Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0 Staff Report
Exhibits for Public Hearing: 06/14/10 Board of County Commissioners Exhibit A Proof of Publication B Proof of Mailing C Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended ' E Land Use Change Permit Application F Staff Memorandum G Wildlife Mitigation Recommendations from WestWater Engineering H Memorandum from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 10/19/2009 I Maps of Oil and Gas formations with OXY wells from the DWR LI 5h -g' 1- ad 6r1 P6 u /4_ - — _7r 5 "i') /70,4 doh- C 7'1 4/1" ? 01, �, gaols — 7-7,4) . r‘ilf°44/1 +b o v( eb C` -1')c 1- a coot;4' 5 fro," 3l 101 REQUEST PROPERTY OWNER PARCEL ID PROPERTY SIZE LOCATION ACCESS EXISTING ZONING BOCC 06/14/10 ,/ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW: 1) "MATERIAL HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING WATER STORAGE AND TREATMENT" and "INJECTION WELL"); and 2) "STORAGE: SUPPLIES, MACHINARY, EQUIPMENT, OR PRODUCTS"; OXY USA WTP LP 2169-214-00-026 11,614 acres 14 miles northwest of DeBeque, Co and 5.5 miles northwest of the intersection of CR 204 and 213 Private Road access beyond the end of CR 213 Resource Lands: Gentle Slopes / Lower Valley Floor 1 5 I. GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION The site is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the end of County Road 213 which is approximately 14 miles north of DeBeque, CO in a remote canyon floor surrounded by steep topography. This site is just north of the OXY "Conn Creek" Natural Gas compression / treatment facility approved as a Special Use Permit by the BOCC in 2005. Staff will present a presentation that includes photos from the site visit held on Monday, October 26, 2009. II. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner (OXY USA WTP LP) requests approval for an already constructed (and proposed expansion) centralized water treatment and storage facility on their property that is currently used to treat and store produced water used in their natural gas drilling operations in the Piceance Basin area. Generally, produced water is primarily piped into the facility from the gas producing field to be initially held in tanks to allow for separation of the residual oil and condensate from the water. The water is sent through the treatment facility and the condensate is collected in another tank battery to be then hauled off and sold at market. The primary use of the treated water will be for reuse in OXY natural gas drilling and completion operations but the water may also be reused for dust control, disposal by an on-site permitted injection well (#629-1) injection into the Wasatch formation, or discharge to the surface with approvals from CDPHE. Additionally, the owner requests the ability to provide general storage in the form of 4 (four) Iaydown yards (storage yards that are each up to 2.7 -acres in size) as well as storage in 2 (two) warehouse structures on the site. The Application narrative states: The Iaydown / storage yards will provide logistical support for operation of the water treatment facility and will be an integral part of OXY's natural gas drilling, completion, and production in the Piceance Basin area. III. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Limited Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D) Land Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis, the general development standards found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). The following section provides a review of those standards in bold italics below followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. 2 Staff Response: The property has public access via CR 213 (Conn Creek Road) which dead - ends at the property boundary where OXY's private road system begins. This site is approximately 1.5 miles north of the end of the County road which is about 5.5 miles north of the "Cowboy Chapel" at the intersection of 204 (Roan Creek) and CR213. This site has legal access. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. Staff Response: CR 213 dead -ends into the property. There are other private roads within the property that serve uses on the property which are not part of the County's road system. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Response: The facility and the property are both owned by OXY. The site plan does not show any easements that would impact / prevent the proposed use. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Response: The property is located in the valley floor of Conn Creek and is surrounded by significant talus slopes which provide a canyon effect. The plan includes several existing and proposed cuts and fills to the slopes in the area. There is one significant slope cut which is shown as an expansion to an existing laydown yard at the north portion of the site. It is difficult to determine how steep the slopes were that have already been cut and leveled. However, there is a proposed expansion of the most northerly laydown area to expand about 120 feet further to the north. The rise in slope is about 30 feet which results in a 25% slope cut into Talus Slopes (Area A on images on following page). The same is true for the proposed new laydown yard on the southern portion of the site which results in a 23% slope cut (Area B on images on following page). Section 7-210(H) requires that development on slopes greater than 20% be required to demonstrate that the cut and resulting pad have been properly engineered to mitigate any slope problems. Doug Dennison (Associate Geologist formerly with Olsson & Associates) prepared a geotech report that described the areas in proximity of this site as having high to very high geologic hazards (primarily rock fall / debris flow) which will need to be considered in the design and construction of the site. It is unknown how much engineering was done for the existing development• however •.th n .... ed cuts mentioned above will require 3 proper engineering to ensure their safety and performance. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval.__ Area A: Slopes @ 25% Area B: Slopes @ 23% 4 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Response: As mentioned above, the slopes of the canyon walls are the dominant natural feature. Additionally, Conn Creek cuts through this site toward its confluence with Road Creek well below the property. Precautions (storm water / buffer distance) should be required t, be addressed to minimize any impacts to this water course. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Response: As mentioned, Conn Creek flows in a southerly direction through the east portion of the site. The Application contains a report from Associate Scientist, Stuart Hall, who evaluated the site for wetlands and potential impact to waterways and determined that the proposed development "will not have any impacts to wetlands or adversely affect water quality in any nearby waterways if appropriate best management practices are employed." The Section 7-203(A)(1) of the ULUR requires that there is a 35 -foot minimum setback distance from high water mark of Conn Creek for this project. The site plan will need to verify or adjust the boundaries of two of the proposed laydown yards to achieve this distance. This shall be a condition of approval. Need to verify 35 -foot Buffer from High Water Mark 5 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tapwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Response: The purpose of the site is to properly manage the water produced from OXY's natural gas production activities on this property which is a by-product of the drilling / completion / production process. In determining how this water is used / disposed of, recent court findings now require operators to demonstrate which formation and what depth the water came from to determine if is tributary or non -tributary so that a determination can be made to its legal existence in the eyes of the State Engineers office. In this case, the gas producing wells are located in the Williams and Iles formations which appear on the non -tributary list from the Colorado Division of Water Resources as shown in Exhibit I. In this case, the gas wells producing the water which is either disposed of in the permitted injection well or treated and reused in the drilling operations in the field are non -tributary and therefore do not need a well permit from the State Engineer's Office. The Applicant intends to testify to this at the hearing. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Response: While the project is proposed next to Conn Creek, the 100 -year floodplain for this upper reach of Conn Creek has not been officially mapped. As a result, 100 -year floodplain regulations do not apply. The County still requires a minimum setback of 35 -feet from high water area. Several points on the eastern most laydown yard appear to exceed this distance. The proposal must be revised to respect that required setback. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Response: The Application contains a soils report that points out that generally, the NRCS analysis indicate that the soils are appropriate for the proposed / existing uses of roads and shallow cut excavations; however cutbanks can occur on steeper cuts such as the one for the proposed northern laydown yard expansion pointed out above. Consideration will need to be given so that slopes are graded appropriately to minimize this cutbanking. Staff is requesting an engineering report that proposes appropriate mitigation prior to approval of a land Use Change Permit for both areas depicted above for slopes greater than 20%. 6 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Response: As mentioned above, Doug Dennison (Associate Geologist formerly with Olsson & Associates) prepared a geotech report that described the areas in proximity of this site as having high to very high geologic hazards (primarily rock fall / debris flow) which will need to be considered in the design and construction of the site. It is unknown how much engineering was done for the existing development; however, both newly proposed cuts mentioned above will require proper engineering to ensure their safety and performance. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval. 11. Natural Habitat/ Wildlife. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes. Staff Comments: While this is an already development site and impacts to wildlife are unknown, the Application contains a Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by WestWater Engineering that does discuss the wildlife in the area. No federally or state T&E species were identified at the project site. The report concluded that: ...the facility will affect .site-specific native vegetation and wildlife habitat adjacent to the project site. Due to its relative small size and because the area within and around the water treatment and storage facility .is already heavily developed, the project will minimally affect wildlife. The project will contribute to the overall cumulative impacts to the wildlife populations of the Roan Plateau that are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration, and displacement through increased development. The report does contain a variety of mitigation recommendations. Staff recommends the Board require the Applicant to adhere to these recommendations as conditions of approval. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological and historic resource areas. Staff Comments: The Application contains a "Class I Cultural Resource Overview" prepared by Flattops Archaeological Consultants which ultimately found that "the potential for cultural properties within the area of potential effect of the proposed development is moderate to low." Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis. The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will 7 ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: This was provided in the Application. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comments: Adjacent land uses are discussed in the Application that primarily consist of remote public lands, open range country and oil and gas development. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: The sites two primary features include 1) Conn Creek that runs through the property and could be subject to flooding in a 100 -year event and 2) steep canyon slopes that surround the site presenting a rock of rock fall and debris flow hazards during a run-off event. These are discussed above. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Response: The Application contains a soils report that points out that generally, the NRCS analysis indicate that the soils are appropriate for the proposed / existing uses of roads and shallow cut excavations; however cut -banks can occur on steeper cuts such as the one for the proposed northern laydown yard expansion pointed out above. Consideration will need to be given so that slopes are graded appropriately to minimize this cut -banking. Staff is requesting an engineering report that proposes appropriate mitigation prior to approval of a land Use Change Permit for both areas depicted above for slopes greater than 20%. 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. 8 Staff Response: As mentioned above, Doug Dennison (Associate Geologist formerly with Olsson & Associates) prepared a geotech report that described the areas in proximity of this site as having high to very high geologic hazards (primarily rock fall / debris flow) which will need to be considered in the design and construction of the site. It is unknown how much engineering was done for the existing development; however, both newly proposed cuts mentioned above will require proper engineering to ensure their safety and performance. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comments: Generally, this is a facility where employees do not stay for 8 hours a day. It is visited periodically by a variety of employees who are monitoring the facility, providing maintenance, on -loading of marketable materials (condensate), and bringing in and taking out supplies and machinery for the drilling operations in the field. Staff finds that there is no need to require a permanent drinking water source and wastewater service can easily be provided by portable toilets. As mentioned above, it appears that the gas wells producing the water are located in the Williams and Iles formation and are considered non -tributary and therefore no water well permits are required by the CDWR. Staff believes there is no effect on existing water supply and that the use of the produced water is adequate. 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. Staff Comments: Due to the limited / sporadic nature of employees visiting the site, Staff finds there is no need to require an ISDS at this location. Wastewater can easily and efficiently be handled by a portable toilet. There is also no need for the drilling of a well on this property for this use and thus no impact to groundwater / recharge areas. The project does have a Storm Water Management Plan and a Spill Prevention Containment and Control Plan in place as well as secondary containment systems to protect against leakage to groundwater and surface water contamination. See the photos on the following page that illustrate these protections. Also note that these water storage tanks are located well above Conn Creek. 9 8. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(3). Staff Comments: The Applicant prepared a Basic Traffic Analysis which ultimately yielded that background traffic equals 439 vehicle trips per day (vpd) on Conn Creek Road in 2019 and 610 vpd in 2034. The proposal generates approximately 21 average daily trips once fully constructed yielding an 8% increase to traffic on CR 213 and even less onto CR 204. These trips will not adversely impact the current road system to the point that improvements are needed. The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and has no objections to this application with the following comments. > This application is exempt from the driveway access standard as the location is past the end of the County road 213 and is access by a private road. > The reduction in the traffic impact on CR 204 and CR 213 is a significant impact on the County road system and to the safety of the traveling public using these roads. 10 > All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this application shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. All vehicles applying for these permits shall have on file with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department a letter or e-mail from OXY USA stating said vehicles can obtain oversize/overweight permits under their road bond on file with Garfield County. ➢ All vehicles using CR 204 shall abide by all construction signage, this could include reduced speed limits, one lane traffic and traffic stops. This construction could continue into 2010. 9. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: Laydown / storage yards, storage, treatment and disposal of produced water at this facility do not generate a constant source of noise, dust, smoke, glare, vapor or vibration that could be determined to be defined as a nuisance to adjacent property owners. The Applicant is required to adhere to noise levels required by state law at all times as well as state requirements for VOC emissions. Staff requests that the Applicant provide copies of the approved VOC emission control permits / other applicable site permits from CDPHE prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit as a condition of approval. 10. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. Staff Comments: The Applicant states that this site will be in operation for approximately 25 years. The application does propose a reclamation plan generally listed as: > All equipment and strictures will be removed; ➢ OXY will remove all safety and storm water BMPs and other surface objects from the premises; ➢ OXY will restore the site to pre -facility conditions by re -contouring and revegetating the site. Topsoil will be redistributed across the site and will be reseeded with an approved seed mix; and ➢ OXY will monitor the site to ensure that 70% of the pre-existing vegetation is achieved. 11 Staff finds this reclamation plan acceptable with the following additional conditions prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit: 1) All retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. 2) The Applicant shall meet with the County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit so that every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 11. Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards (Section 7-209). Staff Comments: The site is not located in an area of known to be a wildfire hazard area. The county mapping shows the area to be in a moderate to low hazard area as it is down on the valley floor of Conn Creek. IV. SUMMARY COMMENTS The Applicant self reported the existence of this project on their property to County Planning Staff in the fall of 2009 and indicated they would be submitting an application in order to obtain the proper land use permits. It is unfortunate that the project is already constructed as that makes it difficult to properly assess land use impacts such as impacts to wildlife, surface water, and site engineering. The Applicant did submit a thorough application that has addressed all of the required standards and the resulting review found that the project concerns include: 1) Two proposed laydown yard sites / expansion areas are in slopes over 20% requiring proper engineering and / or avidance; 2) Reclamation plan needs to be approved by County and a bond tendered to ensure it takes place; 3) Wildlife recommendations need to be adhered to; 4) Stream setbacks from Conn Creek need to be verified and established on the site plan; and 5) Water usage is legally adequate so as it used for oil and gas purposes only. 12 V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Should the BOCC decide to approve the request for MATERIAL HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING WATER STORAGE AND TREATMENT" and "INJECTION WELL"); and "STORAGE: SUPPLIES, MACHINARY, EQUIPMENT, OR PRODUCTS" through this Limited Impact Review, Staff suggests the BOCC make the following findings: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Land Use Change Permit for MATERIAL HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES (INCLUDING WATER STORAGE AND TREATMENT" and "INJECTION WELL"); and "STORAGE: SUPPLIES, MACHINARY, EQUIPMENT, OR PRODUCTS" on a property owned by OXY USA WTP LP located in the Section 29, Township 6 South, Range 97 West in Garfield County with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 3. The Applicant shall provide a revised site plan verifying the boundaries of two of the proposed laydown yards to ensure the 35 -foot buffer setback from Conn Creek from ordinary high water mark. 4. The Applicant shall reclaim the site once the project is completed in the following manner: a) All equipment and strictures will be removed; 13 b) OXY will remove all safety and storm water BMPs and other surface objects from the premises; c) OXY will restore the site to pre -facility conditions by re -contouring and revegetating the site. Topsoil will be redistributed across the site and will be reseeded with an approved seed mix; and d) OXY will monitor the site to ensure that 70% of the pre-existing vegetation is achieved. e) All retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. f) The Applicant shall meet with the County Vegetation Manager prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit so that every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 5. The Applicant shall provide copies to the Garfield County Planning Department of the approved VOC emission control permits / other applicable site permits from CDPHE prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit as a condition of approval. 6. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this application shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. All vehicles applying for these permits shall have on file with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department a letter or e-mail from OXY USA stating said vehicles can obtain oversize/overweight permits under their road bond on file with Garfield County. 7. Because the slopes are greater than 20% in the proposed laydown yards / storage areas described in this memorandum as Areas A and B, the Applicant shall submit an engineering report and drawings that detail how the slope cuts can be engineered to satisfy standards in Section 7-210(H) of the ULUR. fa �; kl is r,.,. ,w 649, 8. The Applicant shall adhere to Section/7.0 (Mitigation Recommendations) of the Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by WestWater Engineering which are attached as Exhibit A of any Land Use Change Permit. 9. Flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be stored according to the manufacturer's standards and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written recommendations from the appropriate local fire protection district. 10. No materials or wastes shall be deposited on the property in a form or manner that may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural cause or force. 14 11. All industrial wastes shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. 12. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. 15 EXHIBIT 7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat, quality, and prevention of human -caused impacts to resources. 7.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat Sagebrush communities in the Piceance Basin have declined over the years and continue to do so as a result of development and loss of habitat. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species have now invaded many habitats due to construction and ground clearing of native vegetation. Woodlands, sagebrush and native grasses are key food sources for elk and mule and provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of migratory birds and small mammals. Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore these vegetation communities, particularly the sagebrush community for sage -obligate species. Reclamation recommendations include the following: 1. Seeding of native Wyoming and big basin sagebrush should be added to the re -vegetation plan. Local, ecologically adapted sagebrush seed from the existing sagebrush vegetation near the project area should be used in reclamation. 2. Ongoing control of noxious and invasive weeds is recommended as an additional method to maintain native vegetation communities and favorable wildlife habitats. An WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 20 May 2009 • • "Integrated Vegetation and Weed Management Plan" is provided for this project in a separate report. 3. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with Army Corp of Engineers standards. 7.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas 7.2.1 Mule Deer and Elk Disturbance associated with construction equipment and personnel may cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from the water treatment and storage facility. -Any construction and/or operational activities during the winter months will impact deer and elk winter range as mapped_b_v the CDOW "NDIS". According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's amended rules, effective April 1, 2009, elk winter range is excluded from the rules as sensitive wildlife habitat. Deer critical winter range and deer severe winter range are included in the new 2009 rules, neither of which are located within the project area (COGCC 2009). 7.2.2 Migratory Birds In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by showing a good faith effort to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds, brush/tree clearing should take place outside of the nesting seasons. Nesting season is generally considered between May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1, most affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid-to-late July, most fledging has occurred and brush/tree clearing impacts would be minimized. Pinyon Jays are an exception to typical nesting periods in this area and are known as an early nester. Records show nests with eggs as early as March 23. Often young birds have fledged by May 15. Because Pinyon Jay habitat makes up a lesser amount of the project site, the pre -May 1 vegetation clearing recommendation is acceptable and adequate to avoid destruction of active migratory bird nests. 7.2.3 Greater Sage -Grouse In order to reduce the likelihood that sage -grouse populations decline near the project area, effective natural gas pre -development planning and post -development practices offer the best prospect for mitigating adverse affects to sage -grouse populations. Planning development with projects engineered to avoid, minimize, and mitigate affects of natural gas development are approaches that result in the most favorable mitigation outcomes. No affects to sage -grouse are expected to occur as a result of the facility construction, operation, or maintenance. No specific planning is recommended in regards for Greater Sage -grouse. WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 20 May 2009 7.2.4 Raptors Activities associated with the water treatment and storage facility have the potential to impact raptor populations. In order to reduce the potential affects to nesting raptors, it will be important that the project proponent schedule construction activities such that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting, and brood rearing activities. CDOW's (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) recommended raptor nest site avoidance standards for the species observed in this survey are summarized below (Table 7). If the project cannot be completed prior to, or after, the next nesting season, known nest sites should be re -inventoried by qualified biologists. If any birds are found behaving in a manner consistent with nesting, every effort should be made to apply the timing limitation and buffer distance stipulations. Table 7. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Red-tailed Hawk _ 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 July Sharp -shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August American Kestrel Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 15 July Golden Eagle 0.25 mile + alt. nests 15 December - 15 July Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October - 30 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Northern Saw -whet Owl 0.25 mile 1 March —15 July Great Horned Owl * Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. 7.3 Other Mitigation Practices 7.3.1 Erosion Efforts to control soil erosion within the project area should be implemented. Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion and downstream water quality could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. In addition to stormwater management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock grazing, other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should be managed and remedial measures implemented. Prior to any construction which involves potential stream crossings, appropriate consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is recommended. To protect the integrity of the stream ecosystems and the associated riparian habitat within the project area, precautions should be taken when crossing or intersecting the drainages identified. Implementation of a storm water management plan and standard best management practices, including adequate barriers and filtration methods, should be used to prevent and reduce soil from eroding into streams and riparian areas. This may include the installation of check dams along small ephemeral drainages and vegetation restoration. WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 20 May 2009 7.3.2. Black Bears Black bears will likely move through the general project area and could be attracted to human - related food sources (garbage, pet foods and barbeque grills). In order to prevent human injury and/or the un -wanted removal, injury, or destruction of bears, it is recommended that food and . garbage storage and removal be done in a timely and secure manner so a to_not_habituate_bears to the human activitids ofthe p%lect. WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 20 May 2009 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Date Sent: October 19, 2009 Comments Due: October 19, 2009 Name of application: Oxy Water Treatment Facility and Storage Area Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge EXHIBIT Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff Contact: Fred Jarman 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. This application is exempt from the driveway access standard as the location is past the end of the County road 213 and is access by a private road. The reduction in the traffic impact on Cr. 204 and Cr. 213 is a significant impact on the County road system and to the safety of the traveling public using these roads. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this application shall abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight system. All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. All vehicles applying for these permits shall have on file with Garfield County Road and Bridge department a letter or e-mail from OXY USA stating said vehicles can obtain oversize/overweight permits under their road bond on file with Garfield County. All vehicles using Cr. 204 shall abide by all construction signage, this could include reduced speed limits, one lane traffic and traffic stops. This construction could continue into 2010. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date October 19, 2009 Revised 3/30/00 . Central Water; = Handling' Facility 'Formation data represented in this map provided by Colorado Division of Water Resources • OXY Pad Locations * Central Water Handling Facility Garfield County Roads OXY Private Roads Iles Formation* 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 N Miles OXY natural gas extraction pads are located within the Iles Formation which Is designated as a non -tributary area by the Colorado Division of Water Resources in this region OJECT NO: 009-0420 O MAN BY: Leslie Booth 0PS Analyst D ATE: 06982010 OXY WATER SOURCES FOR THE CENTRAL WATER HANDLING FACILITY ALL DESIGNATED AS NON -TRIBUTARY OXY USA WtP, LP GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO O\OLSSON ASSOCIATES 828 21-12 ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 TEL 970263.7800 FAX 970.263.7456 FIGURE 2 1N_, 100W C7.3 Map Key Nantributary Area Streams and Rivers Townships Sections 0 6 12 Miles 1" = 12 Miles 1:121O11OCKII .'aD081:IDPROJECTSIXOXTEIBF p£HANiVIO eAXOE1LLE 3M X TRIBEN Stote of Colorado — Divisbo of Water Resources Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules; 2 CCR 402-17 Nontributary Ground Water in the Piceance Basin Iles Formation Map A -7c 4N 97W 3N 3N ' • „ 2N 2114 214 214 2N .93W saw KA E6W 95W Map Key Nontributary Area Streams and Rivers Townships Sections $ 0 6 12 Miles r= 12 Miles IBUYIDOKII State of Cola, — Division of Water Resoatces Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules; 2 CCR 402-17 Nontributary Ground Water in the Piceance Basin WIIhms Fork Formation Map A -7d N O O lD 0) V 0 it 0 -a i, cn n o 0 O vi -o It w n rr rh rD o 0 v D- O o v ou 0 (D n 3 O (p O D r* r. v 2 v (D rr _. D O v n N apeld u! Ueld JJdS• n O D rim 3 m m rt K rD s N c m 0 sumuoj adojs daals V) e -F m CD V) 0 CD N 14 S �m 8 M J 0 ad O 'i 3 V) —h 0 3 r+ s 0 r+ 0 n (D O r+ '-s CU r+ -S 0 CU r+ 3 fD r -F N r+ fD N W N N r+ • fD fD 0 co fD O • G v' 7o rt 3 3-o - tri in fD v a O Q° Z = 0_ n O n) • mo a. o T v in p 0 r+ C ▪ fD • 3 a8esn Ig aaanos Ja:eM (J1 n Do- G)ooO G)D O 0- p Er r+ v Q — rt C < -• _+,Oti _+, < rt) rD rn11 o- O O C(a 0 (D n Qn n O• - N= Q O 'O < O, r+(D C O C & (D C 0 Q -' (D r0•r 7+ " r�-h N — .5. r4. 3' .< 3 ,< c O -. (Yr (p N - - 5' �,3 n (D O n 6-) N O rt• D- O• - `c-1 n co V) Q • r+ < O N -n n D -p as) _0 O o (D v' Q- 0 O_ (D 3 (D .O -- n 0- co �- -• 3 ' Q r (D v "J aq v = -% r, Crrt .< p (D v 0) n) �-�,' (QD (<D N t a) (1), Q o CT N• c '_. 13 r* v p -41 p + -• r n < O O -s (D v a) O (DD r0+ -1r-t• rt• 3 v' -h CU (D F (D — sr 3 D 0 • n uq- to' CD( -I- (D — - r+ o rt o °r' O -s rD 7 v' a 13 3 =+•: (D D 7 ail.fD N `^ n• n a) 'ten 3 0- rD ri+ 0 MI • n C3' O < *.< CiCI a) (D X) O O O (D n) a. m- 5 fD r rt C D rni n p' O c n 0_ 0 (D a) 0 0 (D 0 T (D v' rtr O • (D X CD a) (D r* O (D -fi 3 v c 3 0 a); ,�+ O Q co o -0 no) 3 ao 0 ((D (' n) 3 o - M (D ▪ n • n Q- rD N p N v'' r - 4 n + a) n w N < n Cr N 5'N�' 0) UU W O (•� c n) a) t 0- - V) CD F). Oq N Q D- 5 n • (D Cm (1) — r+ O . (D -a O v (7' O 0 D 0) r+ CD O r+ D- a) 0 0 s CD n rt 0 O N rf 0 rt O f1 0 20 co rD n O 3 3 V7 C vvi N m 0 ° (D 3 a O O 5' N ot1M 0 - Ora CU C N rD na 0 r+ - x n C c N N n) cra0 0 0q v N 0 t fD -5 CL) O ° N CU c 0 c O rr 0 -5 s ro c n c 0 rn .C� cu r rr t -o O O_ C n 0 0 -h 1 O 3 0 0 0 Cu O 0) fD -h -z O O O rr c r+ v N 0 c 1 n (D 5' rh 0 CU' 3 N 20 N 1p fD r' UJ 0 ; O —I O 0UJ ND SO xfDsv r+ fD-h-h (D) N n O on X'II O . NN N fv rtN N7 n v fD 0-c.D _ N'�� 1-1- 7+' r+ O .° r+ (.0S .< r+ 's 73 'O „• rt Cu O 0'q ° 0 CD p O fD N �^ 0 3 -` rD 0- �, O r+ ° S ro N 0 CO O p Q fD N eyy, fD -1 -5 0 i n n r+ -0W '0O _�' rt fD S r -F ro p a1 -di Cr N O n c fD (1) al' rt rc+ O Q O N d -O pi ,0 r o rt n 04 05 3. • o N cu o cu n v o • g CRI m 0__o -0 0 3 m° co rt `^ c (D N O) '' N C' 0 0 v -, C -5 rt fD N rt � a ° -s `n (D r+ ° K ° fD �• p 7 rt -' T 0 -t, -' oq n Qp O O0) n cu 0 p -v c nO D o 0_ — r+ O_ - K c o-0 < s c 3 M (p n rO �• n n 0.. N 03 3 O c - c 0 rD rt ° ° o °+ < C �. o nin oma 0-t 0 O ain CM 3 m -a.-h-1N rtr+(fl °' cm) Q ro 0 -, c rD 3 0 -5 c p 0 D ' ai 1) ft) ° N -" 0_ oci 0 N r+ Q 0 o < 0 0 -0 N C.r+ v r�-r C w(13 0 — p N fD v O AT- j. VIa) 0) r -3 N. 0 — n O n+ C r V). CU a) Q n O rh c n rr CD 0 0 r+ 0 0- r n) 5' ora v c 0 c N 0 0 c ora 3 -h 1 O 3 L) n N W & w o= r 7 E r a 0 g = § W ƒ\-0 r §/a) ts 2 v) n = � o_ f d ) * EC CD a) n o "0 * 0 in � 0 )_ / \ $ ® / CD \13 / 0 0 0 - , < m 7. G -I v) T E & 0 0- 0 0 -5 7 7 0 2 § n (D C $ / f E CT %• 01 CO ry. 0 n 0 - 0 > -o �3� 0 o) DJ n i. §. \ E © \ Cr % 0 "C / a. /< Rs fey / 0 ]y= 0 0 & i C 2 j 0 ri- ) 0 § ƒ / n / o 0 \ 0 0 in & n § % -_a-ih 0 ) 2 / 0 0_ 7 2 r o 0) 0 Approval with the following conditions 0) 70 0 n 0 3 3 0 o_ 0) rP 6 -� m CS N n, r —I r+ < > rD s-0 v m- o _ n O- < C 1:3 << S d v fDCD 'a rD pi o. rD — Q= n n' (D O — O O Di -0 r+ 04 0]h v C - rD r- 0-Q,..q v, ray i n, o 0_ 0 0 ni - % r+ 'S -a = 0 N N r+ O rD (D = 3 n O O O- v r+ N 3 rD 0 v n CL rD ri r+ rD "O � ' rD 6 o N 0 C Q O r+ t* n N C nc, n 0 0"r0 �.00 O 0 rW+ r : - O O rnD O r+ 0 rD c 0- . ri.n n CD W 0 7 G C (<1)= r N (1) cu d r+ o o., 9 °D O n, rD '<- r+ < O v -a n, < fDD O Om 3 0- _ C -• < OM rD rrDD rD Vf O Ort.rD Oq O_ r+ rD C n) C v IA. C rte+ n r0+ n. a r+: n, 2 0. ,_r 7,O s O O r+ O '_'' .< Q.. O O S O OL1 • in- r+ N K r' rD rD NEn 0 O N - O (D S rD o n — 0, rD 0 o o ann-0 3 .o c v rD 0 3 . � r -F a) -0 I0 n m 0_ W -• in - r+ O O C 0- 3 r+ n • D1' aD) (D O in rC+ r+• 0 tn 0- n 0 C 0 r+ 0) rD C Q, -0 O- n -7 0 (D n O <rts 0 N N r rt O_ O O� 0 - CU = • O X m -< r (D • __ O (D -0 r+ O 9 0 r+ = Cr (A rD 0 0_ 0 h 'O r m CT C r+ n rD O_-<. n 0 O 0 0 0 PD i n 0 0 r+ 0 c 0' Oa CU 0 0 Ota 0 r -h a, r+ O Ota n, n O r+ N v O 0_ 0 0 1 0 N 0 0 0_ 0 0_ r+ S 0) 3 a v a) rD D 0 73 n' v O r+ U1 S CO (D n0 rD (D ('D 0 n rD O 3 O 0 3 rDl D n e -F n C O L.L - 0) o_ O -11 s 0 O 0 00 x o.) co 2 / � 0 r (D n ® • > \ / v a. /tom g o r ? ° R / /1:3 0 g CU @ O 0- \ �. < § /in W (1:1 ▪ r m a. n � f § E 0-11 3 n § F� \ j } % /fD c % o_ ? / G CI. = r o L n - -1 "i4 \ ro E 7 ° 0- _. % R. g § 0 ' r D G = ? k 17). V) ƒ J o o _'3 0 0 G 7 • VI § rD m -, n / o CU 0 \ c 0 > k & 7 ƒW ®- 0) > ] a) / < CL < - m 7 /\/a)/co E § v) n ° 2 0 -I m § f o ▪ e =lc:§ CU • 0 R -0 5 m <0 a• O W m & / CO 0 / 0 c7L-d- ¥ ) = < m r k CU 0 F'n'a C G 70 C ƒ a \ F & _9 0 ] cu / 2 \ 7 / / > o o k ro5. c / n � // ft 2 g ± :it; k03\ ( f ƒ i/ O 0 q 2 f \ & g ° \ k• D ƒ 7 m ƒ j in in 5' ® o oj rt0 V) -0 \ § - ƒ0 r 0- � CU w % e R o_ » n Fir o § . 0- / cn > - 0 <o - §zi • V) CD W= o % d O k r %. / \ \ \ 7/@ 0 - § § \ °- n < o n ~ \ / m §' a a 5' - E $ 0 < D o n — 0 O 2 - ƒ ) ] / / o 0 C / = - 0- O / 0 • CT E o CU v 74* — / 130 <0 ° r ƒ 2. 7 0 0 / ] n ] rD ƒ o -11 -0. y \ 0 UO! 2pUOWWOD3U J4eI.5 O / o & up / n C m co r R.¥ /2 ] 0_CU 0 < R. = ° ] \ ] o m 0_ / 2 rD i] f _ \ 7 \ \ G. ] 7 ƒ - & CL - al m o 2 n o o a- n u,W0 r \ 9 7 ® n / n)* O rh f $ U 2 2 o 0 in M9 ƒ CD /ƒ 7</ 0 f f o n » CU fD �7 /�Ln 0 in m 7 ^s r o / a /' fD 0 k -In MI 2 \ V) n / 2 0 § / 2 R k 7 ® O — o n-! a/ k 3 -h 7 = 7 v r D ° m G q/ 7 ( / / \ _ ƒ rD n § _ • o w in o 0- \ = nn °2 co .o En* j 5' & G � a.. 7 c / 0 \. In * ƒ • 0 F -h rD 74' § \ \ m ri- co LA 0 ] c o 2 * ? iti• 5' n -E \ J 2® ft)° n -1 = n rr ƒ • rti 7 -5 \ § 3 ® f ( 0) 11 0 n 0 3 3 0 0 0) rt 0 • rD 0 3 rD • (D 0 >i< -o --I r tabbies' m w • G T -1 c CD 's O a c N in ri. CD O "I eN-- 0) n r1. Q,) C —s —1 0 CD 0) (1) (1) n c 0 • CAI eC�F 0 IC; 71 0) n. • n CD r a) . 0 SQ CD rt 0 —I a) 2 CD of cu n 0_ Cr Cr -d - n.) O 0) CAI 0 T70 D 0 C CD rt . O rTf IC '1 r0 QO r0via S CI-_ti;� Q � Z Ea' (r) = � t Q • n o 0. z o cb �o 0 o 0• -+, r c W o. o s`° o A ro r0 0 0 • • 0 cr 0 r = CD a' 3 Crrt a N Ro G 0 L 3 0D Oi 3 .< O O Q fD = OZ < 0.)1 a 0 0) M a) 0Z c r -l -r 0 Q euoia.ipp\/ • 0) Me0) CD 0►4 LAJ . CT C fD r a) v) CT CD CD • n) CD 01 condition of approval. Q "0 -0 13 "0 FS' o ro rb `ez-k• ref r rb rb Frri n O 0 0 _rb rn o s ro 3 ro n O z Fiez z ro 0 rb et s rb S wawtn 0 0 0 0 ro n 0 n 0 0 P. 0 z 0 n -41 �co z f•, o s n �• ro s � 1-.4 o S;) `Q• �. 0 ft 6:11 rit C o r to (r)ro Z- fib o (0 (o vi o S • , cn npp Q �' CZ O MrD f D rD : n r+ -a r -P rn rD n cn (-r N 0 r n D CU C S cu D a- O N (1)%r -r. �- • 73Q. 0 r O N rD - — = 1-, Q n' = rD rD O O a) - W rt 0- v) _.t., = rD ri 0 Q C rrr rD 0) O rD 0 rD =Di • � 3 Q (ND -11 rD - rD O 0) r rD N = c o O cu C o Cu D0) r u, • 3 X r* W 0 N rD 13 in r+ O i O: N C0 r c o O r o 0) o. 0) rD rD cn re,r o a. in -I. D a) -• 56 -2 = a_ - 0 O 0 0- rD rF 0 E rD N 0 -r- 0 N ;0 mz 0 0 N 8 Z IIMMS • • • • x D o p m rn rt rD U • MEMORANDUM TO: Deborah Quinn Assistant County Attorney FROM: Molly Orkild-Larson Senior Planner DATE: March 9, 2010 RE: Limited Impact Review LIRA -5953 Attached is the application of the OXY USA WTP LP for additional submittal material for a Limited Impact Review for a Storage (Supplies, Machinery, Equipment, or Products). Please expedite this review since it is to be scheduled for the next possible public hearing date. Fred Jarman From: Deborah Quinn Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:43 PM To: Molly Orkild-Larson; Fred Jarman; Tom Veljic; Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Don DeFord; Tresi Houpt; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Legal opinion on ownership and water issues EnCana Middle Fork water recycling facility - expansion. LIPA6393 Molly et al, (BOCC, see item 2e on state water permitting requirements affecting the industry) On your legal questions: 1. Ownership: no issues 2. Water: there are several issues that are water related. a. Applicant's discussion of adequacy of water supply. EnCana has provided a water rights deed and has indicated that the water supply for its wells comes from the Colorado River. While that is true, it isn't relevant to this application for the recycling of produced water. b. Adequacy of water supply, ULUR 7-104. This section has been amended and applies to this application. EnCana has indicated that there will be two employees probably working several hours per day onsite, 5-6 days a week, between the hours of 7am and 5pm. They plan to have potable water brought in and use porta-potties. The facility will be there for 30 years. There is no quantification of the water needs for these regular (albeit not on site full-time) employees. In addition, this application again raises the issue of when a use will need a "permanent" as in adequate, reliable, long term water supply as required by ULUR 7-104. The BOCC thus far has agreed with planning staff's cutoff of one year for hauled water and sewage, although the issue will be discussed on July 6 at the work session.( Fred, as an fyi for the July work session which will address this issue, will/should there be a quantity of water use(or how many employees, do they have to be full time onsite, etc?) discussion as well as the duration of the use discussion? Do you want legal advice on any issues you plan to address at that work session? Not addressed further for this application due to existing interpretation on the 1 year cutoff. ) c. Adequacy of wastewater system. Under the current code, it is not okay for this app to use portable toilets for 30 years. 7-106B does not currently address the use of portable toilets. The narrative on this application includes "restroom facilities" as one of the expansion items, but the proposal is for porta-potties. d. Water quality testing. There is a section in the application that discusses this and purports to attribute the monitoring well and testing requirement to the former Unocal operations. That may have been the origin of the monitoring well requirement, but the SUP for this facility requires annual sampling and analysis of the water in the pit and the monitoring well (there are two, not sure which one is to be sampled, see condition #5 of the SUP, Reso2005-45.). The history in the Ground Water monitoring section of the application seems to indicate that a permit request for a drill fluid recycling facility was rejected due to issues with ground water quality, see the 8/7/2006 letter from Cordilleran to EnCana in the application. The SUP condition requires annual analyses at EnCana's expense. There is nothing in the ground water monitoring section that discusses compliance with this condition, and this section seems to include only the baseline documentation that was generated in response to county concerns and perhaps as a result of this specific condition. It could be that the condition hasn't been triggered, i.e. no free standing water in the pit, but it should be addressed by the applicant. e. Source of water to be treated at the facility: The Colo. Supreme Court decision in the Vance v. Wolfe case, 205 P.3d 1165 (Colo. 2009), determined that produced water (from gas production) is a beneficial use, thus triggering various requirements for adjudication and well permitting of oil and gas wells that produce water as part of the oil or gas production process. Basically, the result of that case could have been that all gas and oil wells that produce water are required to obtain water well permits. In response, the legislature and the state engineer's office have created new laws(SB10-165 and HB09-1303) and rules (2CCR 402-17) addressing produced water for both coalbed methane wells (the subject of the Vance decision) and regular oil and gas 1 wells. The regulations are ueing challenged in court, so this current status may change, but here is the requirement today: 1. The state Engineer's office has delineated certain locations and geologic formations as producing nontributary groundwater, for purposes of the permitting requirements of 37-90-137(7). For the Piceance Basin, surface areas are delineated on maps available through the state website, division of water resources, Produced Non -tributary Groundwater Rules: 2CCR 402-17,for the following formations: Weber Sandstone (Map A -6a) Morrison and Sundance/Entrada Sandstone (Map A -6b) Undifferentiated Wasatch (Map A -7a) Middle and Lower Wasatch (MapA-7b) Iles (Map A -7c) Williams Fork (Map A -7d) Mancos (Map A -8a) Dakota (Map A -8b) Morrison (Map A -8c) Mesa Verde, Cameo and South Canyon Coal Group (Map A-1) 2. Gas wells within these locations and formations are, per the new regulations, producing non - tributary water and so long as the produced water is only used to facilitate the mining of minerals, no well permit is required. SB 10-165. 3. The rules address other ways to determine that produced water is non -tributary, but the presumption is that all ground water is presumed tributary and subject to the Water Rights Act. CRS 37-92-502 (State engineer, in issuing well permits, must assure that there is no injury to existing water rights). 4. Even if the produced water is non -tributary, a well permit is required if the water will be used for a beneficial use other than to facilitate mining. What this means for this (and any future) application for treatment of produced water is that the applicant will need to show the legal "adequacy" of the produced water to be treated in the facility through state engineer well permits for any water produced from any wells that are outside of the designated formations and locations unless otherwise proved as non -tributary, or for any produced water which will be used for purposes other than the gas operations. (Tom's recent tri-state application, for example, contemplated some ag uses of the treated water which would trigger water well permit requirements for all the gas wells that produced the water that would be used for that purpose.) Since this is all new (the State Engineer's office, until the Vance decision, erroneously assumed that the COGCC had exclusive jurisdiction over produced water), the planning office and BOCC may wish to discuss further how to address these issues in the application and approval process. For this application, the applicant should at least address the sources of the produced water and clarify what the uses of the recycled water will be. If the applicant will only be re -using the water in its gas production operations (the mining of the minerals), then the applicant should address whether all the wells that will be producing water for the facility will be within the designated formations and locations so that no water well permits will be required. In injection well applications, the planning office typically requires a map of surface locations of all wells. Here, the information on geological formation is also necessary to determine the legality of the use. The IT department could use data from the state website to map formations and locations for determinations of non -tributary groundwater, but should probably be consulted about what information and in what format the applicant needs to submit. f. Produced water from other operators. This applicant intends to treat only water produced from its own operations. In Reso 2005-45, the initial SUP for this facility, condition 5, addresses this issue, requiring that only the applicant use the facility and requiring an additional SUP as well as additional COGCC permits should the use be expanded to other operators. Recent analysis by this office indicates that use by other 2 operators converts the facility to a commercial E & P waste facility, whicn is not exempt from the solid waste permitting requirements of either the CDPHE and the county. Deborah Quinn Assistant Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9150 Fax (970) 384-5005 CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained herein may include protected or otherwise privileged information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or other use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete the email without further disclosure. 3 Fred Jarman From: Charles McLean [cmclean@drgi.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:51 AM To: Government Colorado Daily Briefing Subject: Colorado Oil, Gas & Energy News for Sunday, January 31, 2010 Denver Research Group, Inc: 970-925-4778 Providing facilitation & conflict resolution services to government & NGOs since 1975 Here's the Sunday Colorado energy news. Chuck The Headlines: Gas groups start filing for water rights — The Durango Herald Money is reason for decreased drilling, not Salazar — The Durango Herald (column) Flower Mound officials who pinched officer cleared of sexual harassment — Denton Record - Chronicle The sudden emergence of the shale -gas frenzy — Philadelphia Inquirer REX pipeline prevents Philo man from getting refinanced — Lancaster Eagle -Gazette State Records Show Energy Firms Spent Big Money Fighting Shale Extraction Tax — Capitol Ideas Blog Marcellus Shale proponents say extraction tax could stunt industry's growth — PennLive.com Obama administration still clueless on energy — Tucson Citizen (column) Secretary Ken Salazar, environmental activist — The Denver Post (letter) The Stories: The Durango Herald Gas groups start filing for water rights Industry tries to establish priority for future claims of beneficial use by Katie Burford If you go The Division of Water Resources is hoi..,ng two informational meetings next week ii La Plata County about water as it relates to gas development: 6-8 p.m. Tuesday at Bayfield High School and 6-8 p.m. Wednesday at the La Plata County Fairgrounds. It may be brackish and thousands of feet underground, but in Colorado, every drop of water counts. That's why gas companies are filing applications for rights to water that comes out of their wells during the process of producing natural gas. "The oil and gas industry is only seeking the water rights associated with oil and gas production," said Bruce Gantner, a ConocoPhillips environmental consultant who is handling comments about the company's application. Others filing applications in the area include BP, the Southern Ute Tribe and Chevron. But some observers of the process called it a "water grab" and question the legal framework for the gas companies' claims. "I think that the applications are overreaching, and they're very broad, and they're probably speculative, as well," said Amy Huff, a water attorney who recently presented at a public meeting about the subject. As always, nothing related to water is simple. Beneficial use The water in question spent millennia trapped in coal seams formed when the San Juan Basin was swampland and sea. In the 1980s, a technique was pioneered that made it possible to extract methane gas from the coal beds by hydraulically fracturing the formation, which first releases water, then gas. The water, mixed with chemicals and fluids used to fracture the rock, later typically is disposed of by injecting it deep underground, but it also can be stored in evaporative ponds or discharged on the surface. Viewed as a worthless byproduct, the water for decades existed outside the purview of state regulators and water courts. But in 2005, two area ranching families, William and Elizabeth Vance and James and Terry Fitzgerald, sued the state engineer's office, arguing that the extraction has depleted their water supplies. In 2007, they prevailed in a Durango water court decision, which the Supreme Court upheld. The result is that the gas companies now have to get water permits for their gas wells on the basis that they are putting the water to beneficial use. 2 Gas companies file for water permits Natural-gas companies need well permits for all new and existing gas wells, but only gas wells drilled in tributary areas need plans to show how the water will be replaced. In tributary areas, there is a connec- tion between the underground water and the surface (stream) water. __ Fruitland outcrop Gas wells� (approx.) - Source: State Engineer's Office TOM SLUIS/I Jerald Though the Vance case does not require gas companies to apply for rights to the so-called "produced water," most have done so. "It just became a need to integrate into the water rights systems," said Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council. She called it "a natural consequence" of the court ruling. In Colorado, water is allocated on a priority basis, with senior users at the front of the line, said Dick Wolfe, state engineer for the Division of Water Resources. Without a court -recognized right; gas companies remain permanently at the back of the line, even though there are no other takers at this point. "They're trying to get their standing in court to affirm that priority," he said, The sheer volume of wells involved - more than 3,000 in this area - and the unprecedented nature of applications gives some observers pause, as does the question of how water behaves underground. Determining priority Gas companies firmly assert that water to which they are seeking rights is deep underground and has no effect on water people use for drinking or irrigating. "This water is not of a drinking -water quality," Gantner, with ConocoPhillips, said. Zeller argued that domestic wells run a couple hundred feet deep or less while gas wells are about 3,500 feet or deeper. Most gas wells do not feed into any streams or rivers, meaning they are nontributary, according to a map released last month by the state engineer's office. Users of tributary water can be required to have a plan to replace that water in times of shortage, guaranteeing a supply for senior right holders. Having their wells designated as nontributary frees gas operators of this requirement. Critics of the process said the determination was based on modeling done by the industry. "There's always this question of do they start with the result they want," Huff said. But Wolfe said the modeling was the most sophisticated and complete done to date. 3 He said an earlier study commissioner oy his office found more tributary water but was less detailed and more conservative. "It was kind of this cursory evaluation," he said. Huff said if the water is nontributary, it is presumed to belong to the landowner. But this assumed ownership, which doesn't apply to nontributary water withdrawn for gas and oil development, can be trumped unless it is adjudicated in water court. Most domestic wells are exempt from the priority system because their usage is deemed to be minimal. Though landowners could go to court to assert the right to their nontributary water, they may go from being exempt to being at the back of the line and potentially subject to being cut off in times of scarcity. "The threat by the state is that you could be turned off when the river goes on call," Huff said. "There is that stick that is out there. I don't know if that's a reality." Huff acknowledged nobody else is clamoring for gas companies' produced water. "If it's nontributary and it's really not connected, then maybe it doesn't matter," she said. But she's not entirely convinced. "I think that they should have to prove that it's nontributary in the court," she said. http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2010/01/31/Gas groups start filing for water rights/ The Durango Herald (column) Money is reason for decreased drilling, not Salazar by Thomas Power As an economist, it startles me when representatives of the business community ignore basic economic relationships such as supply and demand. Yet oil and gas interests have recently been doing exactly that. It is hard to believe there is anyone in the country who does not know we are in a deep recession. It has dramatically cut the demand for and, therefore, the price of most basic raw materials, especially energy. But the oil and gas industry keeps pretending this has not happened, and instead has been blaming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for the decline in the leasing of and drilling on federally owned lands and the resulting job losses. Oil and gas firms know better. Randy Teeuwen, spokesman for EnCana, North America's largest oil and gas producer, characterized the current slowdown in drilling more accurately this last spring. He told the Pinedale Roundup in Wyoming that: "We're like most industries right now - banking, finance, auto industry, real estate. All the economic sectors are experiencing some downturn, and are sort of at the mercy of the national economy and the local economy." In June, EnCana announced it would shut down large numbers of its producing natural gas wells in Canada and the United States until gas prices rose again. Other gas companies have done the same, as have most coal companies. So it makes no sense to blame Salazar for the decline in interest in new federal oil and gas leasing. Blame the recession for causing the prices of oil, natural gas and coal to tumble dramatically, by 40 to 70 percent between the summer of 2008 and the summer and fall of 2009. That is why there has been less enthusiasm among companies for leasing more federal lands for oil and gas development. It is also why only 3,267 wells were drilled last year, even though the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management issued 4,487 drilling permits. Access to leases is simply not an issue these days for the oil and gas industry. Nationwide, over 65 percent of the on -shore oil and gas leases that industry held in 2008 were not being developed. These undeveloped leases cover a huge amount of land that's mostly in the West - more than 32.5 million acres. 4 On Jan. 6, Salazar introduced a new sei of onshore oil and gas lease reforms, arguing that they will provide more economic certainty for the industry and increased savings for the taxpayer. Going slower, said Salazar, will reduce the likelihood of legal battles. Only 1 percent of leases were protested in 1998, he said, as opposed to 40 percent in 2008. Fewer protests mean fewer costs for the American taxpayer, because less money ends up going to help resolve protests and lawsuits. Reform will also provide more certainty for the industry, as companies will not end up bidding on leases that then turn out to be inaccessible because of unresolved protests. Yet for some reason, we continue to hear industry arguing that reform of leasing policy will curb development of domestic resources. Salazar has an enormous responsibility over the management of our public lands and our need for energy development. The current slowdown in oil and gas drilling is an opportune time to find the right balance between our need for fossil fuels, our continued development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, and the long-term health and safety of our air, water and wildlife. As Salazar recently put it, "Trade groups for the oil and gas industry need to understand they don't own the public lands. Taxpayers do." He is right, and he needs to work to strike the right balance. After eight years of an energy policy highlighted by a tilt toward industry and an historic lack of oversight, it is perhaps understandable that oil and gas companies now resist a more balanced approach. Our nation is better served by a measured approach that reduces the boom -and -bust extremes the West has suffered through in the past. That's especially true for those communities where resource extraction is occurring. Thomas Power is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He has been an economics professor at the University of Montana for 40 years and is the author of six books on natural resource economics. http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/2010/01/31/Money is reason for decreased drilling not Salazar/ Denton Record -Chronicle Flower Mound officials who pinched officer cleared of sexual harassment By WENDY HUNDLEY / The Dallas Morning News Amid a rancorous debate over natural gas drilling, Flower Mound's top two elected officials were accused of sexually harassing a town police officer. A complaint filed against Mayor Jody Smith and Mayor Pro Tem Jean Levenick said that the women approached the officer from behind and pinched him "simultaneously on the butt," according to a report obtained by The Dallas Morning News. Both women, who have acknowledged their actions and been cleared of sexual harassment, said the complaint was politically motivated. "I have toiled with this and I know in my heart this is nothing more than a smear campaign," Smith said when she brought up the issue at the Jan. 21 Town Council meeting. "It's election season, and Jody and I are both up for re-election," said Levenick, who declined to comment further. These are not the only allegations lodged against Smith and Levenick at a time when debate over gas drilling has sharply divided the town. They also have come under fire for not recusing themselves from deliberations or voting on ordinance changes that would affect a gas drilling company's desire to expand its operations in Flower Mound. 5 Both women have gas leases with Wiludms Production. The company has sought to conduct seismic testing on town roads and to pipe drilling wastewater to a centralized collection facility. Smith, who as mayor votes only when there's a tie, did not cast a vote on either measure but participated in the discussions. Levenick voted with the majority of the Town Council to prohibit seismic testing but allow wastewater to be piped to a central site. Smith and Levenick defended their participation, saying there is no conflict of interest because the town — not Williams — proposed the measures. Town Attorney Terry Welch agreed. "If the application came from Williams, there would be a conflict of interest," he told the Town Council. "But the applicant is the town in both instances." But critics said that Williams was the driving force behind the measures and stands to benefit from changes in the town's regulations. "What we're talking about is specific to Williams," Flower Mound resident Sue Ann Lorig told the council. "I'm not an attorney," said Rebecca Belcher, founder of Flower Mound Citizens Against Urban Drilling. "But from a lay person's perspective, there's the legal and there's the ethical. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided." Levenick says she acted on the advice of the Town Attorney. She said she's never voted on any issue directly related to Williams, pointing out that at the Jan. 21 meeting she and Smith both recused themselves from two other issues related to the company. While the conflict of interest allegations have surfaced before, residents may have been caught by surprise when Smith brought up the pinching incident. The incident took place in the Flower Mound Town Hall lobby before the Nov. 2 Town Council meeting, according the investigation report. After a complaint was filed with the town's Human Resources Department on Nov. 17, officials hired an outside law firm to investigate possible sexual harassment. The report, dated Dec. 2, states Smith and Levenick "approached the officer from behind as he stood at the reception counter in the lobby area of Town Hall." When they reached the officer, "both women suddenly pinched or poked" him on the butt, and walked away to greet other people in the lobby. Smith and Levenick "acknowledged that their actions, while intended to be in fun, were not appropriate workplace conduct." The report states that the officer "has known both women for many years and he was not offended, intimidated or humiliated by their conduct." The officer "had no intention of filing any criminal or civil charge related to the incident," according to the report. The investigation found that the women's conduct did not "rise to the level of sexual harassment" and no further action was taken. It is unclear who filed the complaint. Smith said that it was a town employee when she addressed the issue at the Jan. 21 meeting. She could not be reached for further comment. The News requested all documents as well as a videotape of the incident under the state's open records law. The town referred some of the information requests to the Texas attorney general's office, stating that the "disclosure of the informant's identity would violate the informer's privilege" and that the video may reveal the identity of one of more officers used for undercover operations. http://www. denton rc. com/sha redcontent/dws/d n/latestnews/stories/013110dn metfmconflicts.3beb592. htm I 6 Philadelphia Inquirer The sudden emergence of the shale -gas frenzy By Andrew Maykuth In their exuberance, oil- and gas -industry officials repeat a single refrain when describing the natural gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale: A game -changer. Tony Hayward, chief executive officer of oil giant BP P.L.C., was the latest to gush enthusiastically when he called unconventional natural gas resources like the Marcellus "a complete game -changer." "It probably transforms the U.S. energy outlook for the next 100 years," Hayward said Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The breathtaking emergence of natural gas as America's energy savior was not in the cards. Just four years ago, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated Gulf Coast rigs and rattled gas markets, energy pundits forecast a bleak winter of short supplies, high prices, and low thermostats. The vast scale of shale -gas resources has come into focus quickly, and industry officials are touting the possibility of steady supplies for decades to come. The Potential Gas Committee in Colorado last year revised its outlook of America's future gas supply - up 35 percent in just two years. The forecast was the highest in its 44 -year history. The Marcellus Shale is the nation's fastest-growing producing area. Though it lies under five states, about 60 percent of its reserves are in Pennsylvania, according to Terry Engelder, a Pennsylvania State University geologist. "In terms of its impact on Pennsylvania, this is probably without peer in the last century," said Engelder, whose projections in 2008 alerted the public about the size of the Marcellus. "America's energy portfolio has undergone a first -order paradigm shift just in the last two years," he said. "This is such an exciting thing." Not everyone has climbed aboard the bandwagon. Some environmentalists are uneasy about the hydraulic -fracturing process that has unlocked the shale gas. The technique requires the injection of millions of gallons of water into a well to break up the shale to initiate production. And some analysts say they believe the gas industry's estimates are too optimistic. "I would look at all this with a bit of healthy skepticism," said Arthur E. Berman, a Houston gas -industry consultant, who says he believes some operators have overstated the production potential and understated the cost of Texas shale -gas wells. His pointed criticism got him banished from one trade journal - and invited to speak at scores of investor workshops. "Two years ago, we were talking about importing gas from the Middle East," he said. "And now we have a hundred -year supply of domestic gas?" Berman said he had been unable to conduct a similar analysis of Marcellus wells because Pennsylvania law allows operators to keep their production data secret for five years, unlike other states, where output is reported to taxing authorities promptly. "If something looks too good to be true," he said, "I need to look more closely." Questioning voices such as Berman's are uncommon in the industry, which portrays natural gas as abundant, cheap, and cleaner than coal and oil - a domestically produced "bridge fuel" to ease the transition to renewable wind and solar generation. For companies like UGI Corp. - the VaRcy Forge energy company that operates regulated utilities in Pennsylvania that sell natural gas to retail customers and operates unregulated subsidiaries that consume and transport natural gas - the Marcellus Shale represents a game -changing opportunity on several fronts. "That activity in the Marcellus Shale is really a win-win, not only for our regulated business, but also our nonregulated business," UGI chief executive Lon R. Greenberg told analysts in a conference call last week. Officials at UGI and other Pennsylvania gas utilities say retail customers will benefit in the long run, as utilities begin buying their supplies from Marcellus sources, saving pipeline costs from the Gulf Coast. UGI's utilities are in a strong position because many of their 578,000 customers are in Marcellus cities such as Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Williamsport. The utility could eventually work out deals to buy gas directly from producers. Though UGI has no interest in becoming a gas producer, the company is exploring the possibilities for investing in "midstream" pipelines that tie the Marcellus wells to the interstate pipelines that move gas to lucrative urban markets like New York. Expansion of the pipeline infrastructure is critical to opening the Marcellus to exploration. In addition, UGI is looking at expanding its underground gas -storage operations in Western Pennsylvania, said Brad Hall, president of UGI Energy Services. "There is a bit of a gold -rush mentality," he said, "but in this case, there's really gold." UGI may also reap some other, unintended benefits. The company's power -generation subsidiary last year announced a $125 million project to convert its aging Hunlock Power Station near Wilkes-Barre from coal to natural gas. Hall said the decision was made before the Marcellus abundance was fully understood. But when the plant comes online in 2011, it is likely to find eager sellers of fuel nearby. http://www.phillv.com/philly/business/83184652.html Lancaster Eagle -Gazette REX pipeline prevents Philo man from getting refinanced BY KATHY THOMPSON • CentralOhio.com • January 31, 2010 PHILO -- Craig Elliott is afraid he is never going to be able to sell his home or get refinanced because a compressor station for the Rockies Express natural gas pipeline is sitting behind his home. Elliott, who built his dream home three years ago on Irish Ridge Road, said he tried to refinance the home in April and was turned down. "It says right on the paperwork I got back from the bank that one of the adverse conditions or external factors was the gas line compressor is within sight and ear shot of my house," Elliott said. "I've also asked Realtors and they say I'm probably going to have a problem if I ever want to sell it." Elliott said he took his concerns to Rockies Express, and it sent out right- of-way agents to his home. "They offered me $5,000," Elliott said. "Are they kidding? That's not a fair offer, in my book. That thing is noisy and, I feel, dangerous. They had an incident with it last year and the entire crew from Rockies split. I just want something that is a fair compensation -- that's all I'm asking." In November, the pipeline experienced a line failure that called for a temporary evacuation of area residents, including Elliott. The 1,679 -mile REX pipeline runs from the foothills of the Rockies in Colorado and Wyoming to Clarington in Monroe County and through Perry, Muskingum and Guernsey counties. The bulk of the work for the pipeline in Muskingum County was completed last fall and went into operation Nov. 12. The compressor in Philo was brought back online last week. s Allen Fore, director of community relations with Kinder Morgan Partners and spokesman for the REX project, said the $5,000 offer wasn't for any alleged loss of value to Elliott's home. "It was a goodwill gesture," Fore said. "Mr. Elliott is just trying to get as much money as he can from us, and we're not going to respond to something like this." Fore said the company bought the land the compressor is sitting on and followed all county, state and federal guidelines. "We have always tried to be good neighbors," Fore said. "We've built hundreds of stations across the country and have 20 just on this project alone. Nowhere along the way have we paid landowners." Fore said Elliott might not be getting refinanced for a number of other reasons. "That's the way the market is today," Fore said. Stephen Adams, a local real estate appraiser, said depending on how close the compressor is to Elliott's land could hamper any future sales. "Some of these compressors or lines are below ground and people don't even realize they're there," Adams said. "But with it being right outside his back door and visible, it might deter some buyers. Other buyers might be leery to be near a compressor due to the horror stories they hear." Elliott said the value of his property has dropped and he is appealing the Muskingum County Auditor's Office to see if he can get another appraisal that would lower his taxes. Ounty auditor Anita Adams said she is helping Elliott with the process. "I'm not trying to get rich off the pipeline," Elliott said. "I'm just asking that they compensate me fairly. I've given this company every chance to settle this issue man to man. There is right and there is wrong and this is wrong." http://www.lancastereaq legazette. com/article/20100131 /N E WS01 /1310305/-1 /newsfront2 Capitol Ideas Blog State Records Show Energy Firms Spent Big Money Fighting Shale Extraction Tax HARRISBURG _ Energy companies spent at least $1 million on lobbying and contributed thousands of dollars to various state lawmakers last year, partly in an effort to extinguish a proposed tax on the natural gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale in rural Pennsylvania, state records show. And with Gov. Ed Rendell expected to make a new push for the levy in his annual budget address in February, the fight over the extraction tax seems likely to reignite this year. It could have pumped $107 million into the state's coffers this year. There's a pretty simple reason why all that cash is being thrown around. Energy companies believe the reserves of natural gas in the vast shale deposits in northern and southwestern Pennsylvania are the next frontier in domestic energy exploration. As a result, those companies have invested millions of dollars into land leases and drilling infrastructure as they try to tap an energy source that some believe could last a generation or more. Texas-based Range Resources, which has drilling rights to some 1.4 million acres of Pennsylvania land, spent $228,869 on lobbying between January and September of last year, according to lobbyist disclosure documents filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State. Records for the fourth quarter of 2009 were not available. Late last year, the company -- through its political action committee -- donated more than $16,000 to a handful of state politicians. State campaign finance law forbids direct contributions to candidates by corporations. 9 Three gubernatorial candidates -- Repuolican Tom Corbett and Democrats Jack Wagner and Dan Onorato -- received $12,250 of that total, records show. State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R -Jefferson, and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Gorman, R -Centre, each received $2,000 from the company, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Department of State. The energy companies appeared to target their donations to senior legislative leaders or lawmakers who head committees with direct or indirect oversight over tax issues. Corman, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for instance, had a seat at the table during negotiations over last year's state budget. Scarnati, along with Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R- Delaware (who did not receive money from Range Resources, but did receive contributions from other gas interests), sets the legislative agenda in the chamber. Republicans, who hold a 30-20 majority in the Senate, steadfastly opposed major tax increases during last year's protracted, 101 -day debate over the 2009-2010 state budget. Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources' office in Canonsburg, Washington County, said the company believes any discussion of the "severance" tax should be part of a broad debate that also includes regulatory reform and other issues. "We think this whole opportunity is too important to not get right," he said. "As this [industry] moves out of its infancy and into its early stages, we think it's important to have a dialogue with the governor, legislators and stakeholders." Pitzarella wouldn't say whether the company was opposed to the extraction tax. "At this point, we're looking at all the issues and we should discuss all of them," he said. Asked about the company's lobbying efforts, Pitzarella said Range Resources' drilling activities had "required extensive dialogue and back -and -forth not only with policymakers, but we've also spent time talking with stakeholders." Lobbyist disclosure records filed with the Department of State show that the company spent $4,211 during the first nine months of last year on unspecified "hospitality" costs, Pitzarella said that money covered the cost of receptions in Harrisburg and in southwestern Pennsylvania that primarily targeted legislators and "stakeholders," meaning people and interest groups directly affected by the drilling. The events usually included a visit to the company's drilling sites, he added. "We've taken hundreds of people on field tours," he said. "A lot of [the lobbying] has circled around education." Reading -based UGI Utilities spent $302,000 on lobbying expenses during the first nine months of last year, records show. The company's political action committee donated at least $4,000 to Scarnati last year. It also gave $1,000 each to Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Mellow, D -Lackawanna and Rep. Jennifer Mann, D -Lehigh, records show. Three Lehigh Valley Republican House members -- Doug Reichley and Karen Beyer of Lehigh County, and former Rep. Craig Dally ofNorthampton County -- each received $250 from the company last February, records show. Another gas company, Spectra Energy Transmission, spent $153,000 on lobbying last year. And an industry group, the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania, through its political action committee, donated more than $20,000 to several powerful lawmakers during the first six months of last year. The ranks of those who benefited from the trade group's largesse again included Corbett, who received $16,750, and Pileggi, Corman and Scarnati who each received $1,000. During a recent briefing with reporters, Rendell said he was mystified by legislative resistance to the tax. A gas tax was included in a budget -related bill approved by the House last year. But the provision was removed by the Senate. "This is an enterprise in which the private sector will be profitable," Rendell said. "The people of Pennsylvania should profit from this." 10 Rendell batted aside claims about the ,,,uncial damage a tax could do to the nasc,,,, gas industry, arguing that since the state took in $128.5 million -- more than twice the amount it expected -- by leasing 32,000 acres of forest land to five energy companies, the industry should have enough cash to pony up for taxes as well. Erika Staaf, the clean water advocate for PennEnvironment in Pittsburgh , offered a similar sentiment. "If they have enough money to lobby so hard against this tax, then they should have the money to pay for it," said Staaf, whose group wants a portion of any tax revenue dedicated to cleaning up the environmental fall -out from drilling. Five companies, Anadarko Petroleum of Houston; Exco Resources of Dallas; Seneca Resources, also of Houston; Penn Virginia Corp., of Radnor, Delaware County, and Chesapeake Energy of Oklahoma City, submitted the highest bids for the forest land tracts, according to the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Records show that Anadarko made three donations to lawmakers in 2008. One, for $500 in October 2008, went to Rep. Sandra Major, R -Susquehanna, in whose district drilling is taking place. Records also show Chesapeake Energy spent $203,294 on lobbying during the first nine months of last year. The heaviest activity came between April and September when debate over the state budget was raging. Rep. David Levdansky, D -Allegheny, who emerged last year as one of the prime advocates for the extraction tax, blamed industry lobbyists for helping to derail the levy last year. He said Rendell likely will meet with equal resistance as he pursues the tax this year. "It is always an uphill fight when you're trying to protect the public interest and make change," he said. State records showed that Levdansky accepted a $500 contribution in April 2008 from the political arm of the Independent Oil & Gas Association, which represents drillers. Levdansky laughed when asked whether the contribution had affected his vote. "The contribution from TOGA did not matter one iota," he said. Erik Arneson, a spokesman for Senate GOP leader Pileggi, said his boss had met with advocates on both sides of the shale issue. "Anyone who thinks he can influence his point of view with a campaign contribution is completely wrong," Arneson said. As the No. 2 Republican in the GOP -controlled Senate, Pileggi was against imposing the tax last year. But he said he might be willing to consider it after the industry has a chance to establish itself in the state. http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol ideas/2010/01/shale-tax-cash.html PennLive.com Marcellus Shale proponents say extraction tax could stunt industry's growth BY FORD TURNER, The Patriot -News Taxation without maturation! That was a winning battle cry in Harrisburg last year. A legislative attempt to place a new tax on the rapidly expanding Marcellus Shale natural gas industry failed, in part, because opponents said the tax would stifle the Marcellus phenomenon in its infancy. Gov. Ed Rendell is slated to introduce a new state budget on Feb. 9, and he has said that he will renew efforts to pass a tax. 11 ExxonMobil announced on Dec. 14 it v.uuld buy XTO Energy for $31 billion. XTO hods more than 30 well -drilling permits in the state's Marcellus region. The deal, according to one observer, showed the state's Marcellus industry was no longer an infant. "It is a very strong signal that the gas industry in Pennsylvania is a'go,'" said Michael Wood, research director for the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, a think tank that supports the tax concept. The legislative proposal last year would have levied a tax of 5 percent on the value of gas coming out of natural gas wells, plus 4.7 cents per 1,000 cubic feet of gas produced. One estimate put the yield of the tax in its first year at $80.1 million. Stephen Rhoads, president of the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association, said it believed revenue would be much lower, and that the tax remains a bad idea. Maturity of the Marcellus Shale gas industry, he said, is a decade away. "We will oppose it," he said of any new tax proposal. "We don't think it is necessary. We don't think it is prudent." The industry's interest in Pennsylvania has skyrocketed in recent years. Earlier this month, the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources said that five companies submitted bids — totaling nearly $130 million — for the right to drill for natural gas in Pennsylvania. New applications of technology have allowed drillers to break apart the Marcellus Shale layer, 5,000 feet or more below the surface, and free natural gas trapped in the rock. A total of 120 well -drilling permits were issued between 2005 and 2007. In 2009, more than 1,700 permits were issued. Some observers have said Marcellus could make Pennsylvania the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas." Other states have had severance taxes on natural gas for years, even decades. Information supplied by the Pennsylvania Budget & Policy Center showed that among 32 states with natural gas drilling, Pennsylvania is one of only four without a tax. "I don't think there is any good policy reason for it not passing," said state Rep. Greg Vitali, D -Delaware County. "I think it is a well-established industry." http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/marcellus shale proponents say.html Tucson Citizen (column) Obama administration still clueless on energy by Jonathan DuHamel, Economic Geologist After a year on the job, the Obama administration has learned little about energy. They still claim that "green" jobs will be created in the electrical generation sector if only we switch to more wind and solar energy projects. Their claim that 5 million new jobs will be created in the energy sector over the next ten years is just not credible. Consider that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the entire electrical generation industry, from mining, manufacturing equipment, power generation, and transmission, currently employs just under one million people. Where is Obama going to put 5 million more people? Will he have platoons of people peddling bicycles hooked to small generators? And in the State of the Union speech, he pushed for job -killing climate legislation in spite of recent events showing that the data have been fudged. During the speech, Obama was laughed at after referring to the "overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change." First the audience laughed, then Pelosi and Biden, and finally Obama himself smirked at the insanity of his remark. Maybe his speech writers should read the news. So called "green" energy is more expensive than fossil -fuel generated electricity, so energy costs would necessarily increase. Our economy is very sensitive to energy costs, so rising costs would more likely result in job losses rather than more employment. 12 According to a Cato Institute study (Pc,.., y Analysis 280), wind generation costs are .,-1¢ per KWh vs. 3¢ for natural gas, 2:2$ for coal, and 1.7¢ for nuclear. Solar power costs 38$ to 53$ per KWh. The Cato report also said that the materials required for thermal -solar projects were 1,000 times greater than for a similarly sized fossil -fuel facility, and therefore would create substantial incremental energy consumption and industrial pollution. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. The installation phase has distinct environmental consequences, given the large land masses required for solar farms—some 5 to 10 acres per MW of installed capacity." The Administration touts "fast -tracking" solar development in the west, but has limited permits to 670,000 acres of more than 30 million suitable acres available. Wind -generated electricity, especially, is intermittent and unreliable, so that it requires conventional backup generating capacity. Energy companies will have a hard time monitoring and switching between generation sources to meet demand and prevent blackouts or brownouts. The Interior Department policy does not help wind -power. The Cape Wind Project in Nantucket was to be the first off- shore venture, but Interior will allow the area to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, thus precluding development. During the State of the Union speech, Obama gave lip service to off -shore petroleum exploration. During the Bush administration, Congress lifted a moratorium on off -shore exploration, but Obama's Interior Department has imposed a de facto moratorium while they "study" a leasing program. In 2009, the administration leased less land for energy development than that of any other year on record, according to the American Energy Alliance. And government revenues from leasing in 2009 were just one-tenth that in 2008. Meanwhile China is buying up all the leases it can get, some close to American shores. The Interior Department has withdrawn most of the offered leases for natural gas in Utah, delayed oil shale research and demonstration projects in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, and blocked uranium mining in Arizona. Obama proposed development of nuclear energy. But, last year, in a sop to Senator Harry Reid, the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository was closed, so nuclear waste will continue to be stored in barrels near the generating plants rather than safely underground. Biofuels such as ethanol require heavy government subsidies. According to the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, ethanol subsidies amount to the equivalent of $1.95 per gallon on top of the gasoline retail price. At present, no automobile manufacturer will extend an engine or parts warranty for vehicles that use more than 10 percent of ethanol content in fuel, except for vehicles specifically designed to run on E- 85 fuel. This means that the majority of cars on the road today in the United States are not under warranty for anything other than gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol or less. Currently, ethanol displaces about 2% of gasoline and saves relatively little in petroleum imports. Ethanol is not as energy efficient as gasoline. A 2006 study by Consumer Reports found that an E-85 vehicle delivered 27% less mileage than a similar gasoline -powered vehicle. A study from Stanford University found that ethanol -powered E-85 vehicles significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog. While the Obama administration is all starry-eyed over "green" energy, it is unlikely that solar, wind, and biofuels taken together would ever account for more that 2- to 3% of total energy use. For the next few decades, at least, fossils fuels with continue to provide about 85% of energy. What the government should do is remove restrictions to exploration and development of our domestic resources. For instance, in 2007, the Department of the Interior inventoried 99 million acres of federal land which it estimated to contain 21 billion barrels of oil and 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. DOI found that due to restrictive regulations "just 3 percent of onshore Federal oil and 13 percent of onshore Federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms." The Department of Energy estimates that the Green River formation in NW Colorado, SE Utah, and SW Wyoming contains 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in shale that could be economically produced. That is more than three times the total reserves of all Mid -East oil fields. Off -shore resources are also restricted. The Minerals Management Service (of DOI) estimated that there are about 86 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and about 420 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, recoverable natural gas in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States, but 85% of this resource is off limits due to federal and state restrictions. The U.S. has vast coal supplies which could be turned into gasoline, diesel, and other fuels. Coal reserves in Illinois alone, for instance, have the energy equivalent of all the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. The process was invented by the Germans in 1920 and perfected more recently by Sasol in South Africa. According to Business Week, 13 Sasol "churns out 160,000 barrels of y_,oline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel a day, enoug.. ,o cover 28% of South Africa's needs, without using a single drop of crude oil, imported or otherwise." Cost is equivalent to about $30- to $35 per barrel of oil. This source alone could end our dependence on Mid -East oil. Investors Business Daily (IBD) points out that China is attempting to lock up oil reserves throughout the world, including "in America's backyard, Argentina, Venezuela, and Canada, and in a country America presumably dominates, Iraq." At the same time, American oil companies are being discouraged by government, from exploring and exploiting domestic reserves. IBD opines that "What the world is witnessing is the largest peaceful transfer of power in history. Energy means power, and while the U.S. is consumed by environmental ideologies and climate rhetoric, it is committing economic hara- kiri in the process. China, riding on energy acquisitions with little competition, will propel itself into the economic stratosphere." Obama's stated goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil seems to be based on a green fantasy, blinded by ideology. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryh eat/2010/01 /30/obama-adm in istration-still-clueless-on-energy/ The Denver Post (letter) Secretary Ken Salazar, environmental activist The Post's attempt to frame Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as a reformer instead of environmental activist is just plain wrong. Salazar has done everything he can to promote wind and solar energy production and block new mining for coal and drilling for natural gas and oil. He has also failed to promote nuclear energy production. Wind and solar -generated power make up a small percentage of the total electricity production in our country. Both sources are unreliable and need government subsidizes to produce expensive power. Wind generators produce nothing if there is not enough or too much wind. Solar power only works during day light and when the weather cooperates. There is plenty of clean -burning coal, oil shale and natural gas in the ground through the Western states, but they will stay in the ground if Secretary Salazar continues to block mining and drilling on federal lands. He does this at the same time as promoting the use of thousands of federal land acres for windmills. If Salazar is not an activist, there is no such thing as an activist. Stephen H. Cohn, Northglenn http://blogs.denve rpost.com/eletters/2010/01 /30/secretary-ken-salazar-environ menta I -activist/ End 14 Please Send A • • lication to the Followin Referral A encies Application Name: 1) X. Date Application Sent: is. d ' Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District Bookcliff Soil Conservation District _ Town of DeBeque City of Rifle Town of Basalt // Town of Carbondale g_i_04,7-,i,/ z G-) City of Glenwood Springs/ Town of New Castle Town of Silt 5- Town of Parachute 7 j L G C' /� Eagle County Planning Department I i `" "-- Rio Blanco County Planning Department Pitkin County Planning Department G Mesa County Planning Department / ` 7 ✓-/ /3 Burning Mtn. Fire District Town of Silt Fire Department Rifle Fire Protection District Grand Valley Fire Protection District Carbondale Fire Protection District Glenwood Springs & Rural Fire RE -1 School District RE -2 School District School District 16 Carbondale Sanitation District Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District Spring Valley Sanitation District West Glenwood Sanitation District Mid -Valley Metropolitan Sanitation District Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District Holy Cross Electric (Roaring Fork, S. of Co. River west) Public Service Company (N of Co. River west) KN Energy (S. of Co. River, Roaring Fork ) Western Slope Gas Company US West Communications (G.S. & C'dale area) US West Communications (N.C., Silt, Rifle) US West Communications (Rifle, B.M., Parachute) AT&T Cable Service Colorado State Forest Service Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Wildlife (GWS Office: Canyon Creek East) —i. Colorado Division of Wildlife (GJ office: Canyon Creek West) Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Geological Survey (Need prepay form) Colorado Water Conservancy Board Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board 7 Bureau of Land Management Department of Energy – Western Area Power Admin. Bureau of Reclamation – Western Colorado Area Office US Corps of Engineers Northwest Options of Long Term Care Roaring Fork Transportation Authority ___L___ Garfield County Road & Bridge (Dist. 1: Canyon Creek East, P ist. 2: Canyon Creek West and N. of 1-70 a ist. 3: S. of I-70) _4_ Garfield County Vegetation (Steve Anthony) Garfield County Housing Authority (Ganeva Powell) Garfield County Engineer (Jeff Nelson) Garfield County Oil and Gas Auditor (Doug Dennison) Garfield County Sheriff Department (Lou Valario) Garfield County Attorney _ J Engineering: %1 a o���� L i GY �i17, 1.441.1'3;7 4/ Ditch Companies: