Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 09.07.1983• PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PC 9/7;43 PROJECT NAME: Gary Pipeline REQUEST: Special Use Permit, transmission pipeline APPLICANT: Gary Energy Corporation ENGINEER: Rooney Engineering Company LOCATION: Portions of Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 23 of Township 7 South, Range 96 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Township 8 South, Range 97 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Township 8 South, Range 98 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Township 8 South, Range 100 West; more generally described as a corridor starting north of Parachute and heading in a westerly direction north of the U.S. Highway 6 & 24 right-of-way and staying north of Debeque to a point just north of Garfield Mesa, where it enters Mesa County. ACCESS: SITE DATA: Via private and public access easements off of County Roads 200, 204, 215 and 222, and U.S. Highway 6 & 24. The proposed project is an 8 inch steel pipeline, to be used to transport upgraded shale oil (syncrude) from Parachute to Gilsonite (Fruita area) of which approximately 26 miles will be located in Garfield County. EXISTING ZONES: R/L, A/R/RD, O/S, C/L, R/G/SD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and public lands with the various alternatives, nearly every type of management district in the Comprehensive Plan is included, except District E. Transmission pipelines are not specifically dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan, but the following goals, policies, and performance standards are relevant to the siting of the Gary Pipeline: 1. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate transportation facilities and public utilites are available. (#7, Page 12) 2. Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing active farms and ranches. (#1, Page 17) 3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion, sedimentation and runoff. (#11, Page 29) 4. Protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development to the land. (#14, Page 29) 5. Protect unique natural and scenic resources (unique vegetation, major wildlife habitats.) (#16, Page 30) (7) 6. The County shall guide new development toleccur on lands having moderate, minor or no environmental constraints. In areas with environmental problems, the county shall require development to perform to a standard which mitigates or minimizes the problem. (#2, Page 30) 7. Those lands or geographic areas within the County which are considered to be of scenic value or unique to the character of the County shall be protected from negative effects caused by development. In such areas, special site design shall be required which minimizes and mitigates disturbance of natural vegetation; clearing and grading, blockage of views, and incompatibilities with the general character of the area. (#8, Page 31) 8. The grading of all new development shall be designed so that cut and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project site. a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless efficient stabilization methods are utilized. b. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land. (#I B(5), Page 78) 9. Performance Standards: a. Development construction shall minimize the disturbance of the existing vegetative cover. b. No vegetation shall be removed on slopes 25% or over unless otherwise approved by the County Commissioners. c. Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained where these corridors have noted wildlife habitats. (Page 81) 10. Performance Standards: a. Proposed land uses shall be required to provide adequate mitigation of potential impacts to ensure maximum compatibility with all adjacent land uses. b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed development will be approved. 1. Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating than the adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the more intensive uses until that proposed use is compatible with the adjacent property to the satisfaction of the County Commissioners. (Page 89) 11. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following reasons: a. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate neighborhood or the entire community. b. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent properties. c. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent residents. d. Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and design. e. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas. f. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the entire community. (Page 90) II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: A. Site Description: The proposed corridor will start at the Union Oil Shale Oil upgrading facility northwest of Parachute and follow a route that moves in a southwesterly direction adjacent to the north side of the U.S. Highway 6 & 24 corridor to a point three and one half miles northwest of DeBeque, where it heads a westerly direction to Dry Fork and then west to South Dry Fork and McKay Fork. The terrain to be crossed varies from the valley floors of the Colorado River, Dry Fork, South Dry Fork and McKay Fork to the low plateau below Mount Logan. The vegetation along the proposed route ranges from reparian vegetation to salt tolerant plants such as Wheatgrass, Saltgrass and Greasewood to Sagebrush, Pinyon -Juniper woodlands. 411 • B. Project Description: It is proposed that an 8 5/8 inch steel pipeline, 56.6 miles in length, be constructed to transport up to 25,000 BBL per day of upgraded shale oil (syncrude) from the Union Oil shale oil facility north of Parachute to Gary Energy Corporations's refinery in Gilsonite, Colorado. The syncrude would then be refined into jet fuel. Of the total 56.6 miles in length, approximately 26 miles of the pipeline are proposed to be located in Garfield County, with the remaining 30 miles in Mesa County. A total of 33.3 miles will be on private lands, with 23.3 miles of Federal lands crossed. Rights-of-way widths are proposed to be 35 feet on Federal lands and 50 feet on private lands. The depth that the pipeline will be varies, dependant upon the type of ground; 36 inches in soil, 24 inches in shot rock, 48 inches in cultivated lands and 60 inches in wash areas. It is project that there will be a need to clear rights-of-way of vegetation and topsoil to facilitate the movement of men and equipment. Upon completion of the project, disturbed areas would be restored to as close as possible to original conditions. It is anticipated that construction would start in the fall of 1983, and last 90 to 120 days, with an average rate of 0.5 mile of pipeline laid per day. Due to their desire to complete the project as quickly as possible, the applicant anticipates that a maximum of 90 employees will be working at one time, which is less than the 200 employees that would trigger a fiscal impact mitigation program. Storage or staging areas are not specifically identified because it will be the construction contractors' responsibility to obtain or have the necessary storage and staging areas. When completed, the pipeline would have a number of different facilities. A pumping station in the Parachute area would represent the beginning of the pipeline, where the syncrude would be put into the pipeline at a discharge pressure of 1,625 psi. The 8 5/8 inch would have a number of check valves along the route, particularly at the downstream side of certain water crossing. Ultimately, the syncrude would reach the delivery terminal where a number of pressure reducing valves would be used before the syncrude is stored. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS: A. Zoning: The Garfield County Zoning Resolution treats transmission pipelines as a special use in all zone districts, except those lands zoned O/S (Open/Space), which are public lands. In the 0/S zone district, transmission pipelines are considered a conditional use. B. Staff Comments: 1. To obtain the right-of-way permits from the BLM, Gary Energy Corporation had to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). The final EA is out for public comment until August 27, 1983. After that deadline, the BLM will make either a finding of No Significant Impact, require a full Environmental Impact States or require the pipeline to be included in a larger scoped EIS (i.e. Getty or Union EIS). The applicants are requesting that a decision be made by October 1, 1983. To this date, there has been only one significant environmental issue identified, which is a threat to some endangered cactus species. This has resulted in a re-routing of the proposed corridor in those areas. The EA identified three (3) basic corridors for consideration, of which the preferred alternative is the route that the special use permit has been applied for. There is no alternative other than the preferred alternative for Garfield County lands. The EA states that truck and train transport is an unacceptable alternative due to economic constraints. The applicants state that there will be some destruction of habitat due to the temporary loss of vegetation and soils due to erosion. During construction, there would be some short term degradation of water and air quality. 2. Friends of the Earth have objected to the possibility that the BLM might make a finding of No Significant Impact. (See pages ). Basically, Friends of the Earth feel that the pipeline should be part of a larger EIS or develop an "area wide" EIS that identifies a pipeline corridor for this and any other future pipelines. 3. Mesa County ap IP the Gary Pipeline Co itional Use Permit on August 23, 1982 with a number of conditions. 4. One issue that has been a point of controversy with the BLM and Mesa County is the fact that the applicants have not provided a spill contingency plan. The applicants feel that a spill contingency plan would be premature if submitted before an "as built" plan is completed. They state a spill contingency plan would be developed prior to actual operation. The BLM feels that a spill contingency plan should be available prior to construction. Mesa County has established some specific requirements for a spill contingency plan that has to be submitted prior to construction and approved prior to any operation. 5. Some discussion has occurred regarding the location of the pipeline in some County rights-of-way. The County Road Supervisor has stated that he has no objection to County rights-of-way being crossed, but does object to the pipeline being laid in the rights-of-way for any purpose other than crossing. 6. As noted earlier, there are no identified storage or staging areas in the application. Unless materials and equipment are located in already approved storage areas, each storage or staging area will require a separate permit. These permits can be approved in the same resolution approving the pipeline, but will be issued separately. IV. FINDINGS: 1. The application has been filed in accordance with Section 5.03 of the County Zoning Regulations. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special/conditional use permit is consistent with the best interests of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the requested corridor with the following minimum conditions imposed: 1. All proposals of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval, unless expressly stated below; 2. That prior to issuance of the subject special use permit, the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County Department of Development/Planning Division copies of: a. All permits from other governmental entities; b. The location of storage areas and easement agreements with private and public land owners. Department of Development staff will contact affected landowners and any changes suggested by landowners and staff will be incorporated into the final design. 3. That the applicant will post a bond for road maintenance as deemed appropriate by the Board and the County Road Supervisor. 4. That the applicant will post a bond the equivalent to the estimated cost of site rehabilitation of all private lands affected in Garfield County. Further, that said bond may be released upon approval of the affected landowner of the site rehabilitation. 5. That upon an allegation by an affected landowner or governmental entity, the Board shall investigate compliance with the conditions of approval, as provided for in Section 9.01.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended; 6. That the permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance with the permit's conditions of approval. (10) • • 7. That all access roads on private lands be temporary roads which will be recontoured and revegetated upon completion of construction, unless a different type of access road is agreed upon by the landowner involved. 8. That an emergency spill contingency plan be submitted prior to actual construction and approved prior to any actual operation which at a minimum meets the same standards established by Mesa County. 9. That County road rights-of-way may be crossed, but that the county road right-of-way will not be encroached upon for any other reason. PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT NAME: Gary Pipeline REQUEST: Special Use Permit APPLICANT: Gary Energy Corporation ENGINEER: Rooney Engineering Company LOCATION: Portions of Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 23 of Township 7 South, Range 96 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Township 8 South, Range 97 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Township 8 South, Range 98 West; Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Township 8 South, Range 100 West; more generally described as a corridor starting north of Parachute and heading in a westerly direction north of the U.S. Highway 6 & 24 right-of-way and staying north of Debeque to a point just north of Garfield Mesa, where it enters Mesa County. FINDING: RECOMMENDATION: Per Section 9.03.03, staff has reviewed the application and finds it is in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision, building, health and sanitation regulations, except for approval by the County Commissioners as a Special Use. The application be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.