UDOT letter prompts NRCS deadline that could reallocate conservation funds, Wasatch Open Lands Board hears

The Wasatch County Open Lands Board on Aug. 12 spent its meeting discussing a UDOT letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that board members said could endanger federal funding for local conservation easements.

Board member Heidi Franco opened the meeting and said staff would share the letter and routing map the board had received. Dr. Steve Stevens told the board that "NRCS gave us a date of August 8. If we can give them an answer on Gertrude by August 8, they're gonna take the money back and give it to someone else." Members said an NRCS reply has not yet been received and that an NRCS reallocation could move the funds elsewhere if the application appears uncertain.

The letter, dated May 24, outlines UDOT's questions about the project's stage in relation to an Environmental Impact Statement and shows multiple route alternatives with differing right‑of‑way impacts. Board discussion quantified possible losses to conservation acreage depending on UDOT's route choice: some alternatives would affect roughly 13 acres on the parcel in question while others could impact about 40 acres. One board member summarized the technical constraint: "If they take route 1 or 2, there's about 13 acres on your property. And if they take 3 or 4, there's 40‑some odd acres."

Legal and procedural ramifications were central to members' concerns. Justin Hutchinson explained the state's limitations on condemning federal easements, saying the state "cannot condemn or pull [property] in a domain over federal property without the federal government's consent." Board members noted that NRCS conservation easements frequently include language making them subject to eminent‑domain actions where federal consent is given; if NRCS includes that language in its easement, members said, it would reduce the apparent conflict with UDOT projects.

Board members debated whether the body should write its own letter to NRCS or UDOT. Several members, including Tracy Taylor, urged clarity and transparency: "Has UDOT ever sent a letter like this for other projects that they've worked on?" The board ultimately resolved to wait for NRCS's written response before taking additional formal action and to have staff (Wendy) continue to press NRCS for its reply.

Board members and staff also highlighted local funding components that intersect with the NRCS application: board discussion referenced $500,000 from the state quality‑of‑agriculture program toward the parcel and a separate $3,000,000 contingency the landowner would need by October, raising urgency about timing and potential settlements.

The board did not take any final action on the conservation easement application itself at the meeting. Members agreed to monitor NRCS's response and to consider targeted next steps once that response arrives. "Let's see how this plays out with the NRCS," Franco said as the meeting closed.

Notes: The transcript records mixed spellings for the parcel name ("Gertrude"/"Gertz/Gertsch"); that ambiguity is noted in clarifying details below.