consistent with those purposes. Instead, the findings report relies almost entirely on generalized references to economic development, stating that the General Plan supports economic development and supporting industries to energy development. Utah courts are clear that economic benefit does not substitute for required findings of land use compatibility or mitigation. Without analysis of how this use aligns with the purpose of the A-5 District, the approval is unsupported by any substantial- substantial evidence. Second, the Commission failed to apply the general plan policy protecting wildlife habitat and migration corridors.

The project applicant narrative itself acknowledges that the site lies within the range of bald and golden eagles, western yellow-billed cuckoo, monarch butterflies, and sensitive habitats. The findings nevertheless conclude impacts are negligible because there are no known individuals or habitats immediately within the development footprint on the privately owned land. That reasoning is legally defective. Utah law requires analysis of reasonably anticipated impacts to adjacent and surrounding land, not just the absence of documented, documented sightings. Sorry.

The findings do not evaluate corridor fragmentation, cumulative fencing and lighting impacts, long-term displacement, pollution, or connectivity loss. Migration corridors are defined by landscape function and movement, not by whether a habitat polygon appears on a map, which those polygons are what are reported when there's like a sighting in the area. You can look it up on the GIS data things. But so that's what a habitat polygon is. Third, the findings are legally insufficient with respect to traffic, access, and recreation impacts, particularly regarding Gate Canyon access and portions of Wells Draw Road.

Although Gate Canyon access is labeled an auxiliary route, the Site Access Plan identifies it as a designated route for construction and operations, including use during peak construction involving heavy trucks. Labeling a road secondary does not eliminate the obligation to analyze its actual use and impact. Gate Canyon Access is not an industrial haul road. It is a public access route providing entry to Nine Mile Canyon, a nationally recognized cultural recreational landscape. Yet the findings contain no analysis of road safety, conflicts with recreation, capacity, wear, noise, dust, or what happens when traffic shifts to route- to this route during congestion, emergencies, or maintenance on the primary route.

Under Utah law and the General Plan, these are reasonably anticipated impacts that must be addressed with findings and not avoided through terminology, meaning the county cannot avoid analyzing real-world impacts by labeling them in a way that sounds minor or harmless. Calling something an auxiliary route, secondary route, minimal impact, or no known habitat does not relieve the Planning Commission of its