Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns commission of gravel‑pit activity near Cooks Canyon, cites state law change and federal trail bill
Summary
A public commenter told the Willard planning commissioners that a gravel‑pit owner will not sell and that recent state legislation (referred to as Utah House Bill 355) may expand mining powers; he highlighted a federal bill to study Bonneville Shoreline Trail designation as a possible protection route.
During the public comment period on June 5, resident Clyde Westwood urged the Willard City Planning Commission to pay attention to recent activity at a gravel pit near Cooks Canyon and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Westwood said he had worked with the Trust for Public Lands on Cooks Canyon and reported the US Forest Service had expressed interest in owning the property but a gravel‑pit company recently told him the land is not for sale.
Westwood said he believes recent state legislative changes (he referenced Utah House Bill 355) appear to shift power in a way that could allow expanded mining operations without local approvals. He also noted that the Division of Wildlife Resources uses the area as critical winter range and that the Division of Outdoor Recreation identifies the site as significant for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. He recommended the commission use its advisory role to the city council to press for protections for Cooks Canyon and the trail corridor.
Westwood pointed to federal legislation introduced by U.S. Senators John Curtis and Mike Lee, described in the record as the "Bonneville Shoreline Trail Feasibility Act," which would fund a federal assessment to determine whether the trail could qualify for national scenic designation and potentially provide a path for longer‑term protection.
The commission did not take formal action on the comment during the meeting. Commissioners and other members later referred to Cook Canyon in their member comments and suggested exploring federal or state land‑swap options as one avenue for protection, but no motion or referral was recorded that night.
