Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.28 NTC ResponseNTC Response Application Ursa Operating Company and Battlement Mesa Partners Major Impact Review Application Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B OAProject No. 014-1829 ON,OLSSON ASSOCIATES NTC Responses All documents referenced in the following NTC Responses have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of the application. 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81506 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR TWO-SIDED DUPLICATION. O LSSO N ASSOCIATES August 10, 2015 Fred Jarman Director Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Letter of non-technical completeness: Special Use Permit application for Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad for Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources Dear Fred: Thank you for the quick completeness review of the Special Use Permit for Ursa Operating Company's (Ursa) Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad. This letter serves as a response to your NTC questions. Items are addressed from both the BMC B NTC letter dated July 1, 2015, and the BMC D NTC letter dated July 8, 2015. Response to BMC B NTC Letter dated July 1, 2015 1) Surface Use Agreement (SUA): The application contains a SUA; however, it appears to be outdated and reflects a prior parties to the agreement such as Antero Resources. Please submit a copy, redacted as necessary, of the current and binding SUA. Response: Copies of Antero's First Amendment to the Surface Use Agreement (SUA) and Ursa's Letter Agreement are included with this submittal. A copy of Ursa's Assignment and Bill of Sale is included, also. 2) Proposed Well Count/Well Life Expectancy: The application contains conflicting information as to how many wells are to be drilled (25- 28) on the B Pad and what the life expectancy (20 years - 30 years) is for the wells. Additionally, based on the narrative, it appears there will be three drilling "events" to achieve full development of the pad. Please clarify. Response: The Traffic Study provided in the original submittal indicated, "Ursa Operating Company, LLC (Ursa) is proposing to construct two well pads that will host between 25 and 28 production wells on each." References to 25 production wells was an error. Ursa intends to drill 24 production wells on the BMC B pad. The complete application submittal has been updated to reflect the correct number of production wells. The life expectancy of the wells may range from 20 to 30 years. 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81506 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com Fred Jarman Page 2 Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad Special Use Permit August 10, 2015 Because the pad size has been minimized in order to limit the overall surface impacts, the proposed 24 wells will be drilled and brought into production over the course of up to three drilling events. Each drilling event consists of drill rig delivery, installation, and drilling of up to eight wells. The rig will then be moved to another location while these wells are completed. This is necessary because the size of the pad is restricted by the SUA. The pad is not large enough to drill and complete wells at the same time. Throughout the life of the wells, smaller workover rigs may be brought in to clean-out and maintain the wells. 3) In the narrative describing the production phase of the pad, please clarify how many truck trips are expected to visit the pad to collect produced water as well as hydrocarbons. Further, please describe the nature of the combustion unit. Response: Ursa expects that the site will be visited approximately once every one or two weeks to collect hydrocarbons. Produced water will be transferred via pipeline to an injection well for disposal. Produced water will be trucked to disposal facilities only in the event of an upset condition on the pad or along the pipeline. The combustor is a self-contained unit averaging 4 ft x 4 ft x 10 ft that combusts potential volatile organic compound (VOCs) emissions generated from the produced water or condensate tanks. These are authorized by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) as an effective emissions control device. VOCs are piped to the combustor from the production tanks. Once they reach the combustor, they are burned off with a destruction efficiency of 95 to 99 percent in accordance with CDPHE regulations. Combustors are equipped with an auto ignition device to keep the pilot light burning. The combustor to be used on this site has an internal flame so there is no visible flare when it is in use. 4) What is the intended plan for disposal of drill cuttings from the well drilling program? Response: Cuttings Sampling and Stabilization: Both surface and production hole drill cuttings will be generated at each well pad. Raw cuttings (not stabilized) will be sampled and profiled at the location of generation in accordance with Ursa's Waste Management Plan. Once the raw cuttings are sampled, they will be stabilized (absorption/removing liquids) in a temporary area on the well pad. The cuttings will be stabilized using either native soils (preferable) or a commercially available inert adsorbent (sawdust, EZ Stabil, etc.). In some cases, relocation of cuttings to another location during drilling would be required due to the small pad size permitted by the previous operator. If the volume of cuttings on the well pad during drilling exceeds the capacity of the on-site temporary area, limits operational capabilities to complete drilling, or creates safety concerns, a Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Sundry Notice (Form 4) will be submitted for approval to relocate the cuttings to another location pending the results of sampling analytical results. Cuttings Management and Disposal: If sampling results for either surface or production hole cuttings meet COGCC Table 910-1 standards, they will be treated as non -waste (essentially soil material) and will be managed under one or more of the following options: 1) remain on site for pad stabilization/reclamation; 2) be relocated to another location for Fred Jarman Page 3 Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad Special Use Permit August 10, 2015 pad stabilization/reclamation; 3) made available as fill material to the general public; 4) be relocated to a COGCC approved cuttings management facility; or 5) disposed of at an approved waste facility. Options 2 — 4 would be in accordance with a COGCC approved Sundry Notice (Form 4). Disposal at an approved waste facility would be managed for Item 5 under an approved waste manifest in accordance with CDPHE regulations. If cuttings don't meet standards, then Ursa will implement one of two options: continued mixing to meet Table 910-1 standards for beneficial reuse/relocation or transport to an authorized waste facility in accordance with Federal and State (COGCC/CDPHE) regulations, including manifesting. Final decisions will be based on site-specific operations logistics. 5) The vicinity map (4-203(C) technically is required to show all lands within three miles of the site. Please adjust the map to capture those lands. Response: A new Vicinity Map showing a three-mile buffer is included in this submittal. 6) The Site Plan: Section 4-203(D) requires that the legal description be included in the site plan. This was included; however, it refers to a "parcel" size of 4 acres. The application contains conflicting information as to the actual size of the "site easement" where the pad is to be developed as opposed to the size of the property. Please clarify. Response: The Site Plan drawings have been revised to reflect the project site easement of 4.4689 -acre area within the larger 15.1 -acre parcel. . Please see revised Site Plan included in this submittal. 7) The Site Plan: While the project is to be located in the Battlement Mesa PUD, please reflect the sub zone district which the pad is to be located. Response: The Site Plan drawings have been revised to reflect the fact that the BMC B pad is located in Zone District Public, Semi -Public, & Recreational (PSR). Please see revised Site Plan included in this submittal. 8) The Site Plan: The site plan shows the location of "injection well" tanks; however, the application does not propose injection at this time because that use is not allowed in the PUD without an amendment. Please remove the tanks for the site plan. Response: The Site Plan drawings have been revised to the comment detailed above. Please see revised Site Plan included in this submittal. 9) Grading and Drainage Plan: Section 4-203(E) requires the site plan to identify soil stock pile locations, construction schedule, and cost of soil erosion control measures. Please clarify. Response: The Grading and Drainage Plan has been updated to identify how the topsoil is being used rather than stockpiled. The anticipated construction schedule start will be in the second quarter of 2016. Construction start is dependent upon weather conditions. Grading and/or construction sequence, including the installation and removal of erosion and sediment control measures , and the estimate duration of exposure of each area prior Fred Jarman Page 4 Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad Special Use Permit August 10, 2015 to the completion of temporary erosion and sediment control measures will follow Ursa's CDPHE approved Stormwater Management Plan and Permit and COGCC Rules for interim and final reclamation and the SUA. The cost of the soil erosion control measures is $10,000. 10) Noise: the application states that Ursa Operating Company has a response program in place to manage odor complaints. Please provide more details as to how that program works. Does this same program apply to other nuisances such as odor, etc.? Response: If a nuisance complaint is received on a location for noise, odor, dust, or other nuisances, Ursa's standard operating practice is to respond to each complaint as soon as possible. The person receiving the complaint, usually the Landman, gathers as much information (such as wind direction, time, duration, strength, nature of odor or noise, etc.) about the issue as possible. This information is relayed to the operations leads who begin to determine the source of the issue and what may be causing it. Once the root cause of the issue is identified, the team determines mitigation efforts that will help remedy the concern(s). The land team follows up with the stakeholders on the effectiveness of the mitigation efforts and adjustments are made as necessary. All complaints are logged and tracked to improve Ursa's overall best management practices (BMP) performance on existing and future assets. 11) The WestWater wildlife report notes that the western yellow billed cuckoo is listed as "proposed threatened". While there is no known designated critical habitat in Garfield County, the species has been listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife. Please adjust the report accordingly. Response: WestWater's Impact Analysis has been revised to show the western yellow - billed cuckoo listed as Threatened. A revised copy of the report is included in this submittal. 12) Water: Section 7-104(B) requires a demonstration of the legal and physical adequacy of the water source. The application notes that water will be provided by two primary sources for drilling and completion activities including Battlement Mesa Metropolitan Distract as well as Stallion Well Services via a contract with the Town of Silt. While there is documentation that both entities can provide the water, additional information is required to demonstrate they have the legal and physical capacity to provide the water. A statement provided by a qualified engineer indicating there is capacity (legally and physically) will suffice. Response: Water use for this proposed well pad is temporary in nature. Once all of the wells have been drilled and completed and the landscaping is well established, there will be no additional need for water at the site. Copies of additional documentation regarding legal and physical adequacy of the water sources for the Town of Silt and Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District are included in this submittal. Fred Jarman Page 5 Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad Special Use Permit August 10, 2015 13) Visual Mitigation: In response to Section 7-301(A), the application states there is visual mitigation from adjacent residential properties. Please elaborate on this mitigation. Response: Adjacent residences are visually separated from the proposed BMC B well pad through topography, distance, and vegetation. If necessary, Ursa may install a sound wall during drilling and completion operations to mitigate for sound and some visual impacts. Any lighting will be directed downward and inward away from adjacent properties. All equipment that remains on the pad after drilling and completions will be painted a neutral color to blend into the landscape. The SUA with Battlement Mesa Partners does not require additional landscaping at this pad site, due to its location next to the storage area and wastewater treatment plant. 14) During the pre -application conference there was much discussion on the importance, as evidenced by the Board of County Commissioners, of addressing the 78 draft recommendations contained in the non -finalized Draft Health Impact Assessment (HIA) commissioned by Garfield County through the University of Colorado School of Public Health. Please provide a response to the recommendations provided in that document. (Recall, on May 2, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners ended the HIA before it was completed, but stated they intended to use the draft in their decision making for a land use application for natural gas development inside the PUD. Minutes of that meeting are attached for your review.) Response: A matrix addressing Ursa's responses to the HIA will be submitted as an Exhibit during the Planning Commission Hearing. Response to BMC D NTC Letter dated July 8, 2015 4) Please clarify if the drilling program includes cementing the casing to the bottom -hole location for the wells on both B and D pads. Response: Ursa will comply the COGCC Rule 317 regarding casings and cementing. Explanation of general drilling operations will occur during the public meeting process prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Ursa will also be prepared to address additional questions related to their drilling and production activities during the public hearing process. 12) Section 7-102 (Standards) of the County's Land Use and Development Code requires a demonstration that the proposed land use (extraction and production of natural resources) is in general conformance with the provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan 2030. This Plan notes the PUD is designated as an "unincorporated community." Please provide more information as to how the project generally conforms to the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Response: See revised Standards Analysis included with this submittal. 14) In the pre -application conference, there were several sections of the 1979 Land Use Resolution that have standards that apply to this project. (I have attached them to this Fred Jarman Page 6 Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I BMC B Pad Special Use Permit August 10, 2015 letter.) Please provide a response to each of them specifically. Note, this applies to your response to the NTC letter for the "B" Pad as well. Response: See revised Standards Analysis included with this submittal. 15) Regarding Notice, please complete and sign the affidavit (attached) for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioner hearings to verify notice. This also applies to the "B" Pad and the pipeline application. Additionally, please provide a statement as to how the mineral rights research was conducted and how the names were acquired. Response: Noted. We will forward the affidavit with documentation of the noticing, when all noticing is complete. Please let us know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Lorne Prescott Senior Scientist r Attachments: Surface Use Agreement Amendments Assignment and Bill of Sale Vicinity Map Site Plan, Revised Sheets B2, B3, B4, B5 Revised WestWater Impact Analysis Letter from Town of Silt Letter from Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District Revised Impact Analysis Revised Standards Analysis cc: Ursa Operating Company July 1, 2015 Lorne Prescott & Tilda Evans Olsson & Associates 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Garfield County RE: Letter of non-technical completeness: Special Use Permit application for Battlement Mesa PUD Phase 1 BMC B pad for Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources Dear Lorne and Tilda: Thank you for taking the time to walk me though the Special Use Permit application for Extraction and Processing of Natural Resources for the "B Pad" proposed to be located inside the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). I have had an opportunity to conduct a review of that application for technical completeness against the submittal requirements outlined in the Garfield County Land Use & Development Code of 2013, as amended and the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of January 2, 1979 and amendment thereto in Resolution 79-132 as stated in the Battlement Mesa PUD. As a result of that review, there are a few areas where additional information is needed before the application can be deemed technically compete. These items include: 1) Surface Use Agreement (SUA): The application contains a SUA; however, it appears to be outdated and reflects a prior parties to the agreement such as Antero Resources. Please submit a copy, redacted as necessary, of the current and binding SUA. 2) Proposed Well Count / Well Life Expectancy: The application contains conflicting information as to how many wells are to be drilled (25 — 28) on the B Pad and what the life expectancy (20 years — 30 years) is for the wells. Additionally, based on the narrative, it appears there will be three drilling "events" to achieve full development of the pad. Please clarify. 3) In the narrative describing the production phase of the pad, please clarify how many truck trips are expected to visit the pad to collect produced water as well as hydrocarbons. Further, please describe the nature of the combustion unit. 4) What is the intended plan for disposal of drill cuttings from the well drilling program? 5) The vicinity map (4-203(C) technically is required to show all lands within three miles of the site. Please adjust the map to capture those lands. 6) The Site Plan: Section 4-203(D) requires that the legal description be included in the site plan. This was included; however, it refers to a "parcel" size of 4 acres. The application contains conflicting information as to the actual size of the "site easement" where the pad is to be developed as opposed to the size of the property. Please clarify. 7) The Site Plan: While the project is to be located in the Battlement Mesa PUD, please reflect the sub zone district which the pad is to be located. 8) The Site Plan: The site plan shows the location of "injection well" tanks; however, the application does not propose injection at this time because that use is not allowed in the PUD without an amendment. Please remove the tanks for the site plan. 9) Grading and Drainage Plan: Section 4-203(E) requires the site plan to identify soil stock pile locations, construction schedule, and cost of soil erosion control measures. Please clarify. 10) Noise: the application states that Ursa Operating Company has a response program in place to manage odor complaints. Please provide more details as to how that program works. Does this same program apply to other nuisances such as odor, etc.? 11) The WestWater wildlife report notes that the western yellow billed cuckoo is listed as "proposed threatened". While there is no known designated critical habitat in Garfield County, the species has been listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife. Please adjust the report accordingly. 12) Water: Section 7-104(B) requires a demonstration of the legal and physical adequacy of the water source. The application notes that water will be provided by two primary sources for drilling and completion activities including Battlement Mesa Metropolitan Distract as well as Stallion Well Services via a contract with the Town of Silt. While there is documentation that both entities can provide the water, additional information is required to demonstrate they have the legal and physical capacity to provide the water. A statement provided by a qualified engineer indicating there is capacity (legally and physically) will suffice. 13) Visual Mitigation: In response to Section 7-301(A), the application states there is visual mitigation from adjacent residential properties. Please elaborate on this mitigation. 14) During the pre -application conference there was much discussion on the importance, as evidenced by the Board of County Commissioners, of addressing the 78 draft recommendations contained in the non -finalized Draft Health Impact Assessment (HIA) commissioned by Garfield County through the University of Colorado School of Public Health. Please provide a response to the recommendations provided in that document. (Recall, on May 2, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners ended the HIA before it was completed, but stated they intended to use the draft in their decision making for a land use application for natural gas development inside the PUD. Minutes of that meeting are attached for your review.) This letter also serves as a Director's approval for the request made in the application to waive two specific submittal requirements which include the Improvements Agreement and the Development Agreement. (Also note, Section 4-101(B)(2)(a) of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended (LDDC) requires the Applicant to correct the application deficiencies and become technically complete within 60 calendar days of this letter or the application shall be considered withdrawn.) I look forward to working with Olsson & Associates, Ursa Operating Company, and Battlement Mesa Partners in the processing of this application. Do not hesitate to call / email me with any questions you have regarding the contents of this letter. Very truly yours, Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director, Community development Department frediarmanPearfield-countv.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-987-1811 (cell) Cc Robert Bleil, Regulatory and Environmental Manager, Ursa Operating Company Eric Schmela, Authorized Agent, Battlement Mesa Companies Kirby Wynn, Garfield County Oil and Gas Liaison Joshua Williams, Garfield County Environmental Health Manager Attachment(s) Minutes from the Board of County Commissioners regarding the HIA on May 2, 2011 and May 16, 2011. A link to find the same is located here: ht4�;fi+N+ww.�q�rf'�id-s nti.com/board-comm sion sidocumentss/2011 Book of Minute# for web#ite.odf C�aGG /17;1.1445'Zr mrnissiorter Sanson -1'm not against anyone having their say The staff has testified that the application is complete Co :stoner Jankovsky - I hear what the neighbors arc saying and I have some of the same questions myself. Gavin has testifi today th . his is not for commercial use and I understand they are saying that when you have 40 horses and 3 trainers is it a commerciaAs for the ADU, it meets everything within our Code I don't think we need a public heanng 1 am so nd understand wha neighbors are saying but I have to agree with staff at this point. Chairman Afar:in - built in the flexibility to allow the citizens, the concerned neighbors to go ahead and r .t a public hearing on the subject even thou _ 't passed all the muster and the recommendations. It gives them the opportunity heard, to make their statement on record and That rt of the code as well. We can call up any approved item from the di y -.r or the planning director and say we would like to hear 11 ell. Commissioner Jankovsky - If we go ". blic hearing the neighbors arc going to ask if this is a • mercial facility. Chairman hlartbt - No, we cannot heart ;,= ony about the barn, it would only be about t _ DU, the use of that, how it is constructed, the 1SDS water conditions and a •ase questions answered on record in f of the Board of County Commissioners. It could change the director's decision That's the o. •n that we have Commissioner Jankovsky - My feeling on thc public h , i'ng is that it would o. about the ADU and it meets our building requirements. As a Cammissioner,1 have to support and 4= +w those rule Contntissioner Martin - I need a motion one-way or the other. Commissioner Samson -1'm not against having people come, say • t they need to say, but the building they don't want built has already been built. I have no reason to disbelieve cur staff. MOTION: Commissioner Jankovsky -1' ll make a motion that w ollow the directors dec ' • n regarding a general administrative land use change permit for an accessory dwelling unit to • catcd at 5644 County Road 1 Commissioner Samson - Second. Commissioner Jankovsky - If this docs into a commercial venture then the neighbors . d to bring that to our attention as a cede violation. Commissioner Samson - Fred c.:. you explain that process; let's say that's what happens Fred Jarman -That process ows the same scenario that any other zoning violation would follow. 1 became a commercial venture then it gets cro se with the zoning code. We wculd process the claim and if it were true, we wou •ring the property owner through a c iolation program. In that cast, they would then revert to private use or this would conti • forward into the district court. T ; is in your zoning enforcement framework. Chairman l . to - There is a notion is on the table to follow the recommendation of staff and not have a public hearing. All in f *r: Samson - aye Jankovsky - aye Opposed - Martin -aye C an Martin -1 think that the public needs to hear even though it maybe the same thing and I think it's a platform that they itled to and sorry guys. you're not going to get that chance • Discussion re: Professional Services Agreement with University of Colorado/Colorado School of Publk Health -Jim Rada This document was recorded May 3, 2] Ift, reception number 755540. • Reconsideration and Direction to staff re: First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with University of Colorado/Colorado School of Public Health This document was recorded May 25, 2011, reception number 81X538. Chairman Marlin - Today we have a discussion an should the contract with the Colorado School of Public Health contract be extended for an additional penod We contacted the health department and made one extension. Since then we've had revisions, additional comments from various individuals, groups and the oil and gas companies. The question is do we want to extend the contract. Jim Rada -The board did extend the public comment period, which ended the week of April 27, 2011. The board has received today a stack of reports from Antcro Resources, their consultants and attorneys. I have additional comments received from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as well as a number of citizens from the Battlement Mesa Community. The contract extension with the University is over. What we are here today to talk about how the board wants to precede in terns of finalization of the HIA and/or extension of contract if that is the direction the board wants to go.. This is in front of the Board today in determining if the contract should be extended for a second time. Commissioner Jankovsky - We met with Dr. Wittcr and Dr. Adgale. Both felt it was time to put to this to study to rest, not come back and try to answer all the comments. 1 agree with them The issues with the HIA are ones that I feel comfortable being able to mitigate all those items. Jim Rada - Dr. Witter via telephone is present for this discussion. Commissioner Jankovsky - Dr. Witter, I explained how the Board had a meeting with you and Dr. Adg ale. I agree this HIA needs to end and look at the next steps. Dr. II rtter- I think the draft HIA provides information that will be useful to the Commissioners and we have fulfilled what you were hoping we could provide to you and the public. In the draft HIA, you have a good amount of information to proceed to the next steps. Chairman Martin - This is a highly emotionally charged document let's, lust put it right where it is. People who will want to read it will interrupt it the way they want to read it. This is way beyond the scope of our Contract with the School of Public Health. This is land use document; it is to assist the County in mitigating any adverse conditions on a land use issue. However, this HIA has gone national into other areas and some arenas. This is not what the intent of the contract was to do, rather it was intended to help our citizens learn facts and for us to make a determination on a land use issue. The board has extended the time and the longer we continue 11, more comments will be received on both sides of this issue making it a never-ending document. We have enough information in thc draft HIA to base our decisions on. Issues regarding health fall on Jim Rada's shoulders. We cannot rewrite the stale and federal Statutes. Jim Rada -I have been involved with this project now for 1 'A years or more. I appreciate the fact that the Commissioners took the opportunity to try to incorporate health into a land use decision-making process. The design of this project was really about helping incorporating health -based decisions into the County's land use decision authority Yes, it did go national because this is a national issue. Many people are interested in what the Board has done; however, how this gels applied in other places is not our decision. As with most laws, there arc differing opinions. This draft HIA is information that will support the use of best management practices. The intent of this HIA document was not intended for the Board to adopt everything verbatim. It was started because there was a pending land use application in the Battlement Mesa area. That application has never been received so we're in a position where we were trying to access the impacts of a project that has not been submitted We don't know what the intentions of the applicant will be Chairman Martin - When a land use application is submitted, this Board has to look al the legality of each one of those requirements; whatever is subject to be challenged. ConmrissionerJankotsky -Thanked Dr. Witter for the work done on this; it has been a very consuming project. Dr. flitter thanked the commission for doing the HIA. She agrees with Jim there is value in the document and in the recommendations. Sandy Getter thanked the Board for their past support and she is hopeful they will provide future support of the HIA. 129 Sherry Brandon currently lives in Glenwood Springs and has a home in Battlement Mesa. Her home in Battlement Mesa is for sale and she was wondered if any of the Commissioners would like to purchase it to see what it's like to live there. Her problem is that you are talking about this as being a land use issue; she sees this as a citizen issue and believes the three Commissioners air concerned about their constituents and citizens and not so much the rules of the land use. In the Battlement Mesa PUD, it as she recalls it stated there would be no heavy industrial use but this is what's occurring with the ail and gas industt . We are concerned about what is in the forcing chemicals and believes it puts the community at risk This HIA is a very important document and apprrciatcs what the Board has done. There is truck traffic, dust and scathing of the land. This makes a big difference to people when they arc going to move into this arca. She suggests the commissioners not only read that but come live in battlement fora while and see what this has done. Dick Buckhani - Commended the Commissioners for supporting HIA and encourages them to tree it. 1 also want the Commissioner to do monitoring on the drilling. Chairman Marvin- That goes back to the agreement with the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) as they made it quite clear that the document is for a land use issue and not to determine a positive or negative on oil and gas permits to be issued. COGCC is not bound by this document. Chairman Marlin -- We would hope that we all learn from common sense and apply what we need to be applying. This is mitigation and recommendations for the Board w determine if something should go forward. Leslie Robinson - On behalf of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance (GVCA) would really like to sec the HIA finished. The HBA was to determine the appropriate conditions ofappmval for the SUP in Battlement Mesa when the application is submitted. The Colorado School of Health should help whittle down those recommendations; therefore, GVCA would encourage the Board to continue this contract. Dare DeVanney - Ron Galtcrio has resigned as the co-chair and plans to move out of Battlement Mesa. I am herr today representing 400 plus residents who signed the petition presented to the Board. I am surprising and disappointing to hcar Amt the HIA won 1 be completed and urged the Board to consider an extension. Chairman hfartiu -This HIA has a life of its own, which means it's a never ending task. There will always be another question, a comment and another way to continue the process. This IIIA has driven the emotions on both sides. We may never conclude. The other issue is on (racing. Two years ago the state required all chemicals used on the site for the tracing process to be posted on the state website site as well as it's available upon request to disclose those chemicals. Like Coke Cola an industry that has been around 100 years plus They- have patented it; the reason being because after 17 years, the paten becomes public knowledge and this is nal what they want - that's their choice I want to make 11 very clear that the State EPA and the Health Department issue the permits for oil and gas drilling They know exactly what "s in the fractng chemicals_ If you wtsh to know those chemicals all you have to do is submit a request. There's a website on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that tells the chemicals. These sues will give you information on tracing consistent with facts instead of misleading information. This Board follows the recommendations but the COGCC issues permits. We arc working together with the citizens to make it the best we can, Dare --We' ve heard these comments before but it doesn't answer our concerns regarding the chemicals and formula used Chairman llarrirr- You may not find the actual proportions of formula, but the chemicals arc listed The hoard will take everything that we can out of the HIA study and make the best decision possible. Dave -This Board can keep this from becoming a never-ending process, finish the HIA, don't leave it in draft form, Chairman hfarun -That's a decision this Board has to make Commissioner Samson - Much of this hinges on the discussion dealing with (racing. This Board is not experts in freeing. Recently, Governor Ilickcnlooper came to Glenwood to speak to citizens. Ile is a trained geologist and he stated there is no problem with (racing, it's safe and okay to use in the industry. Dave - He said for the life of me I can't understand why they don't disclose the chemicals they use Commissioner Samson - As Chairman Martin says they may nut have the precise exact recipes of what the proportions of each one chemical is and that is confidential The chemicals used in freeing are recorded and COGCC keeps track of what in there and it s available for public viewing. Dave -Governor Hickcnlooper is a politician. Garfield County needs to listen to the public health people about facts because this is a critical issue. Don Gray thanked the County Commissioners for letting them be here today and commended the County Commissioners for showing leadership through our state and to our nation You may not have thought about it at the time you signed the contracts for the HIA but you took great leadership in finding out the health impacts ofoil and gas drilling. His request is to continue the health impact analysis. He would ask them to go to the next phase and support the environmental health monitoring. Garland White -1 was hoping this would be on opportunity since they have received nationwide recognition. lie was hoping this would be an opportunity for the Commission 10 continue thcir leadership in this arra. I don't believe the final word has been spoken about the dangers of oil and gas drilling. He referenced un article in the Discover Magazine. in his opinion of the article, it is a very fair-minded approach to understand the oil and gas drilling. Joyce Rl izer secretary to the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance. She thanked the Board for their actions regarding the HIA and was hopeful it could be brought to a finish form. This is a very emotional situation with people on both sides, In her opinion, there arc not enough facts and scientific documents for anyone to make an informed decision. Sally Bedford was not prepared to say anything but offer listening to them, l feel 1 have to say something. At what point is (racing material not a problem? Chairman Marlin - The answer is the County does not issue permits for drilling. We arc not in control ofoil and gas drilling or development, that is the State of Colorado and the Federal Government's responsibility Jennifer Beaver representing Antcro Resources Piceance Corporation and Jon Black is with her today who is the operations manager for the Piceancc Basin for Antero. Antero really appreciates the opportunity to participate in this process and to speak with the Bound today Antero would support the Board's decision not spending additional public monies on finalizing the HIA because there are a number of existing plans and practices that address many of the recommendations in the HIA as well as many existing CDPHE and COGCC regulations. Antero has provided a strong critique on the IRA and indicated the problems that it sees in the HRA. Antero s concerns and believes that this Board should also be concerned about the manner in which the HIA may be used outside of this land use process. They have even seen news articles indicating that it may be used as a model for other HIA and other regulatory frameworks and even in civil litigation, Antero docs not agree that as drafted the HIA provides a proper foundation for this Board to use in a land use planning context with respect to oil and gas operations in Battlement Mesa. And if you do consider it in any way during the land use process. She would ask the Board to consider the other comments both by Antero and the Colorado Department of Public Heal th when reviewing the HIA Antero's strong critique of the HIA should not be construed by this Board or any of the members of the Battlement Mesa Community as an unwillingness to continue to work with the community to implement best management practices and abide by existing COGCC and CDPHE regulations. Antero has fully intended to implement lest management practices, which have been developed in part to address citizen concerns will be included as conditions of permits issued either by the COGCC or by this Board. The comprehensive drilling plan and the Form 2A permit process at the state, as well as the special use permit process in the County is a more appropriate form through which those mitigation measures can be reviewed and acknowledged Antero can't agree to the recommendations in the HIA regardless because of the fact that the HIA from its perspective is based on largely exaggerated and unfounded perceptions of impacts to the public health. Antero would respectfully request the Board decision not to l30 finalize the HIA rather they would request that the Board make clear and acknowledge that the HIA is not complete and that it will remain in draft form. Antero would respectfully request that the Commissioners not endorse this implicitly in the draft at this lime particularly without having reviewed the additional comments. Jou Black - Antero continually supports the community with the operations and continual communication. There have been over 36 meetings of which 20 has been public_ The question arises about fracing chemicals and the elements of that are proprietary. Antero invests their money in exploring new and green technology. Antero continually supports and will support via communication en an annual basis. Terry Glassnap - I come from a family of farmers and teacher, nurses, skiers and in listening to everything today. The County has invested $250,000 00 of the money that we've earned and entrusted you all to put to use what this research brings. I am concerned and disturbed from those who claim they gel sick and have to move when there arc no documented health issues with oil and gas. The citizens paid a lot of money for this rather lengthy document and you guys have a lot on your plates. His plea is that this not be buried or put to rest. This was done by professional health researchers; it is important that we try to understand what they are advising us. Dick Bukhara - I believe 1 just heard the Antero camp asking the Board to acknowledge that they just wasted 5250,000.00 on a study I think it is a very good document and it should be finalized. To just toss it is just irresponsible. It should be a final document. Regarding fracing contaminating water or the oil and gas associated injuries or health problems to people, the tobacco industry used that argument for decades. The documented evidence that the tobacco industry made was refuted. Chairman •tlartia -- This Board has no intention of pulling this document on the shelf and igioring it, rather it will be reviewed, looked al and the recommendations that are offered will be considered. If there is a land use issue that comes up, that will be some of the documentation that this Board will have to refer to. Bob Arrington -I will enter into the record the thank-yous and the appreciations for the commission taking on This HIA. 1 recommend we do finish thc project that we starred, particularly with the environmental aspect of it in the testing programs. Implementing any of the affects of this HIA would go through the land use requirements and pointed out that it could be lost in all these rules and regulations. Another document that they submitted to Dr. Whitler and the Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens is we believe the county has the authority and the responsibility to adopt the H1A recommendations as conditions of approval for Anlero's SUP application. COGCC Rule 201 substantiates this position stating, "nothing in these rules shall establish, alter. impair, or negate the authority of local and county government to relate land use related to the oil and gas operations as long as such regulation is not operational in operational conflict with this act or the regulations formed under there" That allows the count) a lot of leeway. I would reference you to the LaPlata Section 9010 help aid you in any direction you may give. Chairman Martin - The LaPlata recommending conditions have been reviewed in the industry standards and operational review process, Each one of those have been incorporated in out Unified Land Use Code and review process. Bob - This docs give something to compare too and used as a boilerplate. Chairman Martin -Garfield County's rules and regulations are not specific like LaPlata County but we have rules and regulations that apply to all industry and not just oil and gas, Dave Ludlum - Executive Director of the West Slcpc Colorado Oil and Gas Association. I want to respond to the issue and comments on facing. New websites have been created by two non -industry third party entities, the Ground Water Prosection Council and the 1OCCC and all of the things brought forward about fracing. This is not related to the HEA but 1 would encourage people to look a1 thc websites. These two entities arc doing wcbinars all around the country. Mesa Stale College is going to be hosting one and he would encourage the Colorado Community College in Rifle to do the same. The forcing concerns infuse themselves into issues that should be looked at separately. These websites address many oldie issues that people brought up today in terns of what kind of chemicals arc used, the percentages and listing out all it constituents individually. While not relevant to the HIA; however, this issue today regarding fracing is something I think concerned citizens need 10 look at before making these broad generalizations about the lack of information and the lack of availability of information. Chairman Martin -The BLM has the same type of approach, website, and information so does thc Oil and Gas Conversation Commission, State ofColorido. There are many websites that you can do research. Jim Rada - There are some decisions/questions that need to be answered with regard to your final decision. This is in terms of huw we end the contract, acknowledgement of the scope of work, the completion of the majority of the scope of work, and the acknowledgement of this Board that there are certain items thnl were left unaddressed on the original scope of work for the contract, Dr. II/hitter-They appreciate that health is being considered in this decision and while the documents in draft form, it is near final. We believe the recommendations are in the best public interest. Chairman Martin - Decision time, do we continue the HIA contract with the Colorado School of Public Health or allow it to end and leave it as a draft. CommissionerJankorsLL3 -- I think we can finish the IIIA here today by not further funding it. 1 do fuel within those first 142 pages there are things that can be implemented. I look forward to working with Jim Rada on these items. 1 don't have a comfort level with the air quality look forward to working with Jim more on this concern. The IIIA was initially intended for the Board of County Comtnissioncrs to help us with decisions within the Battlement Mesa PUD. I think that data is there and we can look al the safety. health, and human well-being of the individuals in Battlement Mesa I just want the concerned citizens to know that this Commissioner does not think that this has been a waste of money and time, however, I think it's time to put the HIA 10 rest. Commissioner Samson-Well,1 would have to ogee with Tom on many things. When we embarked on this journey months ago, we made it perfectly clear at that lime that this study and assessment was to be used by This Board. It has become a political football used in a political way. 1 hate to see that happening. This is an emotional issue; but, in the same breathe I must say we have n draft and its many pages long. We will spend a lot of time using that for whatever land use concerns there are and we'll go forward. Antero has said they have some real legitimate concerns about the HIA. We have these documents some 270 pages. It will take me a while to get through this. With that being said, l mean we can go on and on and on. What 1 am saying to conclusion is we have a draft and it's something we can use. Both Dr. Whiter and Dr. Adgate said, take this document, use it and they have said in their judgment, since they arc the ones who put this document in place, we need to draw this to a close. So I'm saying okay; they have done their job, we've got it. Let's go forward %Ye'll use it. 11 as nota waste of time It was never intended to be a waste of time and we will use i1 to the benefit of Garfield County, Chairman Martin - All tight we nccd a motion to either continue the existing contract with the Colorado School of Public Health or allow thc contract to end keeping the HIA document as a draft MOTION: Commissioner Jankovsky-1'11 make a motion not to further fund the HIA and let the document come to an end. Commissioner Samson - Second. All In Favor: Samson - aye Martin -aye Jankovsky - aye Chairman Marlin - All right Ms. Dahlgren in reference 10 the contract itself; it has expired. 11 expired on April 30. Does Dr. Whiter wish 10 comment on that issue? Jim Rada - There's a request from the School of Public Health that a letter be provided to them from the Board of County Commissioners regarding a few questions or at least a few specific issues. Number one that the completed work has mei the scope of work with the exceptions of those things that will not be completed, namely, the final report and the public meetings that were part of the scope of work. Secondly, the Colorado School of Public Health has been asked not to complete a final report. Third, Colorado School of Public Health has been asked not to review, evaluate or respond to the second round of comments. Finally, the Colorado 131 School of Public Health has been asked not to give a final presentation to the public Dr Whiter, I don't know if you have any other items you would like 10 add. I would request that I would be allowed to draft or generale That letter for you and the Chairman, alter review, be able to sign and send it off. Chairman Martin — Dr. Whitter would you like to add anything to Jim's comments. Dr. Writer think that is exactly what we had discussed earlier. Chairman Martis — We thank you again; thank you for your professionalism and your staff for all the work that you did do. Carolyn Dahlgren — Commissioners do you want that draft letter on the consent agenda? Jim — Yes. Chairman Martin — Do you want it consent or do you wish to have it as part of the discussion? Commissioner Samson — No, just put it on the consent agenda, we can look at it and if it's okay we'll approve it. Chairman Martin — We'll see the letter and it will be on consent agenda al which time you can take a position to either support it send it back for rewrite or disagree with it. Commissioner Jankovsky —1 want to personally thank the School of Health and Jim Rada. Chairman Martin — Absolutely, this is a valuable resource. Jim Rada —One final question just to make sure that I am clear from a staff perspective. The Board has received 277 pages of comments and an additional 30 pages from CDPHE. Since we have discontinued the HIA project that you do not want to publish all these comments. Chairman Martin —I think that wc can make them available, but as far as answering all these questions, I don't think that we are going to do that. They're not going to go tato the trash can by any means 111 spend many days reading what we have in place on all issues. Jim Rada — My challenge or concern with that is that by offering all of these comments up without the opportunity for the School of Public Health to respond, it puts them in a difficult position. Some of the comments, I don't particularly agree with them and I know that the School of Public Health may not agree with them. 1f it's at all possible 10 recommend to the Board that we not publish them. 1 don't know this is a public process if that's even a possibility Chairman Martin — They are a public comment and the public has a right to go ahead and take any position thcy wish on these issues. Unless it is confidential, it still is public information that can be reviewed. The School of Health, in my belief, does not have to respond to them because their contract is ended. Commissioner Jankovsky Where and how many appendices do we have in the HIA? You can possibly add these as the last appendices and put a disclaimer in front of the appendices explaining what they arc and how we finalized this along with the letter that we are going to write 10 the School of Public Health That way there is a disclaimer there so future Boards can recognize that. Chairman Martin — And we are not holding anything against the School of Health or anyone that made comment. Dave DeVamey-1 just wanted to ask about the website. The Garfield County Public Health web page has all the !inks to all the documents and 1 think it has been a great resource for certainly our community and other interested parties. 1 would hope that the conclusion of this project would be posted on that website and that website would be maintained or at least have it accessible for six months or something like that before it gots away so that you know I just hale to see everything that has gone into this disappear like that like it never happened. Chairman Martin — That is not our intent Dave. We will keep that on there as long as we can, as long as there is room for such. Also, the leiter I think to the School of Health needs to be on there as well so That people will understand. That website stays open. It is a research issue and that continues the discussion that we have. We arc not trying to hide anything from anyone. John Colson — What about the second phase? Chairnran Martin — The second phase of implementation is a discussion with Mr. Rada and those recommendations and what have you are subject to appropriations and direction. We don't have everything in front of us yet. Jim Rada — That's the next step We arc currently discussing the scope of work of the Environmental Health and Monitoring study with the School of Public Health. ft's likely you will be hearing marc about that in the next few weeks. Dr Whiter and I are discussing this. • Protocol for Adding Item to Special Meeting Agendas mmissioner Samson — Last week there was an issue with staff adding additional items to our special meeting agenda and it was bro Chairm Discussion Historically, w notify the Admini However, after discuss Assistant 10 the County M two of the Commissioners appy Chairman Martin wanted to make s one who makes surc the public is notic Ed mentioned he would be meeting with th Commissioner Samson requested this be in a Carolyn suggested atter Ed meets with staff and if Commissioner Samson — Agreed. • Discussion of Afternoon Agenda Format Chairman Martin — At the retreat a decision was made to start 1:15 p.m. in order to avoid delays. Carey stated that due to the backlog of building and planning, p has cleared and now staff is noticing everything in the all Commissioner Calendars—Commissioner Samson - He asked Tom if he was going to try to go to the oil doesn't know why there's another meeting whe • • e Samson guesses he and Tom will be at that the EnCana welcome party for the ene 8:00 a.m. at the new Human Servi 2:00 p.m. and then the public at the public meeting. As tomorrow_ There w issue on the road- doesn't wor make n t to my attention as to what the Commissioners would like to see occur. Martin — An agenda item requires 24-hour notice of publication. held by the Board. legal staff has an item that needs immediate attention, they call the Commissioners for approval. They in 1 've Assistant to the County Manager so material can be gathered for the Board's packet of informals this issue, it was determined all administrative staff and departments heads should notify t dministrative ,cr who would inform the Commissioners and gain approval to add it to the specie • eeting agenda. If it would be posted and she would gather the information. that the Clerk and Recorder as well as legal =flare notified. Th erk and Recorder is the well as the press. ministrative staff and department heads next w _' he can tell them the decision. n format. meats were made then she wou r .ring this back to the Board. agenda at 1:00 p.m. and not have public hearings start at 'ngs had been noticed for the 1:15 p.m. time. The backlog at I :00 p.m. rrow we have a w c. Is it the BLM sponsorin6 went to an open house on Wcdne m 1:00 to 4:00 and 6:00 to 9:00 at CMC. Co expo. Commissioner Samson —On Wednesday wc h Building, Commissioner Samson —On the 101n we have the ting is a16:00 p.m. in Ncw Castle, which coincides with the Fair Boar red to get that confirmed for field trip and public meeting. Chairman Martin — ot of people interested in coming to sec what our decision is because it was a Forest S t also participation from the City of Ncw Castle and other groups not to mention the property o e will need to make it another day if we haven't properly notified everyone 1t is a public meeting but th., bility to Sion give either direction or decision on that issue. Again, that is a notification issue and needs to be posting. .lyn - It is . rust meeting not a workshop? Chairman Martin — That's correct: but it has to be properly notified and if the 1011` does no •ork all parties arc not able to attend then we need to make another date and post it properly. Jean thinks Ncw Castle is planning on ssion to cover land 011, procurement and NEIKE. is? Commissioner Jankovsky — BLM, he of last week but there is. Commissioner 'ssioncr Jankovsky — At 6:00 p.m. is our natural gas summit starts at Creek field trip for CR 241 at at 6:00 but we will all be will confirm that ice and county rs. If that 132 f3°Cc- ill. / 4/ Commissioner Samson moved to come out of Executive Session. Commissioner Jankovsky -- Second. Motion tamed. tion Taken: Co • , ty Attorney Chai an Martin - Continue negotiations with the County Attorney and we will make decision next Monday. 1 will call Phil. On t issue, th County Attorney's computer to do a redlined version of the letter of engagement Litigation -ummary Carolyn - 0 r the couple of months, the County Attorney's office has been providing you with a deliberative document f your use, whichsumma s litigation active in the County Attorney's office or through outside counsel Mr Colson from the Po ` ndependent has requested tha give him that information. 1 need to know if it's all nght with the Board to release the informetia n this format, which is a deliberal process document. As I advised you, the document is consistent with the federal and stale I regarding confidentially and c ,'n identifiable information. Commissioner Samson - would so move. Commissioner Jankovsky - Second In favor: Jankovsky - aye artin -aye Samson - aye Cattle Creek Carolyn - This is not action but want to make sure that I have i1 straight to give information to edmi '' tralion for the agenda, there are three items you want on next ek's agenda for both Executive Session and public. 1) Potential ligation on Cattle Creek; 2) Consideration of pre -formation expo es for the public improvement district and you don't want 'ID Board Meeting, you want a BOCC session; and 3) Legal advice re _ rding the moratorium as well as the public action. Chairman Martin - We hope to have the formation from the general legislation session, w''-: ch is Wednesday, May 11, 2010 One way or the other we can make some determ tions. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ADOPTION OF 2009 INTERNATIONAL F ' E CODE - ANDY SCIIWALLF Cassie Coleman and Andy Schwaller were present. Ordinance No 2011-1 was submitted. Cassie determined if the notice was adequate and del nation w was presented to the Commissioners on April 18, 2011 a ,' initial' its entirely, the motion was withdrawn. Andy is back before the Board and explained that The Fire Co Sheriff and a representative from each of the Fire District as we May, came up with a set of recommendations to amend the fire large difference is thc Airport is included. Commissioner Jankovsky - I-II Just state that I am conte ., i ago building, but that's not for here and now, we'll deal wit 1 t in a Chairman Martin - Each fire district is allowed to inc it but We're still going on that premise, have at least mi r um standard as made y appro the notice and ordinance in full was published. This then because the entire 2009 IFC was not published in tion Process was made up of the Building and Planning, the a representative from the Board. We have been at this since last It isn't much different from the 2003 fire code in effect now, one ut spa ' ling in residential and the cost that it would add to the couple o ears. Garfield Co • ty has the baseline and everyone builds off thai one. s set by the unty and each Fire Distnct increases it. Mations Commissioner Samson moved to close the pu- is hearing. Commissioner Jankovsk - Second Motion carried. Commissioner Samson - I would move for c adoption of the 2009 International Fire `ode by Garfield County. Commissioner Jankovsky Second. In f or Jankovsky -aye Marlin - aye Samson - a COMMISSIONER ISSUES: COMMISSIONER REPORTS; + MMISSIONER CALENDARS; APPROVAL OF b NUTES; AND COMMISSIONER AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Samson -Tom' . w at 2:00 p m. Elk Creek Field Trip. Chairman Martin - Our pub c meeting in New Castle at 6:01 P.M. Commissioner Samson - , ursday, the Satank Bridge Ceremony at 10:00 A.M. and I sec that Mr. M is giving some remarks. Then on Thursday - 5: •r p.m. until 7:30 p.m. Grand River Hospital District CEO reception, Marty Wi is leaving and James Colman is coming i aturday, doing thc Kiwanis Golf Tournament in Battlement Mesa. Chairman Martin I'II be doing the Silt Bicycle Rodeo Commissioner nkovsky - Wednesday May 11, I have a Hea:th and Human Service Committee Meeting at 10: A M.; I have a Garfield Cie r Energy Meeting at 1:00 P.M.; on May 12,lam headed to Montrose for CCI Coordinator Status T ing. Chairman artin will be gone the 18, 19 and 20 of May We have a workshop on the Roadless Arca 1 have some m in reference to this. starts at 9:00 a.m. Co - issioner Jankovsky - Site visit for Cerise Ranch, all 1:15 a.m. I am covering the LoVA Travel Ribbon culling for west end of . trail which is not connected with the east end of the trail on May 20, 11:00 A.M. South Canyon Trail Dedication. airman Martin - It's going to be the greatest place to set up and take photographs of those rafting in the Colorado River Th, • have a high altitude shots. It's paved, the protective fence is up and everything is ready to go. ADJOURNMENT MAY 16, 2011 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO The regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8;00 A.M. on Monday, May 16,2011 with Chairman John Martin and Commissioner Mike Samson and Tom Jankovsky being present. Also present were County Manager Ed Grccn, Acting County Attorney Carolyn Dahlgren and Jean Alberico Clerk & Recorder. Chairman Martin called the meeting to order a1 8;00 A.M, ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS NOT ON TIIE AGENDA Health Impact Assessment (IIIA) Study Tresi Houpt -Consultant for the Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens, Leslie Robinson, Dave Dcvanncy and Paul Light were present. Tresi would really like to talk to the board about the Heath Impact Assessment today and the board's decision not to finalize that document. Paul Light read a letter and requested it be played in the record. "On behalf of the member of Battlement Concerned Citizens and the more than 400 residents that signed the petition that was presented to you in October 2009 requesting a health study. We request that you reconsider your decision to prematurely terminate the HIA project. We ask you 10 reconsideration your decision. Bob Arrington - Read a letter and requested it be put on the record. 142 Don Gray- Urged the Commissioners once again 10 reconsider their decision to not complete the HIA. You started it with the good intent caring for the safety and health of the citizens ofGarfield County. To take it this far, spend a quarter of a million dollars, then to abandon it, or not finish it and publish tt so it's useful is not the right way to do things. Tresi - Comments in closing regarding the oath by each of the County Commissioners, which was to prosect the safety, health and welfare of all the citizens in Garfield County. The health impact assessment and the reason why we originally made the decision to agree with the 400 people, who signed the petition, to have a health study done in relation to having 200 wells drilled within the Battlement community. She further staled her opinion regarding the FHA study and thc decision by this Board not to continue it. Jay fiaygood - He also formally requests that the board reconsider their decision. We need this HIA in more than just n draft form. I1 was starred with the intent to find out the impacts of gas drilling in the Battlement Mesa Community in order 10 protect our health, safety and welfare. Discussion by the Board Commissioner Samson - A couple of things he wants people to understand. All three of the Commissioners met with Dr. Whiter and Dr. Adgatc individually. Each lime the doctors told us This study needs to end now. Mike questioned them and said there will be many people that will say that we need to go on and have more comments from the two sides and have the draft in a final form. ContnrissionerJankovshy -When he met with Dr. Whiter and Dr. Adgale, they ogrced it was time to put the HIA study to rest. We did talk about air quality and air studies. From my standpoint, I am very comfortable regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the community in Battlement Mcsa. We have the opportunity within a PUD to mitigate water issues, traffic issues, dust issues, noise issues, lighting, vibration and social economic issues. l think He thinks they can mitigate all those things themselves as we work through the PUD. [ do have a concern about air quality and this has been discussed that with Dr. Adgale and Dr. Whiter. Last Monday the Board supported an air quality grant through the EPA that's through the Colorado Public Health Department and is to be administered by the Colorado School of Public Health. The BOCC approved and supported that study and if that gram does not go through as Commissioner Martin stated, we will take it upon ourselves to continue to study in order to have a better understanding of air quality and noxious fumes. The HIA study became so polarized it was not longer efficient or valuable to continue. Commissioner Samson reassured the citizens in Battlement Mesa That this Board will not shelf this study and it will be used. There are many recommendation consisting of valuable information. The first 140 pages in the draft are items we can use from that study to mitigate impacts if and when drilling plans are made within the PLi D It doesn't have to formalized and canonized for us to use it I imagine the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance and the Battlement Concerned Citizens group, which Tresi represents will be pouring over that and bringing to their attention the things that you want to use in that PUD. Tresi - That's the plan. First, when she was on the commission our consultants had said months ago that there should only be a certain amount of public comment and they would respond to those comments. When this Board talks about stopping the process, it is still in draft form and not a final document. I intend to agree with people who have been concerned about the status of the draft and how that could bc challenged by people who may not like the outcome of your conditions of approval. There will always be somebody who doesn't like a study, however. we intentionally hired consultants who had no slake in the outcome, medical professionals who arc connected 10 an old and well-established institution in Colorado. Leslie Robinson - I would concur with Trcsi. If we could just go back and correct the typos, do minor editing and call it final then that would be fine, Our group just wants to have the document finalized. Chairman Martin - The school of health is the one that wants this HIA to end and leave it as a draft. They believe Ihcy will bc they will be sued by both sides of the issue. They are not finalizing the draft for what They point the draft being challenged by both their peers and the industry It's not the industry that's being threatening: it's the citizens group calling for recalls because they didn't finish the draft. Clearly, it was a decision by the School of Health to say it cannot be finished just leave it as a draft and glean from it what you can. This is what this Board is going to do. However, you are going to continue to push, see the editorials and letters to the editor etc. calling for drastic action because you don't agree with what we have decided This Board's decision was based on the facts in front of us. Otherwise, this HIA study would last forever answering the questions and comments from peers and industry, challenging the findings and solutions. This HIA was primarily done for a land use decision to identify the potentials of hazards. That has been accomplished in suggested mitigation factors. Thais what we needed If you want to take it to the legislative branch, standards to be revised by EPA, Department of Health etc then that's a different arena If the School of Health Finds something drastic. they have the ability to present that to the proper agencies and not the County because we don't have jurisdiction in those areas. This is what Dr. Whitler and Dr.. Agate told all three Commissioners and we meed. We are continuing the monitoring en air quality and fumes. If evidence from that study is discovered, That information will be directed to the EPA and the Department of Health. As you've heard from Mike and Tom, we believe we have gleaned information that will be factors used to prevent harm to human beings and the environment. One of the issues identified was the pollen from the trees, traffic and fumes from traffic on 1-70. We have no control with fugitive dust from other counties and countries We can't do away with air conditioning and bacteria within the wells waters as that is an individual responsibility to make sure the well is treated properly. Nor can we do anything about those things people have in their homes. 1t is not possible for us to do away with cancers and other health related illnesses. The School of Health and the Saccomanno Institute have identified every health issue in Battlement Mcsa. Now, if you want us to do away with oil and gas and all development, the County cannot do that. Leslie - We understand That concept. Chairman Martin - Nevertheless, you want the gas industry to go away Leslie and you've been pushing that a very long time. We have identified everything we can; we will use that information if and when n land use decision comes forward Tresi - I think people have different interpretations of what is being communicated and requested the Board place an agenda item the first week in June. No one who has put lime, effort and expertise into a report should not want it in draft form. The information in the report is a good tool for this land use decision. 1 would like to have some resolution on this HIA study. Chairman Martin - Thc final nail for the School of Health were the lawsuits that were being filed in reference to Antero and the health impact study being used to supplement that particular claim. Leslie - Lawsuits have already been filed. Chairman Martin - Yes, they wcrc filed in the Denver Court. One of those lawsuits was a resident in Silt Mesa that your group represents. Tresi - That's not connected with the impact assessment Chairman Martin - Yes it is. Tresi - Well, maybe indirectly. Chairman Martin - That's one of the first things they identified as using for their foundation and the School of Health walked away from that saying that's Silt residents were not included, only Battlement Mesa Tresi - I know they wcrc looking at Battlement Mesa. The Battlement Mesa people would like to have a more formal conversation with thc Board and have more information. Commissioner Samson -When I ran for county commissioner one of the main things I wanted to do was try to bring people to the table and work together I realize people do not feel the same way This HIA has become a political football that's being kicked all over no matter what we do as this Board, the School of' Health, COGCC or Antero. 1 see lawsuit one after thc other making no difference as to who wins because the other side will challenge the decision. Therefore, it is an endless game of a battle both political and legal. 1 do 143 not think it is important that this HIA be finalized to go forward. We can use and will use it when the time comes for Antero in the BM PUD applicant. Some of the mitigation is the responsibility of the COGGC, they issue the permits. Tresi -That's the key It's very important and sadly some of the best law around the development of oil and gas in Colorado has been generated from lawsuits because people haven't been able to take the brave route and say that there are changes that need to be made if we arc going to make this a safe method of extracting this clean energy. I would still request to have the formal agenda item. The BOCC may decide to rethink having the HIA in a draft form. Antero and their attorneys know that you won't pull every word out of that document and make them conditions of approval. As you said, everybody is going to work together and find the best way to move forward. I Think this is a good faith opportunity to help finish the HIA. Neither my clients nor I are asking to do that today; we would like to have a more formal meeting on the first week in June. Commissioner Jankovsky - For this study to be finalized and approved by this Board would mean the School of Public Health go back through thc last 250 pages that were submitted by Antero and about another 50 pages submitted by Colorado Public Health and citizens. Then the document would be rewritten, everything explained and it would add another 250 pages or so to this document. At That point, it becomes a 1,000 -page document. I am not convinced it would become finalized at that point. This study became polarized; it is no longer an impartial tool. I will say to Jay, Bob and Battlement Mesa residents that when Antero submits their drilling plan this Board has committed to look at the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Battlement Mesa. This Board would look at best practices on every issue from the gas company and that we will take the seven (7) issues that were outlined in the front. This Board will look at each onc, address them one by one and expect the industry will do their best, have best practices to mitigate the issues look at for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Battlement Mesa. arfield Clean Energy Challenge - Presentation to Award Winners -Alice Laird C y Tuttle and Alice Laird with CLEER and G-NECI were present. Gar Id Clean Energy Challenge hosted this event April 25 -29, 2011. It was a challenge for student, staff and families to walk, bike, c 1, and ride the bus. She thanked the sponsors for donating prize money: Garfield Clean Energy Challenge, CLEER, NET, Alpine Bank, US Department of Energy Better Buildings, RFTA and :;illicit] Clean Energy. The winning schools were: RE -16 St. John's Elementary in 1" place for 51,000; RFSD - Cryst River in 2 cc for 5500.00 and RE -2's Highland Elementary in 3'a place for 5100.00. Representing the schools were: Jenna Hemphill from . John, Kim Hamilton from Crystal River, Melanie Coffclt and Laura Ferry from Highland elementary Clerk's Update: ubic Hearing: Jean Alberico Special Events Lig r Permit - Applicant; Los Llancros Inc. Sponsoring Rodeos and Concerts at the Rising Iles .• Ranch Located at 0295 Cott Road 262, Silt. Nine Event Elates as follows are Planned: May 22, June 10, Junc 18, J 2, July 16, July 22, July 30, Augu. 13, and September 16 from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. - Robert Cuevas, Event Manage and Jean Albcrico Carolyn Dahlgren, Jean Al co, Fred Jarman, Olga Galindo as well as concerned citizens Linda Dixon and F•r d Kuerslen were present. Jean explained this is special eve liquor permit to hold a series of nine events at the Rising Hearts Rant' {+ctoed at 0295 CR 262 in Silt beginning in May and ending i. eplember for rodeos and concerts. The request is to have a beer + Robert Cuevas is the Event Manager; Michelle Pfeiffer ow, the property. Carolyn stated the first issue is whether a have appropriate notice. Jean said, one of my staff members was g.' g to stop by and pick up the sign. but it wasn't disc d on Friday so she didn't gel sign. I did put a picture in the Board's packets, it posted May 6 within the 10 -day timeframe o •e main gate into the rising Heart Ranch right off Hwy 6 West of Coal Ridge Hi School. I have not received any commen ; • r calls about this application. Commissioner Jankovsky - I know where Mic Pfeiffer's property is located. My que on is how many people you will draw Olga Galindo stated anywhere from one hundred r' ' ne hundred fifty. Commissioner Jankovsky - What will they do for r rity for the beer areas? Can tl take their beer and walk around the whole area or will they have to keep beer in ..am 1 out of line? Carolyn - No, we just realized the Chairman had not swo anyone in. Chairman Martin - Swore in the speakers and asked if there .as a challenge t.'the posting? Linda Dickson challenged the posting because the location of a clearly i • -cated no trespassing. Chairman Martin - The notice is to be posted so it is visible fro: the rib r, • f -way and that has been accomplished. Jean clarified that it hos to be viewed from the nearest public road ,, my road; it can be viewed from Highway 6 and this is the gale marked Rising Heart Ranch. Robert Cuevas, the ranch manager &Id Jean the place where the posting should be as it was the main entrance. Jean presented o photograph. Chairman Martin - At this point Linda, we'll limit the challeng o that nice Jean was asked if it was properly posted, it visible from a right-of-way and filled out correctly. Jean testified it was filled out correctly. The challenge is t Linda Dickson - On Highway 6 and 24 the speed limit i entrance goes to the property owner's office and it d with this property. If you arc traveling thc road dol lot of signs posted such as no trespassing, warnin you try to approach unless you have a specific believe this is a notice That most people wou Commissioner Samson clarified that Lin Linda - Right. However, Michelle has 24, and two cntranres oITCR 262/Mi Frcd Kuerslen lives on CR 214 and in Peach Valley and most of the house. Going 55 mpr, one doe in the area of Peach Valley Jean -1 am not familiar w' 24.1 questioned if there entrance. Linda rcsponded.1 ' n't know if it's the main entrance but with past events they have been directed into that entry 1 think it depends on wha, e use is at the time or what the) are trying to accomplish. 1 think all the entrances are used but I d. ''t a lot of traffic cortin , ut of the 6 & 24. - When they have cv the entrance uscd is off CR 214. Jean - If . d known this, 1 would have posted a sign in both places. Frcd K '- Does that mean if they have an event they have to come up to Highway 6 and go up through the hay field? tat would be to the Board to determine. C. • rman Martin - What we arc trying to do presently is seeing if we can open thc public hearing in reference to the posting and li • n your testimony. Therefore, the challenge is the posting on Hwy 6 and 24. Is this satisfactory to this Board or not? it was not pro posted. 5 mpr and This is not commonly used entrance to the Ranch.1 think that 't appear to go to the mat house or the entrance that most people associate 55 mpr, it is nota sign that yo • would normally look for. First, M ichelle has a u arc on security cameras, guard gs, armed guards, so those aren't driveways ason to go in there or you made prior a gcmcnts to go in her property. I do not ve seen. Ives east of Michele's property r entrances into her property. One is a north entrance . CR 214, one entrance off Hwy 6 & alley Lane. The sign was posted on Hwy 6 & 24, greed with Linda that they very rarely go down Highway 6 bee T - CR 214 groes to Davis Point cnts they have at Rising Hearts has accessed through CR 214 Road 'trough the main gate to her t have time to read signs. I think it should have been posted on CR 214 bid Valley Lane The people res and Cedar Hills knew nothing about these events, the properly and I was specifically told by the ranch manager to post the sign a - c main entrance on 6 & as an entrance off County Road 214 and was sold no; however, bosh or you are sayin hal is the main 144