Stephen E.W. Hale (5285) (shale@parrbrown.

com)
Justin P. Matkin (8847) (jmatkin@parrbrown.com)
Kassidy J. Wallin (14360) (kwallin@parrbrown.com)
Jeremy M. Brodis (16006) (jbrodis@parrbrown.com)
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
Facsimile: (801) 532-7750

Attorneys for Petitioner Tree Farm, LLC

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

TREE FARM, LLC, COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Petitioner,
(Tier 2)
v.

SALT LAKE COUNTY, a political Case No.: _____________________

subdivision of the State of Utah,
Judge: ________________________
Respondent.

Pursuant to Utah Code § 17-27a-801(5), Petitioner Tree Farm, LLC (“Tree Farm” or

“Petitioner”), hereby files this Complaint and Petition for Judicial Review against Respondent Salt

Lake County (the “County”), and petitions for judicial review of the County’s enactment of Salt

Lake County Ordinance No. 1895 (the “Ordinance”), adopted April 12, 2022, and for its claims,

Petitioner alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This case is a facial challenge to the legality of the Ordinance.

 2. This case is necessitated by the County’s decision to initiate and to conduct

proceedings, and then to enact the Ordinance in open violation of applicable state statutes expressly

prohibiting such actions.

3. The Ordinance, while broadly applicable, was directly targeted at Tree Farm and

harms Tree Farm’s property rights and interests.

4. The County Council was on notice that its enactment of the Ordinance was

prohibited by applicable laws, but proceeded to pass it anyway, in flagrant derogation of the rights

of Tree Farm and other property owners in the County.

5. To briefly summarize, state law prohibits a county from “adopt[ing], enact[ing], or

amend[ing] an existing land use regulation, ordinance, or regulation that would prohibit, restrict,

regulate, or otherwise limit critical infrastructure material materials operations,” which is defined

to mean the “extraction, excavation, processing, or reprocessing of” “sand, gravel, or rock

aggregate.” Utah Code §§ 17-41-402(6); id. 17-41-101(6), (7).

6. Indeed, state law forbids the County from even “initiat[ing] proceedings” to change

land use ordinances that would create any limitation on critical infrastructure materials operations.

See Utah Code § 17-41-402(6). But here the County did more than just initiate proceedings—it

went so far as to pass the Ordinance, which on its face flatly prohibits all “mineral extraction and

processing” and “mining” in the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (“FCOZ”).

7. The word “mining” plainly encompasses, at a minimum, the “extraction,”

“excavation,” and/or “processing” of sand, gravel, and rock aggregate—a.k.a. critical

infrastructure materials, and the enactment of the Ordinance thus violates Utah Code section 17-

41-402(6). The Ordinance was thus enacted contrary to state law, and is expressly preempted by

it, and the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Utah Code §§ 17-27a-101, et
2
seq. (“CLUDMA”) provides Tree Farm a right to challenge the Ordinance and to have it declared

invalid. See Utah Code § 17-27a-801(5).

8. The County’s enactment of the Ordinance violated still further provisions of state

law.

9. For example, state law prohibits a county from “chang[ing] . . . a zoning regulation

affecting land within a mining protection area unless the political subdivision receives written

approval for the change from each mine operator within the area.” Utah Code § 17-41-402(5).

10. State law further provides that a county may not “prohibit, restrict, or otherwise

limit a mine operator with a vested mining use from exercising the rights permitted under” chapter

41 of title 17 of the Utah Code. Utah Code § 17-41-402.5(1)(b).

11. The Ordinance was enacted contrary to the foregoing provisions of state law and is

expressly preempted by them. A copy of the Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A and

incorporated herein by reference.

12. As described in more detail herein, the Court should enter a judicial decree and

declaration striking down the Ordinance, declaring that it is of no force or effect, and enjoining the

County and anyone operating in concert therewith from attempting to give the Ordinance any force

or effect.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

13. Petitioner Tree Farm is a limited liability company that conducts business in Salt

Lake County, Utah.

14. Respondent Salt Lake County is a political subdivision of the State of Utah.

15. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Utah Code §§ § 17-27a-

801(5) and Utah Code § 78A-5-102(1).

3
 16. Venue is proper pursuant to Utah Code §§ 78B-3-301, -303(1), and/or -307.

17. Because Tree Farm seeks non-monetary relief, including injunctive and declaratory

relief, this case is pled as Tier 2 under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Tree Farm reserves the

right to amend this designation should later events in this case so warrant.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Tree Farm’s Property

18. Tree Farm owns or has interest in over 1,000 acres of property in Parley’s Canyon

within the Forestry and Recreation Zone (“FCOZ”) (“Tree Farm’s Property” or the “Property”).

19. The FCOZ encompasses approximately 136,000 acres of land within Salt Lake

County which includes approximately 25% of the County’s total land area and nearly all of the

Wasatch Mountains that are located within the County.

20. A declaration has been recorded with the County since 2019, providing record

notice of the fact of the vested mining use as to the Property. See Salt Lake County Entry No.

13131633 (Declaration and Notice of Vested Mining Use); see also Salt Lake County Entry No.

13822822 (Supplemental Declaration and Notice of Vested Mining Use). Copies of the foregoing

Declaration and Supplemental Declaration are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, respectively.

21. On November 12, 2021, Tree Farm submitted to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and

Mining (“DOGM”) notices of intention to commence mining operations on portions of the

Property.

22. DOGM responded with a letter on November 18, 2021 that stated, among other

things, that “[a]s per R647-1-102.3[, s]everal other Agencies require[] actions, which include, but

is [sic] not limited to, a) Conditional Use permit will be required by Salt Lake County . . . .” A

copy of the foregoing letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

4
 23. On December 27, 2021, Salt Lake County denied an application for a business

license that involved portions of the Property.

24. The County’s denial stated, among other things, “Because the property that is the

subject of the business license application does not have a conditional use permit, it is not in

compliance with the Salt Lake County zoning ordinance/requirements of the County.” A copy of

the County’s denial is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

Tree Farm’s Submission to DOGM Causes Salt Lake County to Initiate Proceedings to
Pass a Zoning Ordinance, Purporting to Affect Tree Farm’s Property.

25. Tree Farm’s notices of intention to commence mining operations have been the

subject of significant public comment and discussion, and Salt Lake County political officials have

stepped in to act swiftly to attempt to preempt Tree Farm’s applications and indicated intent.

26. After becoming aware of Tree Farm’s intent to commence mining operations in

Parley’s Canyon, the Salt Lake County Council called a special meeting on Friday morning,

December 10, 2021 to take the following action;

Formal initiation of proceedings to amend ordinance, pursuant to Utah Code Section 17-
27a-508(1)(a)(ii)(B), by submitting proposed amendment to planning commission for
recommendation pursuant to Salt Lake County Code Section 19.90.010. Proposed
ordinance is to amend section 19.12.030 of the Salt Lake County Code to eliminate mineral
extraction and processing as a conditional use and explicitly prohibit the same and similar
uses in the Forestry and Recreation zones; amend section 19.72.190 to eliminate mineral
extraction and processing as a use for which waivers can be granted; amend section
19.76.030 regarding classification of permitting and conditional uses not listed in title 19;
and to enact related regulations.

https://slco.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=913931&GUID=E7AA6C8E-D5C3-4375-
80A5-3E09E9A8FE59&Options=info|&Search=

27. A staff report (the “Staff Report”) distributed to the County Council at a meeting

on April 5, 2022, contains a “Description of the Problem” for which this proposed ordinance was

5
being addressed. A copy of the Staff Report, excluding its attachments, is attached hereto as

Exhibit F.

28. During the several meetings held by the County between December 10, 2021 and

April 12, 2022, much of the discussion considering the Ordinance focused directly on Tree Farm’s

proposed mining operations in Parley’s Canyon.

29. In pertinent part, the Staff Report states: “[T]he recent Notices of Intention to

Commence Small and Large Mining Operations, filed by Tree Farm, LLC with the Utah Division

of Oil, Gas, and Mining for certain property in Parley’s Canyon, raised the question of whether

mineral extraction and processing should continue to be a conditional use . . . .” See Ex. F, at p. 2,

footnote 1.

30. The following statement from Salt Lake County, quoting Salt Lake County Mayor

Jenny Wilson, can be found on its official website, available at this URL:

https://slco.org/news/new-psalt-lake-county-mayor-jenny-wilson-urges-council-to-prohibit-

mining-in-canyons-age/

Ahead of Salt Lake County Council’s scheduled vote on a proposed amendment

that would prohibit mining and mineral extraction in the Wasatch Foothills and
Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ), Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson issued the
following statement:

“I support prohibiting mining and mineral extraction in our Wasatch

Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) and urge the Salt Lake
County Council to support today’s amendment.

Our Wasatch Canyons are vital to County residents’ quality of life,

and we must fight to protect them. Our canyons provide clean
drinking water and mining impacts water quality and harms our air.
We owe it to our children and grandchildren to preserve our canyons
for both recreation enjoyment and the preservation of health.”

6
 31. On April 12, 2022, the County Council met to vote on the final passage of the

Ordinance.

32. Councilmember Theodore abstained from voting on the Ordinance, after bringing

an unsuccessful substitute motion to table consideration of the Ordinance so that further

consideration could be given to its legality.

33. Councilmember Alvord voted no on the Ordinance.

34. Councilmember Theodore observed that individuals who own land that would be

affected by the Ordinance have vested rights, and he referred to a letter to the County’s attorneys,

from Tree Farm’s counsel, explaining why the Ordinance is illegal. Councilmember Alvord

observed that Mr. Bateman was a respected attorney and the former Property Rights Ombudsman

for the State of Utah.

35. Councilmembers Alvord and Theodore expressed concerns about the draft

ordinance being illegal and not sufficiently protecting private property rights.

36. The substitute amendment to table failed, and all other members of the County

Council voted yes on the Ordinance.

37. The Ordinance was “approved and adopted” on April 12, 2022.

38. The complete Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In pertinent part, the

Ordinance adds the following language to section 19.12.030 of the Salt Lake County Code (the

“County Code”): “The following uses are explicitly prohibited in this chapter: mineral extraction

and processing; mining.” See Ex. A, at 1. The Ordinance then strikes out language that previously

made “mineral extraction and processing” a conditional use. See id., at 2-3.

7
 39. The Ordinance further amends Section 19.72.190 of the County Code to remove

the authority, available under the prior version, for the land use authority to waive or modify certain

development standards for “mineral extraction and processing operations.” See id. at 4.

40. Finally, the Ordinance amends Section 19.76.030 of the County Code to declare

that “uses not specifically listed in this title shall be prohibited, unless allowed by” a “process”

whereby a property owner “may submit a written request for the planning and development

division director to interpret the zoning ordinance.”

41. Following passage of the Ordinance, the following statement was issued by Salt

Lake County, quoting Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson, which can be found on the County’s

official website, available at this URL: https://slco.org/news/salt-lake-county-mayor-jenny-

wilson-applauds-councils-vote-to-prohibit-mining-in-canyons/

Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson applauds the Salt Lake County Council’s
vote to prohibit mining and mineral extraction in the Wasatch Foothills and
Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ), which aims to protect public health and safety and
preserve the natural environment of the Wasatch Front.

“Active measures are necessary to protect our canyon environment

and preserve recreation opportunities. Today, Salt Lake County took
an active measure to prohibit future mining in the Wasatch range,”
said Mayor Wilson.

“The amendment supported by the County Council today seeks to

eliminate mining and mineral extraction in the Wasatch Canyons.
Salt Lake County understands the need to preserve our Wasatch
range for residents to enjoy today and in the future. Further, mining
impacts our water and air quality which are vital to the health of our
community,” continued Mayor Wilson.

Tree Farm Now Brings this Facial Challenge to the Ordinance,

As Authorized by CLUDMA

42. Under CLUDMA, Tree Farm is entitled to seek review in this Court challenging

the enactment of the Ordinance. Utah Code § 17-27a-801(5).

8
 43. Under Utah Code section 17-27a-801(5), the Court shall determine, among other

things, whether a “land use regulation is expressly preempted by, or was enacted contrary to, state

or federal law.”

44. Under CLUDMA, “[a] ‘Land use regulation’ (a) means a legislative decision

enacted by ordinance, law, code, map, resolution, specification, fee, or rule that governs the use or

development of land; (b) includes the adoption or amendment of a zoning map or the text of the

zoning code.” Utah Code § 17-27a-103(37).

45. The Ordinance is thus a “land use regulation” under CLUDMA.

46. For the reasons that follow, the Ordinance is expressly preempted by, and was

enacted contrary to, state law, including Utah Code sections 17-41-402 and/or 17-41-402.5.

State Law Prohibits County Regulation of Critical Infrastructure Materials Operations

47. Under Utah Code 17-41-402(6), “[a] county . . . may not: (a) adopt, enact, or amend

an existing land use regulation, ordinance, or regulation that would prohibit, restrict, regulate, or

otherwise limit critical infrastructure materials operations, including vested critical infrastructure

materials operations as defined in Section 10-9a-901 or 17-27a-1001; or (b) initiate proceedings

to amend the county’s . . . land use ordinances as described in Subsection . . . 17-27a-508(1)(a)(ii).”

48. “As used in [Chapter 41 of Title 17,] . . . ‘Critical infrastructure materials

operations’ means the extraction, excavation, processing, or reprocessing of critical infrastructure

materials[,]” Utah Code § 17-41-101(7), and “‘Critical infrastructure materials’ means sand,

gravel, or rock aggregate.” Id. § 17-41-101(6)

The Ordinance Was Enacted Contrary to, and Is Preempted by, Utah Code § 17-41-402(6)

49. The County initiated proceedings to prohibit “quarry; gravel pit [uses]; including

crushers or concrete batching plants used in connection with and as part of an operation for the
9
removal of sand, gravel and/or rock aggregate.” At a minimum, the County held meetings to

discuss a proposed ordinance that would ban these things. This is in clear violation of Utah Code

§ 17-41-402(6), which expressly prohibits a county from “initiat[ing] proceedings” of this nature.

These actions by the County reveal a clear intent to ban critical infrastructure materials operations.

50. Beyond just initiating proceedings, the text of the Ordinance that the County

enacted carries through that intent: it flatly prohibits, without any exception or carveout, all

“mining,” which is a term that on its face encompasses all critical infrastructure materials

operations.

51. As used in the Ordinance, the word “mining” includes a prohibition on the

extraction or excavation of sand, gravel, and rock aggregate, i.e., critical infrastructure materials.

52. Some non-exclusive examples of the word “mining” being used in Salt Lake

County’s own code, to encompass sand, gravel, and rock aggregate operations, include those found

in the sections cited in the following three paragraphs.

53. SL County Code 15.08.020 states: “Subsection[] 6 . . . of Section K1.3.2 of the

International Building Code [is] amended to read as follows . . . . 6. Mining, quarrying, excavating,

processing stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate, or clay where controlled by other

regulations, provided such operations do not affect the lateral support of or significantly increase

the stresses in, soil on adjoining properties, but does not include roads for access purposes when

located in the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone, FR, FA, FM or CV zones.” (Emphases added.)

54. SL County Code 5.14.010 states: “For the purpose of this chapter, ‘excavation’

refers to any type of mining operation where material is removed from the earth, including

but not limited to the removal of clay, soil, granite, flagstone, slate, shale, limestone, sandstone,

sand or gravel by excavating, stripping, leveling or any other process.” (Emphases added.)
10
 55. SL County Code 9.25.150 refers to “Mine; quarry; gravel pit; mining operations;

including crushers, concrete batching plants, asphalt plant or any type of oil or asphalt emulsion

mixing operation.”

56. Utah caselaw similarly has used the word “mining” in a word that encompasses the

extraction or excavation of sand, gravel, or rock aggregate. See, e.g., Rocky Mountain Power Inc.

v. Marriott, 2018 UT App 221, ¶ 26, 437 P.3d 653 (using the phrase “mining sand and gravel

aggregate”).

57. Because it prohibits, restricts, regulates, or otherwise limits critical infrastructure

materials operations, the Ordinance was enacted contrary to 17-41-402(6).

State Law Prohibits Any Change of a Zoning Regulation Affecting Land Within a Mining
Protection Area Without Written Consent of Each Mine Operator

58. Utah Code section 17-41-402 provides that “[a] political subdivision may not

change the zoning designation of or a zoning regulation affecting land within a mining protection

area unless the political subdivision receives written approval for the change from each mine

operator within the area.”

59. A political subdivision is defined to include a county. Utah Code § 17-41-101(22)

(“As used in this chapter . . . ‘Political subdivision’ means a county, city, town, school district,

local district, or special service district.”).

60. A mining protection area is “land where a vested mining use occurs, including each

surface or subsurface land or mineral estate that a mine operator with a vested mining use owns or

controls.” Utah Code § 17-41-101(15).

11
 61. A “[v]ested mining use” means “a mining use: (a) by a mine operator; and (b) that

existed or was conducted or otherwise engaged in before a political subdivision prohibits, restricts,

or otherwise limits a mining use.” Utah Code § 17-41-101(26).

62. A “mining use” includes “the full range of activities, from prospecting and

exploration to reclamation and closure, associated with the exploitation of a mineral deposit.” Utah

Code § 17-41-101 (16).

63. A “mine operator” means “a natural person, corporation, association, partnership,

receiver, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, fiduciary, agent, or other organization or

representative, either public or private, including a successor, assign, affiliate, subsidiary, and

related parent company, that, as of January 1, 2019: (a) owns, controls, or manages a mining use

under a large mine permit issued by the division or the board; and (b) has produced commercial

quantities of a mineral deposit from the mining use.” Utah Code § 17-41-101(13).

64. If a mining use commences prior to a county enacting zoning restrictions or

limitations on mining, the mining use is “conclusively presumed” to be a “vested mining use.”

Utah Code § 17-41-501(1)(a).

65. A vested mining use applies to “any surface or subsurface land or mineral estate”

that the party holding the vested mining use owns or controls, id. § 17-41-502(1)(a) and the vested

mining use “runs with the land.” Id. § 17-41-501(2)(a).

66. The Ordinance affects land within mining protection areas. However, on

information and belief, the County did not receive written approval from the mine operator(s)

within those mining protection areas.

67. The Ordinance was thus enacted contrary to, and is expressly preempted by, Utah

Code section 17-41-402(5).

12
 State Law Forbids a County from Prohibiting, Restricting, or Otherwise Limiting a Mine
Operator from Exercising the Rights Permitted by Statute

68. Under Utah Code section 17-41-502(1), “the rights of a mine operator with a vested

mining use include the rights to”:

(a) progress, extend, enlarge, grow, or expand the vested mining use to any surface or
subsurface land or mineral estate that the mine operator owns or controls;
(b) expand the vested mining use to any new land that:
(i) is contiguous and related in mineralization to surface or subsurface land or a
mineral estate that the mine operator already owns or controls;
(ii) contains minerals that are part of the same mineral trend as the minerals that the
mine operator already owns or controls; or
(iii) is a geologic offshoot to surface or subsurface land or a mineral estate that the
mine operator already owns or controls;
(c) use, operate, construct, reconstruct, restore, extend, expand, maintain, repair, alter,
substitute, modernize, upgrade, and replace equipment, processes, facilities, and buildings
on any surface or subsurface land or mineral estate that the mine operator owns or controls;
(d) increase production or volume, alter the method of mining or processing, and mine or
process a different or additional mineral than previously mined or owned on any surface or
subsurface land or mineral estate that the mine operator owns or controls; and
(e) discontinue, suspend, terminate, deactivate, or continue and reactivate, temporarily or
permanently, all or any part of the mining use.
The Ordinance Purports to Limit Numerous Mine Operators from Exercising the Rights
Permitted to Them by Statute

69. The text of the Ordinance purports to eliminate “mineral extraction and processing”

as a conditional use, and to make it a prohibited use.

70. The Ordinance further flatly prohibits, without any exception whatsoever, any

“mining.”

71. In fact, one of the enumerated purposes of the Ordinance was “to eliminate mineral

extraction and processing as a use for which waivers can be granted.”

13
 72. The foregoing prohibitions directly conflict with, and thus purport to prohibit,

restrict, or otherwise limit, Tree Farm, and all other mine operators in the area, from exercising

their rights as mine operators with vested mining uses.

73. The Ordinance is thus expressly preempted by, and/or was enacted contrary to Utah

Code 17-41-402.5.

Tree Farm Has Suffered, and Will Continue to Suffer, Distinct and Palpable, and
Irreparable, Harm from the Illegally Enacted Ordinance

74. Tree Farm anticipates that other governmental entities use the Ordinance as grounds

to imminently deny Tree Farm’s applications to commence mining operations.

75. Tree Farm is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the County will

imminently deny Tree Farm a business license to conduct operations, based upon the Ordinance

and any other application to conduct mining operations on its fee owned lands within the FCOZ.

76. Tree Farm, the party whose notice to commence mining operations spawned this

very Ordinance, has a right to have the legality of the Ordinance reviewed by this Court.

77. Tree Farm is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief striking down the

Ordinance.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Relief – Utah Code §§ 17-27a-801 and 78B-6-401)

78. Tree Farm incorporates the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.

79. Tree Farm petitions this Court for a judicial decree and declaration striking down

and declaring invalid the Ordinance, because the Ordinance is expressly preempted by, and/or was

enacted contrary to, state law, including Utah Code sections 41-17-402 and 41-17-402.5.

14
 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Permanent Injunction – Utah Code § 17-27a-802(1)(a) and Utah R. Civ. P. 65A)

80. Tree Farm incorporates the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.

81. Due to the significant encroachment, targeted illegal overreach, and interference

with vested property rights posed by the County’s conduct, Tree Farm will suffer immediate and

irreparable injury such that monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy.

82. Tree Farm has no adequate remedy at law and, therefore, is entitled to an order from

this Court immediately, preliminarily, and permanently enjoining the County, and its agents,

servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from

allowing the Ordinance to be treated as though it has any force or effect.

83. The threatened injury to Tree Farm outweighs any damage such an order or

injunction may cause to the County or any party so restrained or enjoined.

84. The requested injunctive relief would not be adverse to the public interest.

85. There is a substantial likelihood that Tree Farm will prevail on its claims herein,

and/or such claims present serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further

litigation.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Tree Farm demands judgment against the County as follows:

1. Pursuant to Utah Code §§ 17-27a-801(5) and 78B-6-401, et seq., for a judicial

decree and declaration striking down and declaring invalid the Ordinance, because the Ordinance

is expressly preempted by, and/or was enacted contrary to, state law, including Utah Code sections

41-17-402 and 41-17-402.5;

15
 2. Pursuant to Utah Code § 17-27a-802(1)(a), for a preliminary and/or permanent

injunction directing the County and all those according in concert therewith that the Ordinance is

to be given no force or effect;

3. For a judgment awarding Tree Farm its costs of suit, including reasonable

attorneys’ fees, under applicable statutes, rules, and common law; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2022.

PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.

/s/ Justin P. Matkin

Stephen E.W. Hale
Justin P. Matkin
Kassidy J. Wallin
Jeremy M. Brodis

Attorneys for Petitioner

Petitioner’s Address:
2121 South 3600 West, Suite B
Salt Lake City, UT 84119

4891-8076-7518 v7

16
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
 Department of Natural Resources
Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

BRIAN C. STEED
State of Utah Executive Director

JOHN R. BAZA
SPENCER J. COX Division Director
Governor

DEIDRE M. HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

November 18, 2021

Jesse Lassley
Tree Farm LLC
PO Box 711820
Salt Lake City, UT 84171

Subject: Initial Review Notice of Intention to Commence Small Mining Operations, Tree
Farm LLC, Silver Mine, S/035/0053, Task ID# 10570, Salt Lake County, Utah

Dear Mr. Lassley:

The referenced Notice of Intention to Commence Small Mining Operations (Notice), received by
the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining November 12, 2021, is incomplete. The following
information is required:

1. Page 4, III Operation Plan, 2.4. - As noted in the submitted document, “precious
metals” are noted. Please provide more information about the nature,
characteristics and the intention of the Operator related to the mining of the
precious metals, specifically the silver and associated minerals of silver mining.
Please refer to deleterious material R647-3-107.4.
2. Page 4, III Operation Plan, 5. – As noted, in the submitted document, “blasting,
crushing, screen and hauling” will be done on the 20 acres site. Please include a
list of equipment that will be onsite, for the mining. This is needed to establish
the bond. It is assumed the equipment will be changed out as the working area
progress towards 20 acres. The bond submitted for the LMO can be used as a
guide, but it is to be assumed at the 20 acres SMO stage there will be less
equipment than at 411 acres for the LMO.
3. As per R647-1-102.3. Several other Agencies require actions, which include, but
is not limited to, a) Conditional Use permit will be required by Salt Lake County
b) Cultural Resources Survey (submitted to OGM on November 12, 2021) needs
to be processed by OGM and State History Office and c) Blasting needs to be
coordinated with Utah Highway Patrol and UDOT.

Please submit your reply by January 17, 2022 in the form of replacement pages for the NOI
using form MR-REV-SMO/EXP which can be downloaded at
www.ogm.utah.gov/minerals/MINERALFORMS.

The reclamation surety amount for the project cannot be calculated, as additional information is
needed regarding the mining equipment needed in a bedrock operation.
Page 2 of 2
Jesse Lassley
S/035/0053
November 18, 2021

The Division’s web page at http://ogm.utah.gov under the Minerals Program has a link to the
rules under which you are expected to operate and to other information to assist you in
complying with program requirements. Thank you for your cooperation. In reply, please refer to
file number S/035/0053. Please contact Leslie Heppler at 801-538-5257 if you have questions or
concerns regarding this permitting action.

Sincerely,

John Rogers
Environmental Manager

JR:lah:jb
cc: jesse@L4development.com kwallin@parrbrown.com GBaptist@msd.utah.gov, LMcClenning@msd.utah.gov ScottBaird@SLCO.org
lheppler@utah.gov
P:\GROUPS\MINERALS\WP\M035-SaltLake\S0350053-SilverMine\final\REV1-10570-11152021.docx

1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210 • PO Box 145801 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801 • Telephone (801) 538-5340 • www.ogm.utah.gov
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
 Planning & Development Services

File # OAM2021-000494

Ordinance Amendment
Related to Mineral Extraction and Processing
in the Forestry and Recreation zone
Public Body Salt Lake County Council
Meeting Date April 5, 2022
Proposal An Ordinance amending Section 19.12.030 of the Salt Lake County Code to
eliminate mineral extraction and processing as a conditional use and explicitly
prohibiting the same in the Forestry and Recreation zones; amending Section
19.72.190 to eliminate mineral extraction and processing as a use for which
waivers can be granted; amending section 19.76.030 regarding classification of
permitted and conditional uses not listed in title 19; and enacting related
regulations.

Planner Melissa Anderson

Recommendation Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as proposed

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

The County has recently been engaged in the process of assessing and considering amendments to the Forestry
and Recreation (FR) zone in unincorporated Salt Lake County (and related ordinances). In that context, the recent
Notices of Intention to Commence Small and Large Mining Operations, filed by Tree Farm, LLC with the Utah
Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining for certain property in Parley’s Canyon, raised the question of whether mineral
extraction and processing should continue to be a conditional use in the Forestry and Recreation (FR) zone in the
unincorporated Salt Lake County. On December 10, 2021, the Salt Lake County Council (Council) voted to formally
initiate proceedings to amend certain sections of the Salt Lake County Code to:
A. Eliminate mineral extraction and processing as a conditional use and explicitly prohibit the same in the
FR zone,
B. Eliminate mineral extraction and processing as a use for which waivers can be granted in the Foothills and
Canyon Overlay Zone (FCOZ), and
C. Provide clarification regarding how permitted and conditional uses are classified.
The purpose of these changes is to eliminate mineral extraction and processing as a conditional use in the FR zone,
and to eliminate acknowledgement of this use within FCOZ boundaries. These changes would not apply to
property within the FR zone that currently has approved, permitted, and operational mineral
extraction/processing and similar uses.

Greater Salt Lake Municipal Services District

2001 S. State Street #N3-600 • Salt Lake City, UT 84190 • (385) 468-6700
Proposal: Ordinance Amendment File #: OAM2021-000494

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE

The proposed ordinance is included as Attachment #1. It is proposed that three different sections of the Salt Lake
County Code be amended. First, it is proposed that section 19.12.030 be amended to eliminate mineral extraction
and processing as a conditional use, and to explicitly prohibit the same in the FR zone. 1
In the event an applicant attempts to argue that Salt Lake County has not explicitly prohibited a particular use not
mentioned in the above list, it is proposed that section 19.76.030 be amended to provide that any uses not listed
are prohibited unless there is an administrative determination that a proposed use has the same character as an
existing permitted or conditional use in the zone.
Finally, it is proposed that section 19.72.190 of FCOZ be amended to eliminate acknowledgement of the possibility
of mineral extraction and processing within FCOZ boundaries.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT

Public notice was provided in accordance with Utah Code 17-27a-205. Public notice was mailed to affected entities
on January 13, 2022. Notice was also posted in three public locations and on the Utah Public Notice Website at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing. In addition, Salt Lake County Community Councils were notified of the
proposed ordinance on December 17, 2021. The notice explained how the Community Councils may submit
comments on the matter and how they can provide comments at the Planning Commission meeting. See
Attachment #2 for public notice information.
Public comments received as of writing this report are included as Attachment #4 for the Council’s review and
consideration. The more than 1,000 comments that have been received are overwhelmingly in favor of the
proposed ordinance.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

The Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3, 2022, and the Salt
Lake County Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2022, regarding the proposed ordinance.
Both Planning Commissions recommended the Salt Lake County Council adopt the ordinance as proposed.
The Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance with the
following findings (see Attachment 3):
• Mineral extraction is incompatible with the stated purposes of the Forestry and Recreation zone and the
Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone.
• Adverse effects of mineral extraction in the Forestry and Recreation zone would include:
o An increase in air and dust pollution
o An increase in noise pollution
o A threat to protected watersheds
o Depletion of water supply
o An increase in wildfire risk
o An increased risk of avalanches and rockslides

1
The proposed ordinance formally initiated by the Council included a prohibition of “quarry; gravel pit; including crushers or
concrete batching plants used in connection with and as a part of an operation for the removal of sand, gravel and/or rock
aggregate.” However, upon closer review, staff recommends that such language is not necessary in light of existing case law.

Page 2 of 3
Proposal: Ordinance Amendment File #: OAM2021-000494

o An increase in traffic
o Loss of wildlife habitat
o Destruction of the landscape and ecology
• Other areas of Salt Lake County permit gravel pits, quarries, and mines.
• The proposed ordinance changes are consistent with the following goals and strategies from the Wasatch
General Plan:
o Review and update County Ordinances, as needed, to further implement the vision, goals, and strategies
of the General Plan.
o Ensure the management of watersheds in the Wasatch Canyons to protect water quality and quantity.
o Maintain and increase the conservation of natural lands that protect ecosystems and watersheds and
provide recreational opportunities.

OPTION FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL

The Council has three options with respect to the proposed ordinance amendment:
Option 1: Approve the ordinance as proposed; or
Option 2: Approve the ordinance with an amendment; or
Option 3: Deny the ordinance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Salt Lake County Council approve the ordinance as proposed.

ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Public Notice Information
3. Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation to Council
4. Draft Minutes for Mountainous Planning District Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 3, 2022
5. Draft Minutes for Salt Lake County Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 16, 2022
6. Public Comments

Page 3 of 3