. H. RICHARDSON District Director UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 169 North Wall Avenue Box 2747 Ogden, Utah 84404 ELVA H. ANDERSON SECRETARY June 23, 1986 Utah Chapter, Sierra Club P. O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 Re: Attention: Delineation in Logan Canyon Safety Project HES- 02l(6) Mr. Rudy Lukez Dear Mr . Lukez: Thank you for the comments of your June 16, 1986 letter. The U. S. Forest Service and ourselves are currently in discussion regarding the matter of delineators on US- 89 in Logan Canyon. Since this project is a safety construction project utilizing Federal and State safety funds, there is some guarded caution to not increase public liability by failing to provide a reasonable protection to the motorist. The principal items being addressed in this contract are those which have been identified as being substandard so far as safety features are concerned. These difficiencies are those which could cause great harm to the public and magnify the liability exposure of the public agencies involved. We feel we have a cordial relation with the USFS district office in Logan, and I am confident that our present discussions will bring about a decision that will be sensitive to the the scenic values of the Canyon. Sincerely yours, " -tf~E. District One Director HHR:mo cc: Dave Baumgartner, USFS District Ranger, Logan � 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/8">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/8</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2553152476 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 588118 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 between UDOT and Sierra Club, June 23, 1986 Description An account of the resource A letter from H.H. Richardson to Rudy Lukez concerning delineators on US-89 in Logan Canyon Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Richardson, Howard Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-06-23 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Logan (Utah) United States Utah Cache County (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Item_7.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2bd5ef2cc7005227ede230aefa5b3f1b.pdf 921fa5f151582bac03aa624877d1cc1b PDF Text Text .. ' UNITED STATES DEPARTME N T O F AGRICU LTURE FOREST SERVICE Logan Ranger District P.O. Box 448 Logan, Utah 84321 7730 November 26, 1979 Brian Beard 93 East 100 South Logan, Utah 84321 L Dear Brian: I received your inquiry today regarding the proposed 3rd phase reconstruction of the Logan Canyon Highway. In reply to your questions: 1. Ricks Springs Campground Development proposed. No, we do not plan to construct a campground at Ricks Springs in conjunction with the Logan Canyon Highway proposal. Yes, there is an inventoried recreation site on the opposite side of the Logan River at Ricks Springs. The site was selected back in the NFRS Inventory done in 1962. There has been no site plan developed for recreation development there; however, by our management we are protecting the inventoried recreation site to prevent loss of resource values per chance there may one day be a need to develop the site. There has been some rough draft planning to protect and enhance public safety at the Ricks Springs Natural Feature. There is no approved plan for undertaking any development as yet. 2. Wood Camp Hollow Campground proposed. No, we do not plan to construct a campground in Wood Camp Hollow in conjunction with the proposed highway improvement program. Yes, there is an inventoried recreation site in Wood Camp Hollow. It was also selected in the NFRS Inventory completed back in 1962. There is no detailed plan for development as yet, and there are not, now at least, any plans for development. Yes, there was a preliminary ground survey made in Wood Camp Hollow for an improved access road up to the Old Juniper Trailhead. As I recall, the survey was done in 1969. There are still one or two engineering survey pegs in the ground there. The bridge that crosses Logan River at Wood Camp and the construction of the Old Juniper Trail were part of the recreation development originally programmed for public outdoor recreation 6Z0 0-11 (1 /69) �development within the Logan Canyon Recreation Complex. It was also originally planned that overburden from the proposed 3rd phase Logan Canyon Highway improvement project would partially be utilized in developing the Old Juniper Trailhead access road. This road was a part of the resource evaluations considered with the Environmental Analysis Report done by the F.S. on the 3rd phase of the Logan Canyon Highway back in 1973. 3. Disposal of fill material? During the evaluation processes of the upgrading of the Logan Canyon Highway we have always been concerned about disposal of overburden and excess cut material. You may already be familiar with uses that were made of excess material from the previous phase. Some clean rock was used to stabilize the river channel bank, some rock was used to reestablish the stream hydrology as in the lower box culvert below the Big Hole. Some rock was used to enhance fisheries. Top soil was saved and put back on cut slopes for better establishment of vegetative ground cover. Some excess material was used to surface portions of the Cowley Canyon forest road, and of course a great deal of cut material went back into Logan Canyon Highway road itself. Any material in excess was wasted in the "Grubic Mountain" where it was molded and landscaped to a near natural land form. Possible uses of overburden and excess cut material from the proposed 3rd phase Highway Improvement program may be similar or hauled out of the canyon. We have looked at and are still looking at possible beneficial uses should the road work be undertaken. The Cowley Canyon road could benefit from additional material to improve the driving surface as well as to lift the road above the drainage channel and improve water quality. There may also be a similar opportunity for improvement to the Temple Fork road. There may also be an opportunity to utilize clean rock to stabilize stream channels in Logan Canyon and side drainages. Perhaps the fisheries of Logan River, Right Fork, and Temple Fork could be improved with appropriately designed structures utilizing clean rock. The re may be other uses as well, but environmental assessments of each would be necessary before any undertaking. The same with any actual waste sites selected. Some waste disposal sites looked at to date include the Twin Bridges, both the upper and lower end; the Wood Camp area, mentioned earlier; the draw immediately below the lower of the Twin Bridges; and the bench at the present site of the Logan Cattle Allotment corral are a few of the possible waste sites looked at. There has been no definite selection as yet and there would be an environmental assessment made to determine if there is an appropr~ate waste site. 4. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental assessments will be prepared to meet the National Environmental Policy Act for any project we propose to undertake that will have significant resource impact. As I have previously stated, there are no plans to develop either Wood Camp or Ricks Springs in conjunction with the proposed Logan Canyon Highway �project. As a matter of fact, I do not see any development for these areas in the forseeable future. We have asked our Fisheries Biologist and Hydrologist to study the Logan River, Temple Fork, and Right Fork Streams to determine whether there could be something done to improve the fish pool-riffle ratios and to stabilize the stream banks to improve water quality. Should these studies suggest the opportunity for improvement we will do an environmental assessment to determine feasibility before any undertaking. These will be made available to you for your input. We are now in the process of responding to the Utah Department of Transportations most recent plan and design for the proposed 3rd phase of Logan Canyon Highway Improvement. A copy of this will be made available to you. I appreciate your personal interest and the interests of the Sierra Club in protecting the resource values of Logan Canyon. I solicit your input in al~ proposed activities involving National Forest lands of the Logan Ranger District. I am equally concerned for your support of proper and wise use of all lands within and adjacent to the National Forest lands regardless of ownership. Periodically there are proposals and activities in the private and state sector within the National Forest Boundary that could adversely change the values and uses of the forest. I am sure the county and state planners and administrators would welcome your input and support as well. Should you have any questions regarding this reply, please get in touch. Sincerely, District Forest Ranger � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/109">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/109</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 2607205343 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3781364 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Brian Beard, November 26, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Brian Beard regarding the proposed 3rd phase reconstruction of the Logan Canyon Highway mentioning that no campgrouds will be built at Ricks Springs or Wood Camp Hollow, how fill material will be disposed of, and stating compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Roberts, M.J. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-11-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2450d6fe4614645d30d1695b96b69090.pdf e1d6c57af142bec0820a55d2858a7cf3 PDF Text Text UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Logan Ranger District P.O. Box 448 Logan, Utah 84321 7750 December 20, 1979 Ms. Marta Tollerup P.O. Box 3561 Logan, Utah 84321 L Dear Ms. Tollerup: Your letter of November 24, 1979 on the realignment of the Logan Canyon Highway has been referred to our office by the Branch Chief of Recreation. In reply to your questions: There would be changes in the China Row picnic site, Woodcamp campground, Cottonwood picnic site, Twin Bridges campground, and two summer recreation residences. All of these facilities could be affected by road construction in one way or another. According to the Environmental Analysis Re port for the Third ~hase of Construction of th e Logan Can y on Hi ghway the following recommendations were made : 22. Pres e rve the Ch i na Row Sprin g and provide roadside turn-out sp a c e fo r t wo automobiles. 23. Desi gn suitabl e a cc e s s int o th e new hi ghway at the followin g locations: a. b. c. d. e. f. Ri ght Fork Road Junc t i on W o dcamp Re c r e ation Site o Lo gan Cave Parking Co tt onwood Ca n yo n Re crea tion Site Brach iopod Summe r Re cre ation Area Twi n Brid ge s Re creation Sit e The Logan Cave p a rkin g and the Cottonwood Canyon Recreation Site parking can b e combined into one parkin g area. Attached are copies of three page s covering Recreation and Aesthetics out of the En v ironmental Analysis Report on the Logan Canyon Highway. I would like t o call your attention to the list of turn-outs and parking ar e as for use by people fishing, bird watching, etc. These p o pular pull-outs wo uld b e preserved if at all possible. 6200- 11 (1 /69) ;. .. .:.........A '- �Possible uses of excess cut material from the proposed Third Phase Highway Improvement program may be similar to previous phases or hauled out of the canyon. We have looked at and are still looking at possible beneficial uses should the road work be undertaken. The Cowley Canyon road could benefit from additional material to improve the driving surface as well as to lift the road above the drainage channel and improve water quality. There may also be a similar opportunity for improvement to the Temple Fork road. There may also be an opportunity to utilize clean rock to stabilize stream channels in Logan Canyon and side drainages. Perhaps the fisheries of Logan River, Right Fork, and Temple Fork could be impro v e d with appropriat ely designed structures utilizing clean rock. There may be other uses as well, but environmental assessments of each would be necessary before any undertaking. The same with any actual waste sites selected. Some waste disposal sites looked at to date include the Twin Bridges, both the upper and lower end; the Woodcamp area; the draw immediately below. the lower bridge at Twin Bridges; and the bench at the present site of the Logan Cattle Allotment corral. There has been no definite selection as yet and there would be an environmental assessment made to determine if there is an appropriate waste site. Attached is a copy of the past ten year's recreational use Logan Canyon. These figures represent the visitor day use the boundaries of the canyon. The definition of a visitor is one individual for a period of 12 hours or some type of combination. in within day similar If you have any questions on the above information or any other question pertaining to this subject, please call the of f ice or feel free to stop \ in and look at the Environmental An a lysis Report. Sincerely, ~?7Zj ; ): 0 _ 1'_ -vv~ ) M. J. Roberts District Forest Ranger Attachments f~'---::'­ l.: ' ~' , .. �-20- Recreation and Aesthettcs Oltdoor life is a fundamental part of the A!l'lerican tradition. There is a des:Lre in most people for opportunities to have direct contact with nature and the outdoor elements. Logan Canyon is fa!l'led for its natural beauty and scenic features. Major attractions are the beautiful Logan River winding down canyon through lush green vegetation of the spring and SUll:ner and the brilliant flaming colors of the fall season . There are magnificient scenes of rugged mountains rising abruptly from the canyon bottom that is barely wide enough to accommodate the river and the canyon highway. And there are picturesque rock outcrops into which are growing evergreen and mountain shrubbery. A good variety of wildlife abounds in the canyon and can often be seen by !l'lotorists travelling into the canyon. Deer and elk winter at lower elevations and ~ny sightseers make the trip into the canyon to watch these an i ~ls browsing and !l'loving about i n their natural habitat. SOlIe water fowl can be seen propagating young in the !l'lore still waters of Logan R.iver. The geology of Logan Canyon is very interesting because of the variety of natural features such as Ricks Spring, the Arches or Wind Caves, the China Wall, which is an exposed li~estone fault, the Logan Cave and the Brachiopod Rock. Dlring a drive through Logan Canyon one passes by an ancient aquarium of fossilized plant and anill8.1 life. Land forms are present that give evidence of the once present Lake Bonneville. Still growing after more than 3,200 years on a rocky crag overlooking Logan Canyon is the great Rocky Mountain Juniper, Jardine. People living in New York, Los Angeles, and other parts of the country have telephoned the Logan Ranger's Office to inquire ~~ of the turning of fall colors so they can properly time a trip to see the canyon in its most vivid colors. ~, Recreation values are very high in Logan Canyon. The canyon is within one and one-half hours driving ti~e fro:n the State Capitol and is used extensively by Utah people as well as by vacationeers fro~ all parts of the country. The recreatton Use continues to increase each year as more and more people travel to the canyon. Approximately 336,000 visits were made to the recreation areas in Logan Canyon during 1969, most of which were campers and picnickers. In addition to these visits, :TIany people enjoyed fishing, hunting, sightseeing, swi:n~ing, skiing, hiking, cycling, nature study, photography, horseback riding, berry picktng, -and use of SU~!11er hO!11es located in the canyon. Highway 89 through the canyon has beco!!le a popular route for tourists travelli.ng to other National Forests and National Parks such as the Yellowstone and Teton area ·. Logan Canyon is -well-known for ' i ts natural beauty. It is es·p ecially beautiful i n the fall when leaves are changing color. There are 26 developed forest recreation sites in Logan Can,yon, 8S suamer cabins on National Forest land and 7 on private land in the canyon, L~ organi ·z at ion camps, one major developed winter sports area, and 2 lodges, one of which is on private land. Even with this nU!l'lber of developed recreation sites, there still are not nearly enough to ~eet public demands and it is eSsential that encroachl1ent onto f$;'.'1I~' ~}(' ~;. ,~.- " ��3. Station 666 • Across from Wood 4. Station 675 - Above Wood 5. Station 698 - Bend below Burnt Bridge 6. Station 706 7. Station 718 - Approaching Burnt Bridge 8. Station 725 - Above Burnt Br1.dge 9. Station 755 - Logan Cave Ca~p Ca~p 10. Station 761 - Cottonwood (South) 11. Station 763 - 12. Station 709 - Below Brachiopod (North) 13. Station 770 - (South) Below Brachiopod 14. Station 793 - (North) Bend above Brachiopod 15. Station 796 - (South) Bend above Brachiopod 16. Station 802 - Bend below Twin Bridges 17. Station 809 - (North) Just below 'I\Jln Bridges 18. Station 810 19. Station 821 - Cut just below Twin Bridges 20. Station 835 - Twin Bridges ~uth Cotton\lood (South) Just below Twin Bridges Durtng construction, access roads should be kept open to recreation sites including summer recreation residences and adequate and safe access to these sites must be developed in conjunction with the high\lay i~rove~ent project. ~ Narrow bands of vegetation presently separa.te the highway fro~ recreation sites and residences. Roa.d construction will remove 'portions of this vegetative screen and every effort should be :nade to protect or restore the screening. Abandoned road sections should be obliterated, and revegetated to restore as near to natural conditions as practical. The aesthetic value will be subjected to intensive change by the rightof-way cleartqg. Careful attention must be given to this operation to preserve individual trees and shrubs on the fringe of the clearing boundary. Tree stUT.pS should be cut as near ground surface as possible where stumps are not taken out c~mpletely. Trees taken out with the right-or-way clearing can best ~ disposed of by chipping the branches and cutting the trunk into lengths of 8 feet or less and stockpiling for campground use . . - ~ �Recreation Use- Logan Canyon Management Composite Year 1969 Visitor-Day Use 1000) 208. 7 Recreation Visitor (x 1000) ex 1970 220.0 1971 228.2 1972 264.4 1973 295.3 1974 308.5 1975 210.3 249.8 1976 317.6 270.6 1977 357.7 266.3 1978 37 L 4 •• 300.1 1979 398.8 334.1 I 1 ~ I I I , ! 1 i "/ II 12/19/79 ' \" F.R.L. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. 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/155">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/155</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 1052141489 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4283387 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Marta Tollerup, December 20, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Marta Tollerup discussing the changes to China Row picnic site, Woodcamp campground, Cottonwood picnic site, Twin Bridges campground, and two summer recreation residences including the aspects of recreation and aesthetics of these locations. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Roberts, M.J. Subject The topic of the resource Outdoor recreation Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available United States. Forest Service Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-12-20 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_7.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/3dbc601e5e2abca8667cd716575d042d.pdf 0669fae822a03f00a08bb1292c284cdb PDF Text Text �JACKSON LAKE LODGE GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK WYOMING Built on the heights overlooking the sparkling waters of Jackson Lake in which are mirrored the rugged peaks of the Teton Range, this new and modern lodge offers every accommodation to the visitor. C7274 ~ Kodachrome Reproduction by Mike Roberts for Intermountain TouristSupply, Inc., Salt Lake Cityl, Utah � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. 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/1852">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1852</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 3553772539 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 8290656 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 Jackson Lake Lodge postcard, ca. 1950 Description An account of the resource Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, postcard, ca. 1950. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Roberts, Michael Subject The topic of the resource Grand Teton National Park (Agency : U.S.) Tourism Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Photographic postcards Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Intermountain Tourist Supply, Inc. Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Grand Teton National Park (Wyoming) Wyoming United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1950-1959 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University. Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 030 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_030