Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.21.2007Exhibits for Public Hearing on 05/2112007 (BOCC) REQUEST APPLICANT I OWNER LOCATION WATER/SEWER EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING PARCELNO. BOCC 6/04/2007 CR Brynildson Special Use Permit Project Information and Staff Comments Special Use Permit to allow "Processing, Storage, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" Scottand Linda Brynildson County Road 315, Southeast of Rifle, CO 328.48 acres/proposed facility site 11 .68 acres ff' ,. ... N/A Light fndu~tria(~Fl~D;Airport, Airport PUD ARRD 217919100511 I I l ' BOCC 6/04/2007 CR 1. REQUEST The Applicant requests that the Board of County Commissioners (the BOCC) approve a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" on a property owned by Scott and Linda Brynildson. The subject property is located southeast of therCity of Hille, Colorado, on County Road 315. Specifaclly, the requested Speciai.Use Permit will allow construction of a water treatment facility within the Agriculturai/Residehtiai/RuraiDel)sity (ARRD) Zone District. The proposed facility consists of a 205,287,barrel.dual lined containment pond, three (3) storage tanks (initial treatment and hydro-carbon storage), processing facility, and an electrical pump (enclosed). Project;Description The pr?posed water storage facility will be used to store flowback and produced water from'AI)tero's natural gas operations in the area.' The drilling of natural gas wells require large volumes of water to stimulate production. Once COr!)pleted the operation is left with large ~mounts of contaminated water that must be dispossed of or recycled. Water will be transported to the proposed facilityt:>ytank~r.trucks, The facility will utilize an electric pump to transfer the contaminated water into storage tal)ks where it will be initially treated. The water will then be placed in the pr0 pgsedsforage pond and reused in drilling operations, Hydro carbonsremoved from the water \Nill'bestored on-site and transported by tankE:Jr trucks to appropriate dispo$sal facilities. The proposed facility will be required to obtain ~Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility Permit from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2. SITE INFORMATION The proposed facility is situated above qountyRoad 315 on an approximatly 328 acre parcel. The footprint of the proposed facility will be 11.68 acres. Containment Pond . The proposed containment pond will have a. storage capacity of 205,287 barrels. The pond is desinged to maintain two (21--'-";_:_;;,..;;.;_.;.;..::..=.;;.;;;.;-"-'::..:....;..;;;.;;...~c.::.;:.;..;.L.;..' ..:.ln:..:.....:o.;..rd;;;.e:;.;r-..:t.:.o.J:..:.r-"-e"-ve"'n""t-----, ground water contamination the __ •~: .. -+---_ •r .. -, proposed pond will be ' constructed with two (2) ,., .,,, ., ,,. I FOOCAA•tn polypropylene liners and an *i'1.':~.~· internal leak dectection and ~"""' recovery system. The leak dectection system (Facility Diagram Drawing Number 100- CE-111) will be constructed between the primary and secondary liners. tili!'.t"iJli€- {Stt~ u~<~} J"W (lM'Ii (SOl~, S!IR 17) W~llil1'£-, (FR!!M~I ll!li~) '\ BOCC 6/04/2007 CR Three Storage Tanks and Processing Area Three storage tanks will be utilized for initial water treatment and storage of collected hydro carbons removed from the produced water on-site. Electric Pump The facility will utilize an .electric pump enclosed within a 1 0' X 1 0' building to transfer water on-site. 3. REFERRALS Staff referred the application to the following review agencies and/or County Departments: City of Rifle: Exhibit H Tovvn:of SHf: No Comments Received Garfield C()I;Jnty Road and Bridge: Exhibit F Garfield CoUnty Vegetation Management: Exhibi(G Garfield County Oil and Gas Auditor: No issues .identified Mountain Cross Engineering: Exhibit J · · Rifle Fire Prbtection District: No Comments Received Bureau of Land !Management: No Comments Received . Garfield County Environmental Health: Exhibit I Garfield County Airport:.No Comments Received Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Comments Received 4. REVIEW STANDARDS Section 5.03 Review Standards Utilities adequate to provide waterand sa~:Jitation service.based on accepted engineering standards and approved by t!Je Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in ccmjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding This facility will be a transient operation and will not accommdate fulltime on-site employees. Water and sanitation services will not be required at this facility. As recommended by Garfield County Environmental Health, Staff suggests the Board require a portable toilet facility for the comfort of the personnel on-site. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in · place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding Access to the proposed facility will be from County Road 315. County Road 315 is designated as a preferred haul route. The proposed facility will generate a maximum of 3 BOCC 6/04/2007 CR 132 daily trips (66 roundtrips) on weekdays. The application included a traffic analysis conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. This analysis included the following intersections. • Westbound I-70Hamp and State Highway 13 • Eastbound 1"70:Rampand State Highway 13 • Westbound I-70Ramp and County Road 315 • Eastbound I-70FJamp and County Road 315 • County Road 315 and Airport Road • County Road 315 and County Road 352 It is represented by this analysis that the traffic generated by the proposed use can be incorporaiE;)d into the existing roadway networkwithout any necessary improvements. This application was referred to Garfield County Road ancl Bridge Department (Road and Bridge). ROad and Bridge has issued a new drivewayacc::.ess permit for the proposed facility:with conditions. It is recommended by fload a.nd Ji3[idge that all trucks hauling water from Antero's drilling activities on County.Road 346vvhichis not part of the preferred haulroute .systems be required to utilize •J-70M~rnm Creek Interchange to access County Road 315. Staff recommends that the Bo<ud as acondition of approval require Antero Res()urces to be the.Applicant for a State pjighway Access permit if deemed necessary'bY Colorado Department of Transportation at any time during the operation of this facility; Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize .. ilnpact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen .fences or lanqscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as toprptect establi$hed neighborhood character; Staff Finding Adjacent parcels to the subject property include three (3) residential uses, Light Industrial and Oil and Gas activities. The nearest residence to the proposed facility is located approximatly 1 ,400 feet to the north at a significantly lower elevation. Two(2) additional residental units on adjacent parcels are located northwest of the proposed facilty (approximatly 2,500 and 2,700 feet from the proposed facility). The site plan for the. proposed facility represents two (2) earthen berms for further visual mitigation. Vegatative screening is not included as part of the application but may be required by the Board, All lighting associated with this use shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties. 4 BOCC 6/04/2007 CR Section 5.03.07 Industrial Operation The applicant for a permit .for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Directorten(10)copies of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation .of its operat!onalcharacteristics. One (1) copy of the impact statement shall be filed with the County Commissioners by the Planning Director. The impact statement shall address the following: ExistingJawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream .flow,or ground. water; Staff Finding The proposed facility will be constructed as a "nodischargefacility". The containment pond will be.constructed to maintain two (2) feet of freeboard to mitigate the risk of surface discharge. The facilities leak dection system 11\fillbemonitored weekly to insure the protection of the area's ground water. Two (2) ground water montoring wells will be installed down gradient from the proposed facility. Impacts on adjacent /andtromthe.generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; Staff Finding Storage of produced water will generate emanations suchasvapor. As explained to Staff by the Applicant's representative (Wagon Wheel Consulting) during a site visit, Antero treats produced water with Anlyote priorto transport to aid in neutralizing water stored on- site. Sound measurements taken at an existing facility similar to the proposed Brynildson Water Storage Facility were taken by Wagon Wheel Consulting. The measurements taken demonstrate the ability to comply with Colorado Noise Statute. Measurements provided for location one (1) demonstrate brief non-compliance with the standards identified for the existing adjacent uses. However, Title 25-12-1 03 (2) of the Colorado State Statute allows for an increase by ten db(A) for a period not to exceed fifteen minutes in any one-hour period. The facility will be required to comply Colorado State Statute regarding noise at all times. Zone 7amto 7pm 7pmto 7am Residential 55d8(AJ 50dfH_AJ Commercial 60dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 70dB(A) 65d8( AJ Industrial BOdB(A) 75d8( A) 5 BOCC 6/04/2007 CR Lastly, glare will be created from the proposed containment pond which may or may not have any additional visual impact on aircraft trajectories used by aircraft using the County Airport. This issue was not addressed by the Applicant. Staff referred this application to Garfield County Airport Manager who provided no comments. [mpacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration ofexisting native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; Staff Finding The application included a Wildlife Impact Report conducted by WestWater Engineering. The report identified an existing raptor nest approximatly 700 feet from the proposed facility.· The:. existing nestis not currently active and the species of raptor that may have occupied,the·nest is unknown. The Report identifies Cooper's Hawk and the Long-eared Owl a!;) potential past inhabitants. The proposed containment pond and storage tanks Will be encompassed by perimeter fencing to reduce the potential of contact by wildlife,., The permimeter fencing is not identified in the application. Previous applications have included proposals for six-foot foot chain link (wildlife-proof) fencing. · A migratory bird and water fowl mitigation plall provided irfthe application identifies a crossed wiring system with flags. The Applicant should be. aware that death of any migratory bird caused by the propossed facility is a violation of State and Federal law. Any deaths of migratory birds or otherwildlife attributable to this facility must be reported to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff recomends that the Board require revegetation of the proposed facility with native vegetation after construction . Native vegetation should also be.required during reclamation. All seed mixes shall be approved.by Garfield County Vegetation Management. Staff finds that the Wildlife Impact Report conducted by WestWater Engineering, represents that the proposed use will not block area migration routes. Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County; Staff Finding The application and traffic analysis represents a total of 132 daily trips (66 daily round trips) generated by this use. The proposed facility will be accessed via an identified preferred haul route. The traffic analysis concludes that the proposed facility will not require improvements to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use. 6 BOCC 6/04/2007 CR It is recommended that the Board require all traffic traveling to the proposed site from Antero's operations west of County Road 346 exit to the east and utilize 1-70 to access County Road 315 via the Mamm Creek Interchange. This will reduce impacts on County Roads not constructed to heavy haul standards. That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); Staff Finding The nearest residence to the proposed use is situated approximatly 1.400 feet away and at a signifiicantly lower elevation. The Applicant has attempted to provide visual mitigation for the two (2) other adjacent residential uses located north of the proposed facility by constructing an earthen berm. t Residential 2,500 ft f-~., ~ LI L! • i ~- ----1 ' Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: 1) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; 2) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site 7 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: April 19, 2007 Comments Due: May 18, 2007 Name of application: Brynildson Water Storage Facility Sent to: Garfield Countv Road & Bridge Dept. Garfield County requests your conunent in review of this project. Please notifY the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written conunents may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: Craig Richardson 109 81h Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Conunents: Garfield Countv Road & Bridge Department has no objection to this application with the following conunents. A new driveway access permit has been issued for the existing road leading to the proposed facility with conditions specific to the driveway access. The driveway will be 1 00-foot in width with a paved apron 1 00-foot in width extending into the driveway 20- feet and will be a minimum of 4-inches in depth. A stop sign will also be required. The stop sign and installation shall be as required in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). As Cr. 315 is part of the preferred haul route system and has been built to heavy haul road standards the increase in traffic flow will not be an issue. To eliminate any dust problems the road to the facility leaving Cr. 315 should have a dust control agent applied and kept in a dust free condition as much as possible. The portion of Cr. 346 west of Antero's drilling activities to Cr. 315 is not part of the · preferred haul route system. All trucks hauling water from these well sites should exit to the east to I-70 and back to the Marnm Creek Interchange on I-70 to access Cr. 315. All trucks hauling water to the facility shall abide by the posted weight limits on Cr. 315. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date May l, 2007 Revised 3/30/00 EXHIBIT j 6 MEMORANDUM To: Craig Richardson From: Steve Anthony Re: Antero/Brynildson Water Storage Facility Date: May 18, 2007 The Reclamation and Weed Management Plan is acceptable. Craig Richardson From: Fred Jarman Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:49 AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: FW: Antero Brynildson Water App From: Bill Sappington [mailto:bsappington@rifleco.org] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:31 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Michael Erion; JSN@Iklawfirm.com Subject: Antero Brynildson Water App Fred, I would like to comment on the Brynildson Antero water facility. That application is also subject to Rille's watershed permit process. We have requested more information and are processing the same application from a watershed standpoint. I request that if the County grants approval of the permit that the City of Rille watershed process and permit be included as part of Garee's approval. Thanks, Bill Bill Sappington, P. E. Public Works Director City of Rille, CO PO Box 1908 Rille, CO 81650 bsappington@ rilleco.org work 970-625-6223 5/29/2007 Craig Richardson From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim Rada Monday, May 14, 2007 4:58PM Craig Richardson Brynildson Water Storage Facility SUP application Attachments: Jim Rada. vcf Craig, Regarding the above referenced application: Page 1 of2 EXHIBIT I •.r I· . •. · .. ·.· 1. Although the impact statement indicates that no sanitation utilities will be required. I suggest that there at least be portable toilet facilities for drivers and other personnel that are working on site. 2. The SUP application indicates that this is Agricultural/oil and gas production as the land use. Is this the zoning? This makes a difference in terms of the noise limits. Agricultural limits are the same as residential and for oil and gas operations this means 50 decibels daytime and 45 decibels night time levels. The impact statement only addresses noise from the electric pumps and indicates that the facility will be able to maintain the sound levels below 75 decibels as required. This is an issue that needs to be clarified. In addition, there is no mention made of noise from trucks that will be operating at the facility 24 hours a day. There is a great likelihood that truck noise will be a much bigger issue than the facility noise. Although I realize that there will be berms surrounding this facility, I recommend that there be some study of this issue to determine how effective the berms will be in containing the sound particularly in the dead of night. 3. The impact statement indicates that there should be no fume or vapor issues due to the facility being at least one-half mile to the nearest residence. I am aware of at least one house along Mamm Creek roughly one-quarter mile NNE of this location. This produced water is very smelly. I have a concern that VOCs and other odor issues tend to settle into low-lying areas during calm summer evenings and during winter inversion periods. Although this may not create a health risk, it could create a nuisance issue for the neighbors. 4. The impact statement indicates that there will be no emissions of smoke or particulate matter at this site. There will be dust and diesel emissions created at this site both during construction and during operation. As you know there are already complaints coming in regarding dust during the initial site grading activities. I recommend that Antero be required to submit a dust mitigation plan as a condition of the SUP for both construction and operation of the facility operations. I believe this could be an opportunity to also work a no idling policy into the operating plan to limit diesel emissions. 5. I contacted the CDPHE APCD regarding possible air emission permitting requirements for a facility like this. According to Scott Patefield at APCD, there is an exemption for land disturbance activities if the source is disturbing less than 25 acres and lasts less than six months in duration. However, if the source does not meet both of these scenarios, a construction permit may be required depending on the emissions calculations taking into account the acreage of disturbed land. At 8 million gallons, they will likely be subject to APEN reporting requirements, and depending on VOC content of the brine, could very well be subject to emission permitting requirements. I also confirmed with Jen Mattox of the APCD that Exxon/Mobil has a similar facility in Rio Blanco County planned for construction that has already obtained emission permits from the APCD. So, I believe that Antero should be required to file all necessary permit applications and receive any required construction permits before construction begins and obtain emission permits before operation begins. 6. Although the applicant apparently has until 6 months after construction is complete to submit the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan for this facility, if it is within the authority of the County to require such a plan upon completion or prior to operation of the facility I would strongly encourage it. There will be dozens of trucks entering and leaving this facility each day as well as millions of gallons of fluids stored on site. I believe it is prudent for a well conceived plan to be in place and for emergency authorities to be prepared from day one of operations. That plan should also deal with containment and countermeasures on the access roads to plan as best as possible to keep spills from reaching the creek. also believe that they should be doing the necessary planning for spill containment during construction as they will be moving significant quantities of fuel along the roads and on site to run equipment during construction. 5/14/2007 Page 2 of2 7. I assume that the Emergency Manager is also reviewing this proposal. If not he should be. There are significant needs for emergency planning and access to emergency vehicles and personnel. 8. Has there been any evaluation of the Mamm Creek crossing to assure that it is adequate to handle the weight of full tankers and that approaches are adequately designed to prevent trucks from falling/sliding off into the creek? I went to the site you posted and that creek crossing bridge looks very questionable in terms of structural capacity as well as width. There are also some very sharp hairpin curves on that road. There is potential for inexperienced and/or inattentive drives to create a large scale incident. Jim Rada, REHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 970-625-5200 x8113 Cell 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada@garfield-county.com Web www.garfield-county.com 5/14/2007 May 18,2007 MOUNT!\IN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CiVIl AND ENVIRONMENTAl CONSUlTING AND DESIGN Mr. Craig Richardson Garfield County Planning I 08 8'h Street, Suite 40 I Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I RE: Special Use Permit Application for Brynildson Water Storage Facility Dear Craig: A review has been performed of the documents for the Special Use Permit application for the Bryniidson Water Storage Facility. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: I. Annual precipitation on the Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility Permit from the State of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is very low. Annual precipitation reported by the rifle weather station totals closer to twelve inches. 2. It is not clear whether or not any employees will be required to staff the facility. Some provisions for sewer and water should be considered for the comfort of employees if there are to be employees regularly at the facility. 3. The water being stored will be subject to evaporative losses and I 00% consumptive use. No information was provided on the water rights and/or augmentation plan verifying that ponding and evaporation are approved uses for the water. 4. The size of the gravel on Detail 5 of the pond construction drawings is not specified clearly. 5. The sensitivity of the PVC liner to UV degradation is not discussed. Generally these liners are sensitive to UV sunlight and the integrity degrades over time. Some provisions should be considered to protect the liner. 6. No provisions were included or discussed for the future reclamation of the project. 7. The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan was proposed to be submitted after the site has been constructed. At a minimum, a condition of approval should be included that this plan is submitted after construction. 8. The noise level study compares the levels recorded at a less used facility to what is expected to be a more largely used facility. Perhaps a more comparable location could be investigated or the noise levels could be CotTelated to the increased use expected. 9. No attachment was included that detailed the Water Fowl Mitigation method. Feel free to call if you have any questions or if any of the above needs further clarification. Sincerely, Mountain tross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE I \""·,. etl:::< . ' 0 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com 2007 BOCC 6/04/2007 CR 1978, as amended. 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit request to allow "F'rocessing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" on a property owned by Scott and Linda Brynildson (Parcel No. 217919100511) with the following conditions : I. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the Board; 2, The Applicant shall provide Garfield County with a revegetation security in the amount of $23,360; 3. Volume and Sound generated shall complywith the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statute at all times; 4. The Applicant shall comply with all performance;~tandards identified in §5.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution as .amended; 5. The Applicant shall construct a driveway access''apron as required by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Driveway Access P~rmit prior .to the issuance of the Special UsePermit; 6. The proposed facility shall be limited to 132 daily trips (66 daily roundtrips) for all vehicles as represented in the application and traffic analysis; 7. The leak detection and recovery system shall inspected weekly, accurate records of these inspections shall be maintained and made available to Garfield County upon request; 8. A portable toilet facility shall be placed on-site for the comfort of employees; 9. All trucks hauling water from Antero's drilling activities west of County Road 346 shall utilize 1-70 to access County Road 315; 10. All seed mixes shall be approved by Garfield County Vegetation Manage,ment; 11. All lighting associated with this use shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties; 12. The proposed containment pond must maintain at a minimum two (2) feet of freeboard at all times; L f r n f-• • ..._ ;..__""1""' '-·', . 1'--..----, t~ ~t"'Gt.-11-1 1'1) c-.~,-.~ """'f'A-V _ . , p . ~ ) " "'"' \ c '> ,,u ~ I " _I :!0:=rc .--F ~~l"c''r-v . 0 ~~ / ' L'tUJ"-So ...... )clc:.-;-pL , ·'\ ·' 1 11 '{-;')~ e:J 'I c~~, tA.II~~.(__ ~ ~~a} v..-..'c·\(~c;,vr1 J 13. 15. 16. 17. BOCC 6/04/2007 CR The migratory bird and water fowl deterrent represented must be installed prior to operation of the proposed facility; That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable federal, tate, and local regulations governing the operation for this type of facility; That the Applicant shall comply with the fire protection provisions included in the rules and .regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and the International Fire Code as the Code pertains to the operation of this facility. If required the Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits and improvements required by Colorado Department of Transportation as a result of traffic generated by the proposed use; Wildlife perimeter fencing shall be constructed prior to operation of the proposed facility; ~ I I I I A. OIVI~tbV\ II May II, 2007 Mr. Craig Richardson Garfield County Plam1ing 108 8'11 Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 I RE: Special Use Application for Petrogulf Lay Down Yard Dear Craig: MOUNT/\IN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. A review has been performed of the documents for the Special Use Application of the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park. The package was found to be well organized. The following comments, questions, or concerns were generated: I. No sewer and water facilities are proposed. More explanation or justification should be included. Some provisions should be considered for the comfort of any employees. 2. No grading or drainage plan was included. The documents describe stripping topsoil and regrading the site, but it is difficult to determine the impacts that the grading will have on the historic drainage through the proposed site. For instance, the topography shows a drainage that flows across the southeast corner of the proposed yard. No detail or sizing is shown for the rerouting or conveyance of this around or through the site. 3. Assuming they-axis of the graphs is dBA (it is unlabeled); the graphs in the Sound Level Study, seems to show significantly larger noise levels than the acceptable levels described. Also there appears to be a gap in the time from approximately 6:00am to I 0:00am, assuming the x-axis graph is military time (again, it is not explicitly labeled whether it is duration of study or military time). This gap could be during a significantly noisy time period. Feel free to call if you have any questions or if any of the above needs further clarification. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering{lnc. I f !\ ·. •' . I . \"' \.A.A.!,\ ('--., <L\:.'>..-" : -\. ·-. " Chris Hale, PE MAY 1. 4 2007 G.i-\RhELO COUNTY BJiLDING &. PLP,NN!NG 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5.544 • FAX: 970.945.5.158 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Craig Richardson From: Fred Jarman Sent: ·Friday, May 18, 2007 8:50AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: FW: Proposed Stack Yard County Road 320 Craig, I think this is yours. You' II want to attach this to the memo as an Exhibit/ From: Tresi Houpt Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 7:33AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Bobgenh@cs.com; kirkswallow@msn.com; m.hall@momentumpipe.com Subject: FW: Proposed Stack Yard County Road 320 Page 1 of 2 Thank you very much for your comments. I am forwarding them on to Fred Jarman, Director of Building and Planning, so that they can be incorporated into the application. They will be considered along with the materials from the applicant. Please contact Fred with any additional information you may have, so that it too can be part of the discussion. Tresi From: Bobgenh@cs.com [mailto:Bobgenh@cs.com] Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 10:01 PM To: John Martin; Tresi Houpt; Larry McCown Cc: kirkswallow@msn.com; m.hall@momentumpipe.com Subject: Proposed Stack Yard County Road 320 Commissioners, We previously sent an e-mail with an attachment. We understand the attachment did not transmit properly; therefore we are resubmitting our comments and concerns. We are writing each of you regarding our concerns over the construction of a proposed Stack Yard near County Road 320. We would appreciate you reading the following information. Many of the residents of this area provided some of the input. Petrogulf Corporation, in particular Mr. Douglas Mcleod purchased property on Taughenbaugh Mesa to construct a road to a drilling site on the Jonsson property and is now petitioning the county to construct an Industrial Storage Lot on his property. Mr Mcleod as well as Ms Jonsson are absentee land owners in Garfield County, thus this project does not affect their day to day lives. Mr. Mcleod is the President and Sole Owner of Petrogulf Corporation. The petition is to come before the Commissioners on May 21, 2007. We were informed of Petrogulf Corp plans to construct the Industrial Storage Lot on their property which ·rs located next to homes and ranches in this area. The Storage Lot as proposed consists of approximately 2.01 acres or 87,500 sq.ft. and will have approximately 7 bins and 17 pipe storage stacks. The material stored in the bins could contain toxic material in either solid or liquid form. In addition the pipes are coated with hazardous materials. The impact to property owners in this area would consist of: 5/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 1. A major devaluation of property. (Reference LaPiata County-Net Reduction of 22%) 2. An extreme eyesore to anyone living in the area. 3. I am sure the Commissioners have witnessed the noticeable green area's at or near the edge of this mesa from 1-70. Many of the home owners in this area as well as some of those residents who live in South Rifle water their lawns, pets, and livestock from extremely shallow springs which are fed from runoff irrigation water from the property in question as well as other ranches above. The ground water in this area will eventually become contaminated, regardless of Petrogulf's remedial plans. Lined retention walls will not prevent contamination. 4. If in the future should one decide to sell their property, it will make it very difficult for anyone to sell their property. 5. If the ground in this area and surrounding areas becomes contaminated due to the material being stored at this site, and for those landowners who may want to construct a home on or near this site, FHA mortgage insurance requires all toxic materials (soils) be removed. Such a facility as described would have to be disclosed when sold. This will make it extremely difficult for anyone wanting to construct a home on or near this area. 6. Even though the site is supposed to be graveled and the road leading to the site is graveled and the speed limit is supposed to be 10 mph, all the home owners are aware of the lack of dust control in this area. Dust is a major problem in this area as well as on county roads, let alone an Industrial road through a residential area. 7. The equipment used to load and unload pipe etc. are equipped (by regulation) with beepers to warn other workers that they are backing up. This activity may occur at any hour and will disturb those residents living within a wide area of this site. 8. The noise of pipe and material being loaded and unloaded can be heard for approximately one mile, thus not conducive to a residential area. The increased truck traffic in the area will be substantial. 9. The area under consideration is a winter elk range and migration route. We ask for your support to oppose such a facility being constructed in this area. As you are aware, Taughenbaugh Mesa has been used for years as a residential area and mostly for farming and ranching. The majority of property is zoned Agriculture. It has been zoned Agriculture for decades. Now Petrogulf has purchased property in this area and wants to convert a portion of it for Industrial use. We are not against mineral development, but we must draw the line somewhere and start protecting our property. Other oil and gas companies in this area construct their stack and storage yards at Industrial sites along the railroad tracks, not in the middle of a residential and agriculture area. This simply is not the location to construct such a facility. We believe Petrogulf should explore other avenues for a Stack Yard such as purchasing other property currently identified as Industrial and/or cost sharing with other companies at existing storage facilities. We respectfully request we be afforded an opportunity to voice our concerns in opposition to this project. Thank you, Bob and Genevie Hooker 8902 C.R. 320 Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-5362 5/18/2007 GARFIELD C O UNTY Building & Planning Department Revie w Agen c y Form Name o f applicati o n: Upper Div ide LLC Sent to: Gar fie ld C oun ty Road & Brid ge D ept. D ate Se nt: April 3, 2007 Comments Due: April 26, 2007 EXHIBIT -------------------------------------------~--------------------~- Gar field Co unty re quest s your c omme nt in re vi e w of thi s proj ect. Pl ease n oti fy th e Pl a nnin g D epartment in th e even t yo u are unabl e to res pond by the deadline. This fo rm m ay be used fo r your resp o nse, o r yo u m ay att ac h your ow n addi tional sheet s a s necessary. Written c o mment s may be m a il e d, e-mailed , or faxe d to : Garfield County Building & Pl annin g Staff contact: C ra ig Rich ard so n 109 81h Street , Suite 301 Gl enwood S prings , CO 8 1601 F ax : 970-38 4-3470 Phone : 9 70 -945-82 12 Ge ne ral Co mme nts: G arfie ld County Road & Brid ge Departme nt has no obj ec ti o n to thi s exempti o n req ues t with th e following comme nt s. The owne rs o f said prope rt y will deed to G arfie ld Co un ty a s trip of la nd 30 -fee t fro m the cente r lin e of th e exi stin g County road C r. 3 13 (East Di v id e Creek) the e ntire le n gth of the p rope rty b o rd e rin g C r. 3 13 fo r futu re road improvements . All existin g fe nces e ncumbe ring the new ROW shall be mov ed b ac k to the new ROW a t th e owne r 's expe nse pri or t o i ssuin g of dri veway accesses permit s. Any stru ctures e nc umb e rin g t he new ROW will need to h ave an e ncroachme nt agreeme nt with G arfi e ld Count y o r be m ove d back in sid e the new ROW line . Pr operty ow ner s w ill be r equired to have an onsite vi s it to determine locati on of any dri veway access/s . Dri veway acc ess permit/s will be i ss ued b y G arfi eld C ounty Road & Bridge Depa rtme nt with con diti o ns specifi c to the d riveway access/s locati ons . Name of review agenc y: Ga rfi eld Count y R oad a nd Bridge D ept B y: J ake B . M all D ate ___ _ Revised 3/30/00 EXHIBIT I l: Craig Richardson -·----------·--·---·· ··---------------··----~----" From: Sent: To: Subject: Jim Rada Monday, April 16, 2007 3:25 PM Craig Richardson Upper Divide, LLC Exemption from the definition of a subdivisio n Attachments: Jim Rada.vcf Craig, Not much inf o rm ation in this submittal. 1. Soils information and lot sizes indicate that there will probably be no issues fitting an ISDS on any of these parcels a lthough special engineering may be required depending on s lopes, potential shallow groundwater and soil types . Consideration will a lso be needed in placing ISDS according ly to meet all Garfield County ISDS regulations including setbacks to wells, springs, irrigation ditches, etc. Consideration for ISDS placement in regards to irrigated pastures and congregated livestock a reas must a lso be taken to avoid damage to system components and disch a rg e of wastewater to drainage systems . 2. The well permit is approved to serve up to three homes, etc. Should add itional well permits be requested to serve individual houses that would share the well under this cu rrent proposal , then DWR indicates that each would be entitled to only an exempt well permit and the exis ting permit would be required to be changed to an exempt permit. 3. Th e application narrative a nd the settlement Agreement (Exh ibit 7) indicate that the spring water is curren tl y used for domestic purposes by what appears to be t wo re sidences. According to Dwight Whit e head at the DWR, the water rights for th e Peterson Springs Nos. 2 & 3, from a Ruling of Referee dated 30 December 1977, a re limited to use for li vestock wate r. As such, t his water may not be legally used for domestic pur poses. In addition, the decreed water rights are subject to a ll other priority water rights and th erefore may not prove to be a reliabl e supply of yea r-round water for livestock or people. It appears that the owners need to make s ure this water right is legal for the purpose that th ey currently use it and, depending how junior those water rights are (191 0 or 1977), there may not be an adeq uate s upply to serve a residence year round. I suggest that th e we ll permit and water rights comment s be reviewed by the Co lorado Di vision of Water ·Resources to confirm their accuracy. Thanks for the opportunity to review thi s s ubmittal. Jim Rada , REHS Environmental H ealth Manager Garfie ld County Public Health 195 W 141h Street Rif le, CO 8 1650 Phone 970-625-5200 x8113 Cel l 970-319-1579 Fax 970-625-8304 Email jrada @garfield-county.com Web www.garfield-county.com · 5/1012007 05/04/2007 FRI 11:22 FAX fliOOl /001 Date Sent: Aprill9, 2007 Return Reques ted: May 11, 2007 ~ . -~ ·---.. -~ ~ ·····-·-"""" File Name(s) Project Name(s) Type of Application(s) McLeo d, Douglas · Petrogu lf I McLeo~ Property Spe Ci al Use Permit Laydown Yard Staff Planner: Craig Richardson ( crichardson@ garfie ld~county .com) Phone: (970) 945 -82 12 Applicant: Dougl as C. McLeod Phone; (303) 893-5400 Contact Person: Wagon Wh eel Consulting, Inc. I Jimmy Smith Phone: (970) 625-8433 Location: From the intersection of 7111 Street & County Road 320, go 2.5 miles Lo the so uthwest on County Road 320 to the location. Sec .. 20, T 6S, R 93W. Summary of Request: Reg_uest. is for a Gravel Storag~ Lot. (L aydown Lot) 'fhe Garfield County Planning Department has received a land use request as referenced above. Your comments · are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to review all appropriate agency comments and incorporate them into the Staff Report, we :r,equest your-response by Friday, May 11, 200 7. · .:. ;~ .. Veretari on M aMP~r P~~ 1"'-l!'\)~l 0.."'-li {VV\"d.M. 4:o ~ &A.~ ~k. wet~( ~~\-~-.\·- ~\w-J; NlV~ . f'rC> (-'6 ~c) Wet ~~ <...l~ p\~ ~ (Do__~ J.N.a.:\ f\A..i-..... ~-pla-_ ~~ acJe. c;uc.~ . No o~ ('~~-'). ~·. ---@crr0C-JW~ RECEIVED f?IO..'(l.('-l.J" ~ CH-1 a~ R. ~~ MAY 0 4 2007 ...... ~· .... ~ l Y :.lU !UN~oG & tlL ANN ING Craig Richardson From: Fred Jarman Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:49AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: FW: Antero Brynildson Water App From: Bill Sappington [mailto:bsappington@rifleco.org] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:31 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Michael Erion; JSN@Iklawfirm.com Subject: Antero Brynildson Water App Fred, I would like to comment on the Brynildson Antero water facility. Page I of I That application is also subject to Rifle's watershed permit process. We have requested more information and are processing the same application from a watershed standpoint. I request that if the County grants approval of the permit that the City of Rifle watershed process and permit be included as part of Garee's approval. Thanks, Bill Bill Sappington, P. E. Public Works Director City of Rifle, CO PO Box 1908 Rifle, CO 81650 bsappington@ rifleco.org work 970-625-6223 5/24/2007 Page I of I Craig Richardson From: Kathleen Middleton Sent: Friday, April27, 2007 10:31 AM To: Craig Richardson Subject: Brynildon H20 Storage Facility Craig, Jess and I reviewed the referral form and found no factors that would cause a problem. If you have any questions please call Jess Smith at 625-0973 ext 6001 or myself at 625-5691. Would you like me to send the binder back to you? Thanks, Katy Katy Middleton Oil &Gas Garfield County Henry Building 144 East Third Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-0973 5/24/2007 'w'O REQUEST . ; •. f.-:-:_.r.' ,:-''.:-.: .. ~-•. ·.--::-, APPLICANT I OWNE~ < . LOCATION <-<-,; > <i; .SITE DATA• }EXISTI~~:iONING Scott Brynildson SUP Referral Direction from the Board BOCC 4/09/2007 CR Special Use Permit to allow "Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" Sc;ott Brynildson Gounty.Road 315, Southeast of Rifle, CO 328.48 ~cn:~s/ proposed operation site 11 acreas ARRD ;:!:-, ' --,;~ij':-<--'> , : ~' ,""-" ,-':{-:-wr{,,}t,~,i:--;r-:\, REQUEST • :·. .· ·. . .• :· ,,. . ...... ·····t· ;··. . ... Garfield CountyB~ilding and Planning Depa.rment ha~ r~.9eivec:J.~SP;ecial Use Permit (SUP) application t? allow "Processing, Stor;ige and Mat~ria.l:~ahdlipg of Natural Resources". The subj~pt prop~rty is•o\Vned by ScottBrynildson a.Qd located on County Road 315. The SUP \V()Uid alh:>w me.cpn~tructiol'l ota Water.Tr~atment Facility utilized by Antero Resources Corporation's oil and gal) activity In the ~urronding area. Antero intends to construct a single pond wit~acapa.ci)Y qtapproximately 205,287 barrels, associated tanks including processing equipement, and El substation,to house the electrical pump system. PROJECT INFORMATION The proposed Water Treatment Facility will have a footprint of 11.682 acres, situated in close proximity to Mamm Creek. Three (3) earthen berms are represented on the layout and grading plan. Water will iniataly be treated to remove hydro- carbons in the proposed storage tanks and then transferred to pond. BOCC 4/09/2007 CR Recycled water will be reused in Antero's well drilling and completion operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed facility will be visible from surronding properties. Staff is concerned with the project's proximity to GarH~IdCounty Airport and the pontenial impacts of glare and waterfowl attraction (notaddressed in the application) produced by this facility. Staff recomends that th~ B9ard refer this request to the Planning Commission for a recomendationdo to the~i~l:)~nq !Oc~tion of the proposed facility. 2