A top state transportation manager on Tuesday acknowledged to Heber City councilors that UDOT could do better after months of local frustration with unanswered questions and vowed stay in better touch. Someone in the room cheered. Wyatt Woolley, UDOT’s senior communications manager, suggested a monthly update on plans for a Heber Valley Corridor road, something that’s been discussed for decades and has emerged in recent years as a priority for local governments as Heber City’s Main Street is plagued with intense traffic.But before councilors could ask UDOT the hard questions, Woolley also had something prepared for them. Conservation Conundrum“I’d like to talk about why you haven’t heard from us in a while,” he said.He explained that UDOT had recently been forced to pause its processes for several reasons, one of which he identified as difficulties with a county land conservation easement.He looked to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s program manual, referred to page 264, and directed the council’s attention to Section F.  “I’m going to highlight this for you,” he said. “‘NRCS easement lands are not subject to condemnation to eminent domain proceedings.’”“Except?” Franco asked, likely referring to the continuation of the line in the document that Woolley didn’t read that granted an exception for projects involving the U.S. Department of Transportation.“There is no exception for us because we are not federal, we are state,” he said.UDOT Project Manager Hancock flatly clarified that even if the project receives federal funding — something that’s far from solidified as the state hasn’t even identified a funding source for the bypass — those funds wouldn’t necessarily make the route a federal project.“The NRCS will avoid enrolling land into the ACEP, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, where the intended purpose of the enrollment is to interfere with permitted infrastructure project,” Woolley quoted from the manual. “I don’t know how much more permitted UDOT’s (Environmental Impact Study) can be. It seems pretty permitted to me. I just want to make that clear to everyone.”This, he said, relates to the big question throughout the room, Heber City government and community: what is UDOT waiting for.“Are we waiting for the NRCS decision?” Woolley said. “We are, we are waiting for a letter for them, but it is not stopping our study. We are continuing with the study right now as is.”Despite UDOT’s current course, however, Woolley informed the council the county’s decision to approve $2.3 million toward conservation easements in the North Fields did pause their process, just as Hacock told Heber City Council it would be a “significant barrier” the day before the county made their vote.In their last meeting, councilors debated publicly if Wasatch County’s decision to spend almost $2.3 million to work in conjunction with local contributions and in hopes they’ll receive federal funds through the Natural Resources Conservation Service to purchase conservation easements in the North Fields. The Wasatch Open Lands board that Heber City Mayor Heidi Franco chairs was broadly supportive of the March decision.Yielding to population growthAnother reason for the pause, Woolley explained, was an updated travel demand model that left them wanting more time to make sure their bypass solution will address the long-term needs of the valley as population in the north part of Heber City grows. Earlier this year, Hancock said UDOT took a step back after assessing a traffic study conducted by the Mountainlands Association of Governments.Councilor Sid Ostergaard asked if Heber City’s density plans for its north overlay zone came as a surprise. The plan had been in place before the traffic study.“Did you guys have the correct information as far as the North Village overlay zone, all the density that was associated to that?” Ostergaard asked. “I don’t think it’s changed.”Hancock said that as UDOT works to more regularly update Heber City, he’d like to discuss the department’s travel model for the project and its implications more fully in the future.Councilor Aaron Cheatwood shared his concern that the project’s official website hasn’t been updated since March despite UDOT sharing updates with different community leaders.“That’s unacceptable,” he said. “There have been updates since March 14. We have had updates, we have had counselors talk to you, developers have talked to you, there have been things shared, just not with the public, and we represent the public. So regardless of how we might be frustrated with the lack of communication, the public is looking at this site. I send people to this site for updates.”When he sends the public to the resource, Cheatwood said, he wants them to find recent information.Councilor Yvonne Barney expressed frustration that UDOT worked with a developer to let them know they can continue in their annexation with Heber City without affecting the bypass process, but property owners seeking conservation easements are a significant problem to the process. “I need this for the public,” she said. “They’re seeing it as, ‘It’s OK for some to come through but we can’t protect our lands as individuals who farm.”She said it creates the perception that UDOT is more willing to work with developers.“With regards to just conservation easements in general,” Hancock said, “we’re not necessarily wanting to stop those moving forward, whether they’re observation easements or NRCS is involved with those easements.”The problem UDOT had with Wasatch County’s attempt to conserve land in the North Fields with federal funds, he specified, was the NRCS involvement.“If it’s outside of that footprint or area, we really don’t have an issue,” he said. Though UDOT may need to accommodate for the development, he said they have more leeway in that situation.Franco said farmers with applications that had applied for preservation through NRCS long before UDOT released their plans were frustrated that their efforts were interrupted. “It’s their livelihood,” she said. “They’re trying to preserve that.”Facing other questions from the council about the bypass’s timeline, Hancock said all five alternative routes released by UDOT in spring 2022 are still being considered, through they are being enhanced to handle ne traffic considerations. He stayed relatively tight-lipped about the project’s timeline, stating he worries he’d give a date or range publicly and then be unable to follow through.“I appreciate that you have come,” Barney said. “Please don’t leave us in the lurch again.”The post UDOT breaks a silence on bypass and acknowledges stumbling block with conservation easement appeared first on Park Record.