ST. GEORGE — A Utah House representative has put forth a bill he says would act as a “gentle nudge” for local governments to consider impacts on wildlife when creating general plans and adopting regulations.

With an interest in wildlife issues, Rep. Doug Owens filed an appropriations request last year, allocating $20 million to match federal funding and to build wildlife crossings throughout the state.

“Keeping them out of roads is one aspect, and just trying to keep our wildlife population healthy — It’s just kind of a basic interest of mine,” he told St. George News.

This year, Owens is sponsoring the land use planning amendments bill, designated HB 195 in the 2024 state Legislature. He said the bill would remind cities and counties to consider wildlife-related issues, including impacts on movement and habitat, when creating general plans and adopting land use regulations.

“We’re growing so rapidly as a state,” he said. “It’s telling land planners in our cities that when you’re talking about growth, you got to take account of wildlife issues. You don’t have to do anything, but you can’t just ignore it. You got to think about it. … It’s a gentle nudge to pay attention to the issue.”

Owens cited work in Eagle Mountain as an example.

“They preserved a deer migration corridor right through town, and it makes a nice hunting space, a park for everybody to use,” he said, adding that it’s good for wildlife as well as fishing and hunting.

When asked if the bill was the first step toward a larger goal, Owens said that while he’d love it to “be a little tougher, we’re probably not ready for that in our state.” He said it likely wouldn’t work if legislators were “ahead of what people really wanted.”

“If they just get a reminder, I think most people will give it a fair shake and look at it and see if they can incorporate some benefits to wildlife without raising their development costs a lot,” he said.

Governments interested in working on wildlife issues can contact the Utah Department of Natural Resources. Owens said that after an upcoming revision, cities and counties would also have access to a wildlife biologist to provide data and advice. The biologist would be chosen from current state employees.

While Owens doesn’t expect the bill to be controversial, he said he’s “still got some political work to do” in terms of garnering support for it.

“I do think it’s going to be supported by the wildlife community — the hunting and fishing folks,” he said.

Cedar City Councilmember R. Scott Phillips said the city currently considers potential effects on local species when discussing the general plan.

“Every sketch review meeting we have, we talk about prairie dog clearance,” he said. “So we’re looking at wildlife habitat.”

“As we look to develop Coal Creek, whether it’s wells or its filtration systems, we’re going to look and say, ‘OK, how is this going to affect the wildlife that might be there, the fish that are in there or the little creatures living here?’ We’ll certainly take that into consideration,” Phillips continued. “Now, does that mean that we don’t put in the filtration system? Probably not. But we will certainly look at those ramifications.”

If necessary to formalize the process, City Engineer Jonathan Stathis said they may need to include a section concerning wildlife in the general plan, potentially with the advice of a wildlife biologist.

Phillips said the “only red flag” he found was a “lack of clarity” in the wording, which could change how the legislation is enforced depending on who interprets it.

“Although it seems very credible and very noncontroversial, what are the unintended consequences of this? … As a council member, now, I know how I interpreted it — I’m not sure that’s the same way Mr. McCune would,” he said, referencing City Attorney Randall McCune.

This concern was shared by Stathis, who said the engineering department would be the legislation’s enforcers if it is interpreted as a requirement for cities. Additionally, developers would need to understand any new requirements impacting their projects.

“From my standpoint, it’s just a matter of: how does this affect the development community? And I’m not yet sure we know 100%,” Stathis said. “I mean, it might not have any impact.”

Depending on the size of the community, the proximity to environmentally sensitive areas and the amount of undeveloped land, local governments opting to modify their general plans under the current bill could see an average increase of $15,000 in costs every five to 10 years — when most plans are revised, according to the fiscal note.

Those adopted land use regulations could see an average increased cost of $1,000 per regulation, the fiscal note states.

The bill was introduced to the House Rules Committee for its first reading on Jan. 16 but has not yet received a hearing or been voted on.

Check out all of St. George News’ coverage of the 2024 Utah Legislature by clicking here.

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.