HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 BOCC Meeting Mintues 12.14.2009DECEMBER 14, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
The regular meeting began at 8:00 a.m. on December 14, 2009 with Chairman John Martin and
Commissioners Tresi Houpt and Mike Samson present. Also present were County Manager Ed Green,
County Attorney Don DeFord, Carolyn Dahlgren, Deb Quinn and Jean Alberico Clerk & Recorder.
Commissioner Samson arrived late due to the weather.
Consider a request for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for Extraction and Processing of natural gas
on well pad GV 82-5. This site is located within the Battlement Mesa PUD, WHICH requires a Special
Use Permit for such activities. Applicants are Battlement Mesa Land Investment Partners and
Williams Production RMT Company — Kathy Eastley
and Consider a request for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for Extraction and Processing of natural
gas on well pad PA 41-9. This site is located within the Battlement Mesa PUD, which requires a
Special Use Permit for such activities. Applicants are Battlement Mesa Land Investment Partners and
Williams Production RMT Company — Kathy Eastley
Chairman Martin stated we would hear both of these applications together as notice was also
combined.
Deb Quinn, Kathy Eastley, Battlement Mesa Land Investment Partners represented by Chris Cole of
Balcomb and Green and Williams Productions RMT Company represented by Jim Morgel of Holland and
Hart in Denver, Ann Lane senior counsel with Williams Productions RMT and Dasa Bryan and
administration with Williams.
Dasa Bryan answered the notification requirements.
Deb stated in connection with these two items they were the result of a takings hearing that occurred in
August 2009 and at that time the Board set the date for this hearing before the Commissioners and also
required the Planning Commission to set a hearing date that has subsequently been done. Because it
came up in that fashion and because of the proximity of the two dates and the huge overload on our
local post offices that resulted from this public notice, we made the determination that the two notices
could be done together. Both the Planning Commission and this hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners were included in the public notice that was sent. In connection with that before the
Planning Commission on November 18, we did go through the public notice provisions as well as the
adjacent property and mineral property owner notifications and it was determined at that and I can
report to this Board that all of the adjacent property owners around the land subject to these two
applications since it is the same surface owner parcel were notified and were determined in accordance
with the records of the Clerk and Recorder and the Assessor in our County. Those notifications were
mailed, Ms. Brian will tell you how many there were and how they were accomplished but in connection
with that, we did make a determination and I can represent to you today that they did satisfy our code
requirements in connection with those by publication and notice to adjacent property owners. One
question for Ms. Brian in connection with the posting of notice, that is when were the signs posted and
where were they posted in connection with these hearings. Dasa stated the signs were posted at several
locations around and we made sure we went to the access points and intersections of both locations;
we did one for the golf course another view down on the rig and actually posted four signs for that and
provided copies of the signs and maps to Deb.
Deb added these photographs as Exhibit CC and DD, which is the book of returned receipts, the public
notice and the notice by publication. The public roads involved are CR 301 and CR 309.
Dasa stated that in order to send out the public notices, she drew from the County Assessor's site of the
parcel associated with where the rig locations are within the PUD and we determined a 250 foot radius
around that parcel to include all of those landowners and the mineral owners under each subject area. It
was over 1300 notices and we were able to combine so the grant total number was around 1600. We
combined notice with people who owned multiple parcels. We sent a letter out that stated that they
owned these parcels and these notices were for these hearings.
Chairman Martin accepted notification and swore in the speakers. The purpose of today's hearing is to
see if a land use permit is to be issued or not. It is not that there is an alleged violation or anything else,
we need to stay within the parameters, which are a requirement of Resolution 82-121 also, the Land
Use Code at that particular time and that is not our present day Land Use Code, and it is under the old
code.
Kathy submitted the following exhibits: Exhibit A — Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008
as amended; Exhibit B — Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978; Exhibit C — Garfield County
Resolution 79-132 (Amendment to Zoning Resolution of 1979); Exhibit D — Garfield County Resolution
82-121 (Battlement Mesa PUD); Exhibit E—Application; Exhibit F—Staff Memorandum; Exhibit G—Staff
Presentation; Exhibit H— Proposed Haul Route; Exhibit I — Exhibit B to Barrett Surface Use Agreement
(recorded Book 1139 at Page 121); Exhibit J — Exhibit B to Williams Surface Use Agreement (dated
October 17, 2007); Exhibit K — Exhibit C to Resolution 82-21; Exhibit L — Return response from Sheriff's
Department; Exhibit M — Letter dated October 20, 2009 from Jake Mall, Road and Bridge; Exhibit N —
Letter dated October 29, 2009 from Williams responding to R & B comments; Exhibit 0 — Memo dated
November 5, 2009 from Steve Anthony, County Vegetation (PA41-98); Exhibit P — Letter dated
November 9, 2009 from Williams responding to PA 41-9 comments: Exhibit Q— Memo dated November
5, 2009 from Steve Anthony responding to GV 82-5 comments; Exhibit R — Letter dated November 9,
2009 from Williams responding to GV 82-5 comments; Exhibit S — Email dated November 9, 2009 from
Jim Rada, Environmental Health Manager; Exhibit T — Velda Tomlinson, dated October 29, 2009; Exhibit
U — Mable Sanders, dated November 1, 2009; Exhibit V — Austin Cowan, dated October 27, 2009; Exhibit
W — Mable Yeatts, dated October 23, 2009; Exhibit X — William Bakke, dated October 21, 2009; Exhibit Y
— Marion Gargiulo, dated October 21, 2009; Exhibit Z — Sandy Getter, received November 10, 2009;
Exhibit AA — Thomas and Janell Terrall, dated November 4, 2009; Exhibit BB — Dave DeVanney, dated
November 11, 2009; Exhibit CC — Proof of Public Notice publication; Exhibit DD — Proof of
Mailing/Receipts of public notices; Exhibit EE — Letter dated 11-17-2009 from Battlement Concerned
Citizens; Exhibit FF — Letter dated 11-18-09 from Ronald and Mary Galterio; Exhibit GG — Letter dated 11-
14-09 from Rick Matar — Williams Air Quality Lead; Exhibit HH — Williams response to staff comments;
Exhibit II — Surface Use Agreement — Amended Agreement dated November 12, 2009; Exhibit JJ — Photos
from Charles Bucans (Presented at the PC Hearing o November 18, 2009); Exhibit KK — Letter dated 11-
18-09 from Robert Arrington; Exhibit LL— Email dated December 3, 2009 regarding removal of Rig and
Temporary Employee Housing from Well Pad GV 82-5. The applicant stated they did receive all of the
exhibits.
Chairman Martin submitted Exhibits A — LL into the record. Two new exhibits provided just before the
hearing: This is in connection with ownership of the property because there were some discrepancies
between what the Assessor's office shows and what the deeds provided with the application. I have
what I am marking as Exhibit MM, which is a combined statement of conversion and Articles of
Organization that shows that Battlement Mesa Partners and Colorado General Partnership became
Battlement Mesa Partners LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company, which is currently the owner of the
property where these two well sites are located. Additionally, I have what has been marked as Exhibit
NN a Special Warranty Deed from Battlement Mesa Partners LLC, Battlement Mesa Investments LLC
from December 31, 2007, which is the document which the Assessor used to show that these two
parcels from the two sites that we are considering today were included in the land conveyed to
Battlement Mesa Investments LLC; but that determination by the Assessor apparently is not correct.
Those particular portions of this parcel are still owned by Battlement Mesa Partners LLC. We will
straighten out those issues with the Assessor's office later, the purpose of these exhibits is to clarify the
record that it is Battlement Mesa Partners LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company, which owns the
land in question.
Chairman Martin — Which Holland and Hart has the right to go ahead, defend and present in their honor.
Chairman Martin — Exhbits MM and NN were submitted.
Kathy presented the following in her staff report: The Applicant requests approval of Special Use Permits
for "Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources" for natural gas extraction at two sites within the
Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development. This review is required pursuant to Resolution 82-121.
Specifically, the Applicant is requesting review, approval and issuance of Special Use Permits for two
well pads, GV 82-5 and PA 41-9. Separate applications have been submitted for each site; however, this
single staff report contains a comprehensive review of activity at both sites.
GV 82-5: This well pad is located in the northern area of the PUD as indicated on the map below. The
site sits below County Road 309 (Rulison-Parachute Road) adjacent to the Colorado River. The 14th and
15th fairways of the Battlement Mesa Golf Course are located south of the site, however at a higher
elevation. The top of the derrick is visible from the golf course as shown above.
Sixteen additional wells have been approved by the COGCC for drilling, and the site has six (6) existing
wells (four (4) of which were drilled in early 2008 by Williams). Temporary Employee Housing for four (4)
on-site employees/contractors is also proposed.
The anticipated timeframe for drilling and completion for the 16 wells is September 2009 to March
2010.
PA 41-9: Located on County Road 301 the PA 41-9 well pad is in the northeastern portion of the PUD
which is somewhat separated from the currently developed areas within Battlement Mesa.
This site contains two wells (as shown below), one drilled in 1999 and the other drilled in 2006. Drilling
and completion are no longer active on the site and the wells are in production. Production equipment
on the site includes piping from the wellheads to the separators; dehydrators; and above ground
condensate and produced water tanks. Williams is seeking retroactive approval for Extraction and
Processing at this site, but has no plans at this time to drill additional wells at this location.
BACKGROUND / HISTORY (SURFACE)
The Board of County Commissioners initially approved the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development
in 1975, but the basic guidelines and zone districts were established by a PUD modification in 1981,
Resolution 82-121, which contained the PUD zoning restrictions for the 3,200 -acre area. The zoning
restrictions included locating permitted uses and "special uses" within the PUD area. The restrictions
provided for a variety of residential densities and commercial areas to support the residents as well as
related open space and recreation.
Extraction and processing were listed as "special uses" within all zones of the PUD. Although there have
been amendments to the PUD since 1982, extraction and processing remain "special uses" in all zone
districts within the PUD.
Today Battlement Mesa exists as a comprehensively planned community, which includes residential
areas ranging from low density to mobile home park density, commercial development to support
community needs, and a significant recreational and open space component. The community continues
to develop and currently includes a variety of residential communities, a championship 18 -hole golf
course and clubhouse, a recreation center, and City Market Plaza, which contains retail establishments,
a grocery store and the Battlement Mesa Medical Center.
BACKGROUND / HISTORY (SUB-SURFACE/MINERALS)
Exxon was one of the original owners of both the surface and sub -surface of lands in and around
Battlement Mesa. Exxon transferred its interest in the surface land to Battlement Mesa Inc., a Delaware
Corporation in 1981, reserving the oil, gas and other minerals it owned. Battlement Mesa Inc. conveyed
its interest to Battlement Mesa Partners, a Colorado general partnership, in December 1989, which deed
included as proof of ownership in the applications. Prior to that conveyance, Battlement Mesa Partners
and Exxon signed a letter agreement dated December 12, 1989 concerning the development of oil and
gas (the "Exxon Agreement") and identifying specific drill site locations. In 1990, Battlement Mesa
Partners and Battlement Mesa Realty Partners entered into a Surface Use Agreement with Williams'
predecessor in interest, Barrett Resources Corporation (the "Barrett SUA"). Exxon entered into oil and
gas lease agreements with Barrett Resources Corporation in 1991. Battlement Mesa Land Investment,
LLC is listed as the current surface owner in the application.
The first well to be drilled on the GV 82-5 well pad was permitted by the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (COGCC) in October of 1990. Barrett Resources Corporation was the
operator. Williams Production RMT (Williams) was successor to Barrett Resources and subsequent plans
to drill additional wells on GV 82-5 were agreed upon in a Surface Use Agreement with Battlement Mesa
Partners, LLC, as surface owner, effective October 16, 2007 (with amendments)(the "Williams SUA").
The Williams SUA is specific to the 21 wells on GV 82-5; however, the parties included provisions
requiring compliance with the Exxon Agreement and the Barrett SUA including restrictions within the
area of Battlement Mesa (the area of inclusion was defined in the agreement and may not be consistent
with the boundaries of the PUD).
Barrett Resources drilled a second well on the site in 1994. Williams drilled four (4) wells on GV 82-5 in
early 2008. None of these extraction activities obtained special use permits from Garfield County
resulting in the Garfield County Code Enforcement Officer issuing a Notice of Anticipated Enforcement
(NOAE) on August 7, 2009. The NOAE was issued to Williams Production RMT Company, as the mineral
lessee/operator, and Battlement Mesa Land Investments, as the surface owner, for Extraction and
Processing on two natural gas well pads, GV 82-5 and PA 41-9, located in the Battlement Mesa PUD.
That action resulted in a "Takings Hearing" with the Board of County Commissioner on August 17, 2009.
At that time, the BOCC directed Williams to obtain required County land use permits for the activity.
The Board stated that the activity could continue during the review process, as long as Williams met
several deadlines, including a requirement for issuance of permits prior to January 1, 2010. The drilling
of the 16 additional wells on the site is ongoing.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION — EXTRACTION OF NATURAL GAS
Natural gas extraction occurs in several distinct phases, each utilizing specific equipment and processes
thereby resulting in different impacts, issues and mitigation measures over the life of the activity.
Prior to applying code requirement and standards to the applications, it was necessary to understand
the operations in order to determine the potential impacts of each phase of the process. Williams
provided detailed descriptions of the operations to educate staff in the extraction process. A synopsis of
that information is outlined below:
DRILLING
Drilling operations consist of a drill rig along with necessary material and equipment including drilling
mud tanks, electrical generators, generator diesel fuel tank, bulk storage tanks and fire protection water
tanks. A drill bit bores through the earth to a depth thousands of feet below the surface to reach the
geologic strata containing the natural gas. In this area, the typical depth is 7,000 to 10,000 with drilling
taking up to 15 days to reach that depth.
The drill bit displaces the rock and soil (drill cuttings) which are then brought to the surface by
circulating drilling mud into the well bore. Drilling mud consists of a combination of fresh water,
biodegradable polymer soap, bentonite clay and non-toxic additives. The cuttings are transported to
the surface through a process of hydrostatically counteracting well bore pressure.
The drilling mud brought back to the surface is then processed via screening and settling of cutting
materials and re-used in the drilling process. The drill cuttings are tested for contaminants and if the
cuttings meet certain COGCC standards they are transported for storage in an on-site 'cuttings' pit or
trench (if standards are not met the cuttings are required to be disposed of off-site). The cuttings pit on
GV 82-5 is lined with a synthetic material. Each well may produce up to 500 cubic yards of cuttings,
resulting in as much as 8,000 cy of material. The pit is not large enough to hold all of this material so
Williams has been removing some of the cuttings from the site.
Produced crude oil and / or condensate may also be brought to the surface during the drilling process, if
so it is transported to and stored in on-site tanks.
All wells on the GV 82-5 pad will be drilled using directional drilling technology with maximum horizontal
distances of 3,000 feet. This drilling method requires special tools that transmit magnetic and spatial
data to the surface from inside of the bore. That data is used to calculate the wellbore path and
position at any given point. The increase of the angle of the drilling is no more than 3.5 degrees per 100
foot of depth, yet over the course of several hundred feet, the wellbore can achieve the targeted
location. The end result is to reverse the process and decrease the angle so that the wellbore is brought
to a vertical position where the wellbores will remain through the production interval.
A. COMPLETION
Completion operations are those processes that are applied to the well bore after drilling has
finished. These operations include running casing, perforating the casing and fracture
stimulation (fracing). These steps maximize the production of hydrocarbons from the well.
Wikipedia defines hydrocarbons as an organic compound, the majority of which are found
naturally occurring in crude oil. Wikipedia also states that hydrocarbons can be gases (e.g.
methane and propane), liquids (e.g. hexane and benzene), waxes or low melting solids (e.g.
paraffin wax and naphthalene) or polymers (e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene).
Steel casing is installed to provide structural integrity to the well. The casing is then perforated (blasted
by charges) in zones to provide access to natural gas formations. A perforating "gun" is lowered to an
appropriate depth and then armed with explosive charges that cause 3/8" holes in the steel casing.
Those fractures may extend into the rock by as much as two to three feet. Plugs are then set to isolate
the zone and plugs are set in the wellbore, which is then ready for fracing.
Fracture stimulation (fracing) is a process that increases production of oil, gas and other fluids from the
rock formation next to the well bore. This process commences once the steel casing is perforated and
isolation plugs set, when a water and proppant (sand) mixture is pumped into the well at high pressure.
The high rate and pressure used for the water flow results in this mixture flowing into the rock intervals
caused by the perforations. Natural gas is found within these rock intervals so when the water
"produces back" to the surface the sand material is left behind to keep the small fracture open and the
gas flows through it. The produced water can then be recycled and used again, trucked to evaporation
ponds or treatment facilities, or injected into wells that no longer produce gas. Condensate produced
would be stored on-site and sold.
The fracing process requires approximately 504,000 gallons of water per well, the source for which is
recycled produced water from Williams's wells around the valley. This process requires a substantial
area for pumping equipment, sand trucks and produced water tanks, all of which is typically kept on-site
of the well pad. Given the reduced area for the GV 82-5 well pad Williams proposes to use an off-site
location to conduct this process, pumping the frac fluid to the site via pipelines that will flow 1,600 feet
west from the GV 64-5 well pad. Two high-strength steel 4.5-inch diameter pipes will convey the water
and proppant to the site.
Once fracing is complete in a particular zone, a mobile service rig is used to drill out the plugs, clean out
the wellbore, and install the production tubing that transports the natural gas and other fluids to the
surface.
This process continues - perforating, plugging and fracing — in numerous zones that may exist in that
particular well.
The chemicals included in the fracing fluid are listed in the submittal documentation in Section 3.
Narrative of Project. COGCC has rules regarding the chemicals by well site for both storage and down
hole use.
Completion operations are expected to average 35 days per 4 wells, which includes all of the time to
frac each zone, drill out the plugs and install the production tubing.
B. PRODUCTION
Equipment used in this phase of the operation includes piping from the wellheads to the separator;
three-phase separators, dehydrator, above ground condensate and produced water tanks, meters and
cathodic protection equipment. The PA 41-9 site is currently in this stage of the process.
The design and installation of these facilities are used to:
1) Separate well stream fluids into manageable product such as gas, condensate and water.
Each well is individually managed for accountability;
2) Delivery of the product — natural gas to a pipeline, condensate to a pipeline or truck for later
sale, water to a pipeline or truck for recycling or transportation to a treatment facility;
3) Meter the volume of gas and condensate from each well/lease to assure mineral interest
owners receive correct value for the products.
Once the well is in the production phase it is monitored remotely by transmitting the data from each
well to a computer system at Williams Parachute offices allowing for review and control of the wells.
Minimal on-site activities are necessary at this stage but do include on-site inspections and hauling off
condensate and water from the tanks.
Additional Technology
Williams will utilize a technology known as SIMOPS, which, allows for simultaneous operations of drilling
and completion on GV 82-5. This technology will shorten the length of time due to a process that allows
for completion of the first set of drilled wells while the second set of wells are drilled. This process
continues through drilling and completion of all wells.
OTHER RESTRICTIONS/REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITS
In addition to the Special Use Permit requirement for land use activity in the Battlement Mesa PUD,
various State and local authorities have permit/plan requirements related to the proposed activity as
listed below. The Surface Use Agreement, a private contractual obligation, also contains restrictions
related to the use:
A. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), Department of Natural Resources
State of Colorado — Well Permits;
B. Garfield County Temporary Employee Housing Permit, including ISDS and Building Permits
(for GV 82-5 only);
C. Garfield County Road and Bridge Driveway Permit;
D. State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment — Stormwater
Management, Air Emission Permits
E. Surface Use Agreement(s) (SUA) — It is critical to note that several Surface Use Agreements
exist — some of which are applicable to the Battlement Mesa area, and others that may be
specific to certain well pad sites:
1. Exxon — Agreement effective 12-12-89 and is applicable to surface lands in
"Battlement Mesa". The definition of Battlement Mesa does not necessarily include
all of the PUD.
2. Barrett SUA effective 8-6-90. This agreement specifically includes the Exxon
Agreement and other restrictions/modifications to be applicable to all surface lands
in "Battlement Mesa".
3. Williams SUA effective 10-16-2007. This SUA is specific to Well Pad GV 82-5;
however, it also specifically incorporated the Exxon Agreement and the Barrett SUA
into this SUA (except for modifications agreed to by all parties).
BATTLEMENT MESA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The regulatory document for land use activity within the Battlement Mesa PUD zone district is attached
as Exhibit B to Resolution 82-121. That document contains use, density, and development standards
applicable to specific sub districts, and is to be used in conjunction with the map of the PUD which
indicates the location of the sub district 'zones'.
The GV 82-5 well pad is located within the Public, Semi -Public and Recreation Zone, identified
specifically as Community Open Space and the PA 41-9 well pad is located within the Rural Density
Residential zone. Both of these districts identify "Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources" as
special uses. Section 10 of the PUD states that when standards are not included reference shall be
made to "the officially adopted Garfield County Zoning Resolution of January 2, 1979, including the
zoning amended, adopted October 15 1979..." These documents provide the review criteria necessary
to issue "Special Use Permits" within the PUD. It is important to note that the process being utilized is
codified in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended.
SURFACE USE AGREEMENT(S)
Williams is the current lessee of mineral rights underlying Battlement Mesa, with Barrett Resources as
predecessor to those rights and Exxon as the lessor. The Williams SUA contains provisions specific to
well pad GV 82-5, as well as agreeing to the terms of the Exxon Agreement and the Barrett SUA (unless
expressly amended to exclude provisions within those agreements). The PA 41-9 site is subject only to
the Exxon Agreement and the Barrett SUA.
The Barrett SUA stated, "The drilling and operation of gas and/or oil wells within Battlement Mesa will
need to be accomplished in a carefully considered manner to preserve the aesthetics of the community
and preserve the quality of the use and enjoyment of the property of the Surface Owners and by
residents of the community."
A sampling of the restrictions in the documents includes (for an inclusive list of SUA restrictions, refer to
section 4.1 of GV 82-5 submittal):
A. SUA term of 33 years, plus as long as production remains in
commercial quantities;
B. Operator to provide surface owners with a copy of all
applications for Special Use Permits for operations within
Battlement Mesa or within one-half mile of the boundary
thereof, when such applications are filed in Garfield County;
C. Drilling dates on well pad GV 82-5 may occur any time prior to
September, 2009 with drilling to be completed by March, 2010;
D. Drilling operations restricted to the months of October through
March for any wells located within 2,000 feet of an existing
occupied residence;
E. Well pad size is restricted to 200' x 300' (1.377 acres) during
drilling, completion and production and said site to be reduced
to 1 acre upon completion of drilling;
F. Pipelines are to be buried at least forty-eight inches (48")
underground;
G. Well locations and areas specifically prohibited from extraction
activity;
H. Drilling prohibition within two hundred (200) feet of an existing
structure;
I. Use of public and private roads within Battlement Mesa may be
subject to regulation including load limits, frequency of use and
time of use;
J. No compression stations are permitted;
K. Pipelines must be located within open space or public dedicated
easements;
L. All operating wells must have chain link fences and locked gates.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The following information is provided regarding the various restrictions and standards for Extraction and
Processing within Battlement Mesa. These restrictions differ for the two well pads under consideration;
however, each site will be commented upon individually regarding required compliance and/or
mitigation to a particular standard.
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979 and Amendment 79-132
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 following requirements:
(1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards
and approved by the Environmental Health Officer and the Colorado State Department of Health shall
either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Staff Response GV 82-5:
Potable water will be brought to the site by Down Valley Septic in sufficient supply to serve the well pad
and the temporary employee housing units. The water will be purchased from the Town of Silt and
stored in above ground tanks on the well pad. Sanitation will be in the form of porta-potties for the well
pad and vault and haul for the temporary employee housing units. A septic permit has been submitted
for the vault and haul and disposal will occur at the Silt Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Water necessary for both fire protection and for use in the drilling process will be diverted from the
Colorado River in the amount of 16.57 acre-feet. The water is considered "free river water" meaning
that the basin is not over -appropriated so use of the water is permitted as long as there is not an
administrative river call. If a call would occur, the Applicant has a Colorado River Water Conservancy
District (CRWCD) contract that will release sufficient supply to allow ongoing use.
Frac water demand is estimated to be 24.75 acre fee and will be provided from "water obtained or
produced from natural gas well pads".
Water is not required for the production process, and there are no permanent on-site employees in this
phase, which would require potable water. However, water is produced during this phase and stored in
on-site tanks. Trucks retrieve this water on a regular basis and transport it for recycled use or to a
treatment facility.
Staff Response PA 41-9:
This site is currently in the production stage and therefore water will not be necessary for on-site use.
Water will be produced and, as stated above, stored on-site for later transport.
It appears that adequate utilities to provide water and sanitation to both GV 82-5 and PA 41-9 are in
place or will be available when needed.
(2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and
to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed use;
Staff Response GV 82-5:
Project generated traffic will fluctuate depending upon the phase of operation. Focus is placed on the
drilling and completion activities since it is those timeframes that typically result in significant traffic
volume:
Drilling: The application states that the anticipated site generated traffic, during drilling operations, will
be 17 trips per day. This number is fairly low due to the fact that water necessary for the drilling
operations is available on-site from the Colorado River. The caveat to the trip generation figure
provided by Drexel, Barrell & Co. is that traffic will be significantly higher during those periods when
drilling rigs are being moved. These numbers are not included in the 17 trips per day.
The 17 trips per day is derived from a calculation of trips over the life of the drilling operations — 2,724
one-way trips will result over a time period of 160 days.
Completion: The completion process is typically the most traffic intensive due to the necessity of large
amounts of water for fracing. The GV 82-5 site will be fraced from a remote location thereby reducing
the traffic during this stage of the extraction. Completion operations will to result in 13 trips per day.
Once again, the trips per day are derived from an expected total generation of 2,048 trips over as
additional 160 days.
Haul Route The site access and haul route is County Road 309 (Rulison-Parachute Road) which connects
to County Road 323 in Rulison. This road then provides access to Interstate 70, Exit 81.
CR 309 is a two-lane road that provides connection to Battlement Mesa via Rulison and is considered as
a Garfield County Preferred Haul Route.
Williams funded substantial improvements to CR 309 including re -paving the length of road (from
Rulison to CR 301). Access to the GV 82-5 well pad is through an adjacent property driveway, which was
improved to the well pad site.
Jake Mall, County Road and Bridge, responded to the application (EXHIBIT M) stating that driveway
permits have been issued for the sites and that the driveway aprons should be paved. Due to the season,
it was acceptable that Williams demonstrate that they would pave the aprons in the 2010 season. Jake
also confirmed that both locations are on a designated haul route and that all vehicles requiring
oversize/overweight permits must obtain such from Road and Bridge. Williams submitted a response
letter (EXHIBIT N) agreeing to the paving.
The combined restrictions, prohibiting utilization of Battlement Mesa roads, use of the designated haul
route, and a reduction in the overall traffic generation due to remote technology, will minimize the traffic
generation from this use thereby demonstrating that the existing roadway system is adequate to provide
safe and convenient access for the proposed use.
Staff Response PA 41-9:
Access to this site is from CR 301 (Morrisiana Mesa Road) with the haul route designated limiting access
to CR 301 from CR 309. (This is the same haul route that passes by the GV 82-5 well pad). This route
prevents vehicles from utilizing roads within the PUD.
Two wells are in production stages on this well pad, therefore minimal traffic is generated. Currently it
would appear that adequate and safe access is possible from the existing roadway system. An
amendment would be required if future, additional, wells would be proposed on this site.
(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land
through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location
of intensively utilized area, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established
neighborhood character;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
Several measures have been implemented that minimize the impact on adjacent land, to the extent
possible. The limit on well pad size to 200' x 300', the off-site fracing, and utilization of a designated haul
route all minimize the impact to adjacent properties. The location of the site sits significantly below the
golf course screening visibility. The top of the derrick is visible from the golf course, no mitigation is
possible. The extraction and completion processes are anticipated to be done in March 2009 therefore
the derrick will be removed prior to or concurrent with the golf season.
The site is screened from the roadway by existing vegetation.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
The well pad appears to have been reclaimed to a certain extent, primarily with grasses. The two wells
and production equipment that exist on the site are not screened but the equipment is painted so that it
blends with the site vegetation.
The Applicant has minimized some of the impacts from GV 82-5 and PA 41-9. The remaining impacts
cannot be mitigated - such as the visibility of the derrick due its height or due to for safety issues (related
to the necessity of lighting).
Additional specific requirements and prerequisites for certain uses are as follows:
5.03.07 Industrial Operations: Industrial Operations, including extraction, processing, fabrication,
industrial support facilities, water impoundments, mineral waste disposal, storage sanitary land -fill,
salvage yard, access routes and utility lines, shall be permitted, provided:
(1) The applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director
two (2) copies of an impact statement on the proposed use prescribing its location, scope, design and
construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. One (1) copy of the
impact statement shall be filed with the County Commissioners by the Planning Director. The County
Commissioners shall review the impact statement to determine whether the proposed industrial
operation complies with the requirements of this Section and shall notify the Planning Director of its
decision in this regard, in writing, within thirty (30) days from the date on which the impact statement is
field with the Planning Director. The impact statement shall show that the use shall be designed an
operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal
Governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon:
(a) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground
water;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
This standard requires demonstration that water resources are adequately protected from pollution. The
Applicant has submitted several documents related to this standard:
Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasures
The Parachute Integrated Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasures (SPCC) plan is in effect for
Williams operations and includes specific information regarding GV 82-5. The plan states that the
potential volume capacity at this site is 37,800 gallons and that:
The SPCC provides guidance on action that must be performed to assure compliance with the Plan.
Those actions include annual site inspections, preventative maintenance of equipment, secondary
containment systems, discharge prevention systems, employee training, reporting requirements for
spills, review of the plan once every 5 years, and amendment to the plan when there is a change in the
facility.
Protective measures include secondary containment structures (oil, produced water/oil mixtures, storage
tanks and separators) in the form of both earthen berm and lined walled structures.
The adjacent layout diagram is provided which indicates location and function of tanks on-site and flow
of drainage across the site.
The submittal documents also include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan.
Stormwater Management plan
A Construction Field Wide Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Habitat Management, Inc. lists
controls such as Best Management Practices for Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Erosion and
Sediment Control, as well as material handling and spill prevention. General information regarding
requirements is included in the plan, which then includes information specific to GV 82-5.
The site-specific plan contains information unique to the site such as the area of disturbance (2.77 acres),
soil types (Wann Sandy Loam and Potts-Oldefonso), vegetation (riparian woodland). A map is also
included, which shows location of berms and placement of straw bale barriers. This map is used in site
inspections to assure protective measure remain in place.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
The same plans and permits, identified above, are applicable to this site and include specific measures
for PA 41-9.
(b) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other
emanations;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
A Fugitive Dust Plan is in place to prevent visible emissions from exceeding opacity regulations, prevent
public nuisance, and in general to prevent dust from leaving the site. Measures include watering and/or
application of chemical suppressants on unpaved roads and disturbed surface areas.
A Vibration Study was provided which calculated vibrations at a distance of fifty feet (50'), one-hundred
fifty feet (150') and at two-hundred fifty feet (250') from the wellhead. The study includes many
calculations and graphs, but does not contain a summary of the findings. Therefore, it is not possible to
state, at this time, that site vibrations will not impact adjacent properties.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
Due to the process of piping the extracted materials, the site does not currently emit vapor, smoke, noise,
glare or vibration, or other emanations. Dust control is the only potential issue and only relative to the
road access. The paving of the apron onto CR 301 may help, but necessity for dust suppression measures
on the access road should be closely monitored.
(c) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native
vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
Williams has a field wide level list of Best Management Practices (BMP) related to wildlife mitigation
along with site specific BMP's for GV 82-5. The BMP's are adequate to mitigate impacts to wildlife and it
appears that application of some of the BMP's have occurred. Those would include the use of centralized
fracing, combining roads and utilities to minimize disturbance, utilizing directional drilling to decease
area of disturbance, etc. The general goal is to minimize surface disturbance and prevent spills in order
to preserve habitat.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
Again, the intent in the plan is to minimize surface disturbance and prevent spills to preserve habitat.
(2) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisance to areas
elsewhere in the County;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
The site access is limited to a specified haul route, compliant with county referred haul routes. Access to
the site is from the 1-70 Rulison Exist via CR 323 and CR 309.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
The site access to PA 41-9 is limited to a specified haul route, compliant with county referred haul routes.
Access to the site is from the 1-70 Rulison Exist via CR 323, CR 309 and CR 301.
(3) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property, which might otherwise be
damaged by operations of the proposed uses;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
The Battlement Mesa Golf Course is located within 300 feet of the well pad, and the nearest home
appears to be within 1,000 feet of the pad. The fact that the golf course is sited atop a ridge to the west
of the site may mitigate the lineal distance of separation. The nearest home is located on the other side
of the golf course fairway but from the adjacent photo, it would appear to look straight out to the 135'
derrick.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
This site is sufficiently distant from abutting property that may be damaged by operations.
(4) In the event the County Commissioners or Planning Director determine that the impact of a proposed
industrial operation is such that information in addition to the impact statement or other information
submitted is necessary for the informed evaluation of such impact, such additional information may be
required. At the discretion of the County Commissioners additional information supplementing the
impact statement may be required. Such request for additional information shall be in writing and shall
be given to the applicant not later than forty-five (45) days after the filing of the impact statement.
(Amended by Resolution 79-132). The County Commissioners shall then have an additional forty-five
(45) days from the date of submission of such additional information within which to notify the Planning
Director of their decision in respect to said impact statement;
An application for permit for industrial operation shall be subject to the provisions under Section 8.01 in
addition to the required impact statement. Any provisions of Section 8.01 to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Building Official shall have a period of ten (10) days from notification by the County
Commissioners to their decision as hereinabove provided, within which to act upon such application;
(5) Permits shall be granted for those uses only with the provisions that a satisfactory rehabilitation plan
for the affected land be submitted prior to commencement of such use;
(a) The plan for site rehabilitation shall be submitted to the Planning Director with the impact
statement, and must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or
special use will be issued;
(b) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is
issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, or bond, or
certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount
calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in
workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or
approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds, or check shall be payable to and
held by the County Commissioners;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
There appears to be some discrepancy in the delineation of regulatory requirements. The COGCC-
approved well pad reclamation plan has a designated area of 1.27 acres; however, the disturbed area is
1.77 acres. There does not appear to be a reclamation plan for that area under COGCC purview, nor has
the applicant submitted sufficient information for the County to review and approve a reclamation plan
(and provide sufficient security) for that .5 -acres.
The plan submitted appears satisfactory, interim reclamation will occur post -drilling and completion
thereby reducing the area of disturbance for the production phase.
Steve Anthony, Vegetation Manager, commented on the application (EXHIBIT Q). He had concerns that
have since been addressed by the Applicant (EXHIBIT R).
Staff Comment PA 41-9
Interim reclamation of this site has occurred, however comments from Steve Anthony (EXHIBIT 0)
identified some concerns. The Applicant has since addressed the concerns (EXHIBIT P).
(6) The Planning Director may, upon the preliminary determination that an industrial operation related
solely to the extraction of oil and gas from the ground through conventional use of drilling and pumping,
and the extraction of sand and gravel affecting not more than ten acres has limited impact, waive the
requirement for the above-described impact statement, upon the submittal of such information as the
Planning Director requires for the evaluation of the impact of such an extractive operation. If the
determination is later made that additional information is required, subsection (4) of this section shall
apply. (Added by Resolution 79-132)
Staff Comment GV 82-5
Waiver was not requested.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
Waiver was not requested.
5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in Garfield County shall comply with
applicable County, State, and Federal regulation regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not
be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in
such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable
environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord
with the following standards:
(1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently
and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels, with a maximum increase of five (5)
decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes in any one hour, at any point of any boundary
line of the property on which the use is located.
Staff Comment GV 82-5
The COGCC regulates noise related to the Oil & Gas Industry. Those regulations provide maximum noise
levels based upon the use of the adjacent property (with higher noise levels permitted for industrial uses,
lower levels for residential areas). However, the Applicant is demonstrating compliance with industrial
noise levels due to a provision in the COGCC regulations that allow use of the industrial standard for
"Operations involving ...use of a drilling rig, completion rig, work over rig, or stimulation..."
The Zoning Resolution of 1979 permits maximum noise levels not to exceed ninety (90) decibels.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
The applicant provided the following statement regarding noise at the PA 41-9 site:
(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and
recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the
property on which the use is located;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
The Applicant provided a Vibration Study however; findings or conclusions were not included in the
report.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
The Applicant responded to this standard with the following statement:
(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be so operated so as to comply with all
Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
Jim Rada, Environmental Health Manager, responded to the referral request (EXHIBITS) with several
comments. In particular, the concerns are emissions, such as VOC's, and odors. In order to alleviate
exposure concerns and potential odor issues some operators have a voluntary policy regarding
installation of VOC emission controls on well pad facilities near residential areas — even when emissions
are below regulated levels. The County could ask for this consideration as a condition of approval.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
I assume that the above comments from Environmental Health also apply to this site.
(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit
heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of the adjoining
property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals,
reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or
air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
This standard appears to have been met.
The Applicant has stated that existing pipeline infrastructure in the area will minimize the necessity for
flaring of gases.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
This standard appears to have been met.
(5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill, and mineral waste disposal areas:
(a) Storage of flammable, or explosive solids, or gases, shall be in accordance with accepted standards
and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code;
(b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials
and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent
property;
(c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be
transferred off the property by any reasonable foreseeable natural causes or forces;
(d) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise
be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of
Health Regulation;
Staff Comment GV 82-5
(a) The storage of gases is in accordance with accepted standards and laws. This application was
referred to the Grand Valley Fire District however; no comments were submitted regarding this site. The
Temporary Employee Housing information submitted did include letters that were provided to both the
sheriff and fire district regarding use of this location.
(b) This site does not comply with subsection (b) above as the fuel, materials and products are not
concealed. The Board has the ability to waive this requirement and staff would recommend that they so
because of the site. The site sits well below the PUD and is visible from the ridge therefore a fence or
wall will not conceal the activities from the adjacent property. Oil & Gas activity is occurring on the
adjacent property to the east.
(c) It appears that adequate protective measures are in place (including the SWMP, SPCC, fugitive dust
plan) to minimize the possibility of transfer of materials or wastes from the property.
(d) A bear -proof trash container is on-site to prevent wildlife, rodent and insect attraction. Material and
wastes are subject to COGCC and state standards.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
(a) The storage of gases appears to be in accordance with accepted standards and laws. This application
was referred to the Grand Valley Fire District however; no comments were submitted regarding this site.
(b) This site does not comply with subsection (b) above as the fuel, materials and products are not
concealed. The Board has the ability to waive this requirement which may be appropriate at this
location as it is somewhat concealed by the slope of the land as well as the painting of the tanks to blend
with the environment.
(c) It appears that adequate protective measures are in place (including fencing, SWMP, SPCC, fugitive
dust plan) to minimize the possibility of transfer of materials or wastes from the property.
(d) There will be no trash generated by this site. Material and wastes related to the gas production are
subject to COGCC and state standards.
(6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards
designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of
the facilities may begin.
All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers
must be met before operation of the facilities may begin.
Staff Comment GV 82-5
This site is subject to a Stormwater Management Plan and Spill Prevent and Control Countermeasures
Plan that requires safeguards compliant with COGCC standards.
Staff Comment PA 41-9
This site is subject to a Stormwater Management Plan and Spill Prevent and Control Countermeasures
Plan that requires safeguards compliant with COGCC standards.
5.03.10 Approval of Conditional or Special Uses: Uses listed as conditional under the appropriate Zone
District Regulation shall be permitted based on compliance with the requirements listed herein; where
uses are listed as Special Uses they shall be permitted only:
(1) Based on compliance with all requirements listed herein, and;
(2) Approval by the County Commissioners which Board may impose additional restriction on the lot
area, floor area, coverage, setback and height of proposed uses or require additional off-street parking,
screening, fences and landscaping, or any other restriction or provision it deems necessary to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the population and uses of the neighborhood or zone district as a
condition of granting the special use.
5.03.11 Denial of Special Use: The County Commissioners may deny any request for special use based on
the lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the same or other Tots, the
impact on traffic volume and safety or on utilities or any impact of the special use which it deems
injurious to the established character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such special use is
proposed to be located.
5.03.12 Access Routes: All conditional and special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate
design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient
access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall
be the Garfield County Road Specifications.
Staff Comment GV 82-5 and PA 41-9
As seen in the required Haul Route above access to and from both sites is on a County Preferred Haul
Route. Further prohibitions are in place regarding use of roads with the Battlement Mesa PUD.
9.03 PERMIT — SPECIAL USE
9.03.01 Application: Shall consist of all information required of an application for a permit and subject
to all administrative procedures thereof plus the following:
(1) Supporting information, plans, letters of approval from responsible agencies and other information
to satisfy requirements listed under Conditional and Special Uses in the Supplementary Regulations;
(2) A vicinity map drawn to scale depicting the subject property, location of roads providing access to
the subject property, location and use of buildings and structures on adjacent lots and the names of
owners of record of such lots;
(3) A letter to the County Commissioners from the applicant explaining in detail the nature and
character of the Special Use requested.
9.03.02 Fee
9.03.03 Action by Planning Director: The Planning Director shall utilize services of Environmental Health
Officer, Building Official and any other county or state officials or agencies to arrive at a determination
that the proposed building, structure or use is in compliance with all applicable zoning, subdivision,
building, health and sanitation regulations except for approval by the County Commissioners as a Special
Use; and if the proposed building, facility, structure or use are in compliance except for Board approval,
shall forward the application along with his report to the Board.
9.03.04 Action by the County Commissioners: An application for Special Use Permit shall be approved or
denied by the County Commissioners after holding a public hearing thereon in conformance with all
provisions of this Resolution. Such hearing shall be held no later than thirty (30) days following the
receipt of the Special Use Permit a application and the recommendation of the Planning Director;
provided, however, that if they deem it appropriate, the County Commissioners may refer a request for
a Special Use Permit to the County Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, in which
case said public hearing must be held within sixty (60) days of the application. Notice of hearings held in
regard to an application for a Special Use Permit shall be the sole responsibility, and at the expense, of
the applicant, and except as otherwise provided shall be given as follows:
(1) Notice by publication, including the name of the applicant, description of the subject lot, a
description of the proposed Special Use and the time and place for the hearing shall be given once in a
newspaper of general circulation in that portion of the County in which the subject property is located at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of such hearing and Proof of Publication shall be presented at
hearing by the applicant.
(2) Notice by mail, containing information as described under paragraph (1), above, shall be mailed to all
owners of record of lots adjacent to the subject lot at least five (5) days prior to such hearing time by
Certified Return Receipt mail, and Receipts shall be presented at the hearing by the applicant.
The concurring vote of the majority of the County Commissioners shall be necessary to decide in favor of
the applicant. The County Commissioners shall approve or deny the permit application and notify the
applicant of their decision, in writing, within fifteen (15) days following the Public Hearing. The decision
shall state specific findings of fact relevant to all essential issues. If the permit is denied, such decision
shall include reasons for denial.
9.03.05 Periodic Review: Any Special Use Permits may be made subject to a periodic review not less
than every six (6) months if required by the County Commissioners. The purpose of such review shall be
to determine compliance or noncompliance with any performance requirements associated with the
granting of the Special Use Permit. The County Commissioners shall indicate that such a review is
required and shall establish the time periods at the time of issuance of a Special Use Permit. Such
review shall be conducted in such manner and by such persons, as the County Commissioners deem
appropriate to make the review effective and meaningful. Upon the completion of each review, the
Commissioners may determine that the permit operations are in compliance and continue the permit,
or determine the operations are not in compliance and either suspend the permit or require the
permittee to bring the operation into compliance by a certain specified date. Such periodic review shall
be limited to those performance requirements and conditions imposed at the time of the original
issuance of the Special Use Permit.
STAFF COMMENTS
Based on the review of the applicable Special Use Permit requirement, as well as the referral comments
from various local and State agencies, the following issues have been identified:
A. Area of Disturbance, Reclamation and Bonding
There appears to be either a discrepancy in area or in definition of that area under permit by various
agencies. The COGCC-approved reclamation area is 2.27 acres, the SUA limits the well pad area to 200 x
300' (1.377 acres), and the Stormwater Management Plan indicates 2.77 acres of disturbance. If any
extraction and processing activity, or related accessory uses, occurs off the COGCC-approved well pad
area the County has land use review including requirements for reclamation and security. Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the Applicant provide a revised site plan, which clearly
indicates all site improvements and activities including limits of the COGCC-approved well pad.
B. Environmental Protections
a. E&P Waste Disposal — Fluid conveyance
i. Pipeline and legal means of conveyance
b. Cumulative impact on air and water
C. Roads
Access to the site from 1-70 follows a prescribed County Haul Route that prevents any use of roads
within the Battlement Mesa PUD. The staff concern is not specifically related to this site, but to off-site
activities that will be supporting this well pad, in particular the fracing activity. Fracing is known to be
the highest traffic generating activity associated with extraction and processing, however no
information has been provided since the fracing is occurring from an adjacent parcel outside of the PUD.
D. Future Development
GV 82-5 This site is located within the Public, Semi-Public and Recreation (PSR) District within the PUD
and further designated as Community Open Space. An example of some of the permitted uses within
PSR include school sites, governmental offices, police and fire stations, churches, and open space
including active and passive recreation. The issuance of Special Use Permits on a portion of a site does
not preclude other permitted uses from occurring, either simultaneously or after the Special Use ceases
activity. That leads to the question of what is allowed to be "left" on-site after the extraction and
processing activity ceases.
PA 41-9 This site is located within the Rural Density Residential (RDR) District within the PUD. Permitted
uses include detached single -family dwellings and customary accessory uses. Density in this zone is
limited to a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per gross acre.
The COGCC does allow for certain Oil & Gas-related materials to be buried on-site (utilized in, and part
of, the reclamation of the well pads). Minimum standards must be met in order for the material to be
buried on-site.
Pits are utilized on well pads for containment of certain materials that result from the extraction activity.
Some pits are required to be lined, while others are not. Further, if lined, the COGCC requires that liners
be removed and disposed of in proper facilities. However, materials contained by the liner may be
permitted to be buried on-site.
GV 82-5 has an on-site pit for drill cuttings, which the Applicant has lined, though this liner was not
required by the COGCC. The interim reclamation plan submitted does not indicate what will happen
with either the liner or the cuttings. Where will the liner and the cuttings be disposed of? Staff
recommends that the Special Use Permits include a condition that materials resulting from the
extraction and processing activity shall not be left on-site except for temporary storage purposes.
If excess fluids and/or solids are buried on these sites there is potential that future development will
unearth the materials.
E. County Regulatory Ability
"Garfield County requires a very thorough review of Special Use Permits. The scope of the review
involves the coordination of permits and review by Local, State and Federal agencies that have
authority over certain activities, with the County granting land use approval. The County review
process functions to determine the appropriateness of the use at the particular location, as well as to
ensure a comprehensive review of all aspects of the proposal including operational, potential impacts
and proposed mitigation".
Staff reports for other extraction activities including sand, gravel and limestone have commonly
included this language. The review process for Oil & Gas Extraction and Processing differs substantially
due to the fact that the subsurface minerals are considered the dominant estate, thus the County
cannot prevent the owner from gaining access to their "property". In this instance, the County land use
review functions to determine potential impacts related to the activity and assure that adequate
mitigation measures are in place to protect the Public Health, Safety and Welfare of the citizens of
Garfield County.
F. Fracing — The use of an off-site location for frac activity is accomplished by utilizing pipelines
from an adjacent to site, which will transport the sand, and fluids to GV 82-5. The use of an
adjacent site is necessary due to the limited area of the well pad, however since this adjacent
site is not within the Battlement Mesa PUD it is not a part of this review. The use the adjacent
parcel for the frac activity does benefit the GV 82-5 site simply by reducing the on-site impacts
that occur within the PUD. The traffic impacts associated with remote fracing will still occur,
albeit stopping short of the PUD boundary.
Staff is concerned with the remote fracing as a larger issue related to "centralized facilities" that would
require County review regardless of whether it was or was not contained in the PUD. As you may be
aware, the County does regulate certain Oil and Gas activities, both on and off the COGCC-approved
well pad. Examples of this include Temporary Employee Housing (on pad); off-site pits including
produced water storage in both tanks and water impoundments; on-pad pits that serve multiple well
pads as it is considered a centralized facility. The definition of a centralized fracing facility would be one
that serves multiple well pads, potentially including the pad upon which that facility is located.
In the current circumstance it would appear that the remote fracing may not be considered a centralized
facility since it is only serving the GV 82-5 well pad, and will decrease potential impacts inside of the
boundary of the PUD (including odor and noise issues).
Staff has requested additional information related to the remote site so that a determination may be
made that Williams has the proper authority to using the adjacent site for this use. It is an integral part
of the current application, as the completion activities for these wells COULD NOT occur without it. The
additional information requested includes:
i. Legal Description of the site;
ii. Property owner permission for use of the site for this purpose;
COGCC permits for the adjacent site, including any additional permits that may be
required for this use;
iv. Information related to where the produced water is originating (where it is coming
from) and how it is being transported to this site.
Staff has included the provision of this information as a condition of approval for the GV 82-5 site.
G. Compliance - There are few tools available by which the County can compel compliance with
State and Federal plans or permits. Compliance with COGCC standards, inspections related to
water and air quality, are all State functions that the State must enforce.
H. Visual Impacts - Impacts resulting from the GV 82-5 site are mitigated to a certain extent by the
land layout and proposed well pad location. The site is located below Battlement Mesa, which
sits atop a ridge. The top of the derrick is visible from the golf course, as photos had shown,
however the drilling will be completed in March thereby minimize the impact to the golf course.
One home is shown in the photos that will see this use.
I. Preemption
(1) The COGCC regulates visual impacts, and in Town of Frederick v. North American Resources Company,
60 P.3d 758 (Colo. App. 2002), some of the Town's regulations did create an operational conflict with
the detailed requirements of the state regulations below. This does not mean we cannot regulate, we
just need to see if it can be done in a way that harmonizes with the state regulations. The Court of
Appeals in the Town of Frederick case did not specify in detail what the Town regulations required, but
cited the following COGCC Rules in support of its conclusion that local regulations created operational
conflicts and were preempted:
Rule 318-Location of Wells: includes setback requirements from other wells.
Rule 803 - Lighting: "to the extent practicable, site lighting shall be directed downward and internally so
as to avoid glare on public roads and building units within seven (700) hundred feet."
Rule 804 — Visual Impact Mitigation: "Production facilities, regardless of construction date, which are
observable from any public highway shall be painted with uniform, non-contrasting, non-reflective color
tones (similar to the Munsell Soil color Coding System) and with colors matched to but slightly darker
than the surrounding landscape by September 1, 2010.
(2) The COGCC regulates Noise in the 800 series rules for Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations. That
section lists the permitted decibels that occur, based upon the adjacent property use — similar to those
State Statutes that are typically applied to Special Use Permits. The chart below contains the maximum
decibel levels permitted in certain areas.
Clearly, the Battlement Mesa area is residential but the COGGC regulations state:
It is important to note that the Zoning Resolution of 1979 lists the maximum permissible noise level as
90 db(A), which exceeds the limits imposed by COGCC.
J. Hours of Operation - Special Use Permit regulations stipulate that impact to adjacent properties
must be adequately mitigated; therefore, one of Staff concerns is related to the impact of
lighting and noise. The above preemption section prevents the County from enforcing
protective standards that are contained within their regulations. Currently drilling, completion
and production at these sites will occur twenty-four hours a day, 7 -days per week with drilling
and completion operations occurring for several months at a time per location. Given that
staff's concern related to noise and lighting is due to the proposed hours of operation for this
use, it appears that the County could require limitation.
The location of Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources sites within an existing, developed PUD,
or in an urban or semi -urban area with existing structures within several hundred feet of the use, should
be required to mitigate the significant impacts to adjacent properties. The County could require limits
to the hours of operation, consistent with other Special Use Permits/Major Impact Land Use Change
Permits for extraction and processing activities. The limitation of hours of operation is in effect in other
jurisdictions throughout the country and is typically a requirement in urban and semi -urban areas where
existing structures will be impacted by the nighttime operations.
That said, it would appear that this particular location DOES NOT adversely impact the adjacent
properties with noise and lighting due to the distance to structures and the topography of the
immediate area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION GV 82-5
Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the Special Use
Permit for Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit
Development on property owned by Battlement Mesa Land Investments and operated by Williams
Production RMT Company for drilling, completion, production and reclamation related to 22 natural gas
wells on pad GV 82-5 with the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials,
shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. Any materials including solids, liquids or gases resulting from the extraction and processing activity
shall be removed from the site. This does not preclude the allowance of permitting on-site
temporary storage for these materials through this special use process, nor does it include cuttings,
which may be left on-site pursuant to COGCC standards.
3. Prior to the Board of County Commissioner consideration of the Special Use Permit for well pad GV
82-5 the Applicant shall submit an updated site plan that indicates the following:
a. COGCC-approved well pad area
b. Area of the well pad that is included in the COGCC-approved reclamation plan
c. Area of disturbance any use/material or facility within that area;
d. Well pad improvements
e. Facilities or improvements required by other permits including, but not limited to,
Stormwater Management Plan and Spill Prevention and Control and
Countermeasures plan.
f. Location and use of all facilities, materials and uses within the well pad, including,
but not limited to, tanks, trailers, porta-potties, trash receptacles and pits.
If, upon review of the site plan, any activity accessory to the Extraction and Processing is NOT wholly
contained within the COGCC-approved well pad then County review and approval of a reclamation plan
for those areas, along with sufficient security, shall be required. An approved County reclamation plan
shall be required prior to Board of County Commissioner approval of the Special Use Permit.
4. All operational activities including, but not limited to employee parking, fuel storage, sanitation
facilities, equipment and natural resource storage areas shall be limited in location to that surface
area which is under permit with the COGCC for the well pad unless otherwise approved through this
permit. Any extraction and/or processing activity found occurring off-site of the well pad or not
approved through this permit, will be considered a violation of the Special Use Permit and will be
subject to the violation process as contained within the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution
of 2008, as may be amended from time to time.
5. The Applicant shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the well pad has not and will
not impact jurisdictional wetlands. If jurisdictional wetlands are impacted, the operation shall cease
until such time as the required permits are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
6. The County shall require the Operator to maintain the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission
controls on the well pad facility, regardless of other agency regulatory requirements.
7. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to
revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of
time.
8. Operation of the facility must be in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and
permits governing the operation of this facility.
9. The Applicant shall be required to submit a report annually, until such time as the well pad is
released from the COGCC reclamation bond, of the extraction and processing operation, for staff
review. Upon review of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of approval or other local, state, or
federal permits, Staff may forward the report to the County Commissioners for full review of the
Special Use Permit.
10. The County commits to notifying the operator of any compliance concern and allows an inspection
with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to contacting any other permitting
agency.
11. The County can request a site inspection with one calendar day's notice to the Operator. Full access
to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. The County cannot
request a large number of inspections that would interfere with normal operation without cause.
12. All extraction and processing activities shall be required to comply with the following performance
standards:
(1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently
and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels (or COGCC rule, whichever is more
stringent), with a maximum increase of five (5) decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15)
minutes in any one hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and
recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the
property on which the use is located;
(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be so operated so as to comply with all
Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards;
(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit
heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of the adjoining
property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals,
reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or
air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision;
(5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill, and mineral waste disposal areas:
(a) Storage of flammable, or explosive solids, or gases, shall be in accordance with accepted standards
and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code;
(b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials
and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent
property; Both the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the BOCC specifically determine
that additional screening or enclosure of this site is not necessary due to on-site vegetative screening
and topography that provide adequate visual screening.
(c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be
transferred off the property by any reasonable foreseeable natural causes or forces;
(d) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise
be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of
Health Regulation;
(6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards
designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of
the facilities may begin.
All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers
must be met before operation of the facilities may begin.
ADDED SINCE PC HEARING
13. Prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit for GV 82-5, the Applicant shall provide the
following information regarding the fracing location:
a. Legal Description of the site;
b. Property owner permission for use of the site for this purpose;
c. COGCC permits for the adjacent site, including any additional permits that may be
required for this use;
d. Information related to where the produced water is originating (where it is coming
from) and how it is being transported to this site.
This condition had not been included or discussed at the Planning Commission hearing due to the fact
that Staff had anticipated receipt of the information from Applicant. The information has not been
submitted to-date and therefore staff recommends that it be included as a condition of approval.
Staff is also recommending a revision to Condition 2. which was originally worded to prohibit the
burying of cuttings on the site. The Planning Commission discussion on this issue revolved around the
fact that the COGCC has standards that must be met in order for the operator to bury this material.
Staff continues to recommend that removal be required — for the following reasons:
First, the Battlement Mesa PUD does not contain provision for permitting, by right or by special use, the
use of mineral waste disposal or solid waste disposal sites within the PUD.
Second, the County regulations at the time permitted sanitary landfill and extraction and processing of
natural resources as conditional uses but did not include the allowance of mineral waste disposal.
Third, this drilling activity is occurring within a subdivision, which is an urbanized environment that
warrants additional standards. The potential for future development to occur on these sites is very high
and therefore all materials must be removed. The operator has been hauling the cuttings off-site, due
to inadequate storage area on the pad, and the County should require that they continue to do so. Staff
recommends that Condition 2. be amended as follows:
2. Any materials including solids, liquids or gases resulting from the extraction and processing
activity shall be removed from the site. This does not preclude the allowance of permitting on-site
temporary storage for these materials through this special use process.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION PA 41-9
1. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials,
shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Planning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners.
2. This Special Use Permit for Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources is limited to production
activities related to PA 41-9 and PA 42-9 wells on well pad PA 41-9. If future extraction and
processing activity (additional to what is being permitted herein) would be proposed, an amended
Special Use Permit shall be required prior to that activity occurring on the site.
3. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to
revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of
time.
4. Operation of the facility must be in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and
permits governing the operation of this facility.
5. The Applicant shall be required to submit a report annually, until such time as the release of the
COGCC reclamation bond, of the extraction and processing operation, for staff review. Upon review
of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of approval or other local, state, or federal permits, Staff
may forward the report to the County Commissioners for full review of the Special Use Permit.
6. Should additional drilling occur on this site, the County shall require the Operator to install Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) emission controls on the well pad facility, regardless of other agency
regulatory requirements.
7. The County commits to notifying the operator of any compliance concern and allows an inspection
with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to contacting any other permitting
agency.
8. The County can request a site inspection with one calendar day's notice to the Operator. Full access
to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. The County cannot
request a Targe number of inspections that would interfere with normal operation without cause.
9. All extraction and processing activities shall be required to comply with the following performance
standards:
(1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently
and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels (or COGCC rule, whichever is more
stringent), with a maximum increase of five (5) decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15)
minutes in any one hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and
recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the
property on which the use is located;
(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be so operated so as to comply with all
Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards;
(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit
heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of the adjoining
property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals,
reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or
air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision;
(5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill, and mineral waste disposal areas:
(a) Storage of flammable, or explosive solids, or gases, shall be in accordance with accepted standards
and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code;
(b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials
and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent
property; Both the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the BOCC specifically determine
that additional screening or enclosure of this site is not necessary due to on-site vegetative screening
and topography that provide adequate visual screening.
(c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be
transferred off the property by any reasonable foreseeable natural causes or forces;
(d) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise
be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of
Health Regulation;
(6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards
designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of
the facilities may begin.
All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers
must be met before operation of the facilities may begin.
Kathy — The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following conditions and due
to the number of conditions, she did not go through them. She did make a comment about a couple of
the conditions:
Condition No. 12 is something that the staff has done commonly over the past couple of years and that
is simply to reiterate the industrial performance standards as conditions of approval. However, that
there is one that has caused concern to the Planning Commission and that is regarding the storage area
and the concealing of those facilities from the adjacent properties. All outdoor storage facilities shall be
included by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. As you can
imagine the derrick from the drill rig probably cannot be enclosed by a fence.
Commissioner Houpt — That is temporary, this is for permitted facilities.
Kathy — The Planning Commission wanted to forward part of their discussion to this Board so you were
aware that they thought adequate on site screening does exist for this site simply due to its topography
and the existing vegetation.
Commissioner Houpt—The visual impacts from the river, was that discussed.
Kathy — No. It sits well above the river. The GV82-5 site sits adjacent to the Colroado River but it does sit
above it and one of the sites did show a glimpse of the Colorado River and existing vegetation. You could
see that it was well down below where the well pad was located.
Chairman Martin — If you are on 1-70 you can see a tower.
Kathy—The most visible point for the GV82-5 site is when you are traveling west on 1-70. The PA41-9
site because it is in production stages has its own specific conditions related to it particular that if
additional structures were added they would be required to come back through this process for that.
Once again, we added in the Planning Commission deliberations regarding the adequacy of the on-site
screening for that site.
Kathy—There were several additions and changes from what the Planning Commission recommended
to this Board and they are particular to the GV82-5 site and related to Condition number 2. That
condition really requires that all related materials and waste be removed from the site at the end of the
production stages. The exact language of the conditions is "any material including solids, liquids or gases
resulting from the extraction of processing activities shall be removed from the site. This does not
preclude the allowance of permitting on site temporary storage facilities and materials through the
special use process" and the Planning Commission then added "nor does it include cuttings which may
be left on site pursuant to COGCC standards." Staff is recommending that the last part of that condition
be removed simply because we are concerned about potential future development on site. An
additional amendment to Condition number 3, the condition that the Planning Commission adopted was
that "prior to the Board of County Commissioners consideration, that some information be provided."
That information has not been provided in whole as of yet and so we would just amend that condition to
read, "prior to the issuance of the land use change permit that we receive that information." Then
Number 13 is a new condition that staff is recommending simply because of the remote fracing
operation. We are requesting that some information be provided regarding that adjacent well pad site
basically, a legal description for the site and the fact that the property owner has granted their
permission for the use of that well pad for remote fracing, the COGCC permits for the site including any
permits that may be necessary for the remote fracing issue and information related to the origination
and the produced water for the fracing.
Board Comment:
Chairman Martin —The last one, in previous hearings and we have encouraged to do rig remote fracing
simply because of the dust mitigation that would have to take place, the movement of vehicles to and
from the different roads and that we have actually encouraged the industry to set up remote fracing.
There are many benefits to that simply because we do not have the impact of the lands adjoining the
neighbors, the largest one is the control and I will have to mull that over if we want some more
regulation on that on but again, it is debatable.
Kathy clarified, the reason we are asking for it is not to further review it; we just want to make sure
everything is in place.
Commissioner Samson — You are not asking them for a new permit.
Kathy — No, we are not.
Commissioner Houpt — Our environmental health director brought forward a concern about VOCs and
emissions control and I understand that those controls have been added to the 82-5 pad.
Kathy—That is correct; it is condition No. 6, "the County shall require the operator to maintain the VOC
emission controls on the well pad facility regardless of other agency regulatory requirements.
Commissioner Houpt — Could you just explain to me for more clarification why there was not a
requirement on the other pad, is it because it is dormant?
Kathy — There is a requirement on the other one but it is No. 6.
Commissioner Houpt —Should additional drilling occur... so currently it is deemed there is no need for
emission control?
Kathy—That is what the Planning Commission determined.
Applicant:
Jim Mogel, Holland and Hart, Ann Lane, senior counsel and Dasa Bryan with Williams presented for the
applicant.
Jim — We do not have a formal presentation today, the staff has done a very thorough in terms of their
presentation and Ms. Eastley and Ms. Quinn have worked with us very closely on this, have been very
productive, and have worked hard to get us to this point today. We have today with us a number of
Williams folks in addition to myself. Those present included Ms. Lane, Ms. Brian, Steve Harris who is the
completion superintendent with Williams and our expert on fracing activities; Scott Brady our drilling
superintendent; Mike Shoemaker who is an environmental specialist with Williams; Sandy Hotard who is
the land and field land person; Rick Matar is our air quality practice manager who can talk about some
of the VOC issues and Donna Gray and Sue Alvillar are also present. As Ms. Eastley indicated at the
beginning of her presentation, this is a little bit of an unusual process. The permitting process for an oil
and gas site is not something that typically comes in front of the County Commissioners. The regulations
within the Battlement Mesa PUD actually do require that we get to this point here today, which caught
all of us by surprise, and I suspect some of the public comment that you have seen gets to that fact.
There were several steps earlier in the process where predecessors to Williams actually did obtain
Special Use Permits under the Battlement Mesa PUD for the 82-5 well site, which do not permit directly
to what we are talking about today in the sense that the scope of what Williams is doing right now goes
what those permits were but this is a site that has been permitted in the past. It is not a completely new
concept to the folks in the Battlement Mesa area. We are very comfortable for the most part with the
staff recommendation, there a couple of exceptions or a couple of the recommendations that the staff
has made that we would like to bring to your attention and perhaps have some discussion on. The first
relates to the condition number 13 which we talked about earlier for the 82-5 well site, which goes to
the remote fracing, which is taking place. The remote fracing for 82-5 is actually taking places on
another COGCC permitted well site, 64-5 pad which is about a quarter mile away and essentially is the
same activity that would have taken place on the 82-5 site when we frac the wells that are being drilled
there except the fact that the pipes are longer. The reason we have done that is for a couple reasons: 1)
we were simply trying to minimize the impacts on Battlement Mesa PUD property because of the
adjacent various residences and that sort of thing. The traffic that would be generated by fracing
operation is going to be on the pad and it is not going into the Battlement Mesa PUD area and as a
result, it reduces the impacts associated with noise, traffic etc in Battlement Mesa. 2) It also allows us to
minimize the interference with the land disturbance at that site, the 82-5 site and we were able to use a
pad that was already in existence in order to frac from so that we were able to minimize the size of the
pad at the 82-5 site. Our issue to discuss with item 13 is simple that we believe that since the activity
that is taking place at this remote frac site is in fact an oil and gas production operation, which is taking
place on a COGCC approved PUD that this is a permitted use within the area and the County zoning
code. If you go to the use tables and the County zoning code that allows for oil and gas drilling and
production, COGCC permitted site as a use by right within the zoning category where the 64-5 site is
located we do not really quarrel with the staff's desire for information we do not feel it should be an
obligation or a condition to our permit to provide this to the staff.
Commissioner Samson — What is the big deal?
Jim — It is not a big deal but the language in the condition says basically, that it is a condition to issuance
of the permit and we touched on earlier most of the activity is done at this point and we are trying to
keep the conditions to a minimum. In addition, in essence, it is information that may be of interest but it
is not really that should be required of the applicant at this point.
Commissioner Houpt — I think I disagree with you only because this is a situation where the drilling is
occurring within a PUD that requires a SUP and so your related activity is directly resulting from that
activity. If we permit that activity within the PUD we are impacting that outside site as well because it is
connected, there is no way to distinguish between those activities and so it would be logical for us as
people who look at land use concerns to want to have evidence that the property owners understands
what is going on. So I would have to ask the same question that Mike asked and further it is okay that
and my next question after you are done with your presentation, I would love to have an update on
what is going on with these sites. This is part of our process and we are more concerned about land use
and land use impacts than timing of the permit.
Jim — We understand that and I think from our standpoint the operational activities associated with
remote fracing, part of our application, we provided information that talked about the fracing that
would take place and described how it would relate to the GP82-5 site, which is subject to this permit
and is within the Battlement Mesa PUD. As a result, the fact of the remote fracing is part of the
application that we made and the information considered by staff as part of the application. The
information required by Condition 13 is much like the information you require as part of a formal permit
application. The information required on the other well site really goes beyond the scope of the
County's regulations.
Commissioner Houpt — That is not my interpretation.
Jim —The other issue we would like to discuss today is that it goes back to Condition number 2, which
Ms. Eastley talked about previously and that goes to the question of on-site disposal of cuttings. We
have issues actually discussed fairly heavily in front of the Planning Commission on the original condition
that staff proposed is basically what they are proposing today which would prohibit us from disposing of
any cuttings within the boundaries of the GV82-5 well site. We would request that the Board approve a
condition that is consistent with the condition that was approved by the Planning Commission such that
it continues to add a requirement or condition that the mandated offsite disposal does not include
cuttings. The reasoning for that is several but primarily cuttings are regulated by the COGCC and
basically if they exceed certain limitations, certain standards that are set out of the COGCC regulations,
they are treated as waste and there are significant disposal criteria that Williams or any other producer
has to follow in order to handle those. If they fall within the walk -away standards of the COGCC
regulations, they are essentially dirt and they are allowed to be disposed of on-site. We understand staff
issues with respect to land use but the fact from our standpoint that we fill the COGCC has already made
the determination that those types of materials are not waste and that can be disposed of onsite usually
requiring us to haul all of the cuttings away creates an operational conflict with the state regulations.
We would request that the Board continue to follow the Planning Commission recommendation with
respect to Condition 2.
Commissioner Houpt — What would the operational conflict be, it is a different level requirement so how
would that conflict with your operations?
Jim — I would look at it simplistically and maybe that is not the way to look at it but under the COGCC
regulations we can leave the cuttings on site and the County is requesting that we take the cuttings
away and so that adds to how we operate for our activities. How the oil and gas activities operate on the
site because it is an additional step.
Commissioner Houpt — Have you been hauling cuttings away?
Jim — Mr. Brady answered that question.
Chairman Martin — Before you answer I do have a request for a clarification. Jim, in the surface use
agreement in reference to Battlement Mesa Partners Limited, was that an issue that was discussed on
cuttings on the surface use agreement?
Jim — No, it is not.
Scott Brady—The well pad had been revisited several times and this last visit was the fourth visit. This
operation is significantly different than how we started back years ago. It is a much larger single drilling
rig operation to drill a multitude of wells. It requires more room that did the location allow for from back
in 1990. The reserve pit and the area of room that Ms. Eastley mentioned about the differences in land
use there, just allowed that there was not enough land there for us to dig a pit large enough to hold
those cuttings. Therefore, we made site provisions with adjacent landowners, us being Williams, to haul
solids off there. It is very costly, very time consuming and adds a whole lot of traffic. What we have to
do it haul off enough so we can keep a level of the reserve pit under the COGCC standards. That is all we
want or should need to have to haul off there. Anything that we do not have to haul off we would like to
under COGCC standards be able to leave there, so yes, we have hauled off.
Commissioner Houpt—Those cuttings need to remain on the approved site pad too. They would not be
leaving cuttings on adjacent property.
Kathy — No, it is just on the pad. It is part of the reclamation plan for the well pad site itself, so yes they
would remain within the well pad.
Jim — While we have Mr. Brady up here, he can give you an update on where things stand too in terms
of the status of the drilling.
Scott Brady - Drilling operations have been completed for somewhere between three and four weeks.
The drilling rigs moved off to another site. There are crouching operations going there at present and
the final phase of frac completions; Steve would have to tell you how much more time is involved there
but I think we are more than half done with all the completion process now.
Commissioner Houpt — One question about the cuttings, I am familiar with COGCC rule on that but this is
primarily dirt that you are leaving as cuttings. Have you found any contamination in these cuttings?
Brady — No, but we would not until we got into the test criteria that you are fully aware of from the
COGCC rules for reclamation.
Commissioner Houpt — It is not really dirt.
Scott Brady — It is rock.
Commissioner Houpt — But there can be contamination.
Scott Brady — Yes there can be. A lot of the area out there dictates which wells might potentially have
more arsenic, barium, or hydrocarbon content. This is not one of those areas. We would fully expect
that the sampling process that would go on here would allow us to leave the cuttings on site or not have
to treat the cuttings.
Commissioner Houpt — You can understand the staff's concern, the PUD allows for schools and other
types of facilities for children would be digging around.
Scott Brady — What would be left there would be in our standard dirt, crushed rock sand.
Jim - Mr. Shoemaker who is here with us is the environmental specialist, he is familiar with the cuttings
testing criteria and the technical aspects of that, and he might be able to shed light on your questions.
Mike Shoemaker — The main thing to address there is what Mike said are the COGCC rules and the walk
away standard, which means that you are able to use it for appropriate standards in residential
standards based off the CETG table, which in turns bases it back to the EPA and RFERA standards so it is
a walk away standard which they feel is appropriate for residential placement. That area is more green
belt open space and not over our portion.
Kathy — The use by right did include other activities.
Mike Shoemaker— It does under the PUD in the Battlement Mesa PUD it is open space and certain
public types uses which include things but there is no residential uses allowed there but staff is correct,
schools and I am not sure about daycare centers.
Kathy— Hospitals.
Jim — I think in terms of the cuttings, I think we have covered that, the other aspect or issue that we
would like to emphasis in here is we completely agree with staff in terms of the screening requirement.
The County's standards do allow the County Commissioners to impose additional screening
requirements on industrial type activities; here we feel it is somewhat futile. Certainly, the drilling
operations we cannot cover up a drilling rig very well. The 41-9 site has minimal visual impacts to
adjacent properties; we have covered it so it blends it with the vegetation around there and we are
subject to criteria from COGCC for reclamation on the lower site. Once the production and completion
operations are completed, there will be minimal improvements on that site so we support staff's
postion that no additional screening be required for those sites. Just a couple of things to clarify during
Ms. Eastley's presentation she indicated the property was actually owned by Battlement Mesa Land
Investments. The documentation we passed around prior to the hearing indicated that it was actually
owned by Battlement Mesa Partners LLC and that was part of the confusion because the County
Assessors records did not coincide with the information that we had. Related to access Jim pointed out
that CR 309, which is the major haul route that goes into both of these sites used by Williams comes
over from Rulison access and it was actually improved by Williams prior to these activities. I think it was
somewhere in the line of $2 million dollars so they have invested a significant amount of money in these
sites.
Steve Harris —The completion superintendent and the frac man filled the Commissioners in on the
remote fracing activities. Where we are today is we have one more frac to do on the first eight wells
that were done and that will be done this coming Wednesday. Following that the completions will start
on the last remaining eight wells, those first fracs should start around December 21, and we will be done
January 9, 2010 with the fracing operation. We will then have to drill them out and land tubing and that
should be done around the first of February. We will not frac on Christmas and New Years Day either.
Public comment:
Cheryl Brandon — Resident of Battlement Mesa and a member of the Battlement Concerned Citizens
Group (BBC), a group concerned about heavy industry coming into our PUD and the impact on our
densely populated small community and its citizens. I was asked to read this letter today because she
was unable to come, her name is Mary Ellen Denomy and some may know here, she lives at 308
Tamarack Circle in Battlement Mesa, Colorado. She read the letter into the record stating that oil and
gas should not be given a carte blanche without being fined as a punishment for not complying with the
rules that everyone else has to follow. If so, then no one should be required to need a permit anymore
and pay the fees.
Chairman Martin — Remember that this is not a violation or a penalty hearing, this is to keep in mind
that it is to issue or not issue a SUP for this extraction industry. It is not about violations.
Commissioner Houpt — Does that preclude that discussion.
Chairman Martin — It should. It is not within the scope of what we are trying to do, so that was said in
the beginning and we need to make sure we stay within that scope. If it were a violation, that is a
different issue.
Cheryl Brandon — Excuse me, at the last meeting we were told we could come and talk about that here.
We were specifically told by the attorney.
Deb — What I said was that this Board would probably listen to you but it is still not within the scope of
what needs to be approved.
Commissioner Houpt — If that was the message they were given, then I think we have a responsibility to
follow through.
Chairman Martin — We will listen but we have to make our decision based upon the information within
the scope so that you know that we are not ignoring your issue.
Sandy Getter and my husband Richard and I live at 68 Meadow Creek Drive in Parachute, Colorado
actually in Battlement Mesa. I am feeling that everything that is going on today is after the fact because
as soon as you gave that approval in August they quickly moved in and quickly drilled the 16 wells, they
are done and we cannot get 16 wells drilled that quickly if we wanted it otherwise. As far as the cuttings
by the river, look at where it is. Look at where GV82-5 is, if you leave those cuttings with possible
chemicals our water supply is below that. We need to be protected, those cuttings and that land needs
to be totally clear and it is one of the things that needs to be done. I do need to ask about the facing.
You said it is almost done; obviously, it was not done remotely.
Steve — It was.
Cheryl stated she was not here the last month. I want to say that I am not here representing any
particular group because I am representing many disgusted citizens in Battlement Mesa. We look at the
situation of drillings in our PUD without that SUP is just another cover up by people responsible to
protect public health and safety. When we purchased our property in 1998 from Battlement Mesa then
they called themselves the Company of Partners, we were led to believe that the open space in our PUD
was a green belt area, sort of a buffer to prevent unsightly activity or storage. Now we find out that the
Williams Production Company has been drilling in the PUD almost 20 -years. Look at the map up there,
you can see that their well pads are tucked away, one below number 14 on the golf course another in
the pocket to our Morrisiana, nevertheless in the PUD which we did not know. In August of this year, I
was at a Battlement Mesa Service Association meeting where Eric Schmela of Battlement Mesa
Company Partners told a resident Sarah Purdue, who wanted to have a beauty shop in her home that
our PUD was set us so that commercial would be separate from residential and only a vote of all the
people here could change that. Garfield County had told the same thing that commercial and residential
were set up in separate areas because Battlement Mesa was set up as a PUD. So, who allowed in the
original filing of the Battlement Mesa PUD to have heavy industrial, that is drilling included next to
homes, the golf course, etc. You saw that other map, which we were not given when we were bought
our property and it seems a bit inhumes. It also seems to me that Eric Schmela is quite knowledgeable
about this. I am sure his company has been well aware of this oversight of Williams not having an SUP to
drill in our PUD. After all, who went into the agreement with Williams years ago, it is my understanding
that Eric Schmela is also aware that the previous management director had told the BMSA HOA that
they could take over the open spaces. That was told to us and that a survey would need to be done first
to determine the exactness. The surveys were undertaken and done by the director who died
unexpected, and Eric came in and has nixed the turnovers. He should have been well aware Williams
was in the PUD with those surveys. The well pads could just as easily be placed 100-yards further away
outside the PUD. Williams has high-powered attorneys, we know, Holland and Hart right here, who
could have advised them too. Williams should have had landman who would have been locating and
searching property ownership and establishing mineral ownership. Otherwise, how could they have
established any right; or as we would say it, lease agreement to harvest the gas and provide the state
with accurate permit information. Not making it known that there was drilling in the PUD made it much
easier to sell lot and homes. Not showing the map with present and proposed well pads to clients is
unconsciousable. It is sad to but the County is to blame also extending permission for Williams illegal
activity is a further disregard for the legal set up of our community. Therefore, this case should not be
glossed over as an oversight with so many involved. Also, no precedent should be set for further drilling
in the PUD just because we have already had it going on. Battlement Mesa citizens deserve recompense
for this illegal drilling. Some people came to me and said she we should all get something individually.
Well that does not work too well. So since this has been an on-going activity for almost 20-years, several
projects I have in mind are the following and they are substantial. 1) construct a four-lane bridge over
the Colorado River and four-lanes to the entrance to our subdivision. 2) build a bridge over the railroad
tracks at the west entrance after the on and off ramps are completed and eventually building a bridge
over the Colorado River to connect to the west or back entrance to Battlement Mesa by the RV Park. 3)
make a sizeable donation to fund future repairs and maintenance on our activity center. Since
Battlement Mesa Company, Williams Production Company and Garfield County are all involved I what
appears to be a cover up, you should all collaborate on these projects. Thank you for listening and I hope
we will definitely get some recompense for this.
Bob Arrington, on the Battlement Mesa Services Association as the Director, I believe at the first of the
hearing, there was discussion regarding the notification and were there any challenges.
Chairman Martin — No challenges, we accepted it and put it in to the record.
Bob — I am not so sure that all of the proper organizations were notified. I think it would behoove the
Commission to check on that one whether the Service Association, the Consolidated Metro District and
the fire district were notified of their status of coming forward on this hearing for his SUP. In addition to
that, GV82-5 and Colorado River touching in there, you can readily see it is a floodplain so all the
requirement necessary for percolation tests and soil contamination, everything there should be taken
into account in any special use permit issue. At that bend in the river, the water intakes for the CMD are
located there so any spills should have special berming to prevent that. The City of Rifle has given a
special use of gates and sensors by the oil and gas people to protect their water supply and I believe that
could be a good consideration for the SUP that we like protection from them. The other thing is land use
change; this hearing may be putting the cart before the horse if we had not had the hearing on the land
use change prior to this. We spent several hours just prior to this meeting listening to a major change of
a cable across a river. Here we have major changes to the entire community lifestyle. Finally, on this
item, fire and spill protections — part of the Planning & Zoning recommendations went through there as
they talked about yearly inspections by the County and people involved. I believe those inspections
should be on a quarterly basis particular in fire season to make sure they have the flammables stored
and everything there. Battlement Mesa has already suffered one major fire through the Monument
Valley area and that signifies that we cannot have an ignition point as GV82-5 because it would race
right up the hill and take out the homes. This was entered previously as Exhibit KK.
Dave Devanney, a resident of Battlement Mesa and here today representing the group called
Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens and entered a letter into the record. He read the letter into the
record stating they found out in May 27, 2009 at a meeting when another drilling company announced
plans for 10 well pads and up to 200 natural gas wells within our community. The frustration and
outrage was heightened when they learned later that an operator, Williams Production RMT had already
been drilling within their PUD without the required SUPs for 20-years. On November 18, 2009, the P & Z
listened to us but we were ignored; so this Board is our last and best hope. He raised 10-points related
to the fact that the drilling is unacceptable and if the County staff had done their job, this would not
have occurred. He would like to impose some type of compensation for the residents. He also requested
there be an internal audit to see how many instances like this occur after the fact, as it may be a
systematic problem. He would also like the EIA department to install both air and water monitors in the
area to test for pollution. He would like the cuttings extracted and disposed of in an approved manner
and testing of the ground to see if there is any additional contamination and would request a security
bond in such as amount as appropriate by the Building & Planning Department. The letter was entered
previously as Exhibit PP.
Applicant:
Jim responded to several issues saying he understand the concerns of the Battlement Mesa citizens. The
issue has been taking place in Colorado for many years, which is split between the surface estate and
sub-surface oil and gas estate causes a lot of consternation and has caused a lot of mitigation. There a
lot of case law out there that goes to the question of rights of the surface owner versus the rights of the
several mineral owners and frequently the surface owners are somewhat surprised to the extent to
which mineral owners have rights on the property that they own. The goal of Williams is to try and, do
the best job we can about how we develop our oil and gas rights and part of what we have tried to do.
Our predecessors with the Barrett Companies and Exxon back in the early days tried to anticipate these
types of issues to the greatest extent possible to put extra limits on oil and gas activities within
Battlement Mesa over and above what it typical and normally required if parties were just left to
themselves in terms of their legal rights and responsibilities. There were a number of agreements that
were entered into between our predecessor and the Battlement Mesa Partners at the time, which we
put limits on our activities. One of the statements that were made is that this is not a use that is allowed
in Battlement Mesa that is not correct. The use we are talking about and the reason we are here today is
that is it allowed by special review which recognizes that there may be some additional conditions or
criteria that might be applied to this other than just a drilling operation where you do not have a
covenant or a PUD. Those documents were recorded, the PUD is recorded which recognizes that this is a
special use that could be permitted and presumable the folks who testified here today took title subject
to that and that was disclosed in their title commitments. I recognize that not everyone reads those
documents except us real estate lawyers, but they are in fact there and you do take title subject to those
types of documents. The special use agreements were also recorded as well. The maps on the screen
earlier today that showed those various drill sites located within the Battlement Mesa PUD were
exhibits to those. That information was available. I cannot speak to the relationship between the
Battlement Mesa Developers and the people at the time they purchased their homes; we are not
involved in that issue. That does not relate to what we are talking about here today. In terms of notice,
some of the organizations mentioned such as the Service Association and the Metro District, they may
have been referral agencies but they are not required to receive notice under the code as property
owners.
Kathy — Correct that is not the legal standard for notice requirements. However, the County does sent
out requests for referral comments. On page 9 of the staff report, a list was submitted of all the agencies
where the referrals were made. These do include the ones mentioned. No comments were received
back from many of these agencies. Kathy explained the process for sending out referrals.
Jim stated that Williams's representatives did meet with the oil and gas committee and in fact, they
presented a letter at the original hearing indicating that they supported our application. The notice was
adequate for the hearing. In terms of the water issues, there is the reference to Rifle under the COGCC
regulations for watershed and additional protections. Those regulations do not apply in this instance. In
terms of the fracing fluid, Williams is obligated to test the fracing fluid under the COGCC regulations and
maintain an inventory of those components.
Dasa Bryan clarified that the Rifle Watershed was not a COGCC regulation that is the watershed
requirements in Rifle. With respect to the COGCC requirements under 317B, we are within 5-miles from
the intake and we have certain requirements to do COGCC regulations with Colorado River, which we
have done and will continue to do. With respect to fracing the COGCC under 205 there were new
requirements, we are required to keep certain records, and we are in compliance to those
requirements, testing of water, etc.
Jim — Real estate lawyer, in terms of the bonding, part of the issue is the COGCC bonding requirements
and the pad is subject to a bond that has been posted by Williams and it has COGCC required
reclamation criteria. We have applied for a sundry amendment to the permit for that area so the entire
pad 82-5 pad will be included within the bonding requirements. If you refer back to case law and
preemptive issues typically, bonding is one of those issues that is a state matter, a COGCC matter. The
other thing we have Rick Matar who is our air quality person and one of the issues raised was the VOC
and air quality issues.
Rick Matar — Pad GV82-5 will have an air pollution control device as soon as those wells are put into
production. A combustor that burns VOCs could present a safety issue when we are burning, fracing
going on and activity at the pad. That will be activated. That particular air pollution control device will be
made enforceable by the State of Colorado by an air permit application with the state to have it meet
standards required by Regulation 7 of the State of Colorado. As far as PA 41-9 at this time, an air
pollution device is not planned for that location because if you put a combustor at that location you
could be generating more pollution that you would be destroying. It is not warranted at this time. A
combustor would be burning natural gas, that would put emissions into the air, and if the vapors are not
there to combust, you are not controlling. On the 41-9, there are no vapors in terms of oil production
because it is mostly produced water, which is not in significant quantities to generate any measurable
air emissions. That is being monitored by CDPHE and they are responsible for permitting and through
our production records if there is a significant amount of production we will be flagged and evaluated at
the time on an on-going basis.
Jim — In terms of the floodplain issue, that was part of our application and the GV82-5 is not in the
floodplain.
Chairman Martin — For Dave Devanney in order that he understood the reference letters are identified
on — page 9 of the staff report, Town of Parachute, Battlement Mesa Service District, Battlement Mesa
Park and Recreation District, Grand Valley Fire Protection District, School District 16, Colorado Division
of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Oil
and Gas Liaison, County Vegetation Manager, Road and Bridge, the Sheriff, Environmental Health Officer
and the Bureau of Land Management. Some gave comments some did not.
Chuck Hall —149 Willow Creek Trail in Battlement Mesa commented in reference to notification to the
Battlement Mesa Service Association. At the time, Williams found out that they was a requirement to
have a major land use impact review, Williams came to the BM oil and gas committee and presented
their plan for that drilling activity and in addition to that there were meetings being held for the service
association that are called village meetings and at that time several of those village meetings, Williams
came and made presentation on some of the activities that they planned to do within their drill site. One
additional comment, the times that Williams have come to oil and gas committee for Battlement Mesa
Service Association if there have been problems identified they have tried to rectify those problems in a
very quick and efficient manner to satisfy the residents of the community.
Chris Cole, counsel to Battlement Mesa Partners, LLC, the applicant. With reference to why we were not
involved in putting forth a SUP, number one we did not know that one did not exist at the time. The
location where this particular well location had been sited was a long-standing well location. What we
did essentially was when the Williams came forth and stated they wanted to drill a bunch of wells in that
location, we looked at, discussed it and made some changes to the surface use agreement that was in
place. That was the beginning and the end of our due diligence on that particular point and once again,
it was because this area was already in production. With reference to the other PA41-9, we were not
involved in that and I think that was brought forward as a part of this review process and it was
determined that Barrett had not obtained any drilling sites SUP at the times they did it. In Williams's
defense, Williams took over from Barrett and for whatever reason, it is not an ordinary part of their
business to go back and check for SUPs because they do not have to do it. If someone cannot
understand how that can happen, then okay they will just have to work on it but from our standpoint,
we did the best we could and that is the situation.
Commissioner Houpt to Chris Cole, you stated that you thought there was a SUP in place so you did
know there needed to be a SUP.
Chris — We assumed that the permitting had all taken place because that is not what we do; as a
landowner, all we do is give a surface use agreement for someone and we do not worry about
permitting.
Commissioner Houpt — Do you not advice them that they are in a PUD and this is a special situation
where you need a SUP?
Chris — in this case, we would not have and originally we do not. When we deal with third parties, we
anticipate that they are going to do all of their undue diligence and we do not take that responsibility
onto ourselves. If we start advising people about appropriate uses in our subdivision we leave ourselves
open for liability. So as a rule is as where is.
Commissioner Houpt — But you give them all the documentation that shows what the requirements are.
Chris —They always have the documentation as part of the title commitment process. From our
standpoint, we deal with people at arm's length and we do our best not to create relationships where
third parties can come in and say that you said this or that and we try to do to simply advise where to
look and to advise themselves and form their own opinions as to the appropriate cause of action for that
and try not try to create any kind of a third party relationship.
Commissioner Houpt — As a landowner, this is your PUD and so I am not very confused. I am not blaming
anyone today, it does not make sense to me that this slipped by and I am trying to understand it so it
will not happen in the future.
Chris — Number one, we have a grandfather situation going on here, I was not counsel to Battlement
Mesa when all of this went down, Eric Smaller was not the present Battlement Mesa Company either.
Neither one of us any experience in that area. Williams has already operational out there on property
that was subject to the Barrett surface use agreement and we assumed that all permits were in place
and I believe they assumed the permits were in place. But, for the Antero SUP process that will be
upcoming, I suspect we would never had heard a word about that ever because both locations had been
there for many years and not one complaint about from any of the folks who lived in Battlement Mesa.
The other thing that is worthy of note, the Battlement Mesa PUD is like 3200 acres, it is a huge piece of
ground. There are areas of it that are quite remote and the Williams pad down by the river is in a
remote part except for the drilling activities and PA41-9 is up in an area unless you live in Morrisiana
Mesa, you would never know it was there.
Commissioner Houpt — I have to say and I am not blaming you, but as a county official, it is very
disturbing that this kind of thing occurred. There was the question asked of an internal audit and this
happens a lot, so I would urge everyone who is watching hearing and everyone who represents the oil
and gas industry, Williams and various other companies, be familiar with our planning department
because we take these regulations very seriously.
Chairman Martin — A little history that you have not touched on and we need to make sure that we
clarify. In 1981, Exxon transferred the ownership of the surface to the Battlement Mesa Partners and in
1982 in the PUD, extraction and processing were listed as special uses within all zones, the entire PUD.
The partners entered into 1989 the development of oil and gas and it located all of the different
proposed pads; it is all disclosed and recorded. Th other one is that the surface use agreement has been
in place since 2007, the reiteration of it but the original one was back in 1989. So when you purchased
property between 1982 and to present, it would be the duty of the real estate company who you did all
transactions with to disclose that and if it is, your loan company and all of your other exclusions needed
to be listed. Therefore, if you go back and look at your deed it will all be there. That is why we have the
frustration today because again as the attorney say, not everyone reads those deeds. That is an issue
between you and your lending company and whoever you purchased the property from.
Chuck Hall — On the meeting in the BMSA, but in all other meetings there has been none of the
extraction companies talk about your rights as to what you can comments so Williams probably did not
advise any of the BMSA people or anything that they could make comments prior to these hearing or to
be a part of them.
Chairman Martin —That would be the responsibility of this governing board to send that out through
staff to make sure that you welcome to comment. That is why the 1800 notifications of the hearing were
sent. Chuck Hall — Would like to know who signed for the certified mail because we have several things
coming down the pipe.
Chairman Martin invited the people to look at the entire group of mailings.
Commissioner Houpt stated individuals could also send written comments to the Board.
Kathy — Drinking water supply underneath the 82-5 below it by the river is that the access point for
water for Battlement Mesa is that is what was being referred to?
Kathy — Yes, there are a few wells that are on that site just past the water supply. There is a water supply
that comes out of the Colorado River. The water quality standards were talked about specifically related
to storm water management, etc. Testing of those wells is ongoing.
Jim Rada — The primary supply for the metro district is the river. They do have a well field below the
treatment plant. I talked last week to the operator of the plant and they have not used the wells in 24
years but they do sample them routinely as they do the river water and the treated water that they send
out to their systems. There is on-going monitoring. They also have a third source which runs through the
PUD, an irrigation ditch and they do not plan to have use it but they have it and they do test that water
and have they have other operators test it periodically. The primary supply is the river.
Commissioner Houpt asked Jim if he had any concerns or look at the issue even though it is a COGCC
rule, of the cuttings.
Jim — I have no involvement of that.
Deb Quinn — For clarification in the application on the 22 different wells that are currently permitted on
the GV82-5 site, is the recent application for the 16 new wells, there is a comment on each application
that says 29 wells are anticipated for this site so I need clarification from the applicant whether or not
29 wells are anticipated and if so do you intent to come back for an amendment should those additional
7 wells be put in.
Scott Brady—That well site is completely drilled out with the wells we just completed drilling there, he
did not know where those additional well came from, but the total that we have just finished allows that
entire drainage pattern to be drilled and there are not additional wells to drill from there.
Deb clarified that there were no additional wells to be drilled.
Scott Brady — Not in our foreseeable future.
Deb — If you did, you would come back and amend.
Scott Brady — We would start over.
Deb — In connection with one of the comment that was made about the issuance for at least one of
wells on GV82-5 last week, we did receive from Williams and copies of two resolution of this Board. One
was from 1986 and the second from 1989 that shows that Williams predecessor did come in and request
a SUP from this Board for 1 well on that well pad in Battlement Mesa PUD. We do not have information
to show whether the permit was ever issues but they did go through the process, the Board approved it
with conditions, and the permit was to issue after the conditions were met. At that time, back in 1986
and 1989 we did not record the actual SUP so they have not been located yet but they did come through
that process. As Mr. Morgel indicated it does not have much to do with the application today because
we now have 22 not just one and the situation is totally different but there was an application made and
a hearing before this Board for at least one of the wells on that location.
Chairman Martin — Further verification can be through the Board of County Commissioners books if you
have a certain date which will also show you the date and who made the motion, the conditions of that
approval and also the Resolution number. That is also in our records.
Deb — On the issue of remote fracing, I think the applicant's position is that fracing is a permitted use on
a permitted well site within the context of our zoning regulations today and therefore it is not
something this Board would look at. Staff is not quite there, we are willing to go forward with this
particular application because this particular remote fracing is very specific to this application and we
learned enough about it to be comfortable with the approval that you are going to give today for this
special use. However, Countywide staff has become aware that this is a practice that we need to know
more about to determine what the impacts might be to a particular site because if you do remote
fracing from one site for 20 different well pads, the impacts on that particular site and the neighbors to
that particular site might be huge. We do have subsequent meetings scheduled with Williams on the
staff level this week to learn more about that practice Countywide and we will come back at some point
with a recommendation about how countywide we deal with that issue.
Chairman Martin — We have had a presentation on remote fracing already in front of this Board. We had
that presentation by Williams and they showed how that the impact would be less, where they would
set up and how it was and that no permanent structures would be needed. The impact on the land use
would be less than what it would be if we required a permanent location for fracing. To reiterate and
bring it forward and to continue our education is a worthwhile purpose.
Deb — On the issue of the cuttings, clarification from Williams about how many cuttings was generated
from the activity thus far and how much of that had to be transported off site compared to how much
still remains on site. What they intend to do with it when they remove the pit liner, which is required
currently under the COGCC rules and just to give an idea of how expensive it is in terms of what the
applicant has told you as an operational conflict. In addition, to the quantification of the dollar numbers
these are some more questions for you, assuming today this Board finds that there is a local interest
involved in regulating this activity and wants to see that these soils are safe for future uses in line with
the goal of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act for the facility development of oil and gas
resources while mitigating potential land use conflicts between such development in existing as well as
planned land uses, what is the operational conflict that might arise in the effectuation of your local land
use interest? Does it materially impede or destroy that state interest and without the quantification will
it cost more for you to haul off the cuttings? Does this really tell us that that it materially impedes or
destroys the state interest? She asked for more information by the applicant about what they are talking
about in terms of it will cost more.
Jim — Mr. Brady can address this question with respect to the quantities and tell you exactly what we are
doing with it. I mentioned operational conflict and I think it may go beyond that, I think it is potentially
an express preemption because the cuttings are actually regulated by the State. They are classified
either as EMP waste or they are not EMP waste and if they are not EMP waste, then we have the ability
to dispose of them on site. It may go beyond operational conflict.
Mr. Brady — By volume: He could not tell the Board the calculated volume there, we have it but he did
not know the number today. We knew that the reserve pit area that we used was not large enough.
Currently, we have estimated that we have taken of about 50% of what we generated in the drilling of
the wells. The additional 50% that is still there is what we would like to be able to keep on site.
Deb — What was the estimated cost of the removal of the 50% that has already been removed?
Mr. Brady - $150,000 to $175,000 as ballpark figure. The additional 50% would be something similar to
that amount.
Deb — How does that compare in terms of the percentage of cost involved in relation to the total that
you make from drilling.
Mr. Brady—That is not a fair question for me, we would have to get with the engineers and the reservoir
people. I will decline from trying to answer that question.
Commissioner Houpt — The question could also be how does that compare with treating the soil if
contamination is detected since the liner has to be pulled and there will be strict conditions for leaving
that waste.
Mr. Brady - Sampling has to go on before final determination or reclamation is done. They do not have
to be taken out of the reserve pit because of sampling but they will have to be taken out for removal of
the pit liner so that is already an additional expense. We do not think that will be tested such that they
would need to be land farmed, removed, or mediated. We expect they will test such so that we can put
them right back in and achieve the three-foot of cover on them.
Commissioner Houpt — You are assuming they will be tested clean.
Mr. Brady — Correct.
Commissioner Houpt — But if they are not, then what?
Mr. Brady — If they are not then I have to go along with your test criteria and what the rules called for
but it still does not mean that I have to haul them off, I can meditate and treat right on location.
Deb — Have you tested the ones that have already been hauled?
Mr. Brady—No.
Deb — You do not know if they are clean or not, you have just dumped them somewhere.
Mr. Brady — Our experience in that area is as I mentioned earlier, an area rather defines how the
samples might end up meeting test criteria. Barium for instance in more relative to the bar we use in our
drilling mud and we more use bars in the Rulison area where we are drilling much stronger wells where
we have to have a lot of bar for density to hold the gas in place. Arsenic is one that Commissioner Houpt
is familiar with and the Barium are currently being looked at by the Oil and Gas Commission as having
some relaxed standards by what the original rules were.
Chairman Martin —Those are under consideration.
Mr. Brady — I am saying that with confidence that will be the case.
Kathy — For clarification, the information that was contained in the application states that it as much as
500 cubic yards of cuttings per well would result. That would be a maximum 8,000 cubic yards.
Chairman Martin — It also has the standards of the COGCC's in reference to leave in place or haul it off
and testing and that is what the recommendation is that they must meet the COGCC standards or they
must be treated in one way or another. It is regulated.
Kathy — I understand that COGCC does have standards that are applicable to this site. It is a concern to
staff from a land use perspective. First of all other extracted activities cannot leave their excess
materials onsite without fully reclaimed or taken away and from a land use prespective that should
occur any differently for this industry.
Commissioner Houpt — Would there be any circumstances where you could see them being able to leave
them onsite if treated. Could we add some language to this because I am not disagreeing with you but in
this situation, there clearly may be many different uses in the area.
Kathy — Deferred to Jim Rada for water quality, surface water issues and potential for future
development if cuttings are buried there and something is constructed in the future they will be digging
those cutting back up so whatever the standard is for them to leave there is a concern.
Jim —The new oil and gas rules adopted the health-based standards from CDHPE so the levels that are
reflected in your new table 9.10 reflect health based standards and which would allow those to be left in
place and not create a human health risk.
Commissioner Houpt — That is why I am wondering where the level of concern is because I trust the
judgment of the staff and the recommendation.
Kathy — One purpose from the staff perspective is to ensure consistency on how we apply these
standards that are applicable to all extraction procedures.
Mr. Brady — No matter what the sampling criteria ends up, if we qualify, as they are that they can be
buried then you do not have to do anything to them other than achieve a certain level of cover.
Commissioner Houpt—That is, unless we have a condition of approval to require you to remove the
cuttings.
Mr. Brady — The other side of it is even if the sampling says okay, if we exceed in two or three areas that
the samplings are high, then all we have to do is extract that material and treat them and then we can
still put them back in that exact same reserve pit. We do not have to haul them off somewhere. We can
land farm them and treat them on site so technically they will never have to leave that site.
Commissioner Houpt — Yes that is true unless we put in a different condition and that is why we are
trying to understand the concerns.
Mr. Brady — I am talking about the oil and gas standards.
Chairman Martin — In review of the radium removal from the Rifle tailings and of the arsenic removal
from the spent shale and the BLM process, all that process went through the same and they had to meet
a certain standard. There was a certain type of liner or clay in each one that was specific to that
particular issue because it was contaminated. Both are still buried above wells and water intakes in the
Rifle area so I would say we need to rely on those standards, the health department, the new rules and
regulations that are in place and that they are safe. If they are not, we will hear about them that is for
sure. It may be too late but we are still following those standard which have been raised from what they
have been in the past.
Deb — I do not know that any has any different standards to recommend. So on that issue we would
defer to the state standards because that is as much as we have. We do not have any expertise on staff
to say that it should be different. One of the issues though in this particular PUD is one of the reasons
for the staff recommendation is that the code in effect at the time of the Battlement Mesa PUD was
adopted had a number of different industrial operations listed that were regulated and those operations
included mineral waste disposal as a separate use. That is not a use that was permitted to occur within
this PUD, just the extraction and processing. It think the applicant has made that this is an intimate part
of the production so it should not be considered waste but that is what was in the code at the time. It
was a use that was permitted and the waste was not defined in that old code so that is one of the basis
for the staff's recommendation. Jim —Then there was the argument that we raised at the Planning
Commission was that these are not waste, that it is material produced in connection with the extraction
activity which is a permitted use under the PUD and then you have to refer back to the COGCC
regulations in order to understand what to do with it. Commissioner Houpt — You do, if you are going to
fall back on that regulation and if we are trying to be consistent with land use regulations and mining
and extraction, then our staff really raise a concern. You are right in terms of the oil and gas regulation
of cuttings.
Bob Harrington — Battlement Mesa. One thing to add to Jim Rada's comments about the water supplies
for Battlement Mesa; Battlement Mesa currently samples quarterly for hydrocarbons. This was down
from a 3 -year period and had to go to quarterly because in their reports to the Department of Health
they picked up hexichola benzene into the water supply. This is one of the reasons why we really
emphasis we need monitoring very dose to the water intake area.
Commisioner Samson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Houpt —Seconded. Motion
carried.
Chairman Martin — Deliberation.
Chairman Martin entered Mary Ellen Denomy and the other letter Exhibits -00 and PP.
Commissioner Houpt looked though the conditions.
Chairman Martin — Inspections can be called at any time and it does not need to be a specific time,
monthly daily, it can be anytime we feel it necessary or if we get a complaint.
Commissioner Houpt — Williams in the past has caught my wrath on this on several occasions and my
sense of what should really happen with regulations is thrown out the window when people come back
and apologize for doing work and then ask for a permit.
Chairman Martin — I have to say that Williams actually did not come forward with anything in reference
to asking for that, it was Antero and it was not staff or anyone else. The point was made that Antero was
the one that did the research and brought it forward and said, hey you need to go to the County and ask
for that permit. I think they should be commented.
Commissioner Houpt—There should not be a situation in our County where people do not understand
that there are regulations to be followed. I am saying that I think we have made great headway in
working very closely with the industry on permitting and our regulations and this is a unique situation.
We all acknowledge this and Battlement Mesa is the one place where we do require a special use
permit. I do appreciate the effort that was put into this, it is very comprehensive but I have to remind
everyone and you were about to take about preemption but there are different interpretations of that
and we really do work closely with the state and we have tried not to step on each other toes. This is a
unique opportunity to make sure that we are maintaining the character of a PUD that is in place and this
discussion today is going to lead into another discussion that we are going to have as we see more
applications come in front of us. It is important that everyone recognize how seriously we take the
conditions in this special use permit that require extraction in the PUD. Many of the concerns that were
raised by citizens today, I believe have been covered in these conditions. The conditions do cover
monitoring, inspections and contamination is covered by state regulations but there are also conditions
in here that cover emissions. I think they are very extensive. In my opinion, this is a situation where the
activity is almost completed. There is fracing that needs to be completed that we have heard today will
be accomplished by Feb. 1, 2010. In addition, under the circumstances I do not think there is a
productive reason for not accepting this application. By accepting this application, we put protections in
place that help staff down the road keep track of what is going on in the area and have to say that
Williams has worked in my estimation hard at complying with this in the past. I think with the exception
of having a fine that we can assess, and I am not sure it is in our in our regulations.
Chairman Martin —There is no fine. They can take it to court.
Deb — It is state law for fining.
Commissioner Houpt — I mean locally can we fine.
Chairman Martin — No, under our land use you would have to go to court for the court action.
Commissioner Houpt — A fine is something we have not contemplated before and in terms of mitigating
and building infrastructure, honestly I do not think that is a response to impact of energy development.
This Commission needs to talk about penalties and we need to talk about the seriousness of not just the
oil and gas industry but of anyone not adhering to our regulations. Outside of this that is something we
owe to all of Garfield County to discuss.
Chairman Martin — In 1981, the staff approved the PUD, then 1982 came along and no one issued a
special use permit less than a year later. It might be that our staff fell down on that particular issue
however, 1986 and 1989 they came back and said yes you do need a special use permit and supplied it.
Anything that happened between 1989 and now we have to thank Antero for bringing forward because
again we were probably asleep at the switch. You make your motion and I will tell you about the
agreement with Exxon and all the other issues that we have in place with reference to the bridge that is
required to go across to the Battlement Mesa. That is in the PUD agreement with Garfield County with
Exxon and the PUD holder of Battlement Mesa Partnerships. These are issues outside the scope. We can
answer all of those questions but we need to stay within scope. Are these for approval or denial?
Motion for GV 82-5
Commissioner Houpt made a motion that we approve the Planning Commission's recommendations for
GV82-5 to approve the special use permit for extraction and processing of natural resources within the
Battlement Mesa PUD on property owned by Battlement Mesa Land Investment Partners LLC and
operated by Williams Production RMT Company for drilling completion, production and reclamation
related to 22 natural gas wells on pad GV82-5 with the conditions brought forward by staff changing
condition number 3 to read "prior to the issuance of a land use change permit for well pad GV82-5 the
applicant shall submit".
Chairman Martin — You are looking for the area for the pad to be included, is that what you are looking
on a reclamation plan?
Commisioner Houpt — No, staff had said condition number 3 that they had not received those materials
yet so I am just saying issuance of land use change permit instead of before the Board of County
Commissioners because that has not occurred yet and I am still torn on the cuttings discussion and
wanted staff to be comfortable with continuity in our regulations. Although I support what the COGCC
has on the books, I think it is very comprehensive.
Chairman Martin — As Ms. Quinn said, we do not have any other standards to refer to so the best we
have are the COGCC, otherwise we have to develop them.
Commissioner Houpt — If we were looking for standards, but we are looking for standards in this
recommendation from staff, they are just saying they want th cuttings off the property, so I will leave
that in there and I am sure we will have discussion over it. With the exception of the change in Condition
Number 3, I would move that we approve with the conditions set forth by staff.
Deb clarified that this includes conditions no. 13.
Commissioner Houpt — Yes it does. Commissioner Samson — Second.
Commissioner Houpt wanted to work on the language for cuttings to indicate that in this situation, I will
have to defer to the oil and gas commissioner regulations because I really think they have covered the
standards that covers the health, safety and welfare. My motion I am going to amend that we take out
that one recommendation by the staff but we leave rest of the recommendations in place. Condition No.
2 the second sentence would read, "This does not preclude the allowance of permitting on site
temporary storage for these materials for this special use process period."
Chairman Martin — You are going to leave it at that and take out what the P & Z said nor does it include
the cuttings which may be left on the site pursuant to the standards.
Commissioner Houpt — Sorry, I will leave that in and not strike that language.
Chairman Martin —That is a good compromise there. Understand there may be some cover that needs
to come out but I think with those standards and testing we will be fine.
Commissioner Houpt — We will be aware of that issue and if there is a concern that can be addressed.
Do you accept that change in your second?
Commisisoner Samson — Here is where I am. There is no way we can deny this. However, we have
several people come before us who are very upset and I understand why they are upset because they
were sold a bill of goods without all the information. We cannot do about that and we really cannot do
anything about the mistake that was made 19 -years ago and the rectifications that have tried to come
forward, etc. I think we can and I understand the COGCC has these regulations and they are adequate
with concerns with cuttings but the point to make is these people have come here and they are really
concerned about the cuttings. If I understand the gentlemen it is going to cost Williams $175,000 to haul
them off. We cannot penalize then with the monetary fine without going to court and I am not saying I
do or do not want to do that. However, I am thinking to myself, it they have to pay $175,000 to move
that dirt out of there and it helps these people to feel more safe in their mind that that their drinking
water of the Colroado River and their intake is not going to be contaminated, I can do that.
Commissioner Houpt—Then I will withdraw that change.
Chairman Martin — You got to truck in to go ahead and reclaim the site anyway so it is just not one way it
is both ways, plus you have traffic and the other issue of where are getting the material and how you are
getting the material there. It is a compounded problem.
Commissioner Samson — I know and I readily admit that this COGCC standards probably as far as I can
tell would take care of that issue, but if it makes these people safer that their water is not going to be
contaminated by those cuttings, then I think that is a small price for William to pay. Here again, Williams
did not create did this fiasco and I do not want to blame Williams as they did not recreate it but only
trying to make the best of it
Chairman Martin — That is always subject to a 205 action in request that it is a preemption issue and is in
an operational issue and they could come back in.
Commissioner Samson — That may be good because this question of when Antero comes before us and
we are going to met all that out, it might be good for us to get some kind of an indication from the
COGCC. Are they going to start pre-empting us on all kinds of things?
Commissioner Houpt—That is not how the wording reads in the new rules so lam not anticipating that
there will be preemption on land use regulations that are in place.
Chairman Martin — If it is a standard or condition of approval that cannot be met or is challenged, you
understand that could be one of the grounds, that it is not, it is not necessary that they met all health
standards, etc and it could be a challenge. This is the one closest to the river.
Commissioner Samson — My question to Commissioner Houpt is, I think in Mr. Devanney's letter, he
brought up some important things and one of the things he discussed is, this is a mess and how did it get
done and what to do that it does not happen again. I do not know that this has to be part of this motion
and it should not, but that is something that we need to talk about.
Commissioner Houpt — That is what 1 was talking about when I said, this Commission needs to talk about
penalties and lack of follow-up perhaps internally. 1 think we need to make sure that into the future our
regulations are followed very closely and that the conditions we put into place are follow up on. Perhaps
we can have some feedback from staff on how we can better accomplish that as a County.
In favor: Houpt — aye Samson — aye Martin — aye
Chairman Martin — I am not happy with all of them.
Commissioner Samson — I do not believe anyone here is completely happy.
Motion — PA 41-9
Commissioner Houpt made a motion that we approve the request for a Land Use Change Permit to
allow for extraction and processing of natural gas on well pad PA 41-9 located within the Battlement
Mesa PUD with all of the conditions brought forward by staff. 1 think it is very important to note that any
further activity on this pad will require an amendment of a new special use permit.
Chairman Martin — And you are correct calling it a special use permit since you are working under the
1978 land use regulations and not the new unified land use code.
Commissioner Houpt said, yes in both languages that has come forward today.
Commissioner Samson — Second. In favor: Houpt — aye Samson — aye Martin - aye
ADJOURNMENT