Utah Wilderness Association
27 May 1988 Dear Dave: Tom Lyon recently provided me a copy of his correspondence to you following you response to the CPLC. I want to emaphasize Tom's concerns as I believe they most consistently portray our concerns with respect to the envrionmental issues in Logan Canyon. Obviously maintaining a "natural" environment in Logan Canyon is no more than wishful thinking. The canyon has been severely
impacted by an intensive level of development for decades. The concern is to maintain the existing values of Logan Canyon--those are many, despite the level of development ranging from summer homes, a major highway and ski resort. But you know all of this.
Two underlying concerns need to be raised in order to achieve the above goal. First, we firmly believe that on the Logan Canyon issue the forest plan spoke with clarity and authority. Every meeting we had with the Forest Service prior to the release of the forest plan indicated Logan Canyon was basically to remain as is--thus the management area prescriptions. If there was an area of positive "informed consent" on the forest it was Logan Canyon (there were other management areas, as well). Our complete disappointment in the planning process can't escape you or the Forest Supervisor since the plan could and should be utilized to maintain the environment and recreational opportunities
of Logan Canyon.
Second, I am concerned over this idea of "win-win" and consensus. I guess that sounds ironic since I am running all over Utah and the west advocating the use of such techniques (I missed you at the annual ISAF meeting in Moab earlier this month--we had a full day of exciting discussions on this subject as a result of my presentation and others). I am concerned that the rhetoric is being used, but not the intent or process. Dave, you can't tell us to be patient while you negotiate with the other parties separate from us. You can't talk about "win-win" consensus building if we (all parties) are not part of every decision/discussion -- everything from issue and alternative identification to resolution of issues and alternatives.) Certainly, you can't "spring" new alternatives or issues (in this case improvements such as relocation of Beaver Creek) at this late date and have us, in particular believe we are part of the consensus building process. The idea of conflict resolution through a mutual consensus process is undeniably good but it takes far more time, risk and effort than typically utilized so far. (The same thing is happening on the North Slope, again. This time with Beaver Meadows--the Forest Service on Thursday 5/26, asked us for the first time in one year of discussion to look at the alternatives for the EA/AA. We were then told the decision would be signed next week.)
The Utah Wilderness Associatiori firmly believes a solution ot the Logan Canyon issue exists and can best be reached through the process I just pescribed. That must incorporate, the points raised in the CPLC and Lyon letters. I recognize there are different agencies incolved. But it is incumbent upon the Forest Service to pull the participants/concerns together and discuss "improvement" within the context of the forest plan. It may be possible to arrive at a solution in a different manner, but it won't be a good solution--by now I think we would have learned that over and over again.
Thanks very much.
Best, Dick Carter Coordinator cc: Dale Bosworth, WCNF Supervisor CPLC
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.