Tooele County commissioners approve expansion of Inland Port area with wetlands conditions

Tooele County commissioners on Tuesday voted to adopt a resolution supporting an expanded Tooele Valley Utah Inland Port project area, and attached two conditions aimed at protecting wetlands inside and adjacent to the amended boundary.

The action followed presentations from county attorneys and project representatives and a discussion that included developer partners and a Utah Inland Port Authority official. Deputy County Attorney Nathan Harris described the map of the proposed expansion and said the authority asked the county to add about 342.277 acres of buildable land to the already-approved area. Chuck Akerloh, a project partner, told commissioners the expansion intentionally excludes jurisdictional wetlands and that the partners have no current plans to develop them: "We have no intention of developing them." Stephanie Pack of the Inland Port Authority said the authority—s wetlands policy already sets aside 1% of the increment for wetland preservation and that councils can increase the percentage up to 3%.

Councilman Jared Wardle moved to adopt Resolution 2025-07 with two conditions: that mapped wetlands be placed either into a conservation easement or into a wetlands mitigation bank within one year, and that the authority—s wetlands set-aside for the project area be raised to 3% (from the current 1% for the existing area). Councilman Thomas seconded the motion. After discussion, the commission approved the measure.

Why it matters: commissioners and community members raised concerns that past development in the region filled wetlands and created environmental and legal challenges. Wardle emphasized both the county—s economic goals and the need to protect wetlands for long-term ecological and legal stability. The motion imposes a concrete, time-bound requirement on the expansion that commissioners said is intended to protect wetlands from later development or sale without preservation.

Details of the vote and conditions: The motion as presented required the Inland Port partners to either complete a wetlands mitigation bank or record conservation easements covering the mapped wetlands within one year of the resolution and asked the Inland Port Authority to dedicate 3% of the tax-increment differential from the amended project area for wetland preservation and restoration. Project representatives said the additional acreage being added to the project area reflects only land they identified as buildable and excludes mapped wetlands; developers described past purchases that left large swaths of wetlands unbuilt.

What developers and the authority said: Chuck Akerloh said the partners were required by the seller to accept adjoining wetlands acreage when they bought non-wetland parcels and that "we have nearly 500 acres of wetlands" tied to surrounding holdings but that the expansion request before the commission did not include developable wetlands. Stephanie Pack, representing the Inland Port Authority, told the commission the authority—s policy already sets 1% aside for wetlands and that the council could increase that percentage for the new acreage.

Next steps and implementation: Commissioners adopted the resolution with conditions. The record shows the requirements were included as part of the motion. The county will monitor whether the authority and property owners comply with the one-year conservation requirement and whether the authority increases the wetlands differential to 3% for the amended area. The county attorney—s office and staff indicated the interlocal agreement governing the port authority covers only the land within the project area, making the newly adopted conditions the principal safeguard for the adjacent wetlands that are not in the project area.