for floating desolation in Gate Canyon. Sand Wash includes managed camping, parking, and a boat ramp and is subject to permit requirements because of its regional recreational importance. Industrialization in the access corridor leading to Sand Wash foreseeably affects public safety, traffic conflicts, dust, noise, and the quality of a major outdoor recreation experience. Those are direct public welfare considerations under 8-13-4, and yet the finding report does not meaningfully analyze them.

In addition, this site lies within a wildlife movement and hunting landscape that includes the Nine Mile Anthromite and Bench hunting units, as reflected on the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources hunt planner maps included in our original appeal letter. The Pleasant Valley Mountain area also supports extensive hunting and wildlife-based recreation, including a large actively managed hunting preserve. Scientific research from the Intermountain West demonstrates that industrial energy development, especially when accompanied by permanent fencing, lighting, noise, and traffic, can fragment migration corridors and alter ungulate movement well beyond the footprints of facilities. Itself.

These are precisely the kinds of location-based cumulative impacts and conditional use standards that require a land use authority to evaluate upfront. The findings report does not analyze fragmentation, long-term wildlife displacement, impacts on hunting access, or the cumulative effects of converting hundreds of acres into a permanently fenced and lighted industrial facility at this site. Instead, it relies on a generalized statement of economic benefit and conclusive assurances of no detriment without grounding those conclusions in any site-specific evidence. When the project scale and permanence are considered alongside the documented cultural fragility of Nine Mile Canyon, the regional significance of Sand Wash, and the demonstrated sensitivity of wildlife corridors and hunting landscapes to industrial disturbance, the county could not lawfully conclude based on this record that the project will not be unduly detrimental. Or that the site is adequate to support the use without material harm.

The required findings under Duchesne County Code Section 8-13-4 are therefore unsupported by any substantial evidence. Finally, mandatory operational safeguards under Duchesne County Code Sections 8-13-5 and 8-13-5-2 require proof of compliance with air quality, dust, odor, noise, setbacks, bonding, and state and federal permits. The record contains no evidence of present compliance. Instead, approved compliance was deferred to future permitting. Because these safeguards are prerequisites, approval without evidence is speculative and unlawful.

For all of these reasons, the April 2nd, 2026 approval lacks the findings required by ordinance, is unsupported by substantial evidence, and cannot be meaningfully reviewed under detailed law. That makes the decision arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. Accordingly, the petitioners respectfully request that the conditional use permit approval be reversed and vacated. In the alternative, we request remand with instructions to issue findings of legal jurisdiction supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Duchenne County Code and Utah law. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Other kinds of property being proposed for the Natural Gas Power Plant, data center, and related solar power plant do not have any existing oil and gas surface infrastructure. There are several directional wells, but the blue lines here represent lateral underground wellbore paths, not an emissions-producing power plant. What is the point of locals out here being on Moon Lake Electric, a renewable hydropower operation and energy source that is currently under threat due to drought, if we are going to destroy the environment and the waterways that support it anyway?

Commissioner Miles asked if there is anything that you have to share to show where you will suffer damage different in kind than, or an injury distinct from, that of the general community as a result of the land use decision?

Annie said yes, they have suffered because they had to raise $2,000.00 for the appeal.

Speaking on behalf of Diana Meacham Davis is Andrea Glade (Annie). She said: I appear on behalf of the name of Helen Smith, myself, an affected resident and landowner, in support of the appeal and reversal of the conditional use currently granted to Wells Draw Energy LLC for the Wells Draw Solar Power Facility. This appeal concerns whether the