I have not- Can't believe that would go thru- hell they won't let them clean out the silt from the dam they have.
Dam the Logan?
I'm hearing rumors that they (State of Utah--whoever that is) is drilling test holes near the Temple Fork area in Logan Canyon to test the feasibility of putting a 300 foot high dam in the canyon.
Logan Canyon is considered a scenic byway and the river should receive some type of protection as a wild scenic river. I couldn't imagine that gem of a canyon being ruined. The Logan is also one of the last strongholds for natural reproducing Bonneville cutts.
Any one else hearing this rumor?
Logan Canyon is considered a scenic byway and the river should receive some type of protection as a wild scenic river. I couldn't imagine that gem of a canyon being ruined. The Logan is also one of the last strongholds for natural reproducing Bonneville cutts.
Any one else hearing this rumor?
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is what they are doing.
http://www.gslcouncil.utah.gov/docs/2014/10Oct/BearRiverPipelineProject.pdf
http://www.gslcouncil.utah.gov/docs/2014/10Oct/BearRiverPipelineProject.pdf
All unnecessary!This is what they are doing.
http://www.gslcouncil.utah.gov/docs/2014/10Oct/BearRiverPipelineProject.pdf
Unnecessary? Really? Just how does one come to that conclusion?
Population growth is a fact. It's happening now and will continue into the foreseeable future. Water is absolutely needed to support that growth. And that water is going to have to come from somewhere. If not from this project, then from where?
Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89.
And according to the slide show, the process to find funding for the construction doesn't start until 2025 and actual construction isn't scheduled until 2028.
All of this started way back in 1991 when the Bear River Development Act was passed so it isn't anything new. It will be another 10 years before they even start looking for funding and at this point in time, it is impossible to predict the success of that endeavor.
I'm not saying anybody has at this point, but I think it totally premature for anybody to get their panties in a bunch over this at this time.
Population growth is a fact. It's happening now and will continue into the foreseeable future. Water is absolutely needed to support that growth. And that water is going to have to come from somewhere. If not from this project, then from where?
Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89.
And according to the slide show, the process to find funding for the construction doesn't start until 2025 and actual construction isn't scheduled until 2028.
All of this started way back in 1991 when the Bear River Development Act was passed so it isn't anything new. It will be another 10 years before they even start looking for funding and at this point in time, it is impossible to predict the success of that endeavor.
I'm not saying anybody has at this point, but I think it totally premature for anybody to get their panties in a bunch over this at this time.
When Utahns live in the 2nd driest state in the nation and waste more water per capita than anyone else in the nation, I think there's plenty of way we can conserve instead of looking for more ways to take more. You're correct, water is important for growth, but at what time is water more important than growth? Do we simply grow and grow while destroying our resources and starving the sources of them? Or do we start to use them more wisely? Do all businesses and homes in the second driest desert in the US need green lawns? Can we not improve on agricultural waste? How about before we jump to use more water and not improve or ways, we stop a fixing stupidly and believing we can continue at our current water use pace. These projects are not needed if we look for wiser uses of an important resource. Raise water prices, create harsher water waste laws, improve farming, and make businesses landscape in sown thing other than green grass that requires giant amounts of water to stay green. Do you want a green lawn or a wet mouth?Unnecessary? Really? Just how does one come to that conclusion?
Population growth is a fact. It's happening now and will continue into the foreseeable future. Water is absolutely needed to support that growth. And that water is going to have to come from somewhere. If not from this project, then from where?
Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89.
And according to the slide show, the process to find funding for the construction doesn't start until 2025 and actual construction isn't scheduled until 2028.
All of this started way back in 1991 when the Bear River Development Act was passed so it isn't anything new. It will be another 10 years before they even start looking for funding and at this point in time, it is impossible to predict the success of that endeavor.
I'm not saying anybody has at this point, but I think it totally premature for anybody to get their panties in a bunch over this at this time.
A dam up Temple Fork is never going to happen.....the proximity of USU with it's environmental community will see to it. Heck, you should have heard the public uproar when it was proposed to build a simple retention dam in the Amalga Barrens that would have flooded a few acres of salt grass and alkaline flats. Just the suggestion of building a dam up Temple Fork, one of the more pristine areas in the Logan Canyon drainage, would be enough to mobilize the environmentalists and their lawyers.
Nah, water resource managers are going to have a fight on their hands wherever they decide to put a dam, but they're smart enough to pick a fight in a place they can probably win.......and that ain't up Temple Fork.
Nah, water resource managers are going to have a fight on their hands wherever they decide to put a dam, but they're smart enough to pick a fight in a place they can probably win.......and that ain't up Temple Fork.
In addition to conservation and education we need a growth cap on areas that are already depleting natural resources and encourage people to move into areas where the population is low and resources are plentiful.When Utahns live in the 2nd driest state in the nation and waste more water per capita than anyone else in the nation, I think there's plenty of way we can conserve instead of looking for more ways to take more. You're correct, water is important for growth, but at what time is water more important than growth? Do we simply grow and grow while destroying our resources and starving the sources of them? Or do we start to use them more wisely? Do all businesses and homes in the second driest desert in the US need green lawns? Can we not improve on agricultural waste? How about before we jump to use more water and not improve or ways, we stop a fixing stupidly and believing we can continue at our current water use pace. These projects are not needed if we look for wiser uses of an important resource. Raise water prices, create harsher water waste laws, improve farming, and make businesses landscape in sown thing other than green grass that requires giant amounts of water to stay green. Do you want a green lawn or a wet mouth?
I agree there's a point you just shouldn't grow in areas when they can't support the growth. There's plenty of space left in this world, and drying up the salt lake is not viable option for anyone. It's already at its lowest point ever, do we really need big reservoirs sucking more water out of it? The salt lake valley in some areas and even Utah county in many areas has grown to a point it's time to look at the damage further growth will cause. Too bad people are blinded by dollar signs. We aren't planning for a good future or wiser ways of doing things, some are just planning for their pay day.In addition to conservation and education we need a growth cap on areas that are already depleting natural resources and encourage people to move into areas where the population is low and resources are plentiful.
I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.
Which is why we need a growth cap/restrictions to protect these resources.I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.
"Taking a closer look at the proposed Temple Fork reservoir location, it can be seen that it will not impact the Logan Canyon scenic byway. It appears that it will be placed up the Temple Fork probably far enough that it will not even be visible from US Hwy 89."
It sure will impact the scenic byway. They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species.
A scenic byway has so much more meaning than just what you can see by driving up the highway. You take into consideration all the surrounding area and the opportunities it offers. Visible or not--it will have an impact.
It sure will impact the scenic byway. They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species.
A scenic byway has so much more meaning than just what you can see by driving up the highway. You take into consideration all the surrounding area and the opportunities it offers. Visible or not--it will have an impact.
No it's not inevitable. Its about the choices that are made, and I just hope it's not all the wrong ones. The great salt lake is like nothing else in our nation, and is not being treated like something important by our state officials. The GSL must be protected and wisely managed so it will not continually degrade until we've ruined it. We have to learn at some point development is not the only or best decision to be made. There's plenty of ways to avoid stupid decisions like these ones being considered, but we live in a state ran by republican reps that continue to push development and take for granted conservation of our natural resources.I'm 100% in agreement about needing better conservation of water and education on wiser use of the resource. And yes, we could take a lesson from Arizona and New Mexico when it comes to landscaping our homes and businesses - natural/native plants and desert sand/stone are very attractive when done properly. But in the end, those measures alone will not take care of the tremendous growth rate we are currently experiencing. Developing every possible water source possible in the state is inevitable in the long run.
Logan Canyon is a National Scenic Byway (NSB) as opposed to an All-American Road (AAR). The things that are looked at for designation are called intrinsic qualities: Scenic, Natural, Historic, Cultural, Archeological, or Recreational. An NSB only has to meet one of those qualities. If it meets 2 qualities, it becomes an AAR. Logan Canyon is not classed as an AAR; therefore, it can be assumed it only meets one of the six qualities. As to which of the six, I don't have a clue - do you?They would have to make the access point from Hwy 89 different so people could turn off the hwy and onto the Temple Fork road to allow more traffic to the reservoir. What makes you think they would 'have' to do this? They would probably end up paving the TF road impacting TF creek. I doubt that very much. TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species. Can you supply a link to data that would support that claim?
A scenic byway has so much more meaning than just what you can see by driving up the highway. You take into consideration all the surrounding area and the opportunities it offers. Visible or not--it will have an impact.
Lets assume for a moment that the quality is recreation since there is both fishing and snow skiing available in the canyon. The primary fishing would have to the actual Logan River. I'm not going to take the time to count how many creeks (or streams if you prefer) feed the Logan River, but it's more than a few. So putting a dam on one is going to impact the Logan River fishing by how much of a percentage? I don't know; do you?
I can only guess, but I would guess that the overall percentage of impact to fishing is way under 1%. If you have actual data that would say otherwise, I'm always willing to listen or become more knowledgeable in this area. If not, then we just have differing 'opinions' about how much impact it will have. I have no problem with that.
And again, I'm not even sure the quality that made Logan Canyon a NSB was recreation. If it was one of the other 5 qualities, then changing the fishing aspects by any percentage is a moot point as far as changing the NSB status. So whether or not it changes the value of its being a NSB is still undetermined.
Yes, it is! You're missing the main point here. Growth is happening here in Utah and there is no way to stop it. You may slow it down to some degree but you (we) are not going to stop or reverse it. And BECAUSE growth is an inevitable change, that makes developing every possible water source possible in the state inevitable in the long run.No it's not inevitable.
Look, I respect your opinion - really, I do - but I whole heartedly disagree with it. I've made my point to the best of my ability and I'm sure you have too. We disagree; so be it. I'll let it go at that. Hope you have a great fall season this year and for many years to come.
:O--O:
Lucky for you that you at your age will be dead before Utah develops itself into misery....Yes, it is! You're missing the main point here. Growth is happening here in Utah and there is no way to stop it. You may slow it down to some degree but you (we) are not going to stop or reverse it. And BECAUSE growth is an inevitable change, that makes developing every possible water source possible in the state inevitable in the long run.
Look, I respect your opinion - really, I do - but I whole heartedly disagree with it. I've made my point to the best of my ability and I'm sure you have too. We disagree; so be it. I'll let it go at that. Hope you have a great fall season this year and for many years to come.
:O--O:
Hey, speak for yourself; I plan on being around for at LEAST another 30 years. :grin:Lucky for you that you at your age will be dead before Utah develops itself into misery....
A couple of points.
1. RE"I can only guess, but I would guess that the overall percentage of impact to fishing is way under 1%. " and "TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species."
The pertinent point is not how it will affect recreational fishing, but how it will affect the spawning ability of a sensitive species, that just so happens to be a game fish. A potential dam will doubtless bring more bait chucking angling use for the stocked rainbows that would go into such a project.
2. I do have to agree with Dubob that growth is inevitable. However, in considering projects like this, it also has to be asked if the proposed dam would really help the situation, or is it just "doing something" in the name of growth and not really a solution, with some pretty striking environmental costs. With that in mind, the devil is in the details, but it seems to me that a dam on a small tributary high up in the mountains is not going to provide a sufficient sized body of water to be a real answer to any future growth in Cache valley. It does seem clear that the environmental costs are significant in such a project however.
1. RE"I can only guess, but I would guess that the overall percentage of impact to fishing is way under 1%. " and "TF creek is the major spawning creek for the native Bonneville cutthrout trout. So a dam would impact reproduction of this somewhat sensitive species."
The pertinent point is not how it will affect recreational fishing, but how it will affect the spawning ability of a sensitive species, that just so happens to be a game fish. A potential dam will doubtless bring more bait chucking angling use for the stocked rainbows that would go into such a project.
2. I do have to agree with Dubob that growth is inevitable. However, in considering projects like this, it also has to be asked if the proposed dam would really help the situation, or is it just "doing something" in the name of growth and not really a solution, with some pretty striking environmental costs. With that in mind, the devil is in the details, but it seems to me that a dam on a small tributary high up in the mountains is not going to provide a sufficient sized body of water to be a real answer to any future growth in Cache valley. It does seem clear that the environmental costs are significant in such a project however.
I have a feeling that this probably covers more than water conservation, and hydro electric energy production. But I cant put my finger on it.
Speaking of water conservation, did any of you read this a while back?
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=35054495
Speaking of water conservation, did any of you read this a while back?
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=35054495
Interesting read; thanks BAX. The one thing that grabbed me the most from the article was this: Professor Daniel McCool of the University of Utah, a long-time critic of water policy in the Western states wants to see changes in water laws. "In fact, we have plenty of water," McCool said. "We do not have a water crisis. We have a water management crisis."
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Utah Wildlife Forum
A forum community dedicated to hunting and fishing enthusiasts in the Utah area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Vanilla
118 Replies
backcountry
118 Replies
johnnycake
89 Replies
Recommended Communities
