Community members who had a relationship to the 910 Cattle Ranch prior to Summit County’s purchase of the 8,500-acre open space parcel have often clashed with county officials regarding wildlife management practices on the property. But a county official’s decision to euthanize a bull elk last summer — and a series of heated exchanges between officials and hikers — spurred public questioning in June about transparency and environmental stewardship.

Leslie Miller, the former property owner’s personal partner, spoke to the Summit County Council last month during a public hearing on the proposed recreation plan for the 910 Cattle Ranch. Miller, who has been hiking on the ranch for the past 30 years, claimed county officials shot “a struggling bull elk at nightfall” without permission from the Utah Department of Natural Resources, which state law requires.

“I don’t know that anybody’s been held accountable for that or if there’s a justifiable explanation,” she said.

The Park Record obtained text messages, emails and official reports from Summit County and the Department of Natural Resources through a public records request that sheds light on the events leading up to and following the elk’s death, including a confrontation between County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby and local attorney Christie Babalis, who is expected to join the County Council as District 4’s representative in January.

Kirby encountered the elk, which was stuck in a mud puddle, on the afternoon of Aug. 31, 2025, according to a text message she sent to Jeremie Forman. Forman, who is also the mayor of Francis, works as a warden on the property for the Summit County Sheriff’s Office.

The text message said the elk was immobile, and Kirby speculated it had been hurt. Forman said it had likely been injured in an encounter with another bull elk, noting that the animals’ mating season begins in September, which could explain the injury. Kirby suggested county officials check on the elk the following day.

However, a group of hikers also discovered the elk after Kirby left the area, including Babalis and the cousin of the land’s previous owner. The hikers called a rancher who worked on the property, and the group spent an hour removing the elk from the mud puddle.

Babalis in a phone interview with The Park Record said she did not touch the elk, but she saw it stand up after the rancher pulled it from the mud. She said none of the hikers identified any puncture marks or visible bruising on the animal.

But a county volunteer tasked with patrolling the ranch had noticed the hikers’ cars parked on the property and submitted a report to Kirby, who returned to the area and started taking photos of the cars’ license plates in case they belonged to trespassers or poachers.

Kirby in a statement to The Park Record emphasized the county was leasing the land for $60,000 a year at the time of the elk’s death, meaning the local government had the authority to be on and manage the property. She said it was often difficult to tell who had permission to hike and who was trespassing, which is why friends of the previous landowner were asked to communicate with county officials before hiking on the ranch.

“As part of our responsibility to protect the ranch, county staff and (volunteers) routinely approached individuals to identify themselves and determine their purpose on the ranch,” Kirby said of alleged conflict between the county and friends of the previous owner. “These interactions were never intended to be confrontational. They were a necessary part of safeguarding public assets, protecting natural resources and ensuring safety. Unfortunately, those routine contacts were sometimes met with accusations that staff and (volunteers) were being entitled, rude or overreaching. In reality, they were carrying out responsibilities entrusted to them by the county and the landowner.”

Kirby and the hikers had a heated conversation when the hikers returned from helping the elk. Babalis repeatedly questioned Kirby on why she “didn’t do anything” about the elk when she saw it earlier in the afternoon, and Kirby said the county was already in touch with the Department of Natural Resources about the situation.

The two argued for approximately 10 minutes, and Kirby recorded the conversation.

Throughout the argument, Kirby maintained that the county and Department of Natural Resources planned to assess the elk and make a decision regarding its health at a future date, while Babalis claimed the county should have helped the elk immediately and made an effort to save its life.

Babalis specifically said she was concerned the Department of Natural Resources would kill the animal instead of trying to rehabilitate it. Kirby responded that it’s impossible for the county to save every elk, especially when a potential injury is involved, and Babalis told Kirby that she and the county should have more respect for the original owner’s vision for the land.

“She said some harsh things to me, and I’ve apologized for saying harsh things to her because I am sorry,” Babalis said when asked about her relationship with Kirby as a future county councilor. “I don’t have any problem working with her going forward. … I’m a really honest person. Certainly, I’m not going to be impacted or biased by what happened.”

Shortly after the argument ended and the group of hikers dispersed, a county volunteer reported the sound of gunshots around 9:04 p.m.

“Two ATVs on the west side of the road just after dark,” the report said. “Heard three gunshots? Not (sure) why anyone would be shooting guns on the ranch, but thought I’d let somebody know?”

The volunteer submitted a second report about 10 minutes later, telling county officials he’d spoken to Forman and that “he said he shot a wounded elk, so no need to worry.”

Forman filed a report with the Sheriff’s Office that night detailing his decision to kill the elk. He wrote that Kirby had called him to respond to the area after the confrontation with the hikers, and he found the elk “obviously in distress and not doing well.”

“I approached the elk, and he made no attempt to stand or flee,” Forman’s report said. “I then grabbed the elk by the antlers in an attempt to coax him to stand and/or flee the area. The elk was unable to stand, although he made a couple attempts after I grabbed his antlers. It was obvious the elk was unwell and would likely not survive.”

Forman contacted Summit County Dispatch to be connected with an officer from the Department of Natural Resources, but dispatchers said no one was on duty. He then made the decision to kill the elk by firing three rounds into its head.

However, Forman wrote that he was “unable to find any injuries or puncture wounds that may explain the elk’s condition” when he studied the animal after its death.

Once he left the ranch and had cellphone service, Forman reached out to the Department of Natural Resources again and discovered Nick Vidrine, an officer, had been on duty despite the information previously given by Summit County Dispatch.

Forman wrote that he “explained (his) actions” to Vidrine, and the two agreed to meet on Tuesday morning to investigate.

“No puncture wounds or wounds consistent with gunshots, archery equipment or antler punctures were located on the elk,” Forman later said in his report after the investigation. “However, there was apparent bruising and trauma on the elk’s sides, neck and back. It is unknown what may have caused the elk’s injuries, but they appeared to be consistent with fighting and other rut (mating) activity.”

The Department of Natural Resources corroborated Forman’s account of the death in a statement to The Park Record, saying that the necropsy, or study of the animal’s corpse, revealed previous wounds “that may have indicated that the elk was suffering.”

The agency’s original statement claimed it coordinated with Forman “and advised to euthanize the elk” despite Forman’s report indicating he was unable to contact state officials before he shot the animal. But in a revised statement issued Thursday evening, the agency confirmed Vidrine had been notified of the incident after the elk’s death.

“We typically do offer advisement if we are available,” the agency’s spokesperson said. “We also trust our law enforcement partner agencies to make that decision so the animals do not suffer more than they need.”

The Department of Natural Resources said it works with partner agencies like the Sheriff’s Office “daily to assist with circumstances like these.”

“Officers will respond to severely injured wildlife and make the decision if the injury is debilitating and untreatable,” the statement said. “Our determination would be based on if an animal is unable to stand, is suffering and unlikely to survive. They will typically euthanize the animal on-site.”

Wildlife in Utah is property of the state, and law enforcement may charge individuals who touch or interfere with wildlife without the permission of state officials. Sgt. Skyler Talbot with the Sheriff’s Office said the department evaluated whether to pursue criminal charges against those involved in the elk incident when it happened, but leadership ultimately decided no charges were warranted.

The Sheriff’s Office and Department of Natural Resources reviewed the decision for a second time after Miller publicly voiced her concerns at the public hearing last month, but they “arrived at the same conclusion that nobody’s conduct that day warranted any further criminal investigation,” Talbot said.

The post State agency says Summit County did not illegally kill a bull elk on 910 Cattle Ranch last summer appeared first on Park Record.

The 910 Cattle Ranch is Summit County’s largest ever open space acquisition, with more than 8,500 untouched acres stretching across the property. But county officials and community members with a previous relationship to the land — and its original owner — have long disagreed on how the local government should manage the parcel and its abundant wildlife.

Leslie Miller, the former property owner’s personal partner, addressed the Summit County Council last month with some of her concerns during a public hearing on the proposed recreation plan for the ranch.

“You are asking us to trust you in making your promises a reality for the 910,” Miller said. “Those of us familiar with the 910 landscape and wildlife believe your staff activities and proposals are not getting this right, and I’m sorry to have to say this, but I’m not alone in that opinion. It’s not right for the wildlife, and it’s not right for the public.”

Specifically, Miller said she has “witnessed a pattern of misguided, incremental decision making” on the property under the county’s management, telling councilors that the government should have created a comprehensive plan focused on flora and fauna protections. She also decried the inclusion of recreation on the property and said the 910 Cattle Ranch should be set aside as a wildlife sanctuary, not a place for visitors to hike.

“This staff appears determined and intent on introducing their version of land management and to intend public access,” Miller said.

However, Summit County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby said the county’s approaching the property with an “adaptive management” lens, meaning plans are flexible and may change if officials discover restrictions need to be tightened.

“Wildlife protection is the primary objective of these management practices while thoughtfully providing opportunities for compatible public recreation,” Kirby said. “Animals naturally seek out the areas with the most abundant water and lush vegetation, which can lead to concentrated use and habitat degradation if left unmanaged. By strategically directing both wildlife and recreational activity, we can allow some areas to recover while keeping others accessible. While it looks like we’re creating barriers for wildlife, they are actually designed to protect and enhance habitats.”

Miller mentioned a barbed wire fence on the property, which she said was dangerous to large wildlife. But Kirby said the barbed wire fence was installed with the guidance of Trout Unlimited, a national nonprofit focused on freshwater conservation and habitat preservation, to help the local fish population flourish.

“In the two years that fencing has been up, we’ve actually witnessed spawning of cutthroat trout,” Kirby said. “From a distance, fencing can be perceived as a barrier, but its purpose is to protect and restore the stream corridor. We’ve planted thousands of willows to stabilize streambanks that will grow to provide shade, lower water temperatures and improve habitat for fish and other wildlife. … The goal is not to restrict access to wildlife but to encourage a restored system that can support the wildlife that depends on this critical resource for years to come.”

Kirby, who has a degree in natural resource management, emphasized the county is collaborating with other environmental experts to create management plans for the property, including geologists, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Utah Division of Water Quality and Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands.

“I’ve learned that the best decisions are made through collaboration,” she said. “I don’t claim to be the expert in every discipline, and that’s exactly why we have such strong partnerships. I rely on an incredible network of biologists, hydrologists, planners, engineers and other professionals whose expertise helps inform major decisions. By bringing those perspectives together, we’re able to develop thoughtful, science-based solutions.”

The previous owner of the 910 Cattle Ranch used the property as an open range for three decades, which Kirby said was “very hard on” the land. The county’s management practices, like installing fencing or encouraging plant growth in certain areas, is an effort to rehabilitate parts of the ecosystem that didn’t adapt well to roaming cattle.

Miller’s concerns about the ranch weren’t limited to the overall management plan. She also mentioned the county’s Volunteer Ambassador Program, which has residents patrolling the 910 Cattle Ranch to assess conditions, report possible trespassers and log any abnormalities.

“Ambassadors with dogs, often unleashed, are invited on the 910,” Miller said. “Ambassador staff, friends and family are picnicking on the 910 while the public is restricted.”

Kirby said ambassadors may bring guests, including their dogs, with them on the property. She also said the dogs typically aren’t off leash entirely, but they often have electronic collars in adherence with Summit County’s leash laws.

“The ambassadors are allowed to bring a buddy with them, and they are allowed to bring up to two dogs with them,” Kirby said. “That’s a choice that the county made so that the ambassadors feel safe when they are on the property.”

Kirby pushed back on Miller’s assertion that the ambassadors are using their volunteer position to recreate on the ranch, saying that they need to hike on the property to access the land and file reports with the county.

“Their job is to monitor and be the eyes and ears for the county,” she said. “It would take someone two days to walk the entire property, so sometimes we allow them to use mountain bikes to access areas where we need signage or an area that needs to be monitored. … It’s not recreation. They’re there for a task and a job, and that’s what they’re doing.”

Each ambassador volunteer undergoes training with the county, and only two are allowed on the property at any given time. The county has an app for ambassadors to note their observations for their shift, which Kirby and other county staff review.

“It’s not willy-nilly,” Kirby said. “It’s very organized and very monitored. We know who’s on the property, when they’re on the property, how long they were on the property and what they saw.”

The county intends to manage and open the 910 Ranch in phases to better control and study how visitors are impacting the land, with the property split into three distinct pieces: the community zone, exploratory area, and conservation core and research area.

The plan, if approved, would allow dogs in the community zone at the base of the property. The county expects to create a 5-mile stretch of trails for recreationists in the same area, which Miller opposed because of their proximity to the ranch’s main water source.

But Kirby said the county intentionally placed the trails where they are based on how people are already using the land, which is why the plan also lets visitors bring dogs to certain areas of the property.

“On average, we see about 300 walkers a day that have a cellphone going up and down that road,” Kirby said, referencing data collected through the county’s cellphone analytics platforms. “Typically, they walk about 3 to 5 miles, which is from the gate to the dilapidated bridge and back. … When we do counts, the majority of people that are out there have dogs with them.”

Kirby said the number of people walking their dogs on the main road is a “public safety hazard,” which is why the county wants to let dogs in the community zone.

“If we don’t, they’re just going to walk the road,” she said. “It’s a public road. I cannot regulate that. The criticism of why I’m allowing dogs next to the most sensitive piece of the property, which is the creek, is an interesting one. … The road and the trail are both located right next to the creek, but when you actually walk the proposed alignment, you’re further away from the creek on the trail than you are on the road.”

She acknowledged there are a few spots where the trail is close enough to the creek to form a small “beach,” but Kirby said it was an unfortunate truth that the county had to “sacrifice” certain areas to better protect the 8,500-acre property as a whole.

“Effective land stewardship sometimes means concentrating use in carefully selected areas to protect the broader landscape,” Kirby said. “Right now, dogs are leaving the road and accessing the creek down very steep slopes, creating erosion and damaging sensitive habitats. Rather than allowing that impact to spread across the property, we’re proposing to direct access to a location that can be engineered and hardened to withstand regular use.”

Kirby emphasized that the county is planning for the future of the property, including environmental protections for the broader ecosystem.

“By intentionally concentrating recreation where the land can sustain it, we reduce widespread degradation, protect wildlife habitat and water quality and preserve the ecological integrity of the ranch,” she said. “It’s a thoughtful, science-based approach that balances public access with long-term conservation. We understand not everyone will agree with every element of the plan, but every proposed improvement is guided by the goal of leaving the property healthier and more resilient for future generations.”

Miller was not the only community member who advocated for a complete prohibition of recreation on the ranch during last month’s public hearing, but an outright ban may not be possible. Kirby said the conservation easement and agreement with Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands that allowed the county to acquire the property requires the local government to open it for public access.

She said the county is working to regulate usage, though. Specifically, Kirby said she plans to bring a series of ordinances to the County Council for approval that will formalize restrictions, such as commercial uses on the property or where dogs are allowed.

Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands will also need to approve the recreation plan before it is implemented and the property is opened to the public.

The County Council is expected to revisit, and possibly vote on, approving the recreation plan later this year. However, the recreation plan is only one piece of the overall management plan, and other pieces of the plan will dictate preservation strategies, wildlife management and other issues in more detail.

The post Summit County officials, friends of previous 910 Cattle Ranch owner clash over wildlife management practices appeared first on Park Record.

The Wasatch Back has become an international travel destination for people who love the outdoors, attracting visitors and locals to world-renowned ski resorts, reservoirs and hundreds of miles of mountain trails. But Summit County residents, who often push for every opportunity to recreate outdoors, had a unique ask for the County Council this week — a total prohibition of activity on the 910 Cattle Ranch.

County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby last month presented a tentative recreation plan for the 8,500-acre open space property in Jeremy Ranch, which takes an adaptive management approach, meaning the plan is flexible and may change if officials discover restrictions need to be tightened.

The county intends to manage and open the 910 Ranch in phases to better control and study how visitors are impacting the land, with the property split into three distinct pieces: the community zone, exploratory area, and conservation core and research area.

The plan, if approved, would allow dogs in the community zone at the base of the property. The county expects to create a 5-mile stretch of trails for recreationists in the same area.

The exploratory area would also have limited recreation opportunities, but with stricter guidelines Kirby said will likely be finalized as the county works through its phasing process for the property. The conservation core and research area would be largely limited to the community, only accessible for educational or research purposes or with special permits.

However, Summit County residents overwhelmingly opposed unsupervised recreation on the 910 Ranch during Wednesday’s public hearing on the plan, with many speakers voicing concerns about the impact hiking trails and visitors might have on wildlife.

David Atherley, who said he’s been involved in ranching and other activities on the property for more than 40 years, told the County Council to be careful in how it approaches access. He urged councilors to not install 240 parking spots, which is allowed under the conservation easement, and to instead keep the 40-car lot Kirby recommended in the proposed plan.

“Resist the impulse to build new trails,” Atherley added. “Trail networks, once built, permanently alter the wildlife corridors and behavior. … We cannot undo what we get wrong here, but if we do it right and if we let nature lead, the land will reward every generation that follows. Stewardship of this magnitude is not a simple responsibility. It’s a generational one.”

Atherley also requested the County Council prohibit dogs on the property, even in the community zone. He said he was worried the pets would disturb wildlife in the area, which he said should be the county’s top priority.

He also suggested renaming the property to the 910 Ranch Nature Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary to encourage mindful visitations.

“A name carries weight,” Atherley said. “It shapes perception before a single foot touches the trail. When visitors, newcomers and future generations hear ‘nature preserve and wildlife sanctuary,’ it sets an expectation, an invitation to be a part of something worth protecting. It tells people before they even arrive that this place deserves reverence, not recreation at any cost.”

Resident Jenny Allison also voiced concerns about the community zone, pointing out its proximity to the only stream on the property and its role as a water source for wildlife. She encouraged the county to pull back on its recreation plan and pivot to a management plan focused on preservation and conservation.

Pat Putt, the county’s former community development director, shared the sentiment.

“My hope is that the decision you make places conservation, protection and ecological rehabilitation as the fundamental priorities moving forward,” Putt said. “I’m worried that our open lands and natural areas regionally are turned into something that we never intended or imagined. I fear they’re becoming outdoor gymnasiums and dog parks, not only for the Wasatch Back, but for the Wasatch Front as well, all at the expense of the natural environment and ecosystems that are already under considerable stress.”

Putt asked the County Council to stop all work on the property, including building trails, until all management plans are completed. He also suggested creating a committee of environmental experts, wildlife experts and Summit County residents to help plan and implement programming and infrastructure on the land.

However, prohibiting recreation on the 910 Cattle Ranch may not be possible. Kirby said the conservation easement and agreement with Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands that allowed the county to acquire the property requires the local government to open it for public access.

She said the county is working to regulate usage, though. Specifically, Kirby said she plans to bring a series of ordinances to the County Council for approval that will formalize restrictions, such as commercial uses on the property or where dogs are allowed.

Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands will also need to approve the recreation plan before it is implemented and the property is opened to the public.

The County Council is expected to revisit, and possibly vote on, approving the recreation plan later this summer. The recreation plan is only one piece of the overall management plan, however, and other pieces of the plan will dictate preservation strategies, wildlife management and other issues in more detail.

The post Summit County residents pan 910 Cattle Ranch recreation plan, ask for more restrictions appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County residents may have opportunities to hike through the sprawling hills of the 8,500-acre 910 Cattle Ranch as soon as next spring, but the Summit County Council is reminding community members the property’s purpose is as a conservation area.

“Conservation was always the target,” said County Council Chair Canice Harte as he offered his feedback on the proposed management plan for the property. “It’s about protecting the environment. It’s about protecting the animals. It’s about trying to maintain that ecosystem as best as we can. If I had to make a choice between those uses, I’m always going to err on the side of conservation.”

County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby presented the latest draft of the management plan to the County Council on Wednesday for one last round of feedback before she submits the document to the state for final approval. The plan outlines the county’s approach to the 910 Cattle Ranch, including recreation, forest stewardship, wildlife management, noxious weeds, watershed health and more.

“We want to take it slow,” Kirby said. “We only have one chance to do this. The community has asked us to do it right, and that’s why we’re taking our time through this process.”

Kirby told the County Council that she recommended an adaptive management approach, meaning the plan is flexible and may change if officials discover restrictions need to be tightened.

“In 10 or 15 years, I would like to make sure that we have a plan in place that reflects where we started this, not where it’s migrated to, so with enough restrictions in it that it makes it difficult to unwind it,” echoed County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong. “I want to make sure that, to some degree, it’s future-proof in terms of undoing what we’re trying to put in place here.”

Kirby emphasized the county’s role as a steward of conservation, saying she did not recommend paving roads or engaging in any high impact development. However, she acknowledged recent community concerns regarding machinery in the area.

She told the County Council the construction is for grading and to add gravel, improve turnouts and help the area with drainage.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that we might be prepping the road for paving, and that is not happening,” she said.

The county intends to manage and open the ranch in phases, with the property split into three distinct pieces: the community zone, exploratory area, and conservation core and research area.

Dogs will only be allowed in the community zone, located at the base of the property, where the county will likely create a 5-mile stretch of trails for recreationists. The exploratory area will also have limited recreation opportunities, but those details will be ironed out as the county works through the phasing process, Kirby said.

Meanwhile, the conservation core and research area will be largely limited to the community, only accessible for educational purposes or with special permits.

“This is also contemplated in the future as a possibility for a research station that could support climate research or students going up there, looking at impacts on wildlife or recreation or forestry,” Kirby said. “It would be very controlled, very limited and very much a permitted situation.”

The drafted management plan also includes a proposal for a paid parking pilot program, but Kirby reassured residents that the county does not intend to build 250 parking spots on the property, even though a lot of that size is allowable under the conservation easement. 

Instead, Kirby proposed 40 parking spaces located next to a trailhead.

“That’s a little bit more than what we see on the road parking right now, so we’re scaling up, knowing that we’re going to get a little bit more visitation, but also reducing that capacity and not just throwing 250 spots out there so that they can just fill up every day all the time,” she said.

Kirby said she’s still working on the details of the parking proposal. She told the County Council she’s willing to consider special or discounted passes for Summit County residents and commuters who work in the area.

The County Council supported the resource management plan, but councilors urged county staff to take their time. They echoed Kirby’s sentiments that properly conserving the land is more important than opening it to hikers as soon as possible, especially since there are dozens of other trails in the area.

“I hope that the community understands that this is largely a conservation acquisition, not a recreational acquisition, so the notion of having hundreds of miles of trails for mountain biking and unlimited hiking and dogs roaming free, that’s not what this is, and that’s not what this was intended to be,” Armstrong said.

Councilors did not take any action on the proposed plan this week, but Kirby said she’ll work their feedback into an updated draft and present it to them again later this summer. Then, she’ll submit the plan to Utah Forestry, Fire and State Lands for final approval, the last step in the process before the county can start opening the property.

Kirby estimated that a “soft launch” for the 910 Cattle Ranch property will happen sometime next spring.

Information on the ranch, including the management plan and a history of the project, is available at summitcounty.info/910ranch. 

The post Conservation, not recreation, takes priority on the 910 Cattle Ranch, says county appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County Council is nearing the third anniversary of its decision to spend $55 million on the acquisition of an 8,500-acre property in Jeremy Ranch, and residents are now discovering how they may be able to access the land in the future through a proposed recreation plan.

County officials have been meeting with stakeholders of the 910 Cattle Ranch for the past few months and brainstorming potential recreational uses on the property and where residents should be allowed to visit. County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby described the process as “throwing a net” over the ranch to draw in as many neighboring property owners, homeowners associations and state agencies as possible.

The stakeholder groups worked through multiple issues, such as capacity, parking, wildlife impacts, types of recreation and whether dogs should be allowed on the property. The results of those conversations were then combined with feedback from community members at previous roundtable discussions and in a survey conducted last year.

The information was then synthesized and translated into a master recreation plan, which county officials presented to the public at an open house in the Snyderville Basin on Tuesday.

“I like the fact that they’re trying to be productive in terms of looking at what happened in other outdoor areas and how they can stage parking, certain trail uses, e-bikes and whatnot,” said Barbara Siegel, a resident who attended the open house. “I think by managing, for example, e-bikes, dogs and other human-related impacts, it’ll allow it to hopefully stay as wild as it can be.”

The county intends to manage and open the 910 Cattle Ranch in phases, with the first phase focused on zoning the property into three distinct pieces: the community zone, exploratory area, and conservation core and research area.

Kirby said the community zone, located at the base of the property, will be the most impacted part of the ranch because it’s where residents and visitors will be allowed to recreate. Hiking trails between one and five miles will likely be established in the community zone, and it will be the only zone to allow dogs.

The exploratory area will also have trails, as well as limited opportunities for mountain biking, which will be discussed at a later date when the county reaches the second phase of its recreation plan.

“The third zone that we’re proposing is the conservation core and research area, and the best way I can explain it is to think about it like the Swaner Preserve,” Kirby said. “It’s off limits to the general public, but there is an opportunity for guided hikes or guided research or other approved uses back there. There might still be some trails, but it’ll definitely be limited compared to the other zones.”

Kirby emphasized adaptive management as a core tenant of the county’s approach to the ranch, meaning the plan is flexible and may change if officials discover restrictions need to be tightened.

“We’re going to be monitoring very closely and seeing how those impacts are on the land and on the wildlife,” she said. “If it’s working, we’ll continue, and if it’s not working, we’ll reevaluate and change our plans going forward. … It’s a very iterative, slow process to open up in a phased way so that we can make sure that not only do we have a plan in place, but we have the staff to support it and the funding to support it, so we’re not getting too out over our skis.”

Leslie Miller, the partner of the ranch’s previous property owner, also attended the open house. She said she was worried the county’s plan wasn’t comprehensive enough to protect the area’s wildlife, especially because of its proximity to millions of visitors who travel to the Wasatch Back from the Salt Lake Valley. 

“Federal tax dollars purchased a wildlife refuge. They didn’t purchase Round Valley or Run-A-Muk,” Miller said. “They purchased a wildlife refuge, and I think that should be and must be a priority, and how recreational uses interact with that concept and the strategic plan is yet to be determined.”

Miller also expressed concerns about the proximity of hiking trails to the property’s waterways in the community zone, saying she assumed those natural corridors would be sensitive and the most affected by human activity.

But Kirby said the trails are farther from the water than they look on aerial maps — at least hundreds of feet from the shore — and that the trails’ locations were strategically chosen based on how people already interact with the property.

“It’s intentional to keep people where people are now,” Kirby explained. “Right now, the use is at the bottom of the canyon, and that happens to be where the water is as well. The water is still very, very high on our conservation focus. That’s one of the reasons why we’re doing planned access points to the water.”

Kirby said there isn’t a convenient way to keep people out of the water without fencing the entire shoreline, which the county doesn’t want to do so wildlife can continue to pass through the area.

“It’s a delicate balance of putting regulations in place, being able to enforce that with staff and to create spaces that will be sacrificial areas, for lack of a better word,” Kirby said. “It’s a strategy of finding places that can be impacted to preserve the other places from impact, and, again, it’s going to be an adaptive process … so we can reevaluate and pull back.”

The recreation plan isn’t finalized yet, so residents still have time to reach out to the county with feedback. Kirby said the County Council is expected to review the plan, with a potential vote for approval, on May 20. The county will also hold a public hearing the same day for residents to go on the record with their thoughts.

The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands will also need to authorize the plan before it goes into effect. Kirby said she did not know exactly how long the state’s process will take, but she estimated the 910 Cattle Ranch will be open to the public sometime next summer.

“This is a property for our community as much as it is for the county and everybody else,” Kirby said. “We wanted to make sure that our community is happy with how we’re implementing the bond funds and how we’re programming this, so it feels very positive right now.”

The ranch is currently closed to the public until the county has its recreation plan in place and begins to open the property in phases. More information on the ranch is available by visiting summitcounty.info/910ranch.

The post 910 Cattle Ranch to open in phases, with zoned areas designated for community recreation appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County’s acquisition of the 8,500-acre 910 Cattle Ranch property has seemingly led to a surprise bill regulating how counties purchase land in other jurisdictions.

Deputy County Manager Janna Young on Wednesday told the Summit County Council that House Bill 445, which is sponsored by Salt Lake County Rep. Mark Strong, appears to target Summit County for its recent closure on the open space property.

The 910 Cattle Ranch spans 8,587 acres on the northern side of the county, by Jeremy Ranch, with a small portion of the property crossing into Morgan County.

“This appears to follow an interlocal agreement we’re already working on with Morgan County,” Young said. “It is something we’ve been working very closely with Morgan County on for a while now. We don’t understand why there is legislation about it, but it does have broad impacts to counties throughout the state.”

The bill would require a county to receive express permission from another jurisdiction if it were attempting to purchase land within its boundaries. The counties would also need to draft and sign an interlocal agreement for the purchase to go through, and the purchasing county would be required to pay full property taxes on the land despite its tax-exempt status.

“There are a myriad of reasons why a county might purchase land in another county,” Young said. “For instance, we’ve done that when we’ve needed to have telecommunications towers or what have you, so we’re concerned about our property rights when it comes to this and requiring us to get permission before we can proceed with a purchase because that’s not a requirement of any other public entity.”

Young said she also had logistical questions regarding how the process would work, especially because land purchases in other jurisdictions are often a tool used by counties to protect their watersheds and mitigate wildfires.

“The other piece that’s unclear is what happens if that county does not give that permission or if they demand something in the interlocal agreement that we cannot provide,” Young said.

The Utah Legislature is considering a handful of other bills that the Summit County government is monitoring closely throughout the general session because of concerns over how the potential laws would affect local operations.

Specifically, Young mentioned H.B. 88, which is sponsored by Davis County Rep. Trevor Lee. The bill would require an individual seeking public assistance benefits to prove they have U.S. citizenship or are in the country legally before receiving care.

“This includes if we’re trying to contain a virus that’s being transmitted or if someone’s in crisis and needs mental health care or homeless children who might not have their documentation, so we’re very concerned about that bill and are opposing it,” Young said.

She also pointed out H.B. 184, a piece of legislation jointly sponsored by Davis County Rep. Raymond Ward and Salt Lake County Sen. Lincoln Fillmore. Young claimed the bill did not go through the state’s Land Use Task Force despite relating to land use decisions.

“The Land Use Task Force is a body comprised of members from cities, counties, the Home Builders Association, Property Rights Coalition and developers, and the idea is this group is supposed to be vetting land use bills and coming to a consensus on them so that they have a better passage through the Legislature,” Young explained. “The agreement is that these bills are supposed to go through that body so there aren’t surprises. Unfortunately, this one did not go through that process.”

The bill itself is intended to help meet Gov. Spencer Cox’s goal of building 35,000 starter homes in Utah by the end of 2028 to combat the state’s housing shortage. 

It would allow the applicant in a development project to change zoning without going through a planning commission or public hearing process. The government’s legislative body would then have 30 days to approve or deny the request, but it’s not clear whether the legislative body in question refers to a planning commission or the County Council.

“If it’s not done in 30 days, then that zoning becomes the de facto zoning for that project, again, without going through any public processes, with the idea that it would be for these starter homes,” Young said. “The way that they’re defining starter homes is the area mean purchase price, which in Summit County is over a million dollars. That’s not a starter home for us, so obviously we have challenges and concerns about this bill, both on the process side and the policy side.”

The Summit County government is closely watching H.B. 231, sponsored by Fillmore and Utah County Rep. Norman Thurston, because it intends to repeal the restaurant tax that currently funds one of the county’s most prominent grant programs.

“It does allow counties to impose a new sales tax to make up for those lost revenues from the restaurant tax, and those revenues would be similarly restricted,” Young said. “Obviously, though, it changes the structure, so instead of patrons of restaurants paying this, it would apply to everyone paying a sales tax. I don’t believe that’s something we’re interested in.”

Rep. Tiara Auxier, who represents parts of Summit County in addition to Morgan and Rich counties, is sponsoring H.B. 449, a major piece of legislation seeking to eliminate the Truth in Taxation process. However, the move would require a voter-approved amendment to the Utah Constitution in November, even if the bill were to pass.

In place of Truth in Taxation hearings, voters would directly determine whether a government can raise its property tax revenues. The bill would additionally limit the amount of money a government could spend in a year unless voters were in favor of increased spending, and taxpayers could be given refunds if the government brought in more revenue than anticipated, similar to the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights Act in Colorado.

“If you exceed your projections, you pay back to the taxpayers the additional (amount) that you received,” Young explained. “Obviously, this would have a huge impact on the county’s funds, so we’re watching that closely.”

Young presents information on proposed legislation and how it would affect Summit County to the County Council every Wednesday during the general session. The general session ends on March 6.

The post Summit County targeted in surprise bill regulating land purchases in other counties appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County government closed on the 8,588-acre 910 Cattle Ranch property on Tuesday in a move the county is touting as the largest conservation victory in its history.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby. “We’ve had a lot of ups and downs and back and forth, but we’re here, and it feels great.”

Kirby said the county has been working for over a decade to conserve the ranch, which is one of the few remaining contiguous properties in Summit County.

“It’s this swath of untouched land in our county surrounded by a lot of development and a lot of loss of habitat,” she said. “All the things we’re doing on this property helps protect the watershed, helps get more water to the Great Salt Lake and provides a valuable (wildlife) habitat and opportunity for scenic and recreational activities that our community loves.”

Summit County Council Chair Canice Harte said he was “over the moon” excited about the acquisition, which he called an “incredible gift for future generations.”

“The people of Summit County have identified (open space preservation) as a priority,” Harte said. “They made that clear when they voted for the open space bond to essentially tax themselves to raise $50 million to purchase open space and protect wildlands. We’ve had the Ure Ranch, the 910 Cattle Ranch and several other projects that are really just great wins for the people.”

Harte said the county owning the 910 Cattle Ranch is akin to controlling a small state park because of the sheer size of the property. He said the county plans on opening the property up to the public in the future, but conservation will remain the priority, and recreation opportunities may be limited.

“I want to protect the wildlife habitat and the open space there, so we should really take our time,” Harte said. “We don’t need to rush into this.”

The county hired a consultant to help create a recreational plan for the ranch, and Kirby said “stakeholder meetings” with different conservation experts will begin in the next few months. Community members have already had opportunities to speak with county officials about how they would like to use the property, and more public engagement sessions will likely be scheduled over the next few months.

“People want to preserve the habitat and the connectivity for wildlife while still having recreation, so there will probably be hiking trails,” Kirby said. “E-bikes are forever prohibited on the property, and bikes and mountain biking will be very limited.”

Kirby said the 910 Cattle Ranch will be geared more toward hiking and “the equestrian experience,” which have less of an impact on wildlife than other recreational activities. Most likely, the ranch will be split into different “zones,” with some zones earmarked for recreation while others will be restricted to ensure a protected wildlife habitat.

“Within the next year, we’re hoping to have a phase one soft opening with some pilot projects on the property,” Kirby said. “By next summer, we can have some community footprints on the land, or at least that’s the hope right now, but it’s going to be a soft opening. It’s not going to be the whole ranch at once.”

The county is working on putting together an event to celebrate the acquisition in the spring, but details have not yet been finalized. Kirby encouraged anyone interested in following developments on the 910 Cattle Ranch to sign up for the Lands and Natural Resources newsletter, which will be the best way to find public engagement opportunities.

“We really appreciate the community’s input on this,” Kirby said. “This is a place where we want to provide for our residents as much as our visitors, but it’s important for us to hit that mark, and we really appreciate the feedback we’ve gotten so far and look forward to getting more.”

The post Summit County hopes to open 910 Cattle Ranch to public within a year appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County’s efforts to acquire large swaths of land for open space conservation have been delayed time and time again in 2025. But with the end of the year around the corner — and the federal shutdown in the rearview mirror — county staff are confident they’ll close on both the Ure Ranch and 910 Cattle Ranch in the next few months.

“It sounds hopeful, but at this point, I’m kind of like, ‘Show me the money,’” said Summit County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby. “We’ve been close so many times, so I’m not getting my hopes up, but I do feel like it’ll happen before the end of the year.”

The deal for the 8,500-acre 910 Cattle Ranch property had almost been finalized when the federal government shut down in October, with only the paperwork for the last appraisal remaining on the county’s checklist.

However, Kirby said the U.S. Forest Service was able to end the furlough for its senior appraiser about a week early, giving Summit County a small advantage in getting the process back on track.

“We were super grateful to the Forest Service for doing that,” Kirby said. “I’m not sure how they pulled those strings, but they did it, so that was great. Once that’s all done, then we’re good to go on the 910 Ranch. Everything else, all the other due diligence, has been completed.”

Kirby expects to close on the 910 Ranch by the end of the year, and she thinks it may be possible to close on the 834-acre Ure Ranch property in December, too. If the Ure Ranch acquisition isn’t finished by Jan. 1, though, Kirby said she’s fully confident the deal will be closed in the first quarter of 2026.

“We’re bringing conservation easements forward for approval at the (County) Council meeting next week, and that’s the last piece of the approvals that need to happen on the Ure Ranch,” Kirby said. “The other last piece we’re buttoning up for the Ure Ranch are the water shares and water rights associated with that property. It’s very complex, and there are three different water companies we’re dealing with … but we had that conversation yesterday, and hopefully we’re on the right track.”

The 910 Ranch, the largest public lands acquisition in Summit County’s history, has been delayed numerous times since it was first optioned by the county in 2023 using $15 million from a voter-approved general obligation bond. The U.S. Forest Service then awarded an additional $40 million grant to Summit County in 2024 to close the funding gap and allow the county to put down a total of $55 million as a down payment.

Obtaining the $40 million grant has taken longer than anticipated, though.

Last fall, Kirby estimated the county would close on the property by the end of March. But the date was soon pushed to August after the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze briefly halted acquisition efforts this spring.

The date was moved again to the end of September, and Kirby said she’d hoped to be finished by Oct. 1, the day the federal government shut down.

“I think the most unfortunate piece of it was that the shutdown cost us almost $500,000 in additional interest,” Kirby said. “It’s just silly, not even mentally, but financially. There are costs for these things.”

Specifically, Kirby said the shutdown cost the county around $350,000 in interest, with another $150,000 accumulated earlier in the year during the federal funding freeze.

The post Summit County to close on 910 Cattle Ranch, Ure Ranch after shutdown ends appeared first on Park Record.

The effects of the government shutdown in Washington, D.C., are being felt nationwide as federal workers face potential layoffs, furloughs and a general uncertainty about the future of their departments.

While funding for local projects hasn’t necessarily disappeared, the people who help state and municipal governments navigate the bureaucratic processes to obtain federal assistance have, leading to a de facto freeze for many regional departments relying on public monies.

In Summit County’s case, the shutdown has thrown a wrench into two key initiatives: the acquisition of the 910 Cattle Ranch and the Health Department’s Women, Infants and Children program, commonly referred to as WIC.

Summit County Lands and Natural Resources Director Jess Kirby said she’d been working with the U.S. Forest Service on the 910 Cattle Ranch property’s final appraisal, but the senior appraiser has now been furloughed. Without the appraisal, the county is unable to receive the last chunk of funding needed to close on the 8,500-acre property.

“The funding is not in jeopardy,” Kirby said. “It’s just the process of the paperwork and getting those final signatures, and the folks who need to sign things and push the buttons to move the funding to the title companies are unable to do that at this point.”

The 910 Ranch, the largest public lands acquisition in Summit County’s history, has been delayed numerous times since it was first optioned by the County Courthouse in 2023 using $15 million from a voter-approved general obligation bond. The U.S. Forest Service then awarded an additional $40 million grant to Summit County in 2024 to close the funding gap and allow the county to put down a total of $55 million as a down payment.

Obtaining the $40 million grant has taken longer than anticipated, though.

Last fall, Kirby estimated the county would close on the property by the end of March. But the date was soon pushed to August after the Trump administration’s federal funding freeze briefly halted acquisition efforts this spring.

The date was moved again to the end of September, and Kirby said she’d hoped to be finished by Oct. 1, the day the federal government shut down.

“We were very close, so now this is kicking the can down the road a little bit further,” Kirby said. “It just depends on how long they stay closed. I’ve heard a ballpark (estimate) that every week they’re closed to expect about a week to a week-and-a-half delay, so we’re using that as a gauge.”

She added that the County Courthouse hoped to close on the 834-acre Ure Ranch property next month, too, but the project is now on a similar hiatus.

Both properties have looming deadlines, with the 910 Cattle Ranch contract expiring on Aug. 31, 2026, while the Ure Ranch contract expires in 2027. 

Kirby said she’s not particularly worried about hitting those hard deadlines, though, as she expects the shutdown to end and allow for final acquisition efforts before the last day of the option contract. If worst comes to worst, the county has the opportunity to extend both contracts for one year.

“It’s been a rollercoaster, and I think we’ve gotten a little bit numb to it right now. We’re trying to keep our heads up,” Kirby said. “Even though the government’s closed now, we’re not stopping our work on the project. We keep taking steps forward that will get us ready, but it’s disappointing. … When you don’t have control over the disappointment, you just sit here and throw your hands up, and you have to be at the mercy of another’s control.”

Meanwhile, Summit County Health Director Phil Bondurant similarly said the shutdown is frustrating because no one knows how long it will last. That makes planning and budgeting difficult, especially since the department relies heavily on federal funding.

Specifically, the WIC program typically renews its contract to receive federal funding on Oct. 1. However, the renewal didn’t happen this year because of the government shutdown.

The state government has now stepped in temporarily to keep the program afloat, but Bondurant said it was a short-term solution that may not extend beyond a week if the shutdown continues.

“If it does go for 75 days like some analysts believe it might, then we start having to discuss how long the state can sustain this and when we have to look at this locally,” he said. “We have to figure out how we’re going to continue to support these families in a way where we’re not putting anybody at risk beyond the state’s commitment and dedication to keeping WIC going.”

The program ensures qualifying families can receive nutritional food needed for early childhood development, in addition to providing mothers with baby formula. Families can buy WIC-approved groceries from local stores to put what Bondurant described as “a good, square meal” on the table.

He added that the Summit County Board of Health and Summit County Council are aware of how the shutdown is affecting the Health Department, but he called it “more of a heads up” than anything else right now.

“If we move forward, then the Health Department will make the necessary adjustments inside of our current situation to provide those essential services to the families in need,” Bondurant said. “What that looks like at the time, I can’t predict right now because we just don’t know what the variables are going to be.”

Meanwhile, Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau said he doesn’t expect to see the same impact as in Summit County, but county staff are closely monitoring the situation because of the lack of U.S. Forest Service personnel.

“We had a meeting this morning with our public lands stakeholders. This includes our Forest Service partners,” Grabau said on Wednesday. “The county doesn’t have any direct impacts from the shutdown. But we are supportive of these partners in ensuring that essential services are still being met. Our chief concern is for public safety and remaining risk of wildfires in the federal forest.”

Local U.S. Forest Service employees declined to comment on the shutdown and instead referred The Park Record to the national pressline.

In response to an email inquiring about the local effects of the shutdown on the Forest Service in Summit and Wasatch counties, a USDA spokesperson said the national forests will remain open and “wildland fighting and disaster response will continue.” However, the spokesperson noted that “may change due to the length of the shutdown.”

“The Democrat shutdown will cause real harm to American farmers, ranchers and rural communities,” the spokesperson said. “President Trump has made it clear through his support of H.R. 5371 that he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel and clothe the American people.”

The USDA referred anyone with questions on which programs and services are impacted to usda.gov/shutdownplans.

The post 910 Cattle Ranch acquisition, Health Department affected by government shutdown appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County Council gave its final approval of the 910 Cattle Ranch’s conservation easement this week, paving the way for the county Lands and Natural Resources division to close the deal on the 8,500-acre Jeremy Ranch property by the end of September.

Department director Jess Kirby spoke to councilors on Wednesday about the final details of the conservation easement and the baseline documentation report, which describes the current conditions of the property in an almost 250-page document.

The county optioned the 910 Cattle Ranch in August 2023 by using $15 million from a voter-approved general obligation bond passed in 2021 to preserve open space as a down payment toward the $55 million total. The U.S. Forest Service then awarded a $40 million grant to Summit County in the summer of 2024 through its Forest Legacy Program, closing the funding gap.

The conservation easement presented Wednesday specifically outlines a legal agreement between the county and the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Kirby explained, as the state agency will be tasked with monitoring the property in perpetuity. Those monitoring reports, which will be published once a year, will detail any violations of the conservation easement agreement.

“If there are any violations, they will be put onto that document, and then we have a certain amount of time to remedy those violations,” Kirby said. “In my history, I’ve had one or two, and it’s usually someone else doing something on the property that I was unaware of. We had a dumping on one property once, and we actually just had some horses out on a piece of property that we own. Stuff like that happens, and we go remedy them pretty quickly.”

The 910 Cattle Ranch will not be open to the public as soon as officials finalize the deal, though. Kirby said her department is working on a larger recreation plan to outline how the public is allowed to use the property while still conserving the wildlife and open spaces. For that reason, community members won’t be able to recreate on the land until the document is finished, she said.

There are also a few restrictions detailed in the conservation easement. Subdivisions, deforestation, feedlots, ski infrastructure, drones and motorized vehicles are prohibited from the property based on clauses in the legal agreement, for example.

However, some buildings or temporary structures may be allowed on the acreage if camping becomes part of the recreation plan. Kirby and Summit County Councilor Roger Armstrong also discussed the potential of an educational research facility run by the University of Utah focused on natural resources and meteorology.

Summit County Councilor Megan McKenna praised Kirby for her work on the 910 Cattle Ranch and voiced her support for the idea of educational opportunities on the property, too, saying it was something she was particularly excited about given her background in science education.

The County Council then unanimously voted in favor of authorizing the final deal, allowing Kirby and Summit County Manager Shayne Scott to sign the closing paperwork. Kirby said her department is still waiting on the last appraisal, which could come in anytime over the next two weeks, but she expects the process to wrap up quickly as soon as that happens.

“This has been a very heavy lift,” Kirby said, thanking the County Council for its support. “It has been a lot of ups and downs and roller coasters with the changes over the last several months with the administration and just not knowing, and it’s a real blessing to be sitting here being so close. It’s really amazing. It’s been an incredible process.”

The post Summit County to close on 910 Cattle Ranch by end of September appeared first on Park Record.