The Utah Department of Transportation announced in January it intends to construct the Heber Valley bypass through part of the North Fields.
UDOT officials say they’ve already received more than 200 comments about the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), and elected officials are adding their voices to the conversation.
The Heber City Council drafted a letter to UDOT Feb. 3 with a list of several concerns about the route. The Wasatch County Council discussed a similar letter Feb. 11.
The council’s concerns include maintenance of the frontage road planned for north U.S. 40, gaps in the regional trail network, areas where the bypass is only one lane in each direction and wetland mitigation.
A couple of issues overlapped with those raised by the Heber City Council, including bypass access via Southfield Road and trail safety along Midway Lane.
Some county councilmembers wanted to ensure wetland mitigation does not inadvertently interfere with farming in the North Fields. Spencer Park said local farmers’ deep knowledge of the land and the seasonal runoff is imperative to the fields’ long-term health.
“They’ve been doing it for generations,” he said. “And I worry, long-term, will you really have wetlands if there’s not somebody knowledgeable, willingly pushing the runoff water there?”
UDOT has promised to conserve at least 2 acres of wetlands for every acre affected by the highway.
Heidi Franco attended Wednesday’s meeting to speak with the council. She’s the mayor of Heber City and the chair of the Wasatch Open Lands Board. Despite UDOT’s promise that no additional access points will be allowed for the bypass, Franco said she’s worried about future growth.
“The developer pressure is exceedingly real, I can tell you that, very much so,” she said. “We’re constantly being contacted by all kinds of developers about all kinds of areas to be annexed or upzoned. That is going to continue.”
County leaders had mixed reactions to the draft EIS.
Councilmember Erik Rowland is concerned about preserving Wasatch County’s rural heritage and said he’d like to see a compromise between UDOT’s choice and the county’s values.
“UDOT’s given their opinion that they think it’s [Alternative] B; why can’t we give our opinion as far as we think?” he said. “I understand that there’s experts, but there’s also things that we hold very strongly and sacred in this valley, and that’s probably worth consideration.”
On the other hand, Councilmember Mark Nelson said although he doesn’t like UDOT’s choice, he thinks the county needs to trust the agency’s expertise and try to collaborate.
“We knew we weren’t going to like it,” he said. “I think, at the end of the day, we need to accept their recommendation and do our very best.”
Councilmembers decided to discuss their ideas for another week and then share more feedback with UDOT.
UDOT project manager Craig Hancock said the agency is reviewing public comments and developing an FAQ page to respond to residents’ most common concerns.
Locals have until March 9 to comment on the bypass route. UDOT will group comments into categories and respond to them in the final EIS, which will be published this summer.
To read the draft EIS, visit UDOT's website.
