HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.13.2002BOCC 05/13/02 KI,/RR
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICAITIT: Williams Production RMT Company
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
ACCESS:
ArequestforreviewofaSpecialUsePermittoallowforNatural
Resource Processing, Officls, Equipment storage' Product Storage
-J i.*.f-t facilitiis, and Pipeline Construction'
ApplicationisbeingmadeforatractoflandaboutfivemilesNorth
of Parachute on CR ii5', 'dluunt
to and jutt "ry}of the existing
American Soda processing and industrial area' (Shown ano
i"f"*"a two as i'Sul, ArJa one" in application reference
materials). The Application also encompasses a proposed prpeline
f";iltfi# extends fro. ttr. site to jusiWest of the Town of
DeBeque in Mesa CountY'
The site had previously been utilized as part-of Union Oil
i:o*p*y" ivfa"Canp facility, consisting of employee housing
UrifAingt and an nV iart, utong with related water' sewer and
security structures. fi" t*o ir"appro*imately 1370acres in size.
The larger site area pr.r.ntty roniui* a remaining office, meeting
and vehicle storage'facfity,'an un-reclaimed area of RV hook-ups,
,on"r.t. pads from previous buildings' and land utilized for
pasture. Parachute Creek bisects the property'
Access is currently provided and proposed offof CR 215'
EXISTING ZONING: Resource Lands - Lower Valley Floor
SURROUNDING ZONING: Resource Lands - All categories' Existing uses are
Industrial and Agricultural'
I. INTRODUCTION
This application for a Special Use-Permit encompasses both a set of proposed nattfal
resource pro"".r-g rt* o" a defined site and a pipeline corridor'
rr. DESCBTPTToN oF TIIE PROPOSAL
THE PARACHUTE CREEK GAS PLANT
The parachute creek Gas plant is proposed as a central couection and processing facility
to refine natural g* no- the region to ttre standards and quality necessary for
conveyance to interstat. pip"firlt ltre plant will provide increased production and
transportation rupu.ity. il*tll inclde tilree natural gas compressors' thnee refrigeration
compressors, two "t .,ri"ut generation *itr, or" redigeratiott proc"tt skid' one amine
process skid, one "ffi;;[hdbuilding,
tlrree natural gas byproduct liquids storage tanks'
and truck load-out facilities for transporting the natural gas liquids by-products
periodically to otfreipoints of sale i*" simi+rucf loads, per day, on average' is
;r"d;; tne sfriplenifr;q""*y for by-products- other truck traffic will be
generated for water hauling and disposal, -aiot"n*"e and employee traffic'
The site, previously owned by Uniol oil company, las \en the recipient of several
Special Use Permitr; th" p*t ."tutingi.t*pfoi"" housing, retort operations and lastly
a wildlife hunting resort facility. The applicant piopottt that all previous-special Use
permits be made void and ru.ut"d as part of an approval for the proposed uses'
THE DEBEQUE LATERAL PIPELINE PROJECT
The proposed new 20 inch pipeline ori_ginates a] the- PLacfute Gas Plant facility and
extends 17.3 miles lo a tie-in with the iransColorado Pipeline one mile west of the Town
of DeBeque. The pipetine departs the Williams tract and traverses property owned by
American Soda to the souttr, then crosses several private parcels as it skirts the Town of
Parachute to the *Lrt, *fr"re it utilizes CDOT nigtrt of Way for the majority of the
remaining distance. iOOf R.O.W. comprises tO.2 miles of the total' Several sections
traverse B.L.M. lands for which an Environmental Assessment was prepared resulting in
a Finding ofNo sigrmt*t Impact with conditions. The remaining few miles are in
Mesa County, anOi Conditional Use Permit is being sought under their process
congruently with this request'
The Garfield county comprehensive Plan of 2000 addresses Natural Resource Extraction
issues in Section III, "Goals, Objectives, Policies and Progfams'" Natural Resource
Extraction is covered in section
-9.
A context for Sectionb is provided as a general Goal
and as background:
,,Garfield county recognizes that under coloratlo Law, the surfoce and mineral right
interests have certa'i" triA rights and privileges, including the right to extract and
develop these interests. Furthermore, private property owners olso have certain legal
rights and privilegrr,-nrluding the ri[ht to hove ihe mineral estate developed in a
reasonable manner and to hie adverse land use impacts mitigated. "
2
under.?olicies: Section g.l" the following language is specifically appropriate:
"Garfield County, to the extent legally possible, will require adequate mitigation to
address the impacts of mineral extraction on adiacent landowners' These measures may
include the following:
A. LandscaPing ond screening;
B. Modificition of phasing or area to be mined;
C. Road'vvoy improvements and signage;
D. Safe and fficient access routes;
E. Diainage improvements to protect sudoce and groundwater"
To the extent that these areas of concern, and related areas of dust, odors, fumes;
alteration of neighborhood character and impacts on property values are addressed and
mitigation "o**itt"d to, this application is in general compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
IV. REFERRALS:
The complex and multi-jurisdictional nature of this proposed project has resulted in a
series of related r.f".tAt and requests for comment. These include the Conditional Use
Permit application i, t t"ru county and the Environmental Assessment process with the
B.L.M. Garfield County conductld its normal agency review process-for a Special Use
Permit application * *"tt. Information from those other outreach efforts, where known
and documented, are incorporated into findings and recommendations. The following are
summaries of comments received specffic to Garfield County's referral process' the
letters are attached and referenced by page number:
Resource Engineering Inc. - Michael J. Erion, P.E. May L, 7002.- Page (10) At the
request of the County,i"ro*"" Engineering undertook a detailed analysis of the
proposed project. Clncerns centered *o*d area of wastewater, water, and pipeline
io.ution. tnis rerie* confirmed that wastewater treatment plans are ery-babry adequate,
and that the site allows for modification and replacement if necessary' There is concern
about actual d"c.eld well allocations for wateiand augmentation plans, where Williams
is not mentioned as a deeded interest. Sale of property, division of some interests with
American Soda, and resolution of adequate physical and legal supply are-issues that are
suggested for resolution. Pipeline issues include a potential404 permit for crossing
Pailchute Creek, however the county is in receipt of the following letter:
Department of the Amy, corps of Engineers - Ken Jacobson" March 27,2002
Page (z()Verifies issuance of a Nationwide General Permit Number 12, valid until
March 27,2004, # 200227511 1 for this project'
Garlield County Road and Bridge - Kraig Kuberry. April 29,2002 page (32) Site
distance, location and landing area are all adequate at the existing/proposed location for
access.
Grand valley Fire Protection District - David A. Blair, Fire chief April30' 2002
Page (7? )'....an approved fire sulpryPion plan must bepart of any construction and
operations permit process." The GVFPD would expect the plant to meet aU NFPA and
ugcrurc."quirements and would not be seeking any additional restrictions'
Recommend aPProval.
Garlield county vegetative Management - Steve Anthony, Director May l'2002
Page (.2r)Reupo*", i*lude concerns that cR 215 is becoming a locus of weed spread'
Suggests weed specific inventory of sites to be disturbed, and a plan to address those
specifics, including acres to be disturbed and specific reclamation based on locational
issues and sPecific sPecies.
colorado Division of wildlife - Perr,'will, Area wildlife Manager May 1' 2002
*;; ( 1411 ifr"-p.O.W. has concerns that the proposed fagility will support-and reinforce
Gil;iA.iUirg efforts that they have seen to have a negative impact onwildlife, and are
co"rrcerned afout the lack of cumulative analysis. They desire a reclamation plan to
include, where appropriate, attention to wildtfe cover. They question water rights for
irrigation. firey^hure specific concerns for nest areas along Parachute Creek and request
u ri,*"y of thai areu. They support fencing the plant site'
Town of parachute - Juanita Satter{ield February ll, 2002Page (//) Concerns
about proximity to Parachute Creek and possible contamination. concerns about air
or"li , and monitoring, with ilrmerous specific requests !, # pollution information'
ior""-" about traffic and safety concerns, times of day for transport'
Lower Valley Trail Group, Kit Lyon, Steering Committee May 812002 Page (13 )
Expressing a d"sir" to *o.i.'*ittr applicant on possible trail location and support issues'
Other Referrals and Findings
The B.L.M. Environmental Assessment approves the final corridor choice, and contains
stipulations, some of which are appropriate to Garfield County review although they
apply only to B.L.M. lands:
,.4. Construction activities shall be conducted so as not to disturb more than the
minimum area needed for construction of the buried pipeline-"
..6. All disturbed areas shall be contoured to blend with the natural topography'"
*7. Nlsoil erosion associated with the operation must be stabilized to a condition at
least equal to that present before disturbance'"
Mesa County is reviewing this application for their conditional Use Permit, focusing
oJy on the iipeline They are a month away from developing a stafffinal review' Their
primary concefirs to date
-are
geotechnical issues involving the boring process. They are
4
very concerned about visual impacts in the area of the shared border between the two
counties as it has high scenic ,ulrr".. To date, they are pleased with the applicants'
decision to bore rather than disturb the surface in that area' (Telephonic communication
with Jim Hinderaker, Mesa County Department of Planning and Development' May 7 '
2002)
Site Visit Obserations
Staffconducted a site visit on April 25,2002 resulting in the following observations:
1. The plant site is well buffered due to its size for the proposed uses being applied for'
Any impingement on neighboring properties or uses will be minimal at worst and
pi.itrtV rion-existent inlerms o?noise, dust, odor, visual impact or impact on
.
neighboring property values. The proposed use is similar to historic use and neighboring
use.
2. Theexisting access point on CR 215 was developed by Union Oil Company to handle
larger volumes of tramc than are anticipated for thiJ use. The site allows for internal
traffic movement and separation of activities for parking, loading and maintenance'
3. Site disturbance and characteristics include un-reclaimed RV park series of hook-up
facilities, left-over pud. fio. previous structures, and an unused hillside water tank and
some abandoned or dormant infrastructure. Site maintenance is fair, with evidence of
recent brush removal and attention to lawn and road areas.
4. The riparian area of Parachute Creek and its watercourse bisects the site, and calls for
special attention to erosion issues and disturbance, storm water run-ofi wildlife nesting
and migration patterns, wildfire control, and contamination concerns'
Section 3.10.04 defines "Ijses, special: for Resources Lands - Gentle slopes and Lower
Valley Floor. "
,, Industrial support facilities which would include: material handling, pumping facilities'
electric distriiutioi, warehouse facilities/staging oreos, storage areos, water
impoundments, access routes, ,iitity lines, utility substations, pipelines: extraction'
piocessing, qccessory uses to the above"'"
The application falls within these definitions'
Section 5.03, Conditional and Special Uses
"As listed under the Zone District Regulations, conditional and special uses shall
conform to all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in this Resolution plus the
foll owing re quir ement s :
(t) Utilities adequate to provide water and sqnitation service based on accepted
engineering standa,ris oid oppronrd by the Board of County Commissioners shall either
be in place or shall be constricted in coniunction with the proposed use (A97-60) "
Several issues have been raised by reviewing sources in terms of water issues' These
include the current status of irrigation water-rights for the^site, availability of water for
construction and op.r*ior. duit mitigation, aiailability of water for pipeline charging
and testing, appropriateness of utilizing a Parachute oFsite water tap for cistern filling'
*a f"ga l*"".rfrip of wells, flows and deeded water as well as participation in
augmentation plans by the current property owner'
,,(2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate trffic volume generated by the
p)iporra use ind to provide ,i1r, ,rn rnient access to the use shall either be in place or
shall be constructed.in conjunction with the proposed use,,'
Access to the site is adequate for traffic and safety needs, and the proposed site plan
allows for adequate internal circulation and safety conceflrs in loading operations'
,,(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from- adiacent
uses of land through installation of sieenfences or landscape materi-als- on the periphery
iy rlrr" to, and by ti-rorion of inteniively ut{lized areas,
-ac-cess
points, lighting and signs in
such a manner as to proteit established neighborhood choracter' "
The applicant has committed to paint schemes that will minimize visual intrusion'
lighting systems to minimize leakage, utilization of current and historic access points to
minimize new road construction or access, and substantial distances and setbacks from
adjacent uses.
Section 5.03.07 delineates a required Impact Statement for Industrial operations' These
requirements include:
,,(A). Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-ffi
stream Jlow or ground water. "
Applicant will need to address a variety of lawful uses of water issues' Applicant will
need to submit a Storm Water Run-Offand emergency containment proposal with special
attention to the proximate riparian areas and Parachute creek.
6
,,(B) Impacts on the adjacent landfrom the generation of vapor, dust, smolre, noise,
giare or'vibration, or other emanations'"
Applicant is in receipt of a valid Air Quality ControlPermit for the proposed use from the
State of colorado, and is subject to monitoring requirements as set forth therein' The size
of the site precludes concerns about noise and vibration to adjacent parcels' The
applicanthascommittedtodustcontrolonsite,andlightingplans.
.'C Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous
attractions, akeratioi of existing native vegetation, bloclatde of migration routes' use
patterns or other disruPtions'"
Applicant has agreed to fence the site, a recommendation of D'o'w' Applicant is
.ffirt"a to inJlude wildlife issues in reclamation planning.
,,(D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobite trffic to andfrom such
urr,r ord their impact to areas in the countlt''
Applicant has analyzed vehicular traffic for all proposed uses at the site with regard to
trip generation, parking, access, accornmodation on site and safety concerns' The
resulting analysis AUs ivitt in acceptable guidelines for internal circulation and tramc
generated on existing -ua*uvr to and fr-om the site. An area left unaddressed is weight
limits on *y p.opo.I.d construction vehicles using county roads to access the sites'
,,(E) That sufficient distances shall separate su-ch usefrom abutting property which
iiiW otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); "
Most abutting areas are owned and under control of the applicant for the plant site' and
sufficient distances exist.
Further :n.5.02-07 (2)
"(A) A planfor site rehabilitation must be approved-by the County Commissioners before
o'plr*it Qri conditional or special use will be issued' "
The applicant proposes a voiding and vacation of previous special use permits for the
site, and that woid include p."riou, mitigation agreements' At the same time' the
upptl"*t inherits u-r*i"ty oiprevious deielopment on the site that includes no longer
functioning water facilities, disturbed areas foi buildings and concrete pads, disturbed
areas for roads and pipelines, sewer and water infrastructure in the ground' RV hook-up
facilities left un-reclaimed and other potential reclamation issues passed on to. the
applicant as current olv1ler of the site. No plans have been submitted to specrfy
rehabilitation of the site for those previous structures or reclamation of those impacts'
where those facilities and areas of dirt*b*.e are not to be made a part of, and function
as integral to the."q*rr.a proposed special Y-t: Il" applicant has inherited an
obligation to reclaim previous disturbances utilized for privious Special Use Permits' in
7
anticipating a change in use to new Special Use Permit requirements on site' In
pgrchasing ttre property without that reclamation being accomplished, but with Special
Use permits intact *Jlppfying to the property, not the previous ownership, the applicant
t * *r*"d all reclamation responsibility for previous uses.
The applicant has proposed a generic reclamation plan for site disturbance construction
reclamation that is not specific to current noxious weed conditions' and which for the
pipeline corridor tu"t, * addressing of terrain, vegetation types and specific reclamation
strategies by logical;egrn"rr,r. Theie is no plan proposed for the de-commissioning of
plant or pipeline facilitles after their useful nf". No ipecific wildlife issues in terms of
vegetative cover and restoring environmental conditions has been submitted for the
prpeline outside of B.L.M. lands
VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. Tbatthe hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was open and extensive'
and that all interestla parties were heard at thai meeting, but that additional information
*iU U" required prio. to a determination by the Board of County Commissioners'
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends Continuance of the review period and public hearing for this special
use permit, ,,ru.i""tTo u willingness towaive the 60 day decision-making
requirement, based on the following concerns:
1. A detailed Storm water Run-Offand Drainage Plan has not yet been submitted. The
nature of the materials stored on site and the pto*i*ity ollhe site to parachute Creek
demand a level of detail in commitment to containment. The applicant has referenced
verbally in narrative por,io* of their application someof the standards that they plan to
incorporate and adhere to, but has yet io submit the schematic that would demonstrate
how storm water, a.uirrug", levels of containment and related issues would fit together
and be placed on site.
2. Theapplicant has submitted an incomplete Site Reclamation Plan' while accounting
for re-seeding and monitoring of construction disturbances and committing to a Weed
control Plan, the applicant does not address the end of the useful life of the processing
facilities or pipeline, and plans to reclaim these sites once processing and/or
transportation ceas" to be a use and the SUP is terminated. This information is necessary
for the BOCC to make a determination on what, f *y, security arrangements will be
required to guarantee future site reclamation. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting a
waiver and termination of previous SUps that applied to lhe site which still contains older
and now unused infrastruciure that have "ur"ri ieclamation issues attached to them
(water tank, roads, pipelines) from previous uses granted r{der those SUP,s. A Site
Reclamation Plan stroun also address reclamation of those inherited facilities with
specffied time commitments.
3. A variety of concerns and questions about water and water related issues have
surfaced as a result;ith".""*tly finished review period from a variety of sources'
These issues *" oru "o*plex
enough nature that a last minute attempt at clarification
and submittals may ,rot u" feasible and probably wouldn't be prudent in termsof the
ability of county staffand consultants to review and venff new ffirmation' Staff
suggests that a."port uaar"ssing the following areas willbe necessary to allow informed
deii-sion-making at a subsequent hearing date:
A.AletterfromtheTownofParachuteapproving*9-9.Y3*teeinginperpetuityuseof
municipal water provided through a tap ati'he cunlent W-illiams office at 1058 CR 215' or
any other tap, for uses in filling a cistern, and any other uses at the proposed site' should
tt. uppfi"r"i desire to provide-potable water at the plant site in this manner'
B. A detailed explanation of current irrigation water riglt:, and any ditch agreements'
held by the current property owner, andlotential uses of that water' or limitations on use'
on site.
c. A detailed explanation of source and rights for water to charge the pipeline for testing
purposes.
D. A detailed explanation of sources for water for dust control during construction of the
pf*f*a pipeline tifiti". and for maintenance of the site and reclamation efforts'
E. A detailed explanation of well and water rights for any wells on site' any wells shared
with American Soda or other neighbors, and a-histoV gftlre deeds and transactions for
such water rights and their current status and ownership' The object of this section of the
report i, * *r**"" of legal and adequate supply for all uses implied and proposed in
ihe Special Use Permit application for any uses of well water'
Staffwould propose that the granting of a continuance allow for the submission of new
and revised -ut".iuL, *a coiments from any source, and unfettered discussion about
the project by any party or parties, a*.g anlxtended review and comment period to end
by a date certain.
Staffwould further note for the record that any representations or commitments made by
the applicant in this or any subsequent public tt"*irg, as part of the public record' may fog
applied to the request as condition, of upproval, unliss approved otherwise by the Board
of County Commissioners'
9
fIII'IIIIIIITIIIIITTIIIIT FFlING INC
May 1 ,2002
Garfield County Building and Planning
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: Williams Company - Special Use Permit Review
Dear Randy.
This letter presents our comments on technical review of the proposed Williams Company
special use permit for a gas plant and pipeline. We reviewed the special use permit
app!icatloi'l submitta!CateC Decernber 18, 2001 and ccnducted a site investigation on April
25,2002with Randy Russell, Kim Schlagel, Robert Gardner, Jimmy Smith and Craig Meis.
Our comments are outlined below.
SUMMARY
Adequate wastewater facilities are available through the existing ISDS system for the Man
Camp facility and are feasible for the gas plant facility. The proposed water supply for the
plant facility will be trucked to the plant from the Town of Parachute potable water system.
The Man Camp will be served by an existing well. However, the well permit is only valid if
the well is used in compliance with the terms and conditions of the augmentation plan
decreed in Case No. W-2206. Witliams Company was apparently not deeded an interest
in W-2206 and therefore may not have a legal water supply for the existing well. The
proposed pipeline route minimizes environmentaland visualimpacts. The pipeline crosses
Parachute Creek and will likely require a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 for utility line
crossings.
WASTEWATER
The existing man camp facility is served by an existing individual sewage system (ISDS).
The existing system is approximately 20 years old and may need to be repaired/replaced
in the near future. However, there is sufficient room on the property to locate a replacement
ieachfieid if necessary. The faciiity iras reporiediy served a iarger population ihan is
proposed in the application.
The proposed gas plant will include a maximum of 8 employees. The average daily
wastewater flow for the plant is estimated at approximatelyl60 gallons per day rather than
the 30 gallons per day listed in the application. The soils at the gas plant site consist of
Olney Loam which has a moderate permeability and should be suitable for a conventional
ISDS system.
Consulting Engineens and Hydnologists
9O9 Colonado Avenue I Glenwood Spnings, CO A1 60l a t37O) 545-4777 I
@
Fax [97OJ 945-1137
FIESc]UFICE
ENGINE
Mr. Randy Russell
RECFTYEDMAY C 32A02
Mr. Randy Russell
Page 2
WATER
May 1 ,2002
The existing Man Camp facility is served by an existing well. Unocal Well No. 6 and Unocal
Well No. 64 were decreed in Case No. 82CW433 for use on the subject property for
domestic, municipal and irrigation purposes in a construction camp. Well permit Nos.
26068-F (Welt No. 6) and 26069-F (Well No. 64) were issued by the Colorado Division of
Water Resources. fne permits were approved pursuant to the augmentation plan in Case
No. W-2206. The permits specifically state "this well shall not be pumped unless it is in
compliance with the tei"ms and conditicns of the augmentation plan including exchange
approved by the Division 5 Water Court in Case No. W-2206." The information submitted
in tfre speciit use permit application indicates that Williams Company was specifically not
deeded an interest in the plan for augmentation in Case No. W-2206. Based on this
information, from a technical perspective, we believe that the Man Camp Well does not
have a legalwater supply. ln addition, the irrigation water rights appurtenant to the property
were not deeded to'Wiiliams Company. This may affect plans related to revegetation,
landscaping, and continued irrigation of undisturbed agricultural lands on the property.
The employees at the gas plant will be served by potable water hauled to the site from the
Town of Parachute pJtaOie water system. A large cistern serving both the gas plant
industrial uses and the employee domestic uses is proposed. This system should provide
an adequate physical and legal supply of water for the plant.
PIPELINE
The proposed pipeline from the proposed gas plant facility to the tie-in with the
TransCoiorado Pipeline near DeBeque is primarily located within the Colorado Department
of fransportation right-of-way. The proposed pipeline route minimizes environmental and
visual impacts by utilizing
-an
existing corridor (CDOT right-of-way) and a location
acceptable to tho private property owners. The proposed alignment avoids two major
Colorado River crossing
'and eliminates the attendant 404 wetlands permitting and
enl,rircnmental impact iss-ues. The pipeline Cces, hc',vever, cross Parachute Creek on the
American Soda property. This crossing will require a Section 404 permit (likely a
Nationwide Permit No. 1j for utility line crossings) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This issue was not addressed in the special use permit application submittal'
As the pipeline approaches the Garfield County/Mesa County line, the Highway 6 and 24
right-of-way becomes constrained by steep slopes and conventional cut and cover
construction is not feasible in some areas. The applicant is proposing to bore the pipe in
these areas to address the potential hazards associated with rock fall and steep slopes, and
to avoid visual impacts.
a
i:i!iFESOUECETIIII-i---E N G r N E E F N G I N c
Mr. Randy Russell
Page 3
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGIN NG, INC.
May '1 ,2002
Michael J.
Water
MJE/mmm
885-'l 1 .0 rr williams property.aas.wpd
CC: Ms. Kim Schlagel, Garfield County Planning
Mr. Robert Gardner, Williams Co.
@
i!!i:FlESOURCEtlllli----E N G r N E E F N G r N c
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subiect:
Christina T Lyon/R2/USDAFS [clyon@fs.fed.us]
Wednesday, May 08, 200212:43PM
Randy Russell
lovab-oard@siltnet.net; dave.cesark@williams.com; bob.gardner@williams.com; John Martin;
Walt Stowe; Lary McCown; Green49@aol,com
Williams Gas Plant and PiPeline
Randy,
Thank you for referring the Williams application to the Lower Valley (LOVA) Tra11 Group
for review and comment. We appreciate-Ueing included in Garfield County's land use review
process. pfease enter the following coraments in the offj.cial public Eecord.
I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Dave Cesark and Mr. Bob Gardner to discuss the
possibilitV'-pt futurl partnerships between the WiIliams Company and LOVA. Wi-11iams has
indicated an interest in supporting our locaL efforts to build a trail and greenway from
parachute to Glenwood Springi. eu you are aware, a regionaf traiL would not only provide a
heatrth, recreation, and t.Eansportal.i.on benefit to their employees, but wotlld also priovide
such benefits to a1l the communities along the r-70 corridor. slilliams dj-d not state any
major concerns about the possibility of locating a trail along the pipeline easement.
Th6y have minor concerns about secuiity which they felt could-be easily addressed'
proiiaea any private landowners agreed to expanding the use of the pipeline easement,
WiIli-ams stated no other concerns
As you are aware, the LOVA trail group is in the midst of it's master planning process,
""O'ii ifri.e po:-nt r,o "p.pific alig.r*ent has been planned. Specific alignments will only be
o"""r"t"aTufi", extensiv,b scoping and public meetings occur. We appreciate Williamsr
;6;;;i-oh-love, and look rorwari to ptssibly working with them.in the future. williams
hai'demonst:iated a willingness to. give back Lo or.lr local corunr:nj.ties fori which lr'e aJie very
thankful. '
Please do not hesitate to contact me in the event you have any questions '
Kit Lyon
LOVA Steering Committee
Christina T. "Kit" LYon
Landscape Architect
White River National Forest
P.O. Box 948
Gfenwood SPrings, CO 81602
Phone: (970) 945-3274
Fax: (970) 945- 3266
E-MaiI: clYonGfs.fed'us
@
TOWN OF PARACHUTE
PO Box 100
222 Grand V,Way Parachute, CO 81635
Telephone : (9 70) 285-7630
Facsinrile : (9 70)2 I 5-9 I 46
February 11,2002
Ms. Kit Lyon
Garfield County Plaruring Department
109 8'h Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Town Adm.inistrator
Juanita Satterfield
Dear
I'm enclosing comments in response to the Williams Production RMT Company's Special Use
permit request. I would be very interested in knowing the hearing date for this application once it
gets to that point. Thank you.
.-anita Satterfield
.-vtr
RECHtI#EBFEB 12m$A
,]11. .:
TOWN OF PARACFIUTE
Review F,
Date Received: Januarv 28, 2002
Comments Due:-Feb ruarY 1 4, 2002 -Town of Parachute
PO Box 100
Parachute, CO 81635
Fax: (970) 285-9'146
Phone: (970) 285-7630
Name of Application: Williams Production RMT Co
Special Use Permit
Sent to: Garfield Countv Planninq Department
The Town of Parachute comments in review of this project.
General Comments:_
The proposed Parachute Creek Gas Plant location is in close proximity to Parachute Creek. The Town of
Parachute lrrigation System utilizes water rights out of Parachute Creek. There does not appearto be any plan
to protect the water sired to Parachute Creek from possible contamination from spilled or leaked product,
erosion or loss to the water table when an area this size is no longer irrigated. The issue of accidental spill
or leakage does not appear to be addressed at the plant, storage or truck loading locations.
The Williams Sale Area2lies adjacent to the Grand View Industrial Park. The Town of Parachute irrigation
storage and distribution facility is iocated on Lot 7 of Grand View lndustrial Park. The Cornnel Ditch is partially
Iocatdd with in Williams Sa16 Area 2. The Towns irrigation water is carried to the lrrigation Storage and
Distribution Facility by the Cornnel Ditch which requires the Town to have maintenance access. The Town
would have water lned and ditch issues if construction of buildings or roads was to take place on this parcel.
The application does not provide any information with regard to fire protection. Was the Grand Valley Fire
Protection District ask to respond to the ability to service this location?
The Town of Parachute residents are very aware of the air quality issues that can result from industrial
emission. The Parachute Creek Valley is b unique situation that acts like a funnel dispensing. odors and
emissions into Town. The lmpact Statement notes that air emissions will not exceed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards ; however no real emission levels are listed. Will air quality be monitored on a daily, weekly,
monthly - basis? Who will monitor air quality?
Wili ihe gi.anting of this Speciai Use Pei'mit ci-eate ne',v jobs in the area? lf so, how ,"nany? What is the
construction time frame? How many construction laborlobs will be created and for how long? Would a
construction work force be local or out of area?
ReferralAgency: Town of Parachute
By: Jubnita Satterfield Date: February 11, 2002
Title: TownAdministrator
I 1
FROM: Billie Sue Koch, Town of Parachute Trustee
January 28,20A2
Comments Regarding williams Production special use Permit Application
1.) Ground water rights - no problem
2.) Sewage aitf"tAif,rough "*i"tittg septic syltqm' as stated jn Exhibit "H"
Impact statement, williams sale Area 1 and fu"12, Parachute Creek
Vailey? Wt ut ry#m is still in place at,location of proposed Parachute
Creek Gas Plant? If a system is in that locatiory it is near 20 years old'
what diagrams do you have on the existing septic system in that area?
3.) There will be increased trucking of liquid gas due to the proposed plant'
Trucking of liquid gas is already in place due to existing upper plant'
4.) Compare tt"" p.opJ""d plant toexisting plant at upper end of 9""Ilry
Road 215 in r"g*a to air emissions from flares and emissions from air
escaping from valves, etc'
5.) spill reJpor,"" plan? Is there a spill Response plan for the proposed
faaltty? How does it compare to ttre Spill Response to the upper existing
plant? Three large storage tanks atong wittr trucks being loaded could
create a sPill situation.
6.) what qrur,rity or volume of liquid amine?-Reference back to spill
Response or how you would contain a spill'
7.) If you have a malor fire, who will respot ar witr, three natural gas liquids
storagetanksthepotentialforfireiscertainlypresent.g.) \A/hat are the ,1irri.ted" amounts of vapor, dust, smoke, and noise
mentioned in Exhibit "H" Impact statlment? Are there available numbers
and how were the numbers calculated? If the dust, vapor, etc' gets into
Parachute Creek, how will this affect the water? How will you contain?
Air pollution emissions come down valley as air cools and goes up valley
when air warms. will this create odors in town of Parachute?
g.) will therebe any sulfur in gas you areburning? For 913mple sox!we
recognize yo,, ui" monitored by state, but w1 would like to know what
these standards ale - national Ambient Ajr Quality Standards'
10.) willyoube performance testing after you T" o.line to make sure you are
within the standards for air quiityZ O*t the state require you to test after
you are on line?
11.) Ambient air quality modeling results - mentioned in Exhibit "H"' who
did this."po*, what are the iumber results, and was the model the upper
plant? Airluality is very important t9 the town due to the airflows up
and down Parachute Creek and into the town'
12.) \A/hat are the noise requirement levels you are referring to in ExhibTt "H"?
Will these levels be tested after you are on line?
2
13.) Will there be a Safety, Health, and Environmental person testing and
monitoring air emisiio*, dust control, etc. on a continuous basis after you
Eue on line. If so, how qualified is that person?
14.) From Exhibit "H","rreuly all vehicular traffic accessing the plant will be
during daylight hours." How much traffic do you expect during nighttime
hours - traffic that would be passing through Parachute?
STATE OF
COLORADO
Bill Orens, Governor
DEPARTTIENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Russell George, Director
6060 BroadwaY
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
Area 7
711 lndependentAve.
Grand Junction, CO 815OS7126
(e70) 25S6100
Mr. Randy Russell
Senior Long Range Planner
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8t'St., Suite 303
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Mr. Jim Hinderaker
Senior Planner
Mesa County Planning and Development
POB 20,000
Grand Junction, CO 81502-5022
Dear Sirs:
ForWldlifc-
For PeaPle
May 1,2002
The Colorado Division of wildlife has reviewed the applications for a Garfteld County Special Use
permit for the parachute Creek Gas Plant , and, for a'Mesa County Conditional Use permit for the
piceance pipeline project, both being submitted by Williams Production RMT Company'
We have the following comments:
1. Cumulative lmpacts: The EnvironmentalAssessment prepared by the BLM refers to cumulative
impacts studied and says that there are no significant cumulative impacts. The Division of Wildlife does
not believe that cumula[ive impacts of the projects have been fully considered or disclosed' The EA
document does not elaborate on cumulative ioncems, such as the impacts from future well
developrnent that wilt supply gas to this pipetine, The EA.purpose and need states that this pipeline is
needed to service existini gai wetts as well as future wetti and increased natural gasdemands'
Although this pipetine wiil-nlve litfle direct impact on wildlife, the cumulative impacts of existing and
future wells remains to be seen or analyzed. More gas wells will obviously be drilled in Garfield county
and it is not known how many gas rrtreld in Mesa county would be put in place and connec'ted to this
pipeline. Fragmentation
"nd
Jegradation of wildlife tra-oitas is likety to occur with tncreased gas fietd
developments resulting from this pipeline installation'
Furthermore, if any portion of the increased need is planned to come from future leases on the Naval Oil
shale Reserve or increased production of existing Nbsn leases, then it should be disclosed and'
tossibty be a pipeline over whicn FERC should have some regulatory authority'
2. Reclamation plan: The Mesa County CUP plan states that excessive rock supplies will be
.
distributed over the pipeline right-of-way'in piles or rows. We encourage replacement of rocks' in
DEPARTMENT OF r{AruRAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Walcfrer, E:rectltive Dircctor
WLDLIFE COMMTSSION, Riick Enstom, chair. Robert shoemakJr, MeChair o Man?nna Raftopoutos' Seoetary
ffi
@
comparable naturaldensitias, wherever rock outcroppings are disturbed- This helps mitigate impacts to
reptiles, smaltmammals and some bird species. The Division of wildtife supports boring beneath
sorne of the rock outcroppings, which, wiil preserve habitat for the above species types'
ln general, both plans should place more emphasis on invasive weed monitoring and control'
throughout the lives of the pipeline and flant facility. .We encourage the requirement to inspect and
clean equipment for weeds before the equipment enters construction sites. Revegetation success
should not just be based on the density of preferred plant species; it should also be based on the
absence of invasive and noxious weeds.
The Garfield county sUp ptan assumes access to irrigation water for reclamation/revegetation
purposes. Howeve'r, it ,t"i.. in Exhibit A, page A-2, tfiat the water rights in the irrigation ditches have
been previously solj. The availability of tiris ilater plays a significanirole.in th.e vegetative status of the
historic agricultural lands in the permit "o". rt may alsb signiicantly affect reclamation success and the
abitity to prevent noxious weed invasion'
3. pipeline Routing: Riparian areas should be avoided. Though the Colorado River floodplain and
riparian community Ire avoided, we are concerned about the riplrian area along Parachute creek in
Garfield County. There are Cooper's Hawk and Northern Harrier nests along Parachute Creek in the
vicinity of the proposed route. The route should be surveyed for active nests, and the timing of
constiuction activities adiusted accordingly'
4. Gas plant (Garfield county). The biggest wildlife impact is the loss of the acreage at the plant site
(1gac.). The area was an atfalia tieto aii neavily utilized by deer for transition and winter forage' The
Division of wildlife iupports fencing the entire siie for protection of the site and to keep wildlife from
entering.
we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. lf you have any questions, please call me at
255-6100.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manager (Acting)
xc:
Catherine Robertson, BLM - Grand Junction
Ann Heubner, BLM-Glenwood SPrings
Steve Yamashita
Joe Gumber
John Broderick
John Toolen
,@
To:
Re:
From:
MEMORANDUM
Randy RusseII
Steve Anthony
Comments on the Williams Speeial Use Permit
thanks for the opportunity to comment on the williams Special use Permit-
The Parachute Creek area has several Garfield County listed noxious weeds including Russian olive,
tamarisk, whitetop, muskthistlg houndstongue, and diffirse knapweed- Perennial pepperweed, which is a
State of Colorado and Rio Blanco County listed noxious wee4 is becoming prevalent in ftis area.
County Road 215 is one ofthe few roadsides in the County that has shown an increase in noxious weed
populations over the last two years- This may be in part caused by the pipeline fhat is parallel to the
county road (in fuct it is in the county right of way). There are portions of the pipeline that have had
succeisfiil reclamation, there are other areas uihere it hasn't been and the weeds have
established themselves. These weeds are now a threat to the reclaimed areas and also to livestock graz]trlg.
It is important to ensure that any proposed disturbance is backed up by a commiment to revegetation and
followup $rgsd management. Williams has detailed a rectamation ptan that addresses seed mixes, planting
schedules and methods. The weed management plan states that a qualified person will inspect the location
and followup management will be based on tle inspection.
My recommendations are to reguest a revegetation bond and a more detailed weed management plan.
My cornments are as follows:
1. Noxious Weeds
r Inventory and mapping-I suggest that the applicant map and inventory the proposed project
area for any listed Garfreld County Noxious Weeds (attached).
o Weed Management-The applicant shall provide a weed management plan ftat is specific to
the inventoried noxious weeds.
2. Revegetation
The applicant has provided the plant material list and planting schedule. The applicant has
proviaeA a project map, however the area im't quanitified in terms of acres to be reclaimed- This
infonnation should be provided to help determine the amotmt of security that will held for
revegetation.
The applicant may include estimates for the reclamation efforts. The estimates should include
time md materials cosB for seeding mulching, and other hctors that may aid in plant
esfablishmant.
@,
If the applicant does not provide estimates for the reclamation, my recommendation is to request a
revegetation bond in the amormt of $2000 per acre for each acre hat is to be reclaimed-
The security shall be held by Garfield Corurty until vegetation has been successfirlly reestablished
according ti the attached Riclamation Standards- The Board of County Commissioners will
desipatJa member of their staffto evaluate the reclamation prior to the release of the security-
Please feel free to cotrtact firc at625-3969.
6\cl
4Cl'Lfrl:/W42 ll:74
g4/?gl?BZL 87;46
Jfly -s y?o
bz5Hbz T HUAU ANU EHIUIJE.
E76-62S-2751 GAPEILD fitr]NTY
OARFIEI,,D COUNTY
E*lding & Plamirg llcptmaw
RwirwAXcncy Form
I'AUL UI
P&GE 81
DdG SGnt: tnlfiT
Couruoltr llrcl {/}9tr2
Nrmc ofapplicetion: 'Vfillirms Co. Spocial UmPcnnit for a Grs Phni & Piptlm
Ssrtt to;
G$fiGld Courty rcqrrsts yfltr cilEErcnt in rcvics of thir projcct, Plcm Dotity lhit.Dcprrtrflf h tlccrycrt yor rrc ruDk to r;peod Dy tlt lrc drtt rtrovc. Thig form
lnty bo urcd for your rffpofilc, or you mey rtrch your own additionrl rlttgts rs
,Fc$orry, $Irittcn w vcrtsl eomncrr rnrybadiroc'ltdto:
RrndyRus*ll
Gerfitld County Burldrng& Phnnirg
I09 flo Sucet Suitc 303
Olc{rrffid Spnngr, C0 tl60l
Phortc: 970-94$-fXI2
Gm*rI c(xnmcnts:
This rwicw rg*ilcy rccommmdr (srrclc *"y.(@o.n,n
Ttrc fotlowinl rrc suggerted asdition* of rpprornl, or lrE $* rcrsoms for dcnid
Ervirrr4 tn'lrirnl
@
Flpn 30 Oe 1O: 4Oa
l'
GVFPD 2A5 -S748 p.1
GR-AND
l'l
YALLEY FIRE PBOTECTION DISTB'ICT
?T SOUTH BATTLEMENT PABf,\PAY'
P-O- BOX 29s
PAB.ACTIUTE, co 8L635'029s
g7O 285-gL]-g, oFFrcE
9?0 z8S'97 4a, FAX
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
99 fL1
FEOT&
David A Bleir, District Fire ChieE
DATB 4-sc)-D+
icrr,g No. oF PAGES INcurDINc covEt
)o - 5f-+ f:{_7o -)
PI{ONEI{UMBEE SENDERS REFENENCE NUMBER
YOUE X.EFEEENCE NUMBEE
EunceNt EIronREvtEw E pr.e,rse coMMENT EI Pr-eAseR'ePLY E pr-sAse REcYcLE
NOTES/COMT(ENTS:
{ ft lo t<)c-,'z { fr- Tt<r ! V "->'u <r t-z-* i-/ D i'+f Lot i-<*.:_-
/' *,-u 5rt<l-'-'
I 0 r Pr.t i Yt/lc'i -f t'l >- (<)
, ) ,,, ,/u {--* E-' u'-t <-'5 c
L-J L) vv1';> Lr'lh'S
@NFIDET{TIAUTYNOTICE
THtS FACSIMTLE TRANSMISSION A ND ANY ACCOMP^NYING DOCUMENTS CONTAIN INFORMATION
BELoNGINGToTHEsENDER,vI{ICHMAYBECoNFIDENTAL^NDLEG^LLYpRIvILEDGED.,.THIS
INFoRMATIoNIsINTENDEDoNLYFoRTHEUsEoFTHEINDIVIDUALoRENTITYTowHoMTHIS
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION WAS SENT AS INDICATED ABOVE- IP YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING. DISTRIBUTTON' OR ACTION TAKEN TN RELIANCE ON THE
coNTgDTsoFTHEINFoRMATtoNcoNT^INEDINTHIsFAcsIMTLETRANSMISsIoNIsSTRICTLY
PROHIBTTED. IF YOU H^VE RECEIv.ED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR' PLEASE CALL (9?O) 285'9II9 TO
ARANGS FOR THE RETURN OF THIS DOCUMENT TO US' THANK YOU
4
:l
F]t]( NUT'{BER
e85 -lt'/+ti P.zlt@E!Er'" 30
I
a? 1O:4Oa GVFPD
\
GRA}ID VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
L777 S. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY
PO BOX 29s
PARACT{UTE, CO 81635
(97 0) 28s-91 19, FAX {97 0) 28s-97 48
April 29, 2002
Mr. Randy Russell
Garfietd CountyBuilding & Planning
109 8'h Sfteet, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
subject: 's/illiams co. special use Permit for a Gas Plant and Pipeline request
After reviewing the provided documentation ftom the applicant, I would recommend to
the Garfield Co,rrrty Building & Planning Board to approve their request' with the
foUo*irg clarifications made prior to construction activities' The Gas Plant project is to
be located on the east side of paractrute creek, opposite an establislred water and fire
protection system In the proposal, no provisions for lle protection are addressed' The
ii"p"-a does specify a domestic water consumption of 30 gallons a day, to be stored in a
cistern. Because of the nature of this project, clmpressing, processing and transportation
of NGL, alr approved fire suppressiorr- plan mst b: apart of any construction and
operations permit process. It is unclear from this initial proposal if williams will be
cinverting i*irting^A*ilities at the Man-Carqp for office persorurel or if it is to be used as
equipment storage. The previous suP, Resoiution 8l-14, the Boc granted to Union oil
company of california a., approval with condition 'J." stating that during residency of
more than 20 persons, the Applicant shall provide fire protection acceptable to the Grand
valley Fire Protection Distrist, reasonably required by s}eh agencies' while this is a
,ditrerent tlpe of us€, the Grand Valley Fire Piotection District would like to see similar
language i*Ua"a. itre Crana Vafley Fire Protection District would expect the plant to
meet all NFPA and UBC,iIJFC requirements and would not be seeking any addilional
restrictions.
The only otlrer comment the District has pertains to access in the event of a wildland fue'
We would like to work out a pre-plan foiaccess in the event'Williams decides to lock and
secure some of tJle current Uoio" Oil gates- This is a small issue and should be easily
resolved and have no ef[ect onthe Williams Project'
Wiuiams Energy Services have proved in the pa"st that it is commined to the safety of its
personnel and the environment as evidenc"a Uy its current Safety and environmental
record. The Grand Valley Fire Protection District believes that this project wiil be an
asset to the cornmunity and the District.
@
1 O: 4Oa GVFPtr za5 -lJ'/+u P.3o2
t
If I can be of any further assistance to either the Garfield County Building & Planning
Department or wiuiams er"rgy services, I can be reached at: office - (970) 285-9119 ot
ceu-(e7o)250-e85r. (-i [)n {_ A{,UJ \,,,(-
David A. Blair
District Fire Chie{ GVFPD
cc: David R cesark, Environrrental specialist, williams Energy Services
File
@
RegulatorY Branch
DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA-9581 4'2922
Marcir. 2't ' 2002
(20027s111)
This verif icat'ion is valid Yt:l^y":?*2J, 2004. If You
have I:l = .:ffi i : I :3' ;:1" ;'i1: :i -;y- ::::^ : i:;' "I":";n:Hlir::":ffi :
iilI= "ljii =' I i' ii; i ;": ; ;,';
- :! : :::, : : t ::T3: l::oi.-..y chranges wh19h
;:; ;:;""'"Il"i;;i- ;; :h:."::::":i1:.:E'Ii3= ;?3I ?3l3'3iil'i;;";"i' i' :y:t-'lll7;':":":"*::3I.":'Jf';";:";""r-"'u familiar with the terms
Mr. Robert Gardner
Hiiiri"*= Production RMT ComPanY
Post Office Box 370
Parachute, coiorado 81635
Dear Mr. Gardner:
We are respond'ing t'o your I"q::-:: ' submitted' by Mr ' Jimmy
smit.h of eroi ecl Develop*".rt Industriu= '
-
f ot a DePa5tment of the
ArmV permit nationwide g.,.;iui..peimit "l'iii.acion
to consLruct
"opioiimarer; i;";ii;= 5r'IiI!r-"tt".r-n.= pipel+": rhe
oiberine wirr ue insralled. ;;; a--iiciriiv abpr?Ii*3LtLv 4 miles
irrorrr, or rhe rown of n"t-Jniil"'t*r-1,n i"Ltilit 33' Township 6
sourh, Range 95 -WesL) , y? .r inLercon".;;-;iih the -Transcolorado
Pipeline locat'ed approxr-m"i"rv- z f1}u:'iltti*"=t of the Town of
De-beque GE -L / 4 seLL io3.: z^6 , il*,,sr,ip 8 South, Range 9.7 West ) , in
*?ti'::1,i1: T;:"n;;:l:l:li"l;::i#;:; ;:[fl]:';:]":i'::'"n'5"il:::'/
creeks, and numerouE l-t"tt-*!i Ipr'-'*"t'r d'rainages'
---.! -^rmi
The Chief of Engineers has issued nationwide generar-permit pecoeso
number L2 rr,icr, authoriz"l-*r" discharg;*;;-;;"9st6-"t f iri J',7-4a
marerial in ilr.i=-"r t.he united state; for utility line
act.ivit.ies.
"wt-f'"" determined that' V""' proiect will not affect
threatened or end.anger"a "p.":-.. ptottl["d- uy- ttre Endangered
Species Act' Your projt"i'can be "otl=t't1-'"ted
under this
authorit.y provid.ed the woit<-meets the """aitions listed on the
encrosed information shee;;' You must";;;a-" =l?":d letter of
certification to the corpl-of Engineers-within :o days after
completiot' oi ;;"-;;tk (i"u-leneTar to"'aition number 14) ' A copy
of ttr" certiiication star.*"ia is included for your use '
REPLY TO
AfiENTION OF
You lre responsible
ensuring that aI1
and conditions of
this Permit
REOEI'VEEAFR;
- 3$lt
@
-2-
We have assigned. number 2OO275LL1 to your project. Please
refer to this number in any correspondence with this office. If
you have any questions, please contact me at the aCdress below or
telephone number (970) 243-1199, extension 11.
Sincerely,
Ken JacobsonChief, Colorado/Gunnison Basin
Regulat.ory Office
402 Rood Avenue, Room L42
Grand Junction, Colorado 8150L-2563
Enclosures
Copies Furnished:
Mr-. Jimmy Smit,h, Project Development Incorporated,
Street, Room 302, Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Mr. Clay Y. Smith, Flatrock Energy Partners/ 15500
LLC,555 Zang
San Pedro,
. Suj-te 40l-, San Antonio, Texas 78232
,./vlr. Mark Bean, Garf ield. County, 109 BLh SLreet, Suite 303,
Glenwood SPrings, Colorado 81601
Mesa County, P.O. Box, 2O,OO0, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
@
ffPCD SSP Fax :303-782-C278 MaU 7 20W 10:3i P.01
STATEO
Bill Oren+ Gorlmor
ii-n t' t-toiton, Eretrrtivc Direcot
DrdieeredloplotecungandlmprovtrrgrfchalthandenvimrrmentolrheFeopleofCalorrdo-+*ilru{u'ffi*'.''g,Hiffilt## ,€rvic€s Drvirion
[Xffil'fl'fff"'i]fl[.*'* Eiiii esi]r.-tu-
-
nW f,tu,n tdPttc#&re.cE.ut
6ov6r ahee!)IF \\
to:
Air Pollution Controt Division
Facsimile Transmission
rnx #r
F.rqEI
Pbotrel
Dats!
Tlue:
rer # 3O7-782-0a78
Yerlflcet:lol # 303-692-315o
Eotal nrrslrcr af PtEaG {Lnaludllg
Jo',Fo,or^^r , '
ailtfiZt|rfifil ,lP.., '+- , Flett 7 ?nn? 1n .<1 D fi)
ENVIRONMENTAL AS SES SME,NT RECORD
NUMBER: CO-GJFO-02-L6-E A
CASEFILE/PROJECT NUMBER. COC-65 940
PROJECT NAME: Williams Production RMT, CO: 20-inch Natural Gas Pipeline, Parachute to
Debeque.
ECOREGION/PLANNING I-INIT: Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs Resource Areas
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
T8S.R.97W.
SCC. I2: N%NE% SEI/I; SEI/N SE7+NE%; SE%NW%SE%; SW7+NEI/ASEI/+;
SW7+NE%SE%
Sec. 13 E'/zSE'/tNWYo
Sec. 14. S%SWI/ISE%
s ec . 22.. S E % SW % S E% ; NE %SW %SE% ; NW % S E% SEt/+; NEI/+SE Ya;
SW%SW%SE%
Sec. 23 : NW%NW YiSW t/n; SE%NW%NW%; NE%SW%NW%; W%SW%NW%
Sec. 27'. SE%NE%NW%; WTzNWY'NEt/+
6th Principal Meridian, Mesa county and Garflreld county, colorado.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTER]\ATIVES:
A. Proposed Action
Williams production RMT, CO. has applied for a right-of-way grant under Section 28 of the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), to authorize the construction and maintenance of a
2g-inch buried natural gas pipeline on approximately 2.33 miles of BlM-administered land northwest
of Debeque, Colorado. The construction width of the proposed right-of-way on BLM land is 75 feet,
encompass ing 2L 18 acres. The permanent right-of-way on BLM land would be 50 feet wide'
The proposed Action involves only 2.33 miles of buried pipeline on BLM land. The overall project
(not a part of the Proposed Action), would extend about 17 miles, from a gas plant to be constructed
on private land north of parachute, Colorado to the TransColorado pipeline southwest of Debeque,
Coiorado. The proposed pipeline would follow State Highway 6 (l-70 frontage road) for most of its
route. A small portion is on Mesa County Road W.5 right-of-way. Other rights-of-way, including
another gas pipeline and a buried phone line also follow this route. Approximately 11 miles of the
p.opor"J pipeline is within the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way for State
Highway 6. The remaining 3.6 plus miles are on other private land.
This project would provide an outlet for gathered gas in the Piceance Basin to an interconnect with the
TransColorado natural gas transmission line. TransColorado carries gas for delivery to markets in the
Midwest, Southwest, und Culifornia. The project would transport up to 100 million standard cubic
feet per day within the first two years.
A Plan of Development for this proposed pipeline project has been prepared' The Plan of
Development describes construction techniques in detail. BLM stipulations constraining the proposed
project would also become a part of any BLM Right-of-way grant (see Exhibit B)'
In addition to the pipeline, a natural gas processing plant and compressor station would be constructed
north of parachute, on appro*imately 10 acres of land owned by Williams Production RMT'
Currently, it is expected that the plant would produce approximately 5 to 7 barrels of water per day on
average. The water would enter the plant from production wells as free water and water entrained in
the gas stream. The removed water would be stored in above ground storage tanks and transported
via truck (about every two weeks), to a Williams Production RMT approved and permitted
evaporation pond(s). Water discharge would have to meet local, state, and federal requirements'
Hydrostatic test water for the pipeline would require approximately 360,000 gallons (1.1 acre feet) of
water for the entire pipeline. ihe pipeline would be tested in four sections. Williams Production RMT
will secure uny n.."rrury permits both for the water and for its discharge. Hydrostatic testing
procedures and conditions for discharge of the water are delineated in the Plan of Development'
A Threatened and Endangered Species Survey ( including Sensitive Species), was completed for the
entire proposed route of the pipeline and plant area. A known population of Debeque Phacelia
(candidate species for listing) was found to be potentially impacted by the route; the route was then
changed to avoid impact to this population.
The project would comply with local, state, and federal requirements for water quality, air quality, and
other resources.
B. No Action
Under this alternative, the right-of-way application for use of BlM-administered public land would be
denied. However, the pipeline could be routed to avoid BLM land, and therefore could be constructed
without BLM involvement or impact to BLM land. Except where the pipeline would be routed to avoid
BLM land, the alternative would be the same as the proposed action (a map of this alternative route is
on file in the BLM Grand Junction Field Office). The route would be approximately 3900 feet longer
than the proposed action, and would increase surlace disturbance by about 41/z dcres. This alternative
route would cross the Colorado River twice, with impacts to water quality and riparian resources. It
would also cross under I-70 twice, increasing construction costs. The route would not follow existing
a
pipelines in this area (as does the proposed action), so previously undisturbed areas would be affected'
This alternative would have substantially greater costs and impacts. Therefore, this alternative is not
further considered in this environmental assessment'
C. Other Alternatives Considered
one alternative was a 4}-mileline over the Roan Cliffs that extended to the Greasewood Gulch
Colorado Interstate Gas compressor station and tie-in with Colorado Interstate Gas Pipeline and
TransColorado pipeline. This alternative would go through the Roan Cliffs, in undisturbed and easily
eroded grass and shrub land, and Spruce-Fir and Aspen woodlands' Economic and environmental
impacts would be much greater than those of the proposed action, so this alternative was dropped from
further cons ideration.
A second alternative was a pipeline through the Rifle area to Rio Blanco and on north. This altemative
also had much greater economic and environmental costs, and would not efficiently move gas
production to desired markets. Therefore it was also dropped from further consideration in this
environmental assessment.
The proposed action and route selection were made due to a relatively short distance to a main line
interconnect, the presence of a corridor on federal land with surface disturbance from existing pipelines,
utility lines, and a highway. The proposed pipeline is within the County Road W'5 right-of-way on a
portitn of BLM land; the majority of the remainder of the route is also within cDor right-of-way land
and other private surface. Due to this alignment, no other alternative utilizing BLM land or private land
is being considered at this time.
D. Plan Conformance Review
The proposed action is subject to the following plan:
Name of Plan. Grand Junction Resource Management Plan (RMP)
Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plan (RIVP)
DateApproved:January1987;January1984(Revisedl988)
The proposed action is in conformance with these plans (43 CFR 1610.5, BLM 1617 '3)'
On private lands, the project is subject to County processes. In Mesa County, a Conditional Use
permit is required for the pipeline. In Garfield County, a Special Use Permit is required for the gas
plant and pipeline combined. In both counties, public meetings will be held by the County Boards of
Commissioners to discuss the project. BLM is working cooperatively with both Counties to share
information and to address local concerns.
-3-
E. Need for Proposed Action
The proposed pipeline would collect existing as well as future natural gas production developed in the
parachuie, Colorado area. Given Williams Production, RMT's current development plans,
infrastructure, and the decreasing capacity of existing pipelines, the ability to transport natural gas
production from this part of the piceance Basin will face severe restrictions by the end of this year, for
the following reasons. Four major transportation pipelines move gas from the area. The Questar and
Northwest pipelines are currently at maximum capacity. Colorado Interstate Gas and Northwest
pipelines will be at capacity by the end of this year (2002), due to Williams development as well as
otil"r pu.ty development. Existing processing facilities owned by Williams Production are either at
.upu"ity or will be by the end of the year. The proposed processing facility and pipeline is needed for
continuing field development, and to meet specifications for treated gas set forth by TransColorado,
Colorado Interstate Gas, and the Federal Department of Transportation. Construction of the
parachute to Debeque 2o-inch pipeline is Williams Production, RMT's lowest cost alternative for
delivering volumes from this region of the Piceance Basin. During the first 24 months of operation, it is
anticipated the pipeline will deliver 50 million cubic feet per day to Transcolorado's pipeline, and to
markets served by the TransColorado pipeline'
F. Location and ldentification
The subject land is located between the TransColorado Natural Gas Pipeline just west of Debeque,
Colorado, and a proposed natural gas facility just north of Parachute, Colorado. The distance is
approximat ely 17 *il.r. Only 2.3,3 miles are on BLM land, which is rangeland, with existing pipeline,
utility, and highway Rows. Land use on the remainder of the route is primarily privately held rangeland
and highway right-tf-way (RoW). The BLM land is identified on the Debeque and Red Pinnacle 7 5
minute USGS quadrangle maPS.
II.
MEASURES:
The projectareais located in rolling to steep hills and gently sloping mesa tops and terraces'
Shadscale, greasewood, rabbitbrush, cheatgrass, alkali sacaton, and other grasses and forbs are the
predominant vegetation.. Exposures of Wasatch shale and sandstone are in the area. Members of the
Wasatch and Green River formations make up the Roan Cliffs, that lie just to the north'
NOTE: (Jnless Specifically Stated Othenvise, the Follotting Impact Analysis Is for BLM
Aclministered Lantls Only, and Does Not Inclucle Private or State Lands.
-4-
A. Critical Elements
AIR QUALITY
The air quality impacts of the proposed action consist primarily of the short-term production of
particulate dust during construction and until reclamation is completed, on2.33 miles of BLM-
ud*ini.t..ed public land. The proposed action would not result in significant impacts to air quality.
The proposed natural gas processing plant would be constructed on private land regardless of the BLM
decision on the p.opor"d action (right-of-way grant for the pipeline on BLM land). Air quality
standards are primarily administered and enforced by the state of Colorado. Williams Production RMT
has provided to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the type and
qruntity of emissions expected from their proposed natural gas processing plant at the Parachute,
Colorado location. Because total emissions would be over 50 tons per year but less than 100 tons per
year, the processing plant would be self-monitoring. CDPHE, however, may conduct inspections at
any ti-".- If found to be in noncompliance, appropriate measures would be taken to get the plant back
into compliance. Such measures may include shut-down and fines. Attachment D lists the type and
quantity tf emissions expected from the Parachute Creek Gas Plant Particulate dust would be
generated during pipeline construction on private, state, and public land.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project ROW was inventoried for cultural resources by SWCA, Inc., a BLM permitted
archaeological firm (reference GJFO CRIR 12702-Ol). Inventory included CDOT, private, and BLM
lands. Six historic properties were recorded in the ROW, none of which is evaluated as eligible for
inclusion in the Naiional Register of Historic Places. No additional work is considered necessary for
project implementation. If newly discovered cultural resources are identiflred during construction, work
in that area should stop and the BLM Authorized Officer should be notified immediately (36 CFR
800.13).
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
There are no disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects from this
proposed project on minority populations and low-income populations'
FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS, RIPARIAN ZONES, AND ALLUVIAL VALLEYS
These features are not present on the BLM land, and therefore would not be adversely affected by the
proposed action.
-5-
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
No traditional cultural properties were identified by the cultural resources inventory of the project area
(reference GJFO lz7o;-oi). In addition, there is no known evidence that suggests that the project
area holds special significance for Native Americans and, accordingly, no Native American consultation
was conducted for the proposed undertaking. This finding pertains to both the BLM and private lands
inventories for the proposed project.
PRIME AND LTNIQUE FARMLANDS
There are no Prime and Unique Farmlands affected by this proposal.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are several known rare plant species in the vicinity of the proposed project route on BLM land'
The BLM,s Grand Junction Field Office and Glenwood Springs Field Office have worked with the
consultant (pBS&J), to insure the plants and their habitat will be avoided during construction and
maintenance of the pipeline. The consultant has conducted an inventory, Environmental overview For
Picean on private as
well as BLM land along the proposed route. Plants included the Uintah Basin Hookless cactus
(Sclerocactus glaucus), O.b.qr. phacelia (Phaceliu submutica), Debeque milkvetch (Astragalus
debequaeu.y', and Rocky Mountain thistle (Cirsium perplexans). No special status specles or
Threatened & Endangered species were found. Balcl eagles do occur in the area regularly, but would
not be affected by the proposed project. The other special status wildlife species covered in the
consultant's Environmental Overview (sharp-tailed grouse, burrowing owl, kit fox, river otter, and lynx)
would not be adversely affected. The depletion of 1.1 acre feet of water requires an offset payment to
the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was
completed on March 11,2002.
WASTES, HAZARDOUS OR SOLID
The potential concerns would be with the disposal of solid wastes, improper use of hazardous materials,
or th; disposal of hazardous wastes. Standard right-of-way terms and stipulations require adherence to
applicable state and federal laws, which would include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
and the Federal Land policy and Management Act (FLPMA) which prohibits the disposal of solid (or
hazardous) wastes on public lands. A project of this size would require the storage and use of larger
quantities of hazardous materials (fuels, for example.) Accordingly, if the project is approved, prior to
t^he beginning of construction activities an approved Spill Prevention and Counterrneasure Plan would
be required. This plan would outline measures for the safe transportation, storage, and use of
hazardous materials. It would also outline steps the contractor(s) would take to respond to spills or
other accidents involving hazardous materials. This plan has been developed and is included in the Plan
of Development.
-6-
WATER QUALITY, SURFACE OR GROLIND
The proposed project lies within the Colorado River basin, with the alignment paralleling the Colorado
River. while there are several perennial stream crossings on private land, only ephemeral tributaries to
the Colorado River would be crossed on BLM land. Three crossings of the perennially flowing
parachute Creek and one on Roan Creek would occur. The flow in both Parachute and Roan Creeks
is seasonal with the greatest flow occurring in the spring of the year from snowmelt, and baseflow
conditions occurrinfin the fall and winter. occasional flood flows do occur during the summer from
convective storm runoff. Natural flow in these systems has been modified by irrigation withdrawal and
return flows. Water quality on Roan Creek is variable. High flows produce high sediment levels, with
levels greater than 5000 milligrams per liter (*,dl) common. Levels as high as 47 ,900 mg/l have been
m"asuied at a gaging station some 10 miles northwest of De Beque. Parachute Creek is similar,
experiencing high ,.di..rt loading during runoff events. Generally levels range over 2000 mg/l during
snowmelt, but have ranged as high as 95,000 mg/l at a gaging station that was located near the
proposed crossings. No water quality data have been collected on the ephemeral tributaries to the
Colorado River, since they u.. d.y with the exception of a day or two each year. Due to their
intermittant nature , they are projected to carry sediment loads similar to or less than those of Roan and
Parachute Creeks.
The principal water quality impact on BLM land would be from sediment produced during the
construction phase. The trenching operations would remove the vegetative cover protecting the soils
along the alignment. precipitation events during trenching/backfilling operations could increase the
sediment loading in the stream systems. The quantity of sediment introduced would not be much over
background levels with the mitigation proposed. Use of sediment fences and/or straw bales would
detain most of the sediment. This, coupled with the small impact area, the alignment paralleling the
borrow ditch of Highway 6 & 24, the gentle topography in the area, and distance to the river suggests
little sediment would reach the Colorado River. The potential for increased sediment loading would
occur until the alignment is rehabilitated to preconstruction conditions or better, probably a growing
season or two.
The hydrostatic testing could also impact water quality. The magnitude of impact would be related to
the discharge system used after testing operations. 'fhe 1 .1 acre-feet of test water would be discharged
on private land, using an energy absorbing diffuser that would prevent erosion. This mitigation should
eliminate potential sediment impacts associated with this operation.
No impact to ground water resources would occur with this action.
WILDERNESS, AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, WILD AND
SCENIC zuVERS
The proposed pipeline would not impact wildemess, ACEC's or Wild and Scenic rivers. None are
located near the proposed pipeline or gas plant.
-7-
B. Non-critical Elements
ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION
The proposed action would provide for transportation of a valuable resource to market. The proposal
would not be expected to impact access to public lands as it parallels the paved frontage road on BLM
land except for a short section. The proximity to this road and to other roads would greatly reduce or
eliminate the risk of unwanted off-road use, provided barriers to vehicle access along the pipeline are
installed in appropriate locations if needed'
FOREST MANAGEMENT
The proposed action would not affect forested areas'
GEOLOGY AND MINERALS
The proposed pipeline would have the beneficial impact of providing an outlet for gathered gas from
piceance Basin wells to an interconnect with the TransColorado natural gas transmission line, which
would allow the gas to reach more distant markets'
HYDROLOGY AND WATER RIGHTS
The hydrologic characteristics of the project area are described in the water quality section above' No
measurable change to the timing, duration, nor quantity of flow would occur from this project' The
limited water yield, rather level topography, low precipitation, small impact area, and short construction
period would minimize impacts. Additronally, most of the alignment is in an area that was previously
disturbed.
No water rights would be required for this project. Water would be needed for hydrostatic testing'
The source would be water purchased from the Town of Parachute. Use of just 1 .1 acre-feet is not
anticipated to impact existing water rights.
LAND STATUS/REALTY AUTHORZATIONS
The surlace and mineral estates of these lands are owned by the united States and are administered by
the BLM. The Master Title plats indicate the following land use authorizations in the area.
c-29686
c-01872
c-0123828
coc-35161
coc-30678
c-093824
coc-60501
Buried comm. line
Road
Powerline
Powerline
Road
Railroad
Powerline
US west
CDOT
Public Service Co.
Public Service Co.
CDOT
Union Pacific
Grand Valley Power
-8-
coc-31840
coc-s5427
coc-27740
c-053941
c-051868
Natural gas pipeline
Natural gas piPeline
Road
Road
Road
Canyon Gas Resources
Barrett Resources
CDOT
CDOT
CDOT
According to Geographic Mining Claim Index No. 022, there are no existing claims in the area' Land
use in the project area includes rangeland, recreation, and open space.
LAW ENF ORCEMENT/RE S OURCE PROTECTI ON
Construction and post construction would require increased enforcement presence for protection of the
resources due to increased use.
RANGE MANAGEMENT
The pipeline would not cross any grazingallotments, and would not impact any grazing system
management.
WEED MANAGEMENT
The project would open a window for weed invasion in two ways: one from transport of weed seed by
"qrip-"nt, the othei by the disturbance associated by construction. The weed mitigation measures
outlined in section 3. 1 of the reclamation plan within the Plan of Development are satisfactory to meet
BLM,s standards for noxious weed prevention (prevention of weed seed by equipment). Follow-up by
the company after construction and reclamation would be required..
RECREATION
Recreational opportunities and OHV use on both the public and private lands would not change as a
result of the proposed pipeline, as the route is parallel to existing roads, or within the CDor right-of-
way.
SOILS
Soils include the Bunkwater very frne sandy loam, I to 8 percent slopes (Map Unit 11C)'
Torriorthents, warm-Rock outcrop,35 to 90 percent slopes (MU 75), Travessilla-Rock outcrop, 10 to
35 percent slopes (MU 66), and the Uffens loam, I to 8 percent slopes (MU 67)' MU 11C soils are
deep, strongly alkaline soils, with a sandy loam surface texture overlying clay loam.. The unit is in the
Alkaline Slopes rangesite. MU 75 is approximately 40 percent rock outcrop. The soil component is
shallow over sandstone bedrock; soil textures are variable, with a channery loam often present' MU
66 is also about 40 percent bedrock exposures. Soils are shallow sandy loams overlying bedrock at
about g inches. This unit is in the Foothill Juniper range site. MU 67 is on mesas and terraces. Soils
-9-
are deep and strongly alkaline. Vegetation includes greasewood and scattered Big Sage. The unit is in
the Salt Flats range site. These soils in the project area have a high erosion hazard. Reclamation
potential is poor to fair. Erosion control measures as outlined in the Plan of Development for the
project should be sufficient to limit erosion and sediment production to acceptable levels. Areas in
which the pipeline goes through bedrock will take more effort to reclaim. Reclamation of the pipeline
right-of-way should return soils to a productive condition'
VISUAL RESOURCES
The buried pipeline would have a low negative visual impact on the characteristic landscape along its
route. Reclamation of the surface would help to minimize impacts from this project. The characteristic
landscape has already been modified by buried and surface pipelines, highway construction, and
powerlines. The proposed project would add a low degree of contrast to the visual contrasts already
Lxisting in the landscape. it would not violate VRM Class III guidelines. A scenic area of rock outcrop
located between pipeline alignment stations 650 and 695 will not be impacted by the pipeline as a result
of mitigation proposed by Williams Production RMT. The company proposes to bore beneath the
rock outcrop adjacent to the frontage road, thereby avoiding any visual impact. This proposal is
addressed in Stipulation 5 of Exhibit B.
WILDLIFE, AQUATIC
This proposed project would not adversely effect aquatic wildlife.
WILDLIFE, TERRESTRIAL
The proposed pipeline project would not adversely impact any terrestrial wildlife species. Mule deer
concentrations are not ireat enough along the route to implement a winter work exclusion stipulation'
No significantly sizeable percent of any habitat would experience disturbance and the disturbance
perioJ would be short. Ana no species along the route is suspected of being highly sensitive to the
proposed type of activity. However, a Deer and Elk Critical Habitat seasonal closure extending from
December I through April 30, applies to the Glenwood Springs Resource Area portion of the
proposed project. This closure prohibits oil and gas development activities such as pipeline
tonstruction during the closure period. Although a portion of the project area falls within this critical
winter range for mule deer, the winter timing restriction would not be applied. This is due to the
proximity of tn. pipeline to I-70 and the frontage road, and to other disturbances which limit deer use in
the area. Additionally, the construction period on public lands will be of relatively short duration.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RES OTIRCE S
The proposed pipeline corridor crosses three geologic units southwest of the town of Parachute' These
include Holocene alluvium and colluvium, and Eocene-aged DeBeque ("Wasatch") Formation'
Northeast of the town of De Beque, the corridor crosses Holocene colluvium and slumped masses of
paleocene-aged DeBeque ("Wasatch") Formation. The DeBeque ("Wasatch") Formation is classified
by BLM in that ur.u u, being a "Condition l " formation, which shows a high likelihood to produce
-1 0-
D.
E.
scientifically-important vertebrate fossils. However, no fossils other than fragments of poorly preserved
fossil plants (wood and plant debris) were found during a contracted paleontological survey within the
proposed pipeline cooridor area. These fossils were considered to not be identifiable, and they were
not collected as they were deemed to not be of scientific importance. Therefore, it is unlikely that
scientifically important fossils would be impacted by the proposed action. If any sub-surface bones or
other potential fossils are found anywhere within the pipeline right-of-way during construction, the BLM
Field Office and a qualified (CO BLM- permitted) paleontologist should be notified immediately to
aSSess their significance and to make further recommendations.
C. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed Action would disturb approximat ely 2L l8 acres of BlM-administered public land, thus
increasing the potential for wind and water erosion before the land is revegetated. Other unavoidable
adverse impacts are a short-term loss of vegetation and short-term impacts to air quality'
Short-term use of the environment would facilitate and enhance natural gas transportation and stimulate
local economies. Environmental impacts would be short-term and insignificant. The proposed project
would not adversely affect long-term use and would enhance long-term productivity related to natural
gas supplies.
Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources would include the depletion of energy, materials,
and manpower necessary to implement the Proposed Action'
F. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts have been analyzedin the following documents: Transcolorado Gas Transmission
project Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.4 and Table 4-6, July 1992, the Oil & Gas Leasing &
Development Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.4, January 1999, and the
yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project Environmental Impact Statement, July 1999. The proposed
pipeline and gas plant would allow for a maximum delivery of 400 million cubic feet per day. Future
dwelopment of the gas industry would be facilitated by construction of this pipeline, however,
development and impacts would be within the levels assessed in the 1999 Oil and Gas Leasing and
Development SEIS. The impacts on air quality from plant construction and operation are described in
the section on air quality beltw, and in appendix D. The Proposed Action involving 2.33 miles of BLM
administered land would not result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality or other resources.
III. PERSONS/AGENCIESCONSULTED:
Clay Smith
Jimmy Smith
Consultant, F latrock EnergY
PDI, Project DeveloPment
-11-
IV.
Bob Gardner
Christy Barton
Jim Hinderocker
Janie Hines-Broderick
Mark Bean
Kit Lyon
Randy Russell
Mike Verkitis
Ken Jacobson
Ram Seetharam
LIST OF PREPARERS
Tom Bargsten
Dave Lehmann
Mike Berry, Cheryl Harrison
Dave Stevens
David Smith
Ron Lambeth, Tom Fresques
Alan Kraus
Jim Scheidt
Marian Atkins
Vaughn Hackett
Carla Scheck
Eddie Bateson, Tim Bottomley
David Trappett
Bruce Fowler
R.E. Godwin
Gerald Thygerson
Sparky Taber
Harley Armstrong
Engineer, Williams Production, RMT
Mesa County Planning DePartment
Mesa County Planning DePartment
Grand Valley Citizen's Alliance
Garflreld County Planning Department
Garfield County Planning Department
Garfield County Planning Department
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Soils, Realty, Air Quality, EA Lead
Cumulative Impacts, Air Quality, NEPA Review
Cultural Resources, Native American Consultation
Environmental Justice, Prime and Unique Farmlands,
Forest Management
Floodplains, Wetlands, Riparian Zones, Alluvial
Valleys, Threatened & Endangered Species, Aquatic
Wildlife, NEPA Review
Threatened & Endangered Species, Terrestrial Wildlife
Hazardous Waste
Water Quality, Hydrology, Water Rights
Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concem,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, Visual Resources, Recreation
Realty
Threatened & Endangered SPecies
NEPA Review
Access and TransPortation
Geology and Minerals
Law Enforcement/Resource Protection
Range Management
Weed Management
Paleontological Resources
-12-
cO-GJFO-02- 16-EA
The environmental assessment, analyzingthe environmental effects of the proposed action, has been
reviewed. The approved mitigatio., *"urr."s result in a findine of no significant impact on the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not necessary to further analyze the
environmental effects of the proposed action'
DECISION AND RATIONALE: It is my decision to approve the right-of-way for the Williams
pipeline as described in the Environmental Assessment and Plan of Development. with the mitigation
stipulations described in the Environmental Assessment, the project will not have a significant impact on
the human environment. If the right-of-way was denied, the pipeline could still be constructed by
avoiding BlM-administered public land, but this would require two crossings of the Colorado River
which would result in greater impacts than the proposed action.
STATEMENT OF ADVERSE ENERGy IMPACT: This project would not have an adverse impact
on energy development.
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER: /s/ Tom Bargsten , Dave Lehmann I-9-02
/s/ David P. Stevens
DATE SIGNED:
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL:
DATE SIGNED:
ATTACHMENTS. MaP, Exhibit A
Stipulations, Exhibit B
Plan of Development, Exhibit C
Air Quality: Parachute Creek Gas Plant, Exhibit D
4.
5.
6.
7.
2.
9.
EXHIBIT B
coc-65940
P. I of2
Stipulations
The holder shall request a preconstruction conf'erence with the authorized of'ficer at least two days prior to the start
of construction. The contact person is Tom Bargsten at the Grancl Junction Field Office, phone (970) 244-3030'
The centerline of the right-of-way and the exterior limits shall !s clearly flassed prior to anv construction activitY.
TI{E KNOWN Phacelia submtttica SITE WILL BE FLAGGED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND
MONITORED DI'RING CONSTRUCTION TO INSI.IRE T}IERE IS NO DISTURBANCE TO THE HABITAT
Construction activities shall be conductecl so as not to disturb more than the minimum area needed fbr construction
of the buried pipeline.
The pipeline will be bored beneath the rock outcrop acljacent to the fiontage road and located between pipeline
alignment stations 650 and 695. No surface disturbance shall take place within this area.
All disturbed areas shall be contoured to blend with the natural topography.
All soil erosion associated with the operation must be stabilized to a condition at least equal to that present before
disturbance.
Trash shall be conf-rned in a covered container while the project is in progress. Upon completion, all trash, flagging,
laths, etc. shall be removecl anrl haulecl to an authorized disposal site. No buming of trash, trees, brush or any other
material shall be allowed.
Thirty days prior to termination of the right-of-way, the holder shall contact the authorized ollicer to arrange a joint
inspection of the right-of'-way to fbrmulate an acceptable termination and reclamation plan. This plan shall include,
but is not limited to, removal of facilities, recontouring, stabilizing, or seeding. The authorized olficer must approve
the plan in writing prior to the holcler's commencement of any abandonment activities.
It is the holders responsibility to coordinate with all other rights-of:way holders to make sure that any conflicts are
resolved. tncluded, but not limited to, are Qwest, CDOT, Public Service Company, Union Pacific RR, Cnand
Valley Power, and Canyon Gas Resources.
Applicant/Lessee shall comply with all County resolutions and regulations and permit requirements.
All stiDulations and requirements included in the Plan of Development and the Environmental Protection
Measurcs will be arlhererl to. Any variation must receive prior approval from the BLM Authorized Ofiicer'
All construction heavy equipment shall be washed prior to entry on the job site, to remove potential noxious weed
seeds.
10.
11
12.
13.
EXHIBIT B
1.
l'
2.
coc-65940
P.2 of 2
STANDARD STIPULATIONS
Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (ristoric or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the holder, or any
person working on his behalf, on public or Federal land shall be immediately reported to the authorized ot-ficer'
Holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is
issued by the authorized officer. An evaluation of the disoovery will be made by the authorized ofTicer to determine
appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. The holder will be responsible for the
cost of evaluation and any decision as to proper mitigation measures will be made by the authorized off icer after
consulting with the holder.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(g) the holder of this authorization must notity the authorized officer, by telephone, with
written confirmation, immediately upon the discovery of human remains, f'unerary items, sacred objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony. Further, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(c) and (d), you must stop activities in the vicinity of the
discovery and protect it for 30 days or until notilied to proceed by the authorized oflicer.
The Cyrant holcler shall monitor the right-of'-way for the presence of weeds which are included on the County noxious
weed list. Afler consulting with the authorized oUicer, the holder shall control weed infestations which have resulted
from the holder's construction, operation, maintenance, or use of the right-of-way. If chemical control is necessary,
use of pesticides shall comply with the applicable Federal and State laws. Pesticides shall be used only in accordance
with their registered uses an<l within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the lnterior. Prior to the use of pesticides,
the holcler shall obtain from the authorizecl officer written approval of a plan showing the type and quantity of material
to be usecl, the pest(s) to be controllerl, methocl of application, location of storage and disposal of containers, and any
other infbrmation <leemed necessary by the authorized oflicer. Emergency use of pesticides shall be approved in
writing by the authorized of'flcer prior to such use.
The holder shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations existing or herealter enacted or promulgated.
ln any event, the hol<ler shall comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act of I 976, as amended ( 1 5 U. S.C. 260 I et
seq.) with regard to any toxic substances that are used, generated by or stored on the right-o1'-way or on facilities
authorized un<ler this right-of'-way grant (see 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and especially, provisions on polychlorinated
biphenyls, 40 CFR 761.1-761.193). Additionally, any release of toxic substances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the
reportable quantity establishe<l by 40 CFR, Parf 11'7 shall be reported as required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation ancl Liability Act of 1980, Section 102b. A copy of any report required or
requested by any Fecleral agency or State govemment as a result ofa reportable release or spill ofany toxic
substanoes shall be fumished to the authorizecl officer concurrent with the filing of the reports to the involved Federal
agency or State government.
The holder shall comply with applicable State standards fbr public health and saf.ety. environmental protection and
siting, construction, operation and maintenance, if these State standards are more stringent than Federal standards for
similar projects.
3.
1.
Fzf-lz
Q
F
z
F
U
-]
F
z
rl]
i.
..]
U
c
oI
xi)
@
-
E
E
a
I
I
E
;l-?l
,il
il
6l
>t-I
!-
605t
BAts=E555
=l'
:l.
>l
"t
tEt
l1
t:
IE
I
4
l=
;l
,I
;{
z
z
z z
z
Z
ZZ
Z
z
z
z
zz
Z
z
l*
lF
Z
z
Z z
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
nnn----:
ooociooo5
45566666
ddooocoo
NN---tn
6-66
z
Z
z z
zz
zz
ZZ
zz
z
zz
Z
+lr---nn
Z z zz zz
b
()
a
E
€"*z
I
n
Z
z
Z z
zz
zz
zz
z
ZZ
ZZ
z
Fiiqqc9q
cin!dN
!!!6no€n Z
z
z z
Z
ZZ
z
zz
zz
zz
zzOCFF
Ee.!.s.E a
1a
!;'dz
o
luuoquo
li l r J J J c
lN N N d
^ ^ :lgauguu=
lt r . z. t Z
t< < < < < <
I
I
lJ ? ? i d {:
IE E E E E E E
l. t 2 r r ,.!ldd& c. c9
I
I.t_^,--..-^!l? ? ? ? i i ?'i-toooo()ou.'lzzzZZZZhlu u o o u u o
E
J
E
o
rl
:il
:1.
a
l:
2
c
a
il
il
:l:
i:l
€il
;il
i:l
33[
l"
li
t;l:
li
J;
J
F
o
q,
a
Iv
{'
o()It
.91
SJ
E-
,E
ry
zz
zz
zz
zz
zz
ZZ
zz
zz
n!
zz
zz
zz
zz
6hNddF^i
6hNdN50
-€cc
+<*n=ao9
D--f)>=
FTTFFF:I
ssn'l
^adoaa99^^x;
aav+*9
6----ii
z>-
-ErEI E:n
E>
I
;E c€>d='E
!
9:
ai
!EJ
ooooaJJJJJ€9
+!dNN:6
:lt::-iEau9Qa=
I E {{{o
i,3dtd-
'aaLLL2
!!:!9trX:::::::zzzzzzzuooouru
=roI
N
-;>XE
9.!
U
9-
/,
U
3.-
c;
U
EA
1>
U
!,
!id
i'E
?
II)
@
a
E
E
a
9
I
EU
o
ot
r
,9
c
EOEF.,2
Pz
d<
F
zz
zz
zz
Zd
cocooooc
r:r:\aa?!N
FtsdJ56d^,
,ntntn?r
dN----o
-----€6
:ioodd
'ltqqq-Fr3'n
Ndoco-odoodooo
q.1qq.!!o
n'annlnF
cooqqs9c
ooidoooo
qq999!
aan$i{
uuouoa
I:::::; E
oooooo b 5A771A1:",i"
3 e um:bE
i.Y.41t;&&. I i to..*!nE
'd6LLdz
,r -r.l,l,lzzzzz
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION RMT COMPAIYY
SPECIAL USE APPLICATION
EXHIBITS LIST
A. Proof ofPublication as submitted May 13,2002
d"foB. Proof of mailings and certiEcation of posted notice trs submitted May 13,2002
C. Special Use Application and Materials, with revisions to date, submitted by Williams
RMT Company.
D. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as revised
E. The Garfield County ZonngResolution of 1979, as revised
F. The Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as revised
G. "Construction Permit Application" December 2007, for the Parachute Creek Gas
Plant to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control
Division.
H. Facsimile Tiansmittal from the Air Pollution Control Division, dated May 7,2001,
certiffing that air quality and constnrction permits had been granted the previous day.
I. A copy of the BLM Environmental Assessment review copy, received March 28,
2A01, forthe proposed Williams pipeline corridor, soliciting comments -undated and
unsigned.
J. The staffreport for this project, also containing the following:
K. Letter from Resource Engineering, Inc. Dated May 1,2002
L. Electronic Mail from the Lower Valley Trail Group, dated i|vday 8,2002
M. Letter and submissions from the Town ofParachute dated February 17,2002
N. Letter from the Division of Wildlife dated May 1,2002
O. Memorandum from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetative Management, Dated
May 1,2002
P. Response form from Garfield County Road and Bridge Deparhent, dated Apil29,
2002
Q. Response from Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Dated April 30,2002
R. Letter from the Corps of Engineers dated March 27,2002
s. /cLle, y'*. g;J /,,J^,r, J"&J 4+ s,/, zaaz
T lcffa, /r- 6orl^J/;l ?^-J,o -#n,rro, /ol*/t*rs, z4
U, /rr/* o*,J o#"Jnn/ot ,r"/-,,./; /r- Loi//,*" J"#J J^r(, zaa2
V. /rt* /r* ,(r**r, Eugrn-a,,ryZ,c-, 11.6/ f^a 72.2do*
w .-9u77/n*/./ /ro),L/^ *"#,*/ p.k, J^/-J ,t9€/za4
wiil6a3
May 31,2002
Mr. Randy Russell
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
ENERGY SERVICES
1058 County RD #215
P O. Box 370
Parachute, CO 81635-037 0
9701285-9377
9701285-9573 fx
RE: Williams SUP Application to allow for Natural Resource Processing, Offices, Equipment Storage,
Product Storage and Transfer Facilities and Pipeline construction.
Dear Mr. Russell:
please find the following information provided by williams Production RMT Cornpany (williarns) in response
to concerns raised inthe Recommendations section of your Project Information and Stalf Comments, dated
May 13, 2002, with regard to the subject application.
1. A detailed Storm Water Management Plan for the Natural Resource Processing Facility has been
prepared (attached, Exhibit A) and the associated Storm Water Discharge perrnit application (attached,
b,*[iUit e) nas been completed and submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and Environment
(CDpHE) as requested. in addition, a draft Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
for the same facility is in-progress. The facility is subject to SPCC requirements as outlined in the
Clean Water Act oithe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Tlre facility, when
completed and in operation, will store "oil" (as defined by the EPA) in quantities sufficient to require
SpCb compliance. The SPCC regulations are in place in order to minimize the risk of "oil"
contamination to navigable waters and other environmental receptors. Williams will comply with the
SpCC requirement, *]thin 180 days of the initial staftup date of the Plant, as required by the EPA'
Toward this end, Williams has contracted Cordilleran Compliance Services, lnc. (Cordilleran) to
prepare an SPCC Plan forthe Plant(see letterof detailed explanation from Cordilleran, (attached,
Exhibit C).
2. The end of the useful life of the processing facility is estimated to be 25 years from now (2027). At
that time demolition and salvage of the facility and associated pipeline will take place, followed by site
reclamation (please see Site Retrabilitation Plan, attached, Exhibit D). The Plant will be abandoned in
accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations; i.e. aboveground
equipment will be removed from the site, pipelines will be purged and abandoned in place, concrete
structures will be buried in place with a *ini*u* of 3 feet of fill. All "inherited facilities" (i.e. water
tank, roads, pipelines, Man Carnp, etc.) are either currently being utilized or are in the process of being
evaluated for future use. When these iacilities are no longer being utilized, they well be reclaimed as
described in Exhibit D.
3. Water-related issues:
A. American Soda, through the operation of its Parachute Creek Project, will provide augmentatton
water sufficientto defray the depletions associated with Williams' use of Union 76 WellNo' 6'
Two letters of explanation ur" piovided. The first, provided by Wright Water Engineers, Inc'
(WWE) dated May 22,ZOO2 (attached, Exhibit E) details the projected water requirements for
both domestic ani irrigation use at the Man Camp and domestic use at the processing facility'
This augmentation will provide adequate supply for the domestic needs of both the gas
pro""rri'ng facility and Man Carnp. ihe secondletter (attached, Exhibit F) provided by Balcomb
& Green,"p.C. (Balcomb), states a legal opinion that "No further legal undertakings in Water
Court need to be performed in order lor the Unocal Well No. 6 to be pumped pursuant to the
...,, (WWE letterj. A fax cover sheet (attached, Exhibit G), provides documentation that
American Soda and Williams have a fully executed contract to provide water augmentation
rights to Williams well no. 6 as described above for a term of 25 years.
ev
**
r-1rr fHdlYl
\@r/
- -. rlll .JEPIT'IIT
-- r.l I
--a^tIr,-rtAuu l+
INITIAL APPROVAL
DATEtEsuEo; rtaE 6, 2002
FeuED rf,r: ullittfurme ProductiOn RMT Go'mpany
THE SouRcE TO WHICH TH.E PEBlllF ,''PUEA .* DES'H'BED Ai'tD L,'ATED AS F.LLOWS:
NsfiJr€l gs6 proc$elng faollity, E*,n as Panrchute Greek Gas Plant, located ln the
Northweet y. -sf he Northead y. or d#ioi-silio6*liip ti soutt , iang. 96 West, n'rth of
PErachute on Garfield Gounty notJiis' in Garfreld County' Cdorado'
THE spEcrFrc EolJrpMEilToRAcr*wBUBtEcrroTHEr PERMIT IN.LUDE'THE FoLLoYlllNG;
.-r- --** --.,^,1^- au 6a,,tar'r.ranr I arJivltlec at ihie facilitv' Dgtalta of
^,\ r A^A.rErr EfAI}ITN SIITiMARY REPORT
045.038i WLL|AMS PROD' RMT coRP' - PARACHUTE Bosue N O'P' llbr
N1T2 OF NE 1'4 8EC 33 T6S R96W' OARFIELD COUNTY' OOOOO
NATURAL GA8 GATHEFING & PROCE$SiNO
GERARD ALBERTS (303) 572-3s00
WtLLhM$ PROOUCTION RMT COMFN',IY
001 !cF- -. lnternalcomo ttlili
DFc aB04 LE, E.4B MMBTU/HR
COMPREBSOR ENGINE:F
0OZ ICE lntemalComh Engina
COMPRESS9R ENGINE: A^lnX OPG ?804 LE' 5'46 MMBTU/HR
003 ICE lntemalComh Enoine
COMPRESSoRENGINE''+lnXDPC2E04LE'5'4BMMBTU/HR
004 ICE lnternElGomh Engine
COMPRESSOR ENGINE' dJEX DFG E8O2 LE' 2'82 MMBTU/HR
005 ICE lntemalGomb Enoine
COMPRESSOR ENGINE' nln'f DPC 2802 LE' 2'82 MMBTU/HR
oOG ICE lnternalComh Ensine
COMPRESSOR EHGINE' dJEX DPC 2802 LE' 2'62 MMBTU/HR
007 GEN GenErator - .i
CATERPILLAR 3516, 9.16 MMBTU/HR
008 HEA Heatar - Not A.Boiler
Hoi oru xenirn' ro urraiiunrR' NATURAI GAs FUELED
009 AMINE Amkre Reseneretor
AMINE BWEETENING UNIT - ETILLVENT EMISSIONS
010 GLY Gl!'lEol Reatl Unit - Nat Gae De
r-qxom c-i?cor TIeHYDRAToR' 100 MMSoFPD
01 I
:Joo"r.. *%'rffi-foT= sroRAGE rANK wlrH Fr-AsH EMlssloNs
012 3Jo%r. "i"Jtsl"-!"q.
sroRAcE rAr.rK wrrH FrrsH EMrssroNS
013 OTH Other
ruei PnessuRlzED TRUcK LoADour
014 VOC Misc' Vm lource
riErrrve tbi FCorvr LEAKING coMPoNENrs
ggg FAC FaciliU-wide-
-
FACILITY.WIDE PERMIT
IJPCD SSP
Y 02GA0014
Y 02GA0014
Y OzGAOo',t4
Y 0?BA00r4
Y 02GA0014
Y OzGACIO14
Y 0eGA0014
Y 0eeA0014
Y 02GA0014
Y 02GA0014
Y 02GA0014
Y mBA0014
Y 026A0014
Y 02GA0014
Y 02GA0014
E EElar? il^-
Fax:f,flJ-7g2_0278
l4ay ? .ZAOZ 10:32 P.03
ffPCD SSP Fax:303-782-0278 t'lau 7 2otr2 10:32 P.03
ffi COLOM
GONSTRUGTION PERMIT
PERMIT NO:02GA00{4 INITIAL APPROVAL
DATEIEEUEO: "Y 6' 2002
I8$UEDTO:Williame Production RMT GomPanY
THE SOURCE TO WHICH THIS PERHE APPLIES IS DESCRIBED A'.D LOCATED AB FOLLOWE:
Naturalga6proceeslngfaollity,[lov.,naePaltchulqc.rookGaePlant,locatedtnthe
Northweet % of the Northeaat y. of d;#;'s'3:iJd*liip e soutr, Range 96 West' north of
Parachuta ""'c#;H'd;-utti''R;"d
ti 5' i n Garfi eld countv' Goloredo'
THE SPECIFIC EOUIPMENT ORA TMTYSUilEgTTOTHls PERilIITIHCLUDESTHE FOLLOWIT{G;
This is a facirity-wide permrt coverlng a' equrpment / activitrea at this facittty, Deta*s of
Jqrip*"nii Jot'viti* ire given in Attactrmant A'
THIS PER*IIT I$ GRAI.TED $UBJECTIg^.L RULESA^IO-REBUTATIOHS OFT{E COLSADOAIR
auALrry cor*rnoil;ffifrlt*roil *r-d-r-ni--c-oiomoo'in p6r-Lufl-o_N j'FEvENrroN AllD
coNTRoLAtrTQ.R.s.(25f.10rg.!f;ql.1?iioe-ic_ilrenrurEnl,rElnocoxonloNsIHGLUDED
tN rHts DocUMEHi-A$ ine r6iilowifti Uiicri* rERils At{D co}'lDlrlo*$:
1. cOnslruction of thlE Eour@ muEt commence within 18 months of inltlal epproval permlt lssuence
dEte or witrin 1g months or aae oi'wnictt rrorr annetsucilron or activity wae scheduled to
commencE as gtEt.d in the apdrcation. rf commEncemant doeE not occur within the stated time
tre pErmit witiexpire ., eltffi,Xl *;'#
(see General Gonditlon
No. S.,ltem 1') (Reference: Regu
2. Within one hundred gnd elghty o+rs (10-0) afler coml-TEement of operatlor'r' compllence wlth the
conditionE contalned on thie p"rmit *r,uif be dEmonefrut*10 tha Diviiion' lt ie the permitt,€'s
reaponalbilig to self c"il,ry_ gorpri.* *[h u'te conottion". Failure to demonetate compliance
withrn 1Bo daya may reEult in ,""#ti'oitrr" porit. (tnformation on hopto certify comprianoe
was maited with the parmit or.rn-t-"'outaineo trom ttre DiviEion at s03-692-3209')
3.AIRSlDnumbere(forexample,.AIRElD:002')shatlbemerkedontheBubiectequipmentfor
aase of lderrttfhatisr. (Reference:'iffi:i: Pil'8, M.E,) (State only enforceable)
4, The manufacturer, model numher and aerial numbEr oJ the aubiect equipment shatl be provlded to
the Division prior to Final Approval' iit"f#;*t Reg' 3' Part B' tv'E')
5'Thissourcoiesub|ecttotheodorrBquiramentsofRegulatlonNo.2.($trateonlyenforoeable)
045/0385/Ssg ver.2/00
ffPCD SSP Fax:503-782-0278
Williama Producilon RMT Company- ParachuE Creek Gaa PlEnt
ilT,Xltlll;"t1?A0014 cobrado Departnent of Publlc Heelth and Environnrent
6.operttingPermit(oP}requlremE.nlsshaltapplybthigsouroeatarlyEuchtimethatthlsBource
becomsE major sdle[ by virtua of a tetorstlin in any permtt limitatioh. Any relaxatton that
incrBf,Ees ffrd po*n*al trc emlt aUore tirJappfiouttCie uieehold rhall ralulre cubmithl of and
lsguance of atlopurating permit' under Regulation 3' Patt Q'
f.ThlsfacilityshdlbalimttedtoanovgrsllmaxlmumthmughputaallsHbelow,.ac,tiv,rtieelnthe
rndividual equipment/ activitiea * ,-piliii* in.attsctrme-nt A, and a|l other activities. operational
raEe and numbe|B d equlpment as'sratea in the applicetlon. Monthly recortls of the ac{ual
production oii*n"fiUe'miln6iniUitfrianqlc"l antt.made arrailiule to the DiviElon for
inepec,tion rilrrliqrirt. fi*er"ncel Regulaiion 3, Part B, lll.A.4)
Pruoemingofnaturdgaa(feed)atthlsfacilityahallnotel<oaed3'100'000'000scFpermonth'
ani ie,so6,ooo,ooo 3cF Per Yeer'
DuringthefirettwelvB(12)monheofoParetlo-n.compliancewithboththemonthlyandytarty
protructlon rimirauona anait u" r"quirJ. an"r ha Rrrt twelve ('12) monthe of operation' compllanoe
wi0r onty the }rearty limitatlorr erratt ue required. Cornpti"n*,,itn,ne loarly productlon lim.rts Ehall
ne datEimineO on-a rolllng twelve (12) rnonth tstEl'
S,Totalfaoilltyemiaalongofalrpollutanieshallnotexoeedthefullowinglimitatlons(atcaloulatedin
the Divisionr*ffi1ili;H anfir"b)r ffiEsion timic for individualemission sourceB Ehallba as
specified tn AirachmentA Gonpiffi;;,th the annuatiimitE sialrbe detennin# on a rolling (12)
month total. By the end of eaor monir'ri rrerry twelve month btal i8 calculsted baeed on the
prwious #"t"L;;lir:'-Hffi;-p;;il h;i.i* .h"ticatcutate monthlv emlesiong and keep a
complianceleilrJ"n in" fur oiviE',ln rwion. (Reference: Regutation 3' PeftB' lll'A'4)
particulate MattEr: 0,5 ton per month and !,! ton8 p€r yeal'
pMlo t;;-rri;lut* r.itrt"r*1o pm): 9,? F" oer month and 6.0 tons per vear'
Nitrogen Oxldee: .
r-'' '' z'3 toni per month ""q H'Itone Paryear'
vor*il" bE"nio compounde: 7.6 tonE oer month and 89'3 ton8 per yeer'
csrbon Monodde: 7.0 tona oer month and 82'4 tona per yeer'
Any Slngle Hazardoue Alr Pollutant: 0.7 ton oLr mortth encl 8'0 tons per year'
Total of All HazErdous F;1t PoiiuttnL, 1'? toni per month and 20'0 tons per year'
Durlng the flrgt twelve (12) monthe of operation, compliance wlth both the monthly and yearly
Emhabn llmitations sha[ be r*quir"o. Aner the first twelve (12) months of operailon' complianoe
wtth oflly th' yearty ltmitation ,rtrriu" ,"qrirea. compriiti.J*iit the parly imisElon llmits ahall be
Jetermi-neo ein a ritttng hi'elvE (12) month total'
g. A Bource compliance test ehall be conducted to meEsure the emisgion rate(s) for tra pollutants
lleted batmv irr order b *f,*, conipflai-d-*iri, emBei* ti*its, The tett protocol muet be ln
accordance wlth rrg,=quir"r"nHd rffi ;il;;iilI6. bo*uot Dlvision compliance teet Manual
and *ha[-u;uffiffiE t. onil,[niorro,l* qld apPrwal at reast *n'* (nt3yn?ffi#T"iny*o"*
tectins. fi"Jfiifi;I";i-.t'"ri Ue c"t'ductad wiihout priol s'Pro,al from tl
tast conducted t6 shor compriani-frtr " miinttti or arinuat emiasion limitation ehall have B,e
resutt. proiected up_to the ,nontntii innuaiaueiagi.g i.ffi [y *'itipty"g the teat results by the
e,owabte number of operating #il#tffiir"i.iii6tire (Reference: Regulation 3' Part
B,M.H.3)
Oxidea of Nitrogen uting EPA approlrcd **h+j'
carbon rr'tonoxte ushg eRR approaed methoda'
045/0385/gg9
var, ?/00
Williams Produotion RMT Company- ParaclrutE Creek Gas Pl6nt
ff#ltlli;tl"F tt-
Gotorado Department of Pubtic Hqaltr end Environment
t0.RegulationNo'E.standardEofP-erformanceforNer.vStatlonerySources,PertA-Federa|
Reglster n*gui"lfo* mopteo ay neference, apPry to the emiasion sourcse gpecified belol' and
the-provislons include, hut not limited to' the blloring:
Hot oil Heater raferenoed under AIRS lD: 008 is subjEd to Subpart Dc - Etandards of
perfonnance for Small lnduatsial-Commerciel-lngtitutional $team Gonerating Unita
$ 60.48c - Reporting and recordkeeping requlrements
component* refercngBd under AlRs lDl 014 ars *ubiBct to gUbpart KKK - Btandards of
perfonnancg for Equipmeni[iaxr of Voc From onshors Natursl Gae Proceesing Plants'
A lesk detection snd repeir program Bhsll be lmplemented to complywlth theee
standarde.
GondensntE ilorage hnh* raferenced under AIRB lDe: 011 and 012 are subject to
subpart Kb - sEndards JF;o*anm for volEtile orgarrio Liquid storage Veseels
tr..r'r11i,i*p*ili"r'r'iiq*iis,iil;G;*h)rorwhir:h conskuction, Reconstruc'tion' or
Modificaiion Commerrced after July 23' 1 984'
S 60.116b - Monitorlng of opaations
ln additlon, lhe following requlremante of Regulation No' 6' Part A' Subpart A' Gener6l Provisiong'
apPly.
a' At ell times' includlng periodE of dart.up, Ehutdon,n, and malfungtloi, the facility
and control equipme"ni shall, to the egent praotlosble, be maintained and
operated in u mannei coneiepnt with gmd sir pollutlon control practicea for
mirrimizlng emtssioni, Determlnation of wtrether or not accepiable opemti.ng.and
maintenence procgoutet erB being u$ed wlll be based on informstion available to
the Dtvision, *hifi;;tir"true. uIt b not limited to, monitoring res$le'oPscity .
observations, *ui"* # operatlng gnd maint€nanoe procedures' and inspeollon of
$,* *our*. (Refercncet iregutation 6, Pari A General Pmviaione from
40cFR80.11
b,Noartigle,madline'equipmentorproceeBehallbeusedtoconcealanemlsalon'
wlrloh would otnerwise'constitutB aviolation of an applicable standard. such
mncEalment 6iJ"*, Uui it ""t
limited lo, th€ use oi ga.eou' dlluente to achiare
fi;;.,-i1iAffi W,ilt Enbpactty standard or wiin a etand€rC, Yvhich ie ba*ed on the
concentration of i poii$torit in ttre gas.s dlecharged to the atmosphere' ($ 60'12)
c, Written notificatlon of constructlon and lnltial eErhrp dates shall bB suhmltt€d to
the DlviEion as required under $ 60'7'
d. Reoords of startrps, ghutdovms, and mElfunctions shall be maintalned' aa
required under$ 60.7'
e.PerformancetertsEhallbeoonducrtedasrequiredunder$60'8.
A copy of tlre complete appllcsble subpart(s) ls attaohed'
RPCD SSP Fax :503-782-A278 l4au 7 ?0W 10:32 P. 05
045/O365/9eS
var, 2100
HPCD SSP Fax:505-782-0278 I'laU 7 2002 10:55 P. 06
WiUiamE Production RMT Company-Parachute Greek Gas Plant
Permit No.0?GA0014 Colorado Department of Publlctleelth :Hf,Ht3llll?:I:lnitialAPProval
'diPottution ggntrol Divig'9nlllluat^ylrre'sr ru ' -'.-*-_'-
11. Fuer-huming equipment (not intemar 3:?:1i'l:.3:':ti::3#l?:ffiJill;1;;'*t"l'i#:11il1iH,Tffi 1ffi16"T;'G;*:f, jI=?:,-i=*::1i'Snandsourcea'
i:#-J:;l [E J"J,
"11
;,"ndsrda or perturman ce ror N as F uer-Bu m i n s Equ i pm en t'
12,
13.
##,"T:ll'#tg,?*.,11ts[fi iii!fliLrsriifr -+t#i}tftUifrff!['d'iF'f
ll'"
;&;;JiE"pi^gril-"iiiltilrirruurney,lh;l"BH:1"-"i,HlElruEli[T8l,ilrTi"''n
Uasli win ttte-requirements of thie permil
A Reviaed Alr Pollutant Emlggion Notim (APSN1 ohatl be filed: (Reference: Reg' 3', Part A' lt'c)
a,Arrnuallyw{teneveraelgnificantinoreasainemiesioneocEur8aefollows:
For anY orltEria Pollutent:
F.r aourcea emittlng lees than t00 tonr per yeer, a chan0e ln-lctual emiEsiona of ftve
tone per )r€ar or more.ghovs the level reported on the laet APEN Eubmitted'
For any non+rlterla rcportable pollutant:
IthEemiEEionelncreaeebyS0%orfive(5)t,onsperyear,whicheverielesg,abovethe
iever reporteo on the lest AFEN submitted to the Division'
d.
e.
whenever thEre ia a change in the owner or operator of any faclllty' prooe88, or actlvity; or
whenever rrew control equlpment is installed, or whenewr a rtifferent ty?e d contlol equipment
i"pfu*t an axlsting typE of control equipment; or
Whenever a permit limltstion muet be modtfied;or
No later thEn 30 daya before the exlsting APEN explres'
Ram}dSeetharam
Permlt Revlewer
SGeier, P.E,
045/0365/999
ver. 2/00
RPCD SSP Fax:503-78?-A278 P.07
WilliamE Production RMT Company- Parachrtte Creek Gas Plant
PermitNo' OZGAOOI4
rnitiarApprwd
I colorado Department "t ""ifffiffiilI'Bffi
Note$ to Permlt Holder;1
if,#fr f;$,.ffidffifl1'n"*#il.{m;ffi +ffH-frffii:##
;nnlurt[li,L*#[i:Jrililil;';;i;"s,ir*rtiea"il-;'"d;tf orapermitrevieion'
2) Thia eource ls Bubjectto the.Ggmmon PrgvlgioneRegulatlon Part ll, subpart E, Upsat GonditionE
' and Breatrdo,rms. The pBmltrBs *nJri'idftv-uil9ivi;61or anv upsBt condltlon whlch causes a
violathn ot any amieel6n limit-or rrr"il iH&i n tnis P"rtit;"td; as poeslble.' but no later than
two (2) r,ou,i'l#'r'ti#i;J itiil iiliifrirris ;i;y,'tultiil;ed uiwrnten notice to the Divielon
explainlng tft]*-""u"* of tne.occurteioe inO frit proper
"odon
fi"t been or iE bsing tekBII to
correct tn* *'nTn;Ji*-o.u*rns drd;J"troi inoio inevi* s'uch eicess emieeron in the tuilre'
3) This fecility Ia claeeifled as e;
gynthetic minor eourca for operating permit applioability
4) The fororvrng emirsio-ns g[norgiturra ruportebre.air po*utantr arc estabri'hed based upon the
. actMtles a3 tnaicatea in thls permiltr" ','nio-rrn*ron iE tieteo to lnform tre operator ol the
Divieron,a anaqpis of the apeorfr";il;ffi;.'mi*l;offi'Jii"ii:i'iilt"a "" tne Diviaion'e emlesion
inventory sYstem'
QA.6.# suBsraNeE EMlsslaNS ILB|/RJ
75{7'0 Acetaldehyde """"""""' "r""'r'ir,j""r"""2'400'0
71-4*2. Benzene""' """3'200'0
107-21-1Ethy4eneGlycol.......'..'......tobedetErminedbaeedonmak6up
50-00-0 Formaldehyde""""""""' ""16'000'0
110-54.3 Hexana """"""' 800'0
10848'3 Toluene,."" """'600'0
1830'20-7 xvr"n"t'i'io'it";;; *il;*) """"""""'400'0
Amirte(orcomponentsofmixture)uaedlntheaminesweetenlngdonotcontainamlneE
liated aa Non'Criterti Reportable / Hazardous Air PollutantE'
045/0385/se9
ver.2/00
HPCD SSP Fax :503-782-0278 l,lau 7 2OO2 10:33 P. 08
willlems Produstion RMT Company-Paraefiute Cre€k Gaa Piant
iermttuo. 02GA0014
rniriar Approvar
I colorado Deparrnent * t:XlrffXl[."B"iHlBill:#
REMARKS/
gPECIFIC PRo!/lSloN8
-scHFrlol{
i,lANE, MODEL, sERlAL NUMBER' rylul,IflL%'?*
o'*=*Ulffii,tH,H.i.,-ffi.'iif liig*":151'''col*suMmoN'
E pr-wtcet=sr
COMPLIANCE PI.AN
Lo\rv EMrEsrt,No'="'*'''=ffii'i=]-drillirirw nrr=o nr roo HP' TH'E
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
eAs rtaEo'
'Lo\fvEMrsBroNsoesrer'r]-L6r;gqry'^*?fil,=.tlT%tglr*'*
COiTPLNNCE PLAN
GA$ FII
LouvEMrssonsoearuNll;^r€ry"--t3TlgTt*HX1"t_Hffr#ffifi bx'H,aE;riE-cinRna$eoerzooHP.rHrs
COMPLIANGE PI.AN
rneo,
LovvEmrssrot'rsoes,ouJLEN-Etgltnttl*t5^*'ort3'Jl[lr*,*Lou' EItfir,.,'N" L,Ee'Er!'| il6;;L';#-otil"ur RATE, AT 700 HP' THls
INTERNATC:OMEUSTIOI'I ENEI]G' III I E t4'ITUt TV
EERATTON
ililpr[BsoR E]Gl],lES: 130,000'000 gcF PERYEAR
TOTAL EMISSION$ FROM THE REFRIGERATION COMPRESSOR ENGINEE:
NTTRoGENoXDEE: tt PIS=IHS
Uliffi,.?bfr;ffi GoMPouNos: f':Hi::E:J:l:
COMPLHT.rcE PI.AN
LGAS FIRED'
r.oweurssroN=og_sg1.-f11:rrg'ig[1Efl tff#}]l*'*
,ffi,i'fiIdfiirit,bJlno',.p' srrE ourP.Ir RArED Ar 838 HP'
ErvtPunt{OereST
GOIT,PLIAT'ICE PLAilRAL GAS FIRED,
LowEMtsstoNeoesro.l]-G;N'tsuRNz^€rRofi E'Iltl1o.Ttgn**.tf#*'ff^THffifi ;ilffi-ilr*-ourewRArEoArsBGHP,rHts
B IDENTIFIEDAE EilG{''
coupt-tmceresr
COMFLIAI'TCE PI.AN
GAS FIRED.
Iiffi aiiltrionsDH'9[HIy51La1'EX[oSHH"'**
,ffiff^fffi;JJniiJlHe*E' slrE ourPur RArED Ar 3eo HP'
IS IDENTIFIED A8 E}IG{6.
ens
i6i,iCiseoR ENGINEE; 68'300'000 BGF PER \EAR
TgrAL EMlsslolls FROIu THE RESIDUE cAE COttPRE$soR ENGINES:
NITROGENOXIDE8: 19'5 TONSPEB\EAF
VOIAI1LEORGAI{ICGOMPOIJNDS: l5'BTON$PER\EAR
cliior.l-r,ronoxroE, lo'sTgNS PERYEAR
ver. 2100
045/036S/s89
HPCD SSP Fax:503-782-0278
Wiltiams Productlon RMT Company - Parachuta Creek Gas Plant
Permit No.02GA0014
lnitialAPPrwal
tlau 7 2OO2 10:54 P.09
Colorado Oepsrtment of Public Health and Envlnonment' ' -eit Pollutron Gonto!-Pi@
REI\dARXB /
SFEclFlc PROVISIoNS
%rnon
t!rAr{E, MooEL, sERIAtNUMBER. DE9IG-N RArE cHtT:
,,*ffi=d,H;'#;#fi -;fl'tli'*9i*1"*'coNBUMPnoN'
EtEcrBrc GEHeR4[98-E!9!IE!
COtelPUAt'lCE PI-AN
GOMPLIANCETEST
orlvnr'lgLE NATUFATGAs
FIRED, LO,V EMlsStONs DEBISN' 4'S1ROXE' RECIFROCAI1NG IIIITERNAL
COMBUSTI9N ENGIIE, SITE OUTPUT RATED AT 1145 HF' RUNNING AI{
ELEerRtc cEr.lEFAroR. THIB lS EENflFlEo +E Erlcrq-ffiigilgzi
coMPLlAt{cE P',l-At'l
CO{r,lPLl NCETESr
OT AVAITABLE, NATT,RAL GAS
FIRED, LoW EMI$SIONS DESTGN' 4€TRONE' RECIPROCATII'IS INTERNAL
COMBUSNON ENGINE. EITE OUTPUT RAIED AT 1145 HP' RUNNING AII
ELECTRIC eeueanto
eAE eONEIIttEO FOR COMBUSIION lN THE TWo
GENERAToR ENGINES, ToGETI'JER:7gts7o',000 gcF PER-YE R'
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM THE TWO GENERATOR ENGINEts;
NrrROGEN OXIPEBT 'tS'3rONS FERYEAR
VOI.ATILE ORGAI.IIC COMPOT,NT,E: E'7 TONS PEF YEAR
COMPLT/cNCEPllN
SUBIECTTO NBPS' Dc'i ' MTUEAL GAE FIRED' HoT olL
HEAfER, SITE HEAT INPUT RATED AT 15'OOO'OOO BTU PER HOUR' OFF
*-.. '*O*
N''*. *D GL1COL FLASH OFF TATIKS ARE ROUTEO TO
THlsHEATERFoRcoMBusrlot{,THlsHEATERlEloEt-lTlFlEoAgl{TR4.
NATUML oAS GOI'lSUliFIlOl'l: 1egp00'000 $CF PER'YEAR
ETISSTOHE FRAil HEATER;
llilRggEt{SlDEfi: E'JTOH$PERYEim
COMPLIANCE PLANFAL GA8 CONTACTOR, AMTNE
FLASH OFF TA}IK AT,IIHE REGENERATION REBOILER / SNIJ. VENT' THIS
IS IOHNNFIED AS AM]NE l' OFF GASEE FROM THE ATTINE FLASH OFF
TA}iK ARE ROUTED TO THE HOI OIL HEATER TAIRS ID: OO8)
T.TATURA CAE PROCESSED; 18,250'OOO'OOO SCF PER YEAR
LEAI{ AI$INE CTECULATON FATE: ?OO GAIIONE PER MINUTE
EMTESION$:
VOLATILE ORGANIG CoMPOur'lDB: 5'S TONB PER YEAR
045/0385/gss
ver.2/00
RPCD SSP Fax:503-782-0278
WilliamE Production RMT company - Parachute Creek GaE Plant
Permtt No.0aGA0014
lnltial APPrtcval Colorado Depirtment of Publlctleelth l1t *:itTI?IAir Pollution Cortho!-qlYlstq!
MaU 7 2OO2 10:34 P. 10
REMAr[(g'
$PECIFiC PRCnflSlONs
o,r*Hffii,H*-tiir-Jt6*#inLs.rlfg,-911,''coHsu*mo,{'
uer{E troDEL, sERrlrr. NUMEE! D-ETq,{.11HTncJ[i,
COMPLIANCE PI.ANi ercortlulruRr..c s
CO}ITACTOR, BL\COL FI*ASH OFF TANK GLYTO,L REGE]-EFANON
REBO{LER / *TILL VENT. IHIS 18 IDENTIFIEB Ag DEHY' I' OFF GASES
FROM THE FI.ASH OFF TANK ARE ROUTED FOF COMBUSTION TO THE
Hgr olL HEATER (AIRB l0: oo8)
MTURAL GAB PROtrE$SED: 38'500'000'000 SCF PER YEAR
tEAI.l GLYOOL CIRCULATflON: I OALLON9 PER' MTNUTE'
EMlsBlotlE:VOLANLEORGAUCCO@
GOMFLIANCE PI-AT'I
SUBJECTTO HSPE' Kb
'600
GALI3N8 cfpacny'
ron sromcE oF coNDENgArES' rHlE 18 nennaeo A8 nG'l '
CONDENBATE THROUGHPUT: 38'g3S GALLONB PER \EAR'
EMtBBlOtlE:co@ COMPLIAI-ICE PLAN
EUBJESI TO NEPS, (b'
tE GALL'N. cAFAclw'
FOR STORAGE OF CONDENSATES' TTIIE IS IDENTIFIED AS I1('2'
CONOENBATE TTIROUGHPUT: 38'325 GALIONS PER YEAR'
,nLEOR@
ulruRn cAsllot{99 COMPLIANCE PI.AN
DAY. THIS IS IDENTIFIED AE.I,OAD4'
I,5,I? TRUCI(S LOADED FERYEAB'
col,rpouHos: .-9.9 ro!!! PEEE
r'refUnAt e'm UOUIDS (NGL)
PREESURIZED TRUCK LqADOTJT, DESIGI{ RATED AT g5O BARBELS PER
COMPLIANCE PI-AN
LEAI( DETECTION A}'ID REPAIR
PROGRAM,
SUBJEGTTONSPS' IfiK.
rorrlr. regLftY COllPollENT Gotl llT:
YTLYEE(BAiBNAFffi)'. 414 vALYEB(UOlllD): 3tE;
REUEFVAL\rES| 'lB; COilPIRE88On'3EAI!: 30;
pl,pypgllt-B: tBi FLAifgEE (grEilAFOR): r63i
rt-AllGEt UauD): 208; CONI{E0tORE (GAE'VAP0R}: t'315i
045/0365/999
ver.2t'00
williame Prorluotion RMT Company- Paraohute creek Gae Plant
Fermlt No. 02GA0014lnilialApproval eobredo Department oI Public Heelth end Envlronment
OEHERAL TERil8 AT{D CONDITI TS; OS
1. This pomlt h Hued in ralienoE upon the acruasy qN +flrpl$nss of inforrptlon aupp{led bv ttre epdhsnt 8rd 18
condltlonad upon mnduct of the advlty, oi-rilstiiictm, inabrui* and operatlon of lhE sourcs, in accordanca with
this informato" i,iiffi-rpcae,rauoni ;EA byul6gppltsalt or apfllcent'a ageflta. lt ia vatid onlytortlra
iqiOmant anA operatonr ir aclivity aperfficElly id.',1;11ed on lha permlt,
Z, Unl68E spsciflc5lly Etgted olherwlse, the gaunl and ryeclfic condltiono conhlned ln lhls permlt haw been
debrmlned uyitrd mco 16 be nerces.ito o"ure mirrptiance urtft the prcvlrions of Bec'tlon 2$7'114'5(7Xa)'
c.R.8.
3. Eactr and evEry condition of thle pefmlt 18I nl8tadel Ert lt€raq.end ia rnt aevemble' Any ctullsrge E or appEal of'
a conditb* r,'.r[#ljtitlib-irit"iE'; ,s,ifiiilii't# #rtiI i*mit snd upon Eush occun?lcej this psrmit shalt be
d6sn€d d€ni€d ED In fr. Ttxs peffiit nui 6e-rE*t Ed at alny uma prloi to flnat eppmvel.by tte Air Pollution Gontml
Div6ton (Apcdid^;ffiri;;fi6;ii iiitiicotorBd; Ar oGlry iontrtlAct enl rBsuletons orthE Air Qualitv
contd commlssiotl (AQCC), indudtng fsllurB tO il'r68t eny €xprys Ern or conditlsn uf the parmlL lf lh6 Dlvtslort
danles s permg c[ndirion3 impoced up"rfiid;'ri;ni coiilAied by ihe applicant, or tha Dlvlslsn ,EYEkBs a PErmit'
the appricent or o\,her or op6*br of a ;;;il; r=cuest i hearitil mnri ue nqoc lor rcviar of the Dlvleion's
6slion.
1, Thls pefinit erx, 8ny rEqulrEd attedlm8ntS must bB rEtBlned.and.matle available fur inspedlon upon r€quE8t at tl16
locatjonadforihherein. wthresp.au-aiiitaiie'io-ur".rre[rsmoreotoanaxlocation,acopydthaRelocallon
Nolice (requlrcd by lew to be.submilHt u-fri rpco whenwer a poruuie eourca k rElocsted) thould be stEched b
thi6 perflrit. ThE permil npy bE rsissu€d d;&-*t't;r by irr-e rFco se provided ln AocC Regulaton No' 3' Parl
B, Saslon 11.B. upon e requesi fortsanEter of o,nnlrsnip 6nc tne ruUmidt of a rwiEed APEN snd the rBqulEd f68'
5. lseuence (initial approval) of an emieeion permlt doae $ or-cruagyneP authorfty for ttris a6'tivi9 or operalion of thk
source. FInEt apryovel ol tre pefifln musibe-Eec,jrod trom ne nrco ln writinO in acmruance wlth ihts prwlslorE of
2*7-i14,6(12)(e)6,R.S.andAeCtr.dffifiN;.i;;1tSrpect"nlv.x. Flnalappruvelcanrmtbegnanteduntll
gre operation or actvtty co1nmenc€B gnd"ilta h;n ;Btill.o uvitt" APGD ae mnormirig in alt respecB with lhe
condiriona
"f
f," ps#'tL'-ii'g1; epe-o ro';;-isfrir;;;il*rrr pfovHewritten doormentation of sudr f,relappnoval'
whicfi dme c.nefitute "finati aurhority b #;i;: 6:rrprrJ,itc *arr r,"-p"rr lt cord/ttkint musl b denrcnetabd
'iii/rin tm aav, efrit comfl,r.ncertefitofoPeielion'
6. TH|S PERUIT A|TOUAT|GAITy E)l(FlRErB lF l,uu .(l) qp nol EommErlce oonstruc-tion or ePemtlon uilthln 18
nronflu rfter eithir $B date of tseuance bilniJ paril6r tlre date on whlch ewlr construction or advltv was
actredulEd ro
'ommenca
aa set for$ in tfri p"'nfiii ,,triefiaver lg ratei ir) diacofiinue co.nstrucllon for a parlod of 18
monrlu o, ,*Ei'oi'iii-Jo 1otin#pet"-.i5rErt "ir"n
*riitn J naeone6td tme or the eetlmaH cornpl€tbn d6te'
Exteneima of ihe expira6on aeu may ua gffitfii iffi ApiD upon a itrarlns of sood c€use uy the perminee prlor
to ttre spiretian date.
7. you tugt noilfy the ApeB tt bst_trltt days tfifEen qtt.tur portrble roureae) prlo; to comm6nGsment of
the psnnrued oplrailon g? lSqgr .rilir-rE-tl riiiJu J vioLton itE*ton 25'7J 1i,'5(1?xa), c'R's' and AQCC
psguhrion No.EE*rt B, Scotim v.n.i, iria *"-rearttin the rewcatlon sf the permil. You ffi)d frmoast/Ete
conpti*e udfrt he pemyt g;noitions iiit:n-180 i;w ,tui enrlr,nrrmwrl of ofientan as sEM lil ffiditun 6'
E. Bedhn e+i4 u.z(a1s), C.R.S, raqulnee that Ell Eourtee required to file en AIr Polluflon Eml8slon No0Ge (APEN)
firu't psy un **ir i[i u *rr"r tti *uti Ji rnipecriona ani eomlntttrstlon' lf a Eourcs or sdivity is lo be
O.soontnued,Ef[dilmggtnotrytn" orrfli"il" r*ttrU requ€Eiihg e csncellatlon of fie permil^ Upon notificaton,
Ennualfee billing witl terminab'
9. ViOlaton ol the Enru of e parmit orof ttE provlatona of the colorado Alr Potlutlon PrarrErrtion artr controlAd orihe
regutaflone of tra AQEG mav rseutt in ao-rfiiriii-rat"E,-iirlr g
"tm-l,.el
Cnorc*t'rent ac{ona under Becliong 2ts7'115
(*rorcem#):fiiilirlirrdrilsi:i aa iiiv[ paleltiee), -1 ??.1 (crimlngt penal$es), G, R'E'
RPCD SSP Fax:303-78?-0278
045/0365/s00 var.2/00
WELIAMS PRODUCTION BMT COIVIPAI'TY
SPECIAL USE APPLICATION
E)ilIIBTTS LIST
A. Proof ofPublication as submittedMay 13'2002
B proor or ma,ings *o "*:::*:::ff '*'.- -:#. llli,*,"*,
C. Special Use Application and Mater
RIvIT company'
ive plan of 2000, as revised
D. The Garfreld CouoiY ComPrehenst
E. The Garf,eld Couoty Zoning Resolrrtion of 1979' as revised
F. The GarEeld CountY Subdivision Regulations of 1984' as revised
G."constructlgnPermitA'p1'":l$3'if fr :ffi Hk;[ff#ilt'ffi t';*u1oo3""""
ii*;;*" colorado Departrnent or Fuu"" '--
Division'
Er Facsimirelffi#i# ffi*"3'i'i'#;iffi"HlJ"'f#'
[arch28,certiffing that au QUa,rY *'-
LAcenv3r***',ggg5$,S:I#ill'iJi'Li!-J;ffi1":'i'-Yffi
*'
2001, forthe 1
;-fu feport for this proiect, also containing the followirag
K. Letter ftom Resorrrce Engineering' lnc' Dated May t' 2002
L.ElectronicMailftomthelowerVa}IeyTrailGroup,datedMayS,2002
M.LetterandsubmissionsftomtheTownofParachutedatedFebruaryll,2o02
N. Letter fromthe Division of Wildlife datedMay l'ZAOz
o. Memorandum from steve Anthony, Garfield county vegetative Managemeot' Dated
MaY 1,2002
P. Response form from Garf,eld Coun, Road and Bridge Depar@eat, dated April 29,
2002
Q. Response from Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Dated April 3O,2O0Z
R. Letter from the Corps of Engineers dated March 27,2002
Llnited States Departnleltt of'the Interior
BL]REAT' OF I"\\D \I.-\N,\( ;I1\ I I:\1
(ir.rncl .f Lrncrion I;irlJ Ofllcc
liil j tI Ro.r.l
Gr;rnrl Iuncrirrn, (-olor.r.lo l.i I 5()(.
ITll(F- r
^-',li'j--,
-
lfiiEfiltl-
--t
I-
-
I
II
IN l{l.ll.\ Rl:Fl.l{ l ( ):
2880/COC-6s940
co-130 l,,lAR 2 g Ztjrj|
Dear Interested Citizen:
Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment for a proposed natural gas pipeline right-
of-way which cross 2.33 miles of BlM-administered public land between Parachute and
Debeque, Colorado. Comments will be accepted until April 30,2002. All comments will be
considered before a final decision is made on the proposed action.
Comments can be submitted to David Lehmann at the BLM Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H
Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506. For more information call David Lehmann at970-244-
3021.
ffiQ-hrv\--
Grand Junction Field Manager
Sincerely,
atherine Robert
REG€,VEDHAR 2 g2/jtd2