Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee recommends Birch Canyon parcel for round-two review, flags access and oversight questions
Summary
The Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee voted June 1 to forward a 5.5-acre Birch Canyon parcel in Smithfield to the county council for round-two consideration, praising wildlife and water values but asking staff to clarify public-access limits and long-term easement oversight.
The Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee voted June 1 to recommend that the county council advance the Birch Canyon Weed and Seed parcel to round two of the conservation-easement process.
Lisa, a county open-space staff member, told the committee the 5.5-acre property in Smithfield is bisected by Birch Canyon Road and Birch Creek and ‘‘the purpose or the interest for placing this in a conservation easement is basically to protect the area for wildlife and the nature that exists there.’’ She reported the parcel’s evaluation score at 51.5 (345 out of 700 possible points), with the highest subscores in waterways, wildlife habitat and public access.
Members questioned exactly what public access the owner would allow. One member said the owner ‘‘was open to the idea of a trail, not open to mountain bikers using that trail,’’ and asked staff to clarify whether the trail would be limited to foot traffic or allow horses. Committee members noted the parcel’s adjacency to recently purchased county land and the potential for a future Bonavville Shoreline Trail connection, which they said increases the conservation value.
Members also raised concerns about long-term oversight. One commissioner said owners ‘‘were very concerned about oversight in the future and who would enforce the terms of the easement’’ and discussed whether an outside holder—such as a land trust or a state agency—would be appropriate. Staff said potential partners were introduced during the site visit but that some landowners expressed reluctance to have the county hold the easement.
After discussion the committee moved, seconded and approved by voice vote to forward the application for preliminary (round-two) review by the county council. The committee did not record a roll-call tally in the minutes; staff said they will present the parcel to the council and highlight access, adjacency and oversight considerations.
Next steps: staff will work with the applicant to flesh out phase-two details, clarify allowed public uses and identify potential easement holders for the council presentation.
