Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Staff Report 09.23.2015September 23, 2015 Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits Battlement Mesa PUD Special Use for "Pipeline" Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2013, as amended B Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979 C Garfield County Resolution 79-132 (Amendment to Zoning Resolution of 1979) D Garfield County Resolution 82-121 Battlement Mesa PUD E Application F Staff Report G Staff Presentation H Memorandum from County Vegetation Manager, 09/11/15 Email from the Town of Parachute, 08/26/15 J Letter from CDPHE (Air Pollution Control Division), 08/25/2015 K Email from CDOT, 09/11/15 L Memorandum from the County Oil and Gas Liaison, 09/10/15 M Letter from Walter Perrine, 09/01/15 N Letter from Pete Simmons, 08/24/15 0 Letter from Marjorie Perrine, 09/01/15 P Letter from EJ and Jane Schultz, 09/01/15 Q Phone CaII from Leonard Bowlby, 09/04/15 R Phone Call from Bonnie Smeltzer, 09/10/15 S Letter from CoBank, 09/03/15 T Letter from Carol Donaghue, 07/10/15 U Letter from Sandy Getter, 09/03/15 V Email from EJ and Jane Schultz, 09/01/15 W Phone message from Leta Terrell, 09/02/15 X Email from Carolyn Bevel, 08/31/15 Y Email from Garfield County Road and Bridge, 09/10/15 Z Email from Patrick Burwell of Land Title, 09/11/15 AA Draft Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment, February, 2011 BB COGCC Rules 800 Series: Aesthetic & Noise Control Regulations CC Colorado Division of Water Resources, 09/14/15 DD Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, 09/14/15 EE Referral Comments: Mountain Cross Engineering, 09/14/15 FF Grand Valley Fire District, 09/15/15 GG Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District, 09/14/15 HH Battlement Concerned Citizens Letter, 09/14/15 II Battlement Mesa Service Association (O&G Sub Committee), 09/13/15 JJ Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, 09/14/15 KK Garfield County Environmental Health Department, dated 09/15/15 LL Battlement Mesa Petition submitted on 09/16/05 MM Garfield County Public Health Letter, 09/14/15 NN Letter from Donna Hewitt, 09/11/2015 00 Application Response to Standards, August 2915 REQUEST APPLICANT PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Special Use Permit URSA Operating Company LLC EXHIBIT i .F6 PC September 23, 2015 PDPA-08-15-8378 PROPERTY OWNER Battlement Mesa Land Investments & Battlement Mesa partners PROJECT SIZE EXISTING ZONING Approximately 13 acres of surface area will be impacted by the Pipeline Construction reflected by a 50 ft. temporary construction easement and several Temporary Work Areas and Staging Areas. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Battlement Mesa PUD 1 I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION URSA Operating Company is requesting a Special Use Permit for a 2.5 mile steel pipeline (varying from 12" and 16" in width) that will gather natural gas from two proposed well pads (B Pad and D Pad) and transport it to a location just outside Battlement Mesa PUD. In addition to the gas pipeline will be two 8" high density polyethylene water pipelines collocated in the same trench as the natural gas pipeline. The pipelines are to be located in an easement that will be 50 feet wide while the pipeline is installed then reduced to a permanent 25 foot easement once the project is completed. The trench will have a minimum coverage of 48 inches in depth. Generally, the Pipeline will begin at the B Pad located below County Road (CR) 307 and north of the Battlement Mesa RV / Boat Storage area and will be bored underground in a NE direction under CR 307 (River Bluff Road) to the D Pad. From the D Pad, it will continue eastward to the NW corner of Valley View Village and then proceed southward along the west Valley View Village boundary then southeasterly to cross Stone Quarry Road and CR 300 (via bore action), then westerly along CR 302 where it will tie into the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District water connection on CR 302 (Underwood Lane), then continues westerly to cross CR 308 (via bore action) then heads due south to tie into an existing water and gas line. The purpose of the twin 8 inch water lines is to be able to provide water to the drilling and completions activity on the proposed B and D Pads (proposing 25 and 28 wells respectively) as well as conveying produced water for disposal from the completed pads. The entire pipeline length crosses lands owned and controlled entirely by Battlement Mesa Land Investments and Battlement Mesa Partners. All crossings with County roads are to be bored underneath the roads with a substantial bore from the B pad to the D pad. The pipeline construction will take 18 weeks to complete (assuming a 5 day work week) beginning in 2016, if approved. II. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended and the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 2008. Notice included publication, mailing and posting. The Applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the notice requirements. Comments from formal referral agencies and County Departments specific to the pipeline are summarized below and attached as Exhibits. Other public comments are also attached as Exhibits. 1. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: a) The Applicant should include fittings or transition necessary to transition from a 12" pipe to a 16" pipe at station 47+00. b) There are two horizontal bends proposed in an area of pipeline that is proposed to be bored beneath Stone Quarry Road, station 59+37 to station 61+87. The Applicant should discuss the feasibility of constructing 452 and 872 bends in borings. c) The Applicant should provide a detail for the proposed valve sets. 2 d) The typical trench section should be revised to match the Garfield County conditions for pipeline installations. The note on the cover should be revised to reference these conditions also. e) The "Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan" prepared by West Water Engineering identified locations along the pipeline that had riparian areas and wetlands. The Applicant should identify if any permitting was obtained and/or necessary and the mitigation that was implemented. Specific construction mitigation necessary should be included on the plan sheets. 2. Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Rob Ferguson Deputy Fire Chief: Commented that the District does not have any objections or further requirements for the pipeline special use permit. 3. CDPHE, Ingrid Hewitson, Air Quality Planner, Air Pollution Control Division: Provided general information on the CDPHE permitting requirements. 4. Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 3 Superintendent, Dan Goin: a) Noted that if the bores are not successful they will need to get road cut permits and patch roadways. b) Indicated that the Applicant will be responsible for repairing any damage to roadways or curbs. c) Noted that construction must be done to maintain current drainage and allow for future maintenance ofdrainage. 5. Town of Parachute, Michael Erion Water Engineer/Consultant noted that the project is not located within the Town's Watershed Protection District and had no objections to the project. 6. Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Steve Anthony: a) Indicated that the Noxious Weed Inventory and Management Plan and proposed seed mixes are acceptable. b) Recommends treating all inventoried weeds within the 30 foot survey prior to October 31, 2015. c) Recommended a $32,500 security for re -vegetation (based on 13 acres of disturbance). 7. Garfield County Oil and Gas Liaison: a) Suggests that given the pipeline proximity to residential and other development, appropriate nuisance and safety best management practices (BMPs) should be considered as conditions of approval. 3 b) Suggest operator be encouraged to thoughtfully plan the pipeline construction to minimize night-time disturbance to nearby residences and to ensure area residents are well informed about whom they may call at URSA if nuisance issues arise. c) Also encourage thoughtful planning for the location of any pipeline maintenance structures and pressure relief valves such that they do not create a long-term, intermittent nuisance issue for nearby residents. 8. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Scott Hoyer, District Wildlife Manager, Parachute: Noted that the scope and actions of this project are addressed in the 2010 Wildlife Mitigation Plan (WMP) between CPW and Ursa. 9. Battlement Mesa Oil and Gas Committee, Chuck Hall: Commented in support of the installation indicating that it should reduce truck traffic. III. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS — PIPELINE REVIEW CRITERIA The following excerpts are from Article 9, Section 9-104 Review Criteria for Pipeline Land Use Change Permits. 9-104 REVIEW CRITERIA. An application for a pipeline shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied in accordance with the following standards and criteria: A. Located Along Perimeters. As a general guide, rights-of-way and any associated facilities shall be located along the perimeters of surface property ownerships and not within areas of agricultural crop production. Nonperimeter locations will be acceptable if the surface owner agrees and there is no adverse impact on adjacent properties. Response: The pipeline alignment is located primarily along County Road alignments where possible and does not cross any areas with active agricultural crop production. The alignment does run along the west and south perimeter of the Valley View Village neighborhood (a linear distance of approximately 1,300 feet) along the backyard lines of some 22 single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Due to the close proximity with the homes in Valley View Village, Staff suggests the Operator construct that portion of the 4 pipeline using a more aggressive schedule in order to get beyond these properties more quickly. Consider the comments provided by the County Oil & Gas Liaison: a) Suggests that given the pipeline proximity to residential and other development, appropriate nuisance and safety best management practices (BMPs) should be considered as conditions of approval. b) Suggest operator be encouraged to thoughtfully plan the pipeline construction to minimize night-time disturbance to nearby residences and to ensure area residents are well informed about whom they may call at URSA if nuisance issues arise. c) Also encourage thoughtful planning for the location of any pipeline maintenance structures and pressure relief valves such that they do not create a long-term, intermittent nuisance issue for nearby residents. B. Noise Abatement. 1. Any equipment used in construction or operation of a pipeline must comply with either the COGCC Rules and Regulations in regards to noise abatement or C.R.S. Article 12 of Title 25, as appropriate for the type of pipeline. 2. All power sources used in pipeline operations shall have electric motors or muffled internal combustion engines. Response: Compliance with COGCC rules regarding noise abatement shall be required as a condition of approval. Once the pipeline is completed, it will comply with the Residential / Agricultural / Rural Zone in the COGCC rules. The pipeline does not propose any compressor stations or pump stations along the alignment. A condition should be added to require that any future pumping equipment located along the alignment or within well pads serving the pipeline shall utilize electric motors or muffled internal combustion engines. The Applicant's construction schedule anticipates work Monday — Friday with the option for 7 days a week if necessary. While this schedule raises some concerns regarding impacts on neighboring properties it is mitigated by the limitation of work to daylight hours only. C. Visual Impact. Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and disturbance of the land surface. Response: The pipeline construction is planned to utilize a maximum of a 50 ft. wide construction easement. The alignment follows existing disturbed and re -vegetated areas along County Roads, private roads, and existing pipeline corridors. The plans propose three bores under county roads to further minimize impacts. Compliance with the re -vegetation and weed management plans shall be required by conditions of approval. D. Access Points to Public Roads. Access points to public roads shall be reviewed by the County Road and Bridge Department. All access and oversize or overweight vehicle permits must be obtained from the County Road and 5 Bridge Department prior to beginning operation. All proposed transportation rights-of-way to the site shall also be reviewed and approved by the County Road and Bridge Department to minimize traffic hazards and adverse impacts on public roadways. Existing roads shall be used to minimize land disturbance unless traffic safety, visual or noise concerns, or other adverse surface impacts clearly dictate otherwise. Any new roads created as a result of the pipeline construction, intended to be permanent for maintenance and repair operations, shall be placed behind a locked gate or other barriers, preventing use by Recreational Vehicles. Any gates or barriers need to be consistent with the surface owner's preferences. Response: Compliance with Road and Bridge requirements including access permits, bore permits, and Oversize/Overweight permits shall be required. Limited areas of new road construction are proposed for the corridor as the primary access is by existing County Roads and private ranch access roadways. Access and private roadways are addressed in the Surface Use Agreements. Several gates limiting access are currently in place. E. Air Contaminant Emissions. Air contaminant emissions shall be in compliance with the applicable permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, C.R.S., Title 25, Article 7. Response: Referral comments from the CDPHE noted general information on CDPHE permitting requirements. The Applicant shall be required to provide evidence of permitting with CDPHE if required and ongoing compliance with any conditions of the permits. Current estimates are for 13 acres of disturbed area. Dust control plans and implementation of re -vegetation plans are anticipated to minimize air quality impacts during construction. F. Water Quality Control Standards. All operations shall comply with all applicable CDPHE Water Quality Control Standards. Response: The proposed pipeline is not located within the Parachute Watershed Protection District and the Applicant has applied for a Town Watershed Permit. Issuance of the permit and compliance with the terms of the permit should be required as a condition of the County approvals. Water used for pressure testing will be properly disposed of pursuant to the Applicant's representations. The Applicant has overall Stormwater Permitting in place with CDPHE. The pipeline construction plans contain Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to water quality during construction. Re -vegetation plans and site reclamation are designed to avoid impacts on water quality. The Application contains a valid Stormwater Management Plan that contains a variety of BMPs that will be implemented in the construction of the pipeline. The Sensitive Area Survey in the application prepared by WestWater Engineering indicates potential conflicts with wetlands (particularly around the B pad location) and Waters of the US for small drainage crossings along the proposed pipeline route. The report recommended consultation with the US Corps of Engineers to determine in wetlands and Waters of the US are 6 present thereby require any permitting or avoidance action. This is suggested as a condition of approval. G. Reclamation Plan. The proposed Reclamation Plan shall provide for a reasonable reclamation schedule in light of the specific surface use and surrounding land uses, and may require recontouring and revegetation of the surface to pre -disturbance conditions. The Director may also approve a plan for an alternative post -disturbance reclamation, provided the surface owner and the Applicant agree. Response: The Application submittal contains reclamation and re -vegetation plans including details on timing, interim reclamation, use of BMP's to avoid soil erosion, seed mix, final reclamation, minimum vegetative cover, and soil treatment to avoid compaction. Pursuant to referral comments from the Garfield County Vegetation Manager compliance with County Standards for re -vegetation shall be required along with security for re -vegetation at $32,500. The terms and conditions of the revegetation plan shall be considered conditions of approval. H. Removal of Abandoned Pipeline. Should an abandoned pipeline be removed, it will be subject to the original revegetation and weed management requirements in the original application. Response: Abandonment of the pipeline would be subject to COGCC Regulations. Should it be removed current re -vegetation plans, standards, and representations along with the provision of appropriate security shall apply. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS — SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA The Special Use Permit Criteria from the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 are outlined below. (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Response: Short term demand for potable water and sanitation facilities during construction will be provided by portable facilities typical for construction projects and in compliance with OSHA requirements. No long term facilities will be required for operation of the pipeline. Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District will provide non -potable water for the pressure testing of the lines as evidenced by their contract. (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. 7 Response: The Applicant has provided a traffic assessment that addresses adequacy of access and any impacts on adjacent County Roads. The report includes estimates on traffic generation, timelines for when it will be generated, and types of vehicles. The report concludes that "... the increase traffic during construction of the proposed pipeline is not expected to be significant on roads generally used by the public" and that the pipeline construction traffic does not increase existing volumes to levels required for State or County permits. An excerpt from the Traffic Report showing estimated traffic generation is shown below. Table 3: Construction Traffic Projections Roadway Bkgd. Traffic Maximum Daily Construction Traffic Percent ! Total 18 Week Increase Construction Traffic CR 215 720 12 2% 840 CR 300W 4770 16 <1% 570 CR 300N 6840 12 <1% 420 CR 300E 670 12 2% 420 CR 300 500 20 4% I 310 CR 3000 240 20 8% 310 CR 302 120 20 17% 730 CR 303 470 20 4% 1 310 CR 307 270 16 6% 200 CR 308 360 20 6% I 730 The report indicates that most intersections will be adequate while noting a sight distance concern at the County Road 308 and East Valley Road (County Road 300E) intersection. A condition of approval should require coordination with the County Road and Bridge Department regarding any needed sight distance improvements such as vegetation removal that may be required at that location. (3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Response: Mitigation of impacts are addressed in the Application submittals reflecting day light hours for construction, no lighting, noise compliance, and no long term compression or pump stations located on the alignment. Limiting construction to six days a week is recommended by staff with allowance for the applicant to request construction on Sundays subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners at a public meeting. Due to the temporary nature of the construction impacts no screening is proposed. The use of boring in key sections and the alignment itself minimizes impacts. 8 Section 5.03 (1) The applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director two (2) copies of an impact statement on the proposed use prescribing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. The impact statement shall show that the use shall be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal Governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon: (a) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water; (b) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; (c) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; Response: The Application contains an adequate Stormwater Management Plan; however, given the proximity to potential wetlands and potential waters of the US, consultation with the US Corps of Engineers is recommended prior to the approval of a Special Use Permit. There will be limited dust generation possible vibration could occur from heavy machinery from the installation of the pipeline. This activity is expected to be very short in duration and a dust mitigation plan is contained that shall be implemented as a condition of approval. There are limited and temporary impacts to wildlife; however, the Colorado parks and Wildlife has entered into a management plan with URS to manage these short term impacts. (2) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisance to areas elsewhere in the County; Response: The Applicant has provided a traffic assessment that addresses adequacy of access and any impacts on adjacent County Roads. The report includes estimates on traffic generation, timelines for when it will be generated, and types of vehicles. The report concludes that "... the increase traffic during construction of the proposed pipeline is not expected to be significant on roads generally used by the public" and that the pipeline construction traffic does not increase existing volumes to levels required for State or County permits. The report indicates that most intersections will be adequate while noting a sight distance concern at the County Road 308 and East Valley Road (County Road 300E) intersection. Once constructed, there will be virtually no traffic associated with the pipeline. A main desire for the pipeline is to eliminate traffic on the road. A condition of approval should require coordination with the County Road and Bridge Department regarding any needed sight distance improvements such as vegetation removal that may be required at that location. 9 (3) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses; Response: As noted earlier, the pipeline construction will occur over an aggressive 18 week duration. However, the alignment does run along the west and south perimeter of the Valley View Village neighborhood (a linear distance of approximately 1,300 feet) along the backyard lines of some 22 single-family and multi -family dwelling units. This is the section that is the closest to any residential uses. While short in duration along this section, there will be noise, dust and possibly fume impacts associated with the construction. Once the pipeline is completed, these impacts will discontinue for the life of the pipeline. It is suggested the Operator meet with these residents of Valley View Village prior and during construction to inform them of their plans, timing, and what to expect during the construction portion adjacent to their homes. This may include a website so that residents can monitor progress on a daily basis. (4) At the discretion of the County Commissioners additional information supplementing the impact statement may be required. Such request for additional information shall be in writing and shall be given to the applicant not later than forty-five (45) days after the filing of the impact statement. (5) Permits shall be granted for those uses only with the provisions that a satisfactory rehabilitation plan for the affected land be submitted prior to commencement of such use; (a) The plan for site rehabilitation shall be submitted to the Planning Director with the impact statement, and must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; (b) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, or bond, or certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds, or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners: Response: The Application submittal contains reclamation and re -vegetation plans including details on timing, interim reclamation, use of BMP's to avoid soil erosion, seed mix, final reclamation, minimum vegetative cover, and soil treatment to avoid compaction. Pursuant to referral comments from the Garfield County Vegetation Manager compliance with County Standards for re -vegetation shall be required along with security for re -vegetation at $32,500. The terms and conditions of the revegetation plan shall be considered conditions of approval. 10 Section 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in Garfield County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: (1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibles, with a maximum increase of five (5) decibles permitted for a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes in any one hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be so operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary land fill, and mineral waste disposal areas: (a) Storage of flammable, or explosive solids, or gases, shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code; (b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; 11 (c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; (d) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of Health Regulations: (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. Response: These regulations listed above are performance regulations which means they will apply as conditions as long as the use is operating. Note, volume of sound is regulated by COGCC 800 Series which differs from Section 5.03.08(1) above. V. COMPREHEINSIVE PLAN 2030 Response: The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended, identifies the Battlement Mesa PUD as an "unincorporated community" which is further defined as self- contained subdivisions that contain town and neighborhood centers primarily to serve their own populations. Their infrastructure and certain governmental functions are provided by one or more special districts. Compatible zoning is identifies as residential urban, commercial limited, commercial general, and planned unit development. Battlement Mesa PUD was a fundamental example when this designation was crafted. The elements of the Plan that are the most germane to this application include 1) economy, employment and tourism, 2) natural resources, and 3) mineral extraction. Staff finds that the development of the pipeline is in general conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan demonstrated by the following policies, goals and vision contained within the plan so long as adequate mitigations can be properly implemented to minimize adverse impacts: Economy, Employment and Tourism: Goal: Maintain a strong and diverse economic base (for both employment and income generation). Policy: Garfield County will encourage the development of a diversified industrial base recognizing physical location -to market capabilities of the community, and the social and environmental impacts of industrial uses. 12 Strategy & Action: Ensure that commercial/industrial developments are compatible with adjacent land uses and preserve the visual quality of the county. Natural Resources Goal: Ensure that natural, scenic, ecological, and critical wildlife habitat resources are protected and/or impacts mitigated. Ensure the appropriate reclamation of land after extraction processes. Mineral Extraction Vision: Resource extraction, including oil and gas development, has been encouraged to remain in the county due to their contribution they make to the county's overall goal of having a diverse and stable economy. While resource industries are welcomed in the county, they have been expected to fairly mitigate negative impacts that might have resulted due to their operations. Goals: Ensure that mineral extraction is regulated appropriately to promote responsible development and provide benefit to the general public. Ensure that mineral extraction activities mitigate their effects on the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat or important visual resources. In working with mineral extraction projects, the county will protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Policies: Garfield County recognizes that surface and mineral owners have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to extract and develop these interests. Private property owners also have certain legal rights and privileges, including the right to have the mineral estate developed in a reasonable manner and to have adverse impacts mitigated. The property rights of mineral lessees must be balanced with the rights of private property owners and the general public. Mineral resource extraction activities will protect critical wildlife habitat as identified by state and federal agencies. Development within these designations that cannot be designed, constructed and conducted so as to have a minimum adverse impact upon such habitat or these wildlife species, shall be discouraged. VI. BATTLEMENT MESA HEALTH IMPACT ANALYSIS In 2009, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners commissioned the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in order to address citizen concerns about health impacts of natural gas development and production in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). The HIA scope of work was informed by citizen concerns 13 and was limited to Battlement Mesa. The HIA process included stakeholder participation and review. The two primary functions of the HIA are to: 1) Identify ways in which Antero's proposed natural gas development project can affect the health of the Battlement Mesa residents; and 2) Develop a priority list of recommendations to minimize the potential health impacts of Antero's proposed project. A 2nd draft was completed in 2011; however, the Board of County Commissioners voted not to extend a contract with the University of Colorado School of Public Health to produce a final report for the Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment. At the time the contract was ended, the BOCC did acknowledge their intent to use the document at the time an application to drill in Battement Mesa was submitted to the County. Staff has requested the Applicant to respond directly to the some 70+ recommendations suggested in the HIA for the benefit of the decision makers; however, the required land use review in this memorandum is focused solely on the rules and regulations adopted and required by the BOCC. The Applicant has been addressing portions of the HIA in their community outreach meetings, but is also prepared to address the HIA in their presentation to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. While the HIA is not a legally binding document and does not contain any rules or regulations adopted by the BOCC, Staff has identified the suggested COAs here for consideration. 1. Install a fully functional water storage facility and pipeline network before any development of well pads in the Battlement Mesa. 2. Conduct monthly inspection of water and gas pipeline for leaks to prevent water and soil pollution and that the results of the inspections be posted on the Garfield County Website. 3. Notify the sheriff and fire department one week prior to well drilling, hydraulic fracturing, flow back, and pipeline pigging activities. 4. Adhere to its best management practices for pipelines and all COGCC rules throughout the life of the project as a condition of the special use permit. 5. Require all gas pipelines to follow established truck haul routes and allow no gas pipelines through the center of the PUD. 6. Assign a county inspector to oversee and inspect all pipeline construction and maintenance in the PUD. 14 VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the meeting. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit and Pipeline Land Use Change Permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoptions of conditions and the application has adequately met the Pipeline Review Criteria contained in Section 9-104 of the Land Use and Development Code, as amended and the Special Use Permit Criteria contained in the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 1978 as amended. VIII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissions for the proposed Special Use Permit for a Pipeline with the following suggested findings and conditions. 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the Pipeline shall be operated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. 3. Prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Applicant shall provide additional operational procedures for monitoring protocol for the pipeline for leak or spill detection. Said procedures will be included in the Emergency Response Plan or as an addendum to said plan. The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the SPCC Plan including spill response and clean-up. 4. Prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Applicant shall provide an assessment by a qualified professional that no Army Corp of Engineer's Permits are required for the proposed pipeline or referral comments from the Army Corp of Engineers confirming that no permitting is required. If permits are required they shall be obtained and submitted to the 15 County prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit. 5. Prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Applicant shall provide security in a form acceptable to the County Attorney's Office in the amount of $32,500 for re -vegetation. The Applicant shall comply with the representations in their Weed Management Plan and shall comply with the Reclamation Standards contained in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan as noted in the referral comments from the County Vegetation Manager dated September 11, 2015. 6. Prior to initiating construction, the Applicant shall consult with the County Road and Bridge Supervisor regarding sight distance improvements at the County Road 308 and East Battlement Parkway intersection. Any recommended changes or improvements shall be required prior to initiating construction. 7. Prior to initiating construction the Applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Road and Bridge Department including but not limited to permits for boring, road cuts, overweight or oversize vehicles, temporary access, and grading within the right-of-way. Compliance with all conditions of the Road and Bridge permits shall be required. The Applicant shall be responsible for repair of any damage to roadways or curbs. 8. Prior to initiating construction the Applicant shall submit for approval by the Road and Bridge Supervisor traffic control plans including areas adjacent to the County Road Right of Way, construction access points, proposed bore locations and potential road cuts or the Applicant can demonstrate that traffic control plans are addressed in the applicable Road and Bridge Permits. 9. The Applicant shall coordinate with the County Road and Bridge Department during construction including field inspections as needed to ensure that minimum pipeline depths are maintained and to ensure construction is done in a manner that maintains current drainage along County Roads and avoids conflicts with future drainage. The Applicant shall install posts/markers along key sections of the pipeline indicating depth to the pipeline. Maintaining drainage shall be the responsibility of the pipeline operator subject to approval by the Road and Bridge Supervisor. 10. The pipeline shall maintain compliance with CDPHE Storm Water Management Permits, Drainage and Soil Erosion Protection, BMP's, Reclamation and Re -vegetation Plans, and Weed Management Plans. 11. The Applicant shall comply with all COGCC rules and regulations regarding the pipeline facility including but not limited to reclamation and decommissioning. 12. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with COGCC Rules and Regulations in regards to noise abatement and C.R.S. Article 12 of Title 25, noise standards as appropriate. Any 16 pumping stations required for operation of the pipeline shall utilize electric pumps or muffled internal combustion motors. 13. The Applicant shall maintain all required CDPHE permits for the facility including any applicable air quality APEN permits. 14. The Applicant shall comply with the Battlement Mesa Wildlife Mitigation Plan - Agreement between Ursa Operating Company and CPW including any wildlife protection or mitigation requirements. The Applicant shall comply with recommendations of the Sensitive Areas Survey completed by WestWater Engineering Inc. dated June 2015, including but not limited to weed management, re -vegetation, avoiding construction during nesting seasons, and temporary safety fencing for open trenches as needed. 15. In accordance with Section 9-103 (J), upon completion of the pipeline the Applicant shall submit an engineer's statement certifying compliance with the conditions of the Land Use Change Permit and a digital copy of the surveyed pipeline as built. 16. Potable water and sanitation shall be addressed during construction by provision of portable facilities in compliance with OSHA requirements. 17. The Operator shall commit to ensuring truckloads of dirt, sand, aggregate materials, drilling cuttings, and similar materials are covered to reduce dust and PM emissions. 18. The construction of the Pipeline shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. 19. All extraction and processing activities shall be required to comply with the following performance standards: (1) Volume of the sound generated: The noise shall be required to meet the standards in COGCC Rule 800 Series. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be so operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the 17 existing use of the adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary land -fill, and mineral waste disposal areas: (a) Storage of flammable, or explosive solids, or gases, shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the National Fire Code; (b) At the discretion of the County Commissioners all outdoor storage facilities for fuel, raw materials and products shall be enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; (c) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonable foreseeable natural causes or forces; (d) All materials or wastes which might constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors in accordance with applicable State Board of Health Regulation; (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of the facilities may begin. 20. The Operator shall provide information to the residents of Valley View Village prior and during construction to inform them of their plans, timing, and what to expect during the construction portion adjacent to their homes. 21. Prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit, the Applicant shall address the comments prepared by Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering: a) The Applicant should include fittings or transition necessary to transition from a 12" pipe to a 16" pipe at station 47+00. b) There are two horizontal bends proposed in an area of pipeline that is proposed to be bored beneath Stone Quarry Road, station 59+37 to station 61+87. The Applicant should discuss the feasibility of constructing 452 and 872 bends in borings. 18 c) The Applicant should provide a detail for the proposed valve sets. d) The typical trench section should be revised to match the Garfield County conditions for pipeline installations. The note on the cover should be revised to reference these conditions also. e) The "Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan" prepared by West Water Engineering identified locations along the pipeline that had riparian areas and wetlands. The Applicant should identify if any permitting was obtained and/or necessary and the mitigation that was implemented. Specific construction mitigation necessary should be included on the plan sheets. IX. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I will make a motion to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit Application for the URSA natural gas and water pipeline with the specific findings and conditions as contained herein." 19 September 11, 2015 EXHIBIT r Garfield County Fred Jarman Garfield County Community Development Department RE: PDPA — 8373 Phase 1 Pipeline Vegetation Management Dear Fred, The Noxious Weed Inventory and Management plan for this project is acceptable. Staff recommends that the applicant treat all inventoried noxious weeds within the 30 foot survey area and proposed pipeline route before October 31, 2015. The applicant's weed map is attached. Staff recommends a revegetation security of $32,500 (13 acres of disturbance x $2500/acre revegetation security). The surface area of disturbance is based on information provided by the applicant. If the 13 acre figure does not include the amount of disturbance created by the temporary work area, then the total disturbance amount should be adjusted to include that area. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94). Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970-625-5939 Fred Jarman From: Stuart McArthur <StuartMC@parachutecolorado.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:10 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Garfield County Land Use Application Referral Fred, EXHIBIT iz The Town of Parachute does not have concerns regarding these projects. They are not within our watershed. MIPA-06-15-8341 (Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad) MIPA-06-15-8342 (Battlement Mesa BMC B Well Pad) PDPA-08-15-8378 (Phase I Pipeline) Stuart Mc:Arthar Town Manager Town of Parachute, Colorado 970-285-7630, X-106 0t PAft4 rn From: Michael Erion [mailto:merion@resource-eng.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: Stuart McArthur <StuartMC@parachutecolorado.com> Subject: RE: Garfield County Land Use Application Referral Stuart: These pads and pipeline are downstream and outside of the Watershed District Boundaries. Regards, Michael Michael Erion, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (970) 945-6777 Voice (970) 945-1137 Facsimile www.resource-eng.com EI The information contained in this e-mail is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that 1 August 25, 2015 COLORADO Department of Public Health & Environment EXHIBIT Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director, Garfield County Community Development Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development Dear Mr. Jarman: On August 20, 2015, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division (APCD or Division) received a request for an air quality administrative review concerning Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development. The Division has reviewed the project and has determined that the following provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulations may apply to the project based on the information provided. Please note that the following regulations may not be inclusive of the regulations the proposed project will be subject to. It is the responsibility of the involved parties to determine what regulations they are subject to and follow them accordingly. In Colorado, most businesses that are or will be emitting air pollutants above certain levels are required to report those emissions to the Division by completing an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN). This is a two in one form for reporting air emissions and to obtain an air permit, if a permit will be required. While only businesses that exceed the AQCC reporting thresholds are required report their emissions, all businesses - regardless of emission amount - must always comply with the Colorado AQCC regulations. In general, an APEN is required when uncontrolled actual emissions for an emission point or group of emission points exceed the following defined emission thresholds: Table 1 APEN Thresholds Pollutant Category UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS Attainment Area Non -attainment Area Criteria Pollutant 2 tons per year 1 ton per year Lead 100 pounds per year 100 pounds per year Non -Criteria Pollutant 250 pounds per year 250 pounds per year 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Govemor 1 Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Uncontrolled actual emissions do not take into account any pollution control equipment that may exist. A map of the Denver Metropolitan Ozone Non -attainment area can be found at: http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ss_map wm.aspx. Additional information on APENs and air permits can be found at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/apen-and-permitting-guidance. This site explains the process to obtain APENs and air quality permits, as well as information on calculating emissions, exemptions, and additional requirements. You may also view AQCC Regulation Number 3 at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs for the complete regulatory language. Oil and Gas facilities must comply with all relevant Federal rules and regulations including but not limited to NSPS 0000. Per NSPS 0000, operators may be required to limit emissions during well completion activities, maintain supporting records and demonstrate compliance with this regulation. All businesses in Colorado are subject to AQCC Regulation Number 2 (Odor Emission) and a permit may be required for the installation of odor control equipment. Please refer to AQCC Number 2 for guidance on odor suppression actions. You may also view the complete regulatory language at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs. In Colorado, land development construction activities (earth moving) that are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration require an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN) from the Division and may be required to obtain an air permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a start-up notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. Please refer to the website https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/air-permits for information on land use APENs and permits forms. Click on Construction Permit and APEN forms, and then click on the "Specialty APENs" to access the land development specific APEN form. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please call the phone numbers listed above, or call or e-mail me directly. Thank you for contacting the Air Pollution Control Division about requirements for your project. Sincerely, - /I Ingrid Hewitson Air Quality Planner Planning and Policy Program Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 303-692-6331 / Ingrid.hewitson@state.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Govemor 1 Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer EXHIBIT Fred Jarman From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel <daniel.roussin@state.co.us> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:48 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Re: Garfield County Land Use Application Referral Fred - Thank you for the opportunity to review the application. From an access point of view, it is unlikely this project will increase the traffic by 20% at the Parachute Interchange. Therefore, no access permit is required. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dan Dan Roussin Permit Unit Manager Traffic and Safety COLORADO Department of Transportation Region 3 P 970.683.6284 1 F 970.683.6290 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 daniel.roussin@state.co.us 1 www.codot.gov/ 1 www.cotrip.org ©© You co On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Fred Jarman <tjarman(ilgarfield-county.com> wrote: Greetings, This is a friendly reminder that if you have comments on this application, the deadline is September 14th Regards, Fred Memorandum September 10, 2015 Garfield County Oil & Gas Liaison Kirby Wynn RE: O&G Liaison Referral Comments for MIPA-06-15-8341 (Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad), MIPA-06-15-8342 (Battlement Mesa BMC B Well Pad), PDPA-08-15-8378 (Phase 1 Pipeline) Dear Fred, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject land use applications for proposed facilities within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Applications are for two proposed well pads and a gathering pipeline to transport natural gas from the well pads and a parallel water pipeline. An overarching recommendation is to include as a Condition of Approval that the applicant develop a 24/7 fast -action complaints receipt and response program that will ensure residents have immediate access to report and begin resolution of nuisance or safety issues that may arise. My liaison's office, Community Counts, and the applicant's land department staff have demonstrated success in recent years to receive and quickly respond to questions and complaints somewhat around the clock. However, for these applications that propose to conduct oil and gas operations within a relatively populous PUD, additional and more certain measures to ensure resident concerns are quickly addressed 24/7 may be beneficial. Pipeline: Generally, pipelines such as the proposed water line that would be adjacent to a gas gathering pipeline provide a distinct benefit to surrounding residents as compared to conveyance of product and waste water via trucks. As such the proposed water (and gas) pipeline seem a necessary facility that is appurtenant to the proposed and nearby existing well pads. In some cases, normal gas pipeline maintenance (pigging and associated location of pigging stations) and pressure relief valves can create significant noise or odor nuisance issues for nearby residents. If approved, given the pipeline proximity to residential and other development, appropriate nuisance and safety best management practices (BMPs) should be considered as 1 conditions of approval. It may be beneficial to ask the applicant to commit to specialized pipeline operation and maintenance practices intended to minimize impacts to area residents. Examples include community educational meetings to explain the operation of the pipelines and advance notifications to nearby residents when the likelihood for resident concerns or impacts are higher than normal such as for pipeline blowdown and pigging operations. Suggest operator be encouraged to thoughtfully plan the pipeline construction to minimize night- time disturbance to nearby residences and to ensure area residents are well informed about whom they may call at Ursa if nuisance issues arise. Also encourage thoughtful planning for the location of any pipeline maintenance structures and pressure relief valves such that they do not create a long-term, intermittent nuisance issue for nearby residents. Well pads: Upon cursory GIS analysis, the proposed well pads, BMC B and BMC D, appear to be within a COGCC-defined Urban Mitigation Area (UMA) based on proximity of building units (residences) within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of each proposed well pad. See attached map figure that approximately locates the proposed well pads and provides distance buffer overlays depicting existing residences and other development falling with 350, 500 and 1,000 feet of the proposed well pad boundaries provided by the applicant. COGCC rules utilize distances measured from the edge of the disturbed area for the purpose of defining if well pads are within a UMA. In places, the applicant's maps and buffer zone areas mention distance measurements from the center of the well pad. BMC D appears to clearly be sited within a UMA and the applicant should provide a detailed UMA analysis for BMC B to clarify if it is or is not within a UMA. Comments and recommendations provided below presume both pads are within a UMA and given the significant number of residences in close proximity --if BMC B does not quite meet UMA criteria, it is recommended the facility be voluntarily, or by Condition of Approval, managed as if it were to ensure area residents are afforded the maximum protections, and notifications required by COGCC rules. Specific COGCC-mandated setback criteria and mitigations apply for wells and pads within a UMA per COGCC 600 and 800 series rules. Given the close proximity of numerous residences to the proposed BMC B and BMC D pads, there is a much higher potential for residents to experience significant and more frequent noise. odor and light impacts than has been observed in more remote areas of Garfield County. Based on the applicant -supplied materials, there are numerous residences within 500-1,000 feet of the proposed well pads. By comparison, in many parts of Garfield County including the Battlement Mesa area, various operators utilizing the latest BMPs and mitigation technologies, have intermittently and significantly impacted residents with noise, odor and Tight issues at much greater distances between well pads and residences than are proposed by this applicant Historically, the greatest impacts to residents occur during the construction and well drilling/completions activities with a general decrease in nuisance issues once wells and pads are in the long-term production and maintenance phase. Noise Resident concems about noise impacts will be challenging if not impossible to fully prevent during drilling and completions. It will likely be a matter of trying to minimize the severity and frequency of noise impacts than to fully mitigate them. Consistent with the noise analysis provided by the applicant that refers to observed sound levels 350 feet from the nearby Monument Ridge well pad, and regardless of the applicable COGCC rules, recommend as a Condition of Approval all noise compliance measurements be made at 350' from the noise source (or sound wall if applicable) rather than "Noise levels from oil and gas facilities located on surface property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the operator shall be measured at three hundred and fifty (350) feet or at the property line, whichever is greater. " noted in COGCC rule 802.c.1. Also recommend that the Tight industrial standard be applicable as the maximum allowable noise level at 350 feet from the source for both drilling and completion activities to ensure impacts to nearby residences are minimized. The industrial noise level standard is applicable for completions activities per COGCC rules but every reasonable attempt and BMP should be required to prevent such elevated noise levels from occurring at these well pads in close proximity to neighborhoods. Recommend consideration of reasonable time -of -day restrictions for particularly loud construction, drilling and completion activities—the application does note the Surface Use Agreement with the surface owner contains no such time -of -day restrictions. COGCC will soon (Fall 2015) embark on a Rulemaking to address identified shortcomings in the current noise rules. in particular, low -frequency, and especially impactful db(C) range noise is not adequately addressed in the current rules according to COGCC staff. Noise in this range can cause noticeable vibrations that can cause significant nuisance impacts to nearby residents. In consultation with COGCC, the applicant and topical experts, suggest a Condition of Approval that defines a better management and mitigation schema for low frequency db(C) noise levels than are currently defined in COGCC rules. Make this suggestion with full recognition of the challenge it may present as a precursor to the actual COGCC Rulemaking—perhaps the Condition of Approval could designate the applicant will abide by the soon-to-be developed and implemented COGCC noise rules. Odor Odors and associated emissions from oil and gas facilities can be a pervasive and especially impactful nuisance to residents if not properly contained and diligently managed. As with noise issues, it is expected that odor issues could occur at a greater frequency than has been observed at more remote locations in Garfield County. Rather than rely on the general statement that "Potential impacts from air emissions, vapor and odor will be controlled via implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and strict adherence to Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Quality Regulation 7 criteria. ". recommend the applicant demonstrate a thorough 3 researching of current technologies available to control emissions and odors for all operational phases contemplated for the proposed locations and clearly describe mitigations and BMPs considered most optimal and feasible to prevent impacts to nearby residents. In this more urban setting than most other oil and gas development in Garfield County it seems advisable that an analysis of the available emission and odor control options be included in the application package to help ensure the best available and most appropriate BMPs are contemplated and utilized. Traffic Traffic associated with oil and gas development can be a major concern and source of nuisance complaints from the surrounding community. Recommend a thorough analysis of optimal traffic routes to be developed for each component of the proposed operations. In particular, there should be better definition of which vehicles and Toads will optimally travel to the proposed well pads via Una Bridge (lower route per application terminology) and which vehicles and loads should optimally travel via the main Battlement Mesa entrance The Traffic Study provided by the applicant indicates a fairly nominal increase in traffic from the proposed activities. Perhaps that is the case but the study summary lacked sufficient detail for this reviewer to verify that assessment. Kirby Wynn L3 c---1 10-N "P 4 0 0 0 N EXHIBIT i M 25 Alder Ct. Parachute, CO 81635 September 1, 2015 Commissioner Thomas Jankovsky 108 8th Street, Ste. 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: My concern is about the proposed drilling by Ursa (up to 53 wells within and closely surrounding the residential development of Battlement Mesa). There may be as many as 200 wells ultimately. Battlement Mesa is a unique part of Garfield County. Unincorporated, it is the most concentrated and populated area of this county. Drilling brings air and noise pollution and, other ills that we do not know of yet, along with increased truck traffic. Ursa will make millions of dollars on their drillings. Is it too much to require them to confine the drillings to one thousand feet from the borders of Battlement Mesa? Thank you for your consideration to the inhabitants of Battlement Mesa, &Z-\ Aka— Walter Perrine After thought: I am not convinced that pumping chemicals deep under ground will not find their way into our drinking water. 92 RIVER VIEW MACE PATTLEMIENY MEM, CO 01675 97d-205-7575 August 24, 2015 Garfield County Commissioners John Martin Mike Sampson mom Jankowsky 108 8th Street Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioner Jankowsky, The oil and gas industry is proposing more wells in our Battlement Mesa community. This large scale development, and its associated lowering of our air quality, potential polution of our water supply, increased noise from heavy truck traffic beyond the capacity of our roads to handle, that comes with this proposal is well beyond what our community wants to accept.And, as you know Tom, this proposed land use is outside anything that our Garfield County Master Land Use Plan ever considered. Once our land and environment is damaged no amount of mitigation measures will ever repair this destruction and restore our beautiful Battlement Mesa community to its original condition. If this proposal is approved only the gas company is a winner,and your constituents are losers. Vote NO on this proposal. Sincerely, F. Peter Simmons, D.Sc. EXHIBIT 1 0 25 Alder Court Parachute, CO 81635 September 2, 2015 Mr. Thomas Jankovsky Garfield CO Commissioner 108 8th Street, Ste. 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: My husband and 1 have resided in Battlement Mesa for over 13 yrs. We built here be- cause it was a beautiful area with mostly retired citizens living here. Over the past few years the complexion of this area has totally changed. Unfortunately, it is to the detri- ment of the community. Just looking around one can clearly see what unattractive sights are now located here. It is very easy for people, like you, to make decisions about others when you do not re- side under the same conditions. Would you want your family to live here? There are some residents here who have serious health issues due to pollution. Even now we see lights glaring at the back of our home every night. Ursa, I'm sure, has mega dollars to spend on their projects and can certainly adjust their plans to be further away from here. On the other hand we seniors don't have the finances to afford to walk away from our investment here in Battlement. Since the meeting on Sept. 23 is being held in Glenwood, it makes it most difficult for many seniors to drive there and back at night. Is it possible to relocate the meeting closer to the area in question? Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, a 07/A_,e,a_ Marjorie Perrine Fred Jarman From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 12:01 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC Original Message From: E J And Jane Schultz [mailto:ej123a@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 10:51 AM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC EXHIBIT 1_P E J And Jane Schultz has sent you a message: Drilling in Battlement Mesa 970-424-1025 Dear County Commissioner; 9/1/15 Last evening we went to a meeting at the Firehouse in Battlement Mesa. We, the homeowmers, discussed the upcoming meeting on Wednesday September 23, 2015 and the plans of URSA To build pads and drill for gas in areas very close to our homes and villages. First of all, we would like to invite you to come to Battlement Mesa for the above mentioned meeting for two simple reasons: one, It is much easier for all the commissioners to travel to MB than to have 300 to 400 homeowners to travel to Glenwood Springs. Two, In this day and age, I am sure that we have adaquate if not better recording equipment here as you have there. Second, We would like you to personally back us in requesting URSA to prepare and place their pads further away from our homes and water supplies than they are currently planed. There is a lot of money involved in drilling gas and I am sure that planning their pads, etc. further away from our properties and water supply would not cost that much money more! With directional drilling available today they can explore and harvest their gas from miles from their site. Third, We do not mind them drilling for gas and oil, we need the energy, we only mind when they are as close as a quarter of a mile from where we live and breath. We are all Human beings and we all have a right of Life, Liberty and the pursuite of Happiness. Please consider what I and others believe is a better way to go than the present plans of Ursa. Thank you, EJ and Jane Schultz, 223 Lodgepole Circle, Battlement Mesa CO 9704241025 ej123a@yahoo.com 1 Note to File: Battlement Mesa / URSA project DATE: Friday, September 4, 2015 Subject: Received a phone call from Leonard Bowlby where he stated support for Oil and Gas drilling but not inside the PUD. EXHIBIT Note to File: Battlement Mesa / URSA project DATE: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Subject: Received a phone call from Bonnie Smeltzer where she opposed Oil and Gas drilling inside the PUD. EXHIBIT I R CoBANK September 3, 2015 CEP, }, i ' 1015 Garfield County Planning Commission 108 8"' Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 1 5 RE: Special Use Permit and Land Use Change Permit for Pipeline Development Ursa Operating Company and Battlement Mesa land investments To Whom It May Concern: We recently received the Notice of Hearing set for September 23, 2015 for the referenced matter. Our records indicate that CoBank, FCB successor in interest to U.S. AgBank, FCB does have a mineral interest in W2SWSW Section 17 and SESE, SESW, SWSE & N2SE Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West, Garfield County, Colorado that may be included in the referenced application area. This letter is to advise that the Bank has no objection to the referenced Permit, as long as such project does not impede its ability to develop its mineral estate. I can be reached at 316-261-9752 or nmorford©cobank if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, N iner- Dir: ctor cc Lorne Prescott Carol C Donaghue 195 South Ridge Ct Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 July 10, 2015 Planning Department Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attention: Fred Jarman Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT I T 1 would like to voice my objection to the plan, submitted by Ursa, to develop gas well pads within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of Battlement Mesa, CO. I purchased my home in Mesa Ridge in 2000, a covenant controlled community within the PUD where all property owners are members of the Home Owners Association (HOA). Various legal documents regulate the community. I have included some of these documents of interest to this issue. I expected these documents to provide a measure of residential safety for my senior years. Now I raise the question, how can a commercial interest use the land just because they have mineral rights, do not home owners have rights also? We hear about the technique of "directional drilling" as a way to access gas deposits so the necessary instrument pads are remote from the actual gas deposits. This seems to be an ideal solution in a community such as ours. I have included a picture of a well pad in the area as a visual to help in the consideration of Ursa's request. Surely, the size of the pad necessary, the truck traffic and noise involved are things to consider as they adversely affect our homes. Finally, all are familiar with the "Boom and Bust" cycles associated with energy development in this area. I hope the rush to gain energy does not adversely affect what is happening here. The Battlement Mesa community is seeing a gradual increase in page 2 residents, likely workers associated with the gas industry and other businesses that have sprung up along 170. There are 2 schools, several churches, and many recreational opportunities including bicycle and walking paths for all to enjoy. I sincerely hope the 3,200 acres of the PUD can be maintained as a residential haven without the large, heavy, 18 wheel truck traffic and noise associated with the well pads. Sincerely, &P,Aiti- V67 Carol C Donaghue BATTLEMEINT MESA 'The Colorado Drcall) iiimaionow Battlement Mesa Service Association The Battlement Mesa Service Association, (BMSA). is Battlement Mesa, Colorado's 'city government.' The Battlement Mesa community, an unincorporated 3,200 acre planned unit development, (PUD), is located along 1-70 and the Colorado River between Glenwood Springs and Grand Junction on Colorado's Westernslope. As the name suggests, the BMSA, a Colorado non-profit corporation, is a self-governing homeowners association. All property owners within the PUD are automatically members of the BMSA and must pay HOA assessments. The BMSA is the community's governing body. As an HOA, the Battlement Mesa community is regulated by various legal documents. These documents, Including the association's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and the Amended and Restated Covenants, can be found in the BMSA section of this site under 'Association Documents.' Instead of a normal mayor and city council, the BMSA's Board of Directors manages and directs the governmental affairs of the Battlement Mesa community. Presently the BMSA board consists of twelve Village Delegates/Board Members and two Developer Delegates/Board Members for a total of fourteen Delegate/Board Member positions. Each Villlage within the Battlement Mesa PUD has the right to elect a Delegate to the Battlement Mesa Service Association and these elected Delegates are automatically elected to the BMSA board of directors. Village Delegates/Board Members are elected by their Villages to a three year term. Since there are no term limits. Delegates/Board Members frequently serve more than one term. The BMSA board of directors functions like a typical city council. More information about the BMSA board or directors is shown in the BMSA section under 'Board of Directors,' The BMSA board of directors meets at the Grand Valley Recreation Center on the third Tuesday of each month. The meetings, which are open to the public, begin at 9 A.M. BMSA office address: 401 Arroro Drive, Battlement Mesa, CO 81635. See Map... fhttps://www.poogle.com/maps/plece/401+Aroyio+Dr/039.4421398,-108.0207819,172/deal=13m1/4b1t4m213m 111300741336bd72d8293:0aa055f6a7e5e5754c BMSA telephone: 970.285.9432. BMSA Association Manager: Steve Rippy 1111(111111111111111111111Him tall 672848 04/25/2005 02:17P B1681 P616 M ALSDORF 6 of 11 R 56.00 D 0.08 GARFIELD COUNTY CO mon Assessments and Special Assessments due from all Declarants during the applicable Service Association fiscal year shall be divided by the total amount of reduced Com- mon Assessments and Special Assessments due from the applicable Declarant during the applicable Service associa- tion fiscal year, and that quotient shall he multiplied by the total amount of such shortfall. (1) Repeal and Restatement. Article VTI1, Section 8.16(a) is hereby repealed in its entirety and the following Article Vlil, Section 8.16(a) is substituted: (i) Within the Service Association Area, no trailer, camping trailer, boat, boat accessories, trailer carrying recreation device, snowmobiles, all terrain vehicles, trucks or com- mercial vehicles larger than one (1) ton, Recreational Vehi- cle or similar vehicular equipment shall be parked or stored anywhere in the Service Association Arca, unless such vehicle is parked or stored within a garage, behind a six foot (6) high solid fence, or in designated parking or storage areas. Non -recreational oversized vehicles (larger than twenty-five (25) feet in length or one hundred (100) inches in height or ninety (90) inches in width) may not he parked on or at any Residential Site unless they are completely enclosed within a garage. Any such vehicles may be parkad as a temporary expedience, for up to seventy-two (72) hours, for loading, delivery of goods or services, or emergency, and may also be stored on such Privately Owned Sites or Pub- licly Owned Sites as may be specifically exempted from this restriction by any Supplemental Declaration. This restric- tion shall not apply to trucks or other commercial vehicles temporarily located within the Service Association Area or on any Residential Site which arc necessary for construction or for the maintenance of any Service Association Property or any Improvement located thereon. No automobile, truck or other vehicle may be parked in any side yard or rear yard unless behind a six foot fence 012r1957 wrn;r (' nr r, .pAaary• �vc;.. • -p RAararar •A aR ra r-" • +mon rara►-- f r A r, is 111•111.;"• i.:ag�Am r�WAMM AM=WMriLrRallMWAUWW %R.ra rMllarvra G1/a i.c■rM■C/.SPR r\h/] ■<raranaraar►ICLTL'AC7.."w Laaa ra Na.ar1 a r7ur�*naP .r]IaCrimta• '•PFrI/!esaarmarips Ra,M=MAnR,riea\aaau.s el ■ rraraaa- 11.t4. Nun IM:111-.11 Xi CaI ares-�•,r�-e� _..�.,uisiaP41 !Mr; -%4.ami _ L•._ - Y September 3, 2015 II EXHIBIT . Lt Dear Fred Jarman; County Commissioners Sampson, Martin, and Jankovsky; COGCC; and Ursa, My husband, Richard, and I had a house built in the Reserve of Battlement Mesa in 1998 when B. Mesa Co. was advertising it as the perfect place to retire. No gas wells could be seen. We knew that oil from shale had been tried up Parachute Creek and once again proved not profitable. Then in about 2009 Antero informed us that they were planning to drill within our community for natural gas. That was the first time that we saw a map Exxon had made in the 80's when they planned this community as a PUD and included 14+ well pads, each with only one well, inside this PUD. (See enclosed map, exhibit A.) Drilling ramped up all around us. Antero moved on and sold to Ursa. Ursa has been drilling from outside the PUD from various well pads and has permits to drill at least the Monument B (Richardson), Tompkins, and B&V Pads (the latter one in Parachute), all outside our PUD, but all able to access minerals underneath our community. Other companies have drilled around us. Williams has at least 2 pads that have accessed B. Mesa's minerals. Encana has at least 2. Ursa has said that they can only drill directionally in the Wms. Fork Formation 2500 feet out from a pad. Enclosed is a map of the well pads with that radius shown from each pad that has accessed our minerals. (exhibit B) There is only a small part that has not had the ability to be accessed, by Ursa's standards. If Exxon had drilled one well on each of their 14 pads, they would have accessed a lot less of their mineral rights than the multiple -well -pads of 15 to 25 wells per pad now in existence. You should deny Ursa their special use permit for the following reasons: 1. Battlement Mesa was set up as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). We have separate villages with specific covenants. Commercial is not allowed in the housing areas. Heavy industry (drilling) is incompatible with such a set-up. 2. Most of the minerals have already been accessed. Ursa can leave space on the Tompkins, Richardson, and Parachute pads for future wells to be drilled in the Wms. Fork Formation when future technology allows them to directional -drill up to a mile from a pad—if they absolutely insist on getting every bit of gas from beneath us. (They have stated that in the last 5 years technology has allowed them to reduce possible well pads down to 5 in our PUD. So why not wait another 5 to 10 years—or sell to someone else who can access those few remaining minerals from outside our PUD?) 3. Ursa has not submitted a complete CDP (Comprehensive Drilling Plan). They have only submitted phase 1 of 3. All 3 phases should be included in their special use permit, and the public should be able to comment on all of these phases at this time. 4. Phase 1 includes 2 pads, which are accessed by River Bluff Road IN Battlement Mesa. Since multiple wells are drilled from each pad, this will result in a great increase in traffic through the community. Battlement Parkway West and Stone Quarry Road are the two busiest streets right now. The majority of the residents use this route to get in and out of Battlement Mesa. 5. Pad D is in an open field, but it is surrounded by the villages of Stone Creek, Canyon View, Valley View, the apartments with nearby Fairway Villas, and Willow Creek. MANY residents will be impacted by the entire drilling process and maintenance of the pads, which can be up to 30 or more years. 6. Pad B is controversial since it is in the vicinity of our water intake and our treatment plant. 7. Natural gas prices are extremely low, so there is no urgency to drill at this time. Recommendations: A. Since Ursa wants to continue to drill, they should do so on the pads that already have permits. Then, several years from now, they can follow that with drilling the Niobrara wells, which they have said would be horizontal and thus can be done from OUTSIDE our PUD. B. Encourage Ursa to continue their best -use practices as they drill along our perimeter. C. Monitor our air quality regularly. D. Reduce industry traffic within the community. Perhaps designate the Rulison exit, instead of B. Parkway North as the route to be used, thus eliminating trucks from jake-breaking and from damaging our roads. Also, the tunnel from the front nine of the golf course to the back nine is showing failure signs due to heavy vehicle traffic over it, and the inadequate 2 -lane bridge across the Colorado River isn't suited for large equipment. E. Deny this and any future permits for drilling within our community so that we can get on with our lives and not have repeated attempts for a special use permit. (Contracts on homes have been cancelled when the buyers found out about possible drilling within our PUD. People have bought houses down valley instead. Many who needed to leave have sold for greatly reduced prices.) In conclusion, this special use permit should ultimately be denied. Since our commissioners can recommend this to the COGCC, we expect they will do so. The COGCC should respect the integrity of our PUD and the people within, since most of the minerals have already been accessed or will be with the permitted wells outside our PUD. Sincerely, Sandra Getter Ill 111111 11.111 .1. r.11.. } ;Litt:. 1iii:i111;t: ::ata t,.rr ;;rr r(;j1:;;'11 "`*t tnrr 1 i i it WA afi Z474 Pf Vr.L rrr l� • '�- 1► 1I • I f1"7 r1 4 ;�:;�, l iw% `4:s C — • i r A a - G •cr � •u 3 ,� :o v w U. -ee- Sib • 6.1 .d, 1 EXHIBIT 1 v Dear County Commissioner; 9/1/15 Last evening we went to a meeting at the Firehouse in Battlement Mesa. We, the homeowmers, discussed the upcoming meeting on Wednesday September 23, 2015 and the plans of URSA To build pads and drill for gas in areas very close to our homes and villages. First of all, we would like to invite you to come to Bafflement Mesa for the above mentioned meeting for two simple reasons: one, It is much easier for all the commissioners to travel to MB than to have 300 to 400 homeowners to travel to Glenwood Springs. Two, In this day and age, I am sure that we have adaquate if not better recording equipment here as you have there. Second, We would like you to personally back us in requesting URSA to prepare and place their pads further away from our homes and water supplies than they are currently planed. There is a lot of money involved in drilling gas and I am sure that planning their pads, etc. further away from our properties and water supply would not cost that much money more! With directional drilling available today they can explore and harvest their gas from miles from their site. Third, We do not mind them drilling for gas and oil, we need the energy, we only mind when they are as dose as a quarter of a mile from where we live and breath. We are all Human beings and we all have a right of Life, Liberty and the pursuite of Happiness. Please consider what I and others believe is a better way to go than the present plans of Ursa. Thank you, EJ and Jane Schultz, 223 Lodgepole Circle, Battlement Mesa CO 9704241025 ej123a@yahoo.com Fred Jarman From: Lindsay Krol Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:00 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Battlement Mesa EXHIBIT I vv Leta Terrell called to speak with you regarding the pipeline applications. She would like to register a formal complaint. She is a resident and was at the meeting on Monday night. Her contact number is 970-285-6647. &indrap,Ok rd Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-1377 x 1625 1 Fred Jarman From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:12 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Fwd: Website inquiry -BOCC Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Carolyn Bevel <carolvnbeve1604ki amail.com> Date: August 31, 2015, 9:39:25 PM MDT To: <tjankovsky(i: garfield-county.com> Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC Carolyn Bevel has sent you a message: Ursa plans to drill in Battlement Mesa 970-628-6615 PLEASE VOTE AGAINST BUILDING PERMITS FOR URSA TO DO ANY FURTHER DRILLING IN BATTLEMENT MESA! 1 Fred Jarman From: Dan Goin Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:55 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: URSA Traffic Study for B -Mesa If they comin from interstate by waterfall Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road & Bridge Mobile 970-309-1856 Dgoin(@siarfield-county.com Original message From: Fred Jarman <fjarman@garfield-county.com> To: Dan Goin <dgoin@garfield-county.com> Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 22:42:57 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: URSA Traffic Study for B -Mesa HI Dan, Were you going to recommend one route over the other? Thanks - Fred From: Dan Goin Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:54 PM To: Fred Jarman <fjarman@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: URSA Traffic Study for B -Mesa EXHIBIT Fred it is 1.4 miles from the bridge to CR 307 past the waterfall and 2.6 miles from RV park hill to CR 307 plus the three way stop at Battlement parkway and Stone Quarry is a very busy intersection this area is all marked as a no haul route which will have to be changed. The BMC -B pad they are good to go on because the driveway into Battlement Metro but the BMC -D will need driveway permit with apron. Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 From: Fred Jarman Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 2:18 PM To: Dan Goin Cc: Deb Fiscus Subject: URSA Traffic Study for B -Mesa Hey Dan, 1 Thanks for looking at these two reports. I would like to get your opinion on what the preferred haul route should be from the County's perspective. URSA is indicating that they would mostly use the Una bridge / CR 300 route rather than the water fall route. I am attaching the two key reports from the application that talks about this. Any thoughts? Thanks - Fred Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director, Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 (desk) (970) 987-1811 (mobile) www.garfield-county.com 2 Fred Jarman From: Patrick Burwell <patrick@cwtrifle.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 4:30 PM To: Fred Jarman Subject: RE: Title Question EXHIBIT I_t____ Hi Fred. Things are quite well thank you. Not sure why but the market for real estate has picked up this year and we even had to hire an additional closer. Hope things are well with you too. The simple answer to your question is yes. The surface use agreements or memoranda thereof do appear in the chain of title for the Battlement Subdivisions and on our current Schedule B -Section 2 of commitments issued for purchase transactions we list the exceptions for these SUA with links to the documents as follows: Terms, conditions and all matters set forth in surface use agreement by and between Battlement Mesa Partners, Battlement Mesa Realty Partners and Barrett Resources Corporation recorded July 8, 1999 in Book 1139 at Page 104. Terms, conditions and all matters set forth in Surface Use Agreement as evidenced by Memorandum recorded August 20, 2010 as Reception No. 790390. Terms, conditions and all matters set forth in Amendment to Surface Use Agreement as evidenced by Memorandum recorded June 10, 2015 as Reception No. 863878. For as long as I have been at Commonwealth Title, all of our Battlement Mesa commitments have included the surface use agreement recorded July 8, 1999 in Book 1139 at Page 104. We also are required to include as part of our commitment the following disclosure: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. If you need additional information, please let me know. Patrick P. Burwell 127 East 5th Street Rifle, Colorado 81650 Phone: 970 625-3300 Facsimile: 970 625-3305 Email: patrick@cwtrifle.com ECOMMONWEALTH TITLE COMPANY From: Fred Jarman [mailto:fjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:01 AM To: patrick@cwtrifle.com Subject: Title Question Hello Patrick, It's been a while since we connected and I hope you are well. I am currently doing a review of a land use application in Battlement Mesa related to URSA Operating Company's desire to drill two pads and construct a pipeline. As this review has evolved, a concern has raised from various citizens who purchased their homes in Battlement Mesa that there was nothing "of record" that indicated there was documentation regarding drilling plans. I have copies of recorded documents (SUA's, etc.) that I believe would show up in a chain of title or as exceptions, etc. for folks buying lots in B -Mesa which show these documents and maps of drilling locations, etc. My question: In your professional opinion, would these documents appear in the title documents for residential lots bought / sold in Battlement Mesa? Thanks for any advice insight you can provide. Please feel free to call me if you need t as well. Regards, Fred Fred A. Jarman, AICP Director, Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 (desk) (970) 987-1811 (mobile) www.garfield-countv.com 2 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Executive Summary 1. Introduction EXHIBIT Colorado School of Public Health The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) requested that the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to address citizen concerns about health impacts of natural gas development and production in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). The two primary functions of the HIA are to: • Identify ways in which Antero's proposed natural gas development project can affect the health of the Battlement Mesa residents. • Develop a priority list of recommendations to minimize the potential health impacts of Antero's proposed project. We worked with community members to identify the eight areas of concern: Air Pollution; Water and Soil Contamination; Traffic from Industry; Noise and Light Pollution; Community Wellness; Economic Impacts; Impacts on the Healthcare System; and Accidents and Malfunctions. Natural gas development in Battlement Mesa could, potentially, affect each of these eight areas of concern and human health. For example, trucks, drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes add sources of noise that would not exist were it not for natural gas development. Noise is also associated with various other health outcomes (e.g., stress, heart disease). We used existing data sources to conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses in these eight areas of concern as well as describe the baseline conditions in Battlement Mesa. The baseline conditions are a one time "snapshot" of Battlement Mesa resident health and environmental quality. In addition to being useful for the HIA, the description of baseline conditions serves as a comparison point for any future studies. We also analyzed any existing relevant data to assess how the natural gas industry operations might affect each of the eight areas of concern. The principal findings of the HIA are that health of Battlement Mesa residents will most likely be affected by chemical exposures, accidents/emergencies resulting from industry operations, and stress-related community changes. To address these potential health impacts, we provide more than 70 specific recommendations. These recommendations address the principal findings by focusing on pollution prevention, advancement of public safety and development of a Community Advisory Board. The following sections discuss these broad goals in the context of the principal fmdings, important remedies, and limitations of the HIA. I1. Possible Health Effects Possible Health Effects Due to Chemical Exposures ES -page 1 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health We used a variety of information sources and methods to assess the possible impact of chemical exposures on the health of Battlement Mesa residents. The information sources included Garfield County air monitoring data and related reports, resident statements of health effects related to the nearby natural gas activities, and health studies that explore the effects of chemical exposures. The Human Health Risk Assessment (or HHRA, Appendix D) is one tool that puts this information together as an integrated analysis. The risk assessment process is a method developed by scientists and policymakers to estimate how likely it would be for people to experience specific health effects (including, but not limited to cancer) as a result of being exposed to certain chemicals. We used a "screening" risk assessment methodology, as recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency when data gaps exist, to determine if chemicals exposures from Antero's natural gas project in the Battlement Mesa planned unit development could adversely affect public health. This kind of risk assessment provides a way to compare different chemical hazards and different exposure routes in circumstances where information about specific exposure levels and health effects is limited. The HIA team also followed guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on how to interpret the existing information. The Human Health Risk Assessment used information from a variety of sources to conclude that natural gas processes release chemicals that are known to impact health; chemicals emitted into the air from natural gas processes are more likely to impact health than chemicals released into the water or the soil; exposures from air emissions are likely to be highest during well completion activities; and residents living near a well pad (defined as within ''A mile) are more likely to experience health effects than residents living farther away from a well pad (defined as greater than %z mile). For decision makers, the primary value of a risk assessment is in its capacity to rank the relative magnitude of exposures and prioritize actions. The Battlement Mesa Human Health Risk Assessment identifies which airborne chemicals most likely to impact health. This information can help guide decisions about where to focus pollution prevention efforts. Since the risk assessment indicates that in Battlement Mesa exposure to chemicals in the air is more likely to occur than exposure to chemicals in the water or soil, methods to reduce air pollution and monitor the air should be the focus of current and future pollution prevention. Possible Health Effects Due to Unsafe Industrial Operations in a Residential Neighborhood Natural gas development is potentially hazardous because it uses large numbers of heavy trucks for well pad construction, drilling and completion operations, maintenance activities and pipeline installations. Thus gas industry traffic can pose important safety concerns in residential neighborhoods. More vehicles and heavy truck traffic in school zones and on residential streets increases the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes, some of which could result in fatal and non- fatal injuries. Decreasing or eliminating industrial traffic on residential streets will reduce or remove associated safety risks. ES -page 11 Draft Battlement Mesa 1-UUA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Industrial incidents, such as accidents and malfunctions involving wells and pipelines near homes, place residents at increased risk of exposure to fires, explosions and uncontrolled chemical releases. Previous reports to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission indicate that minor and major incidents occur in the course of natural gas processes. Prevention of well site accidents, pipeline breaches and other incidents will reduce the risk of injuries and illnesses to community members. Attention to preventing minor spills and accidents, tracking and analysis of near -misses, and analysis of incidents when they do occur will provide the information necessary to prevent a catastrophic event. Possible Health Effects Due to Community Changes Social norms (in other words, community members' sense of their "normal way of life") can be impacted in various ways, including: • The presence of industrial activity in a previously non -industrial area • A perceived loss of shared community ideals and cohesion • Declining property values • Impacts to the education system • Sudden changes in population numbers, demographics and customs Community impacts of the natural gas industry during the boom of 2003-2008 and decline of 2009 included increased crime and sexually transmitted diseases, declining property values and impacts on the educational environment. Some residents report that social norms in Battlement Mesa have been impacted by the proposal of the Antero project and have caused Battlement Mesa residents additional stress. The potential health effects of stress are difficult to quantify but should not be underestimated. Stress contributes to risk for heart disease, obesity, and other common chronic health conditions. Addressing impacts to the Battlement Mesa community can help address changes to social norms and potentially decrease health effects related to increased stress. III.Remedies to address Principal Findings Reduce the Likelihood that Battlement Mesa Residents will be Exposed to Industrial Chemicals At this time, there are no studies that document a "safe" distance between natural gas wells and homes, schools, and other places occupied by community members. Preliminary studies in the natural gas fields, results of air modeling from other industrial operations, and the laws of physics lead us to a basic conclusion: pollutant concentrations generally decrease with increasing the distance from an emission source. Since each well pad is unique, it is difficult to determine one safe setback for all residences. This issue is further complicated by noting that multiple well pads in the same general area may impact the air in or around a residence. It is not known if current set back distances from a well ES -page 1 1 1 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health pad to residences are sufficient to protect the public from chemical exposures that may result in short or long term health effects. Therefore, steps should be taken to decrease emissions from all sources and wherever feasible increase the distance between well pads and roads and residences to and schools. We recommend that Antero be required to use the best available technology to reduce air emissions from gas production sites. Promote Safe Industrial Operations in a Residential Neighborhood Because Antero proposes to develop natural gas operations within a residential community, safe industrial operations are very important. Removal of industrial traffic from residential roads will reduce the safety hazard associated with heavy trucks within the planned unit development. Regular inspection of well installations, pipeline installations, maintenance procedures and other infrastructure is warranted. When major or minor incidents occur reports should be made to Garfield County Oil and Gas Department as well as Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. These reports should include plans for actions to prevent these incidents from happening in the future. Clear emergency response policies and procedures particular to natural gas development in Battlement Mesa should be developed. Emergency response plans should consider schools, the assisted living facility, businesses and residents who may be impacted by an industrial emergency in the planned unit development because there are limited routes in and out of Battlement Mesa. Foster Effective Communication Between Stakeholders Natural gas development and production activities are projected to continue in Battlement Mesa for twenty to thirty years. Communication between Antero, the citizens of Battlement Mesa, the Battlement Mesa Company, and Garfield County officials will be crucial for addressing community concerns. We recommend that Garfield County establish a Community Advisory Board to foster better con niunication between stakeholders for the duration of the natural gas project. The BOCC should consider hiring someone trained in mediation, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution, to facilitate the community advisory board meetings. This expert could help the Community Advisory Board develop clear by-laws, responsibilities, meeting procedures and conditions for membership, among other things. The Community Advisory Board would provide a way for stakeholders to communicate issues that impact all parties. For instance, Antero could update community residents and Garfield County officials about changes to their development plans. The Community Advisory Board would also be a mechanism for providing input to how the million -dollar donation from Antero supports community and physical health. Mediation services should proceed as long as members agree that the services are useful. IV. Information Gaps The HIA is based on data that already existed when the HIA began. Neither the health data nor the environmental data that were available to us were sufficient to make specific predictions ES -page IV Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health about expected health impacts. Without taking multiple individual measurements, it is difficult predict individual exposures and health impacts. Therefore, we were not able to forecast the specific numbers of people who could experience health effects or the magnitude of changes in disease rates. Filling Information Gaps We recommend the collection of baseline and ongoing air, groundwater, surface water, and soil data around well pads and the centralized water storage facility. Furthermore, this information should be publicly available. This information will provide baseline levels for comparison to (and thus direct feedback) the impacts of the Antero — Battlement Mesa project and allow for improvement of project best practices as the project goes through development, production, and reclamation periods. Environmental studies should further characterize air emissions and odor events and model exposures to residents living near natural gas operations. Monitoring and evaluation of exposure to air toxics, particulate matter, and ozone should be conducted. We further recommend that Garfield County continue to support collection and analysis of baseline and ongoing health information. Health studies should include measurements related to physical health, lifestyle and social cohesion, education, crime, sexually transmitted infection, mental health and suicide, substance abuse, and economic impacts. These environmental and health studies will help assess the impact of residential natural gas development on the environment, community, and individual health and the effectiveness of pollution control measures. It will provide valuable information for Garfield County to address community concerns about the impacts of natural gas development in residential neighborhoods. ES -page V Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Part One: Health Impact Assessment Preface 111.4 is used to evaluate objectively the potential health effects of a project or policy before it is built or implemented. 11114 can provide recommendations to increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. The 1114 framework is used to bring potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans, projects, and policies that fall outside of traditional public health arenas. such as transportation and land use. - Centers for Disease Control The health of an individual human being is determined by a complex interaction of social, economic, genetic, and environmental factors which he or she experiences throughout life. Income, access to clean drinking water, unpolluted air, social support from friends and family, healthy food, access to education, and a whole host of other factors combine to have a profound effect on the health of an individual. Similarly, when social, economic, and environmental conditions are common to a group of people, those conditions can influence the health of the population as a whole. Public policies have the potential to impact an individual's and a population's health. While there are public programs and policies designed to influence population health (e.g. food safety regulations), population health is not accounted for in all or even most of the policies that can impact health. To improve the accessibility and utility of existing scientific knowledge as it applies to program and policy development, public health researchers have developed the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach. While HIAs vary in their goals and methods, the general approach is consistent across HIAs: A group of public health experts works with community stakeholders to identify the potential health risks and potential benefits to public health of a proposed policy, program, or project. The HIA team then collects information to assess how likely public health will be impacted. Based on the potential impacts and the estimated likelihood of those impacts, the HIA team offers recommendations to maximize public health gains and minimize negative effects of the program, project or policy at hand. While the goal of an HIA is to anticipate and provide recommendations that advance public health, it cannot be expected to prevent all negative health impacts of a given decision. A HIA is an approach to incorporating public health into decision-making processes. As opposed to costly retrofitting and remediation, HIAs are proactive and preventive public health tools that have the potential to save health care costs in the long-term. HIAs are open processes that necessarily include stakeholder participation, review, and input as an essential part of the methods. Through this open dialogue, the HIA seeks to generate realistic and broadly supported recommendations to protect public health. A HIA differs from a scientific epidemiological study in that an epidemiological study typically evaluates the effects of exposures on populations after the exposures have occurred, whereas, a Part One Page 1 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health HIA is conducted before a project or policy is started, with the ultimate goal of identifying potential exposures and determining if there are needs to mitigate their impact on health. Both kinds of investigations provide valuable information to those concerned with understanding and protecting public health. Regarding Ozone and Human Health The impact of ground level ozone and ozone precursors are not included in this HIA. The Antero project itself will contribute ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides), however, it is the sum of the ozone precursors produced in the county that contributes to ozone levels county wide. Ozone can cause important negative health effects and should be the considered when discussing public health in Garfield County. However, the impact of Antero's contribution to ozone on the health of Battlement Mesa citizens is not discussed in this assessment. Regarding Climate Change and Human Health This Health Impact Assessment does not account for the potential health effects of climate change. There is reason to believe that fossil fuel combustion has changed the global climate. There is also reason to believe that climate change will impact human health-. However, it is in the opinion of the HIA authors that while this specific natural gas development contributes to climate change, is not likely to influence the global climate enough to have a measurable impact on the health of Battlement Mesa residents. Part One Page 2 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 1 Introduction The Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) was commissioned by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in order to address citizen concerns about health impacts of natural gas development and production in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). The HIA scope of work was informed by citizen concerns and was limited to Battlement Mesa. The HIA process included stakeholder participation and review. The two primary functions of the HIA are to: • Identify ways in which Antero's proposed natural gas development project can affect the health of the Battlement Mesa residents. • Develop a priority list of recommendations to minimize the potential health impacts of Antero's proposed project. We worked with community members to identify the eight areas of concern: Air Pollution; Water and Soil Contamination; Traffic from Industry; Noise and Light Pollution; Community Wellness; Economic Impacts; Impacts on the Healthcare System; and Accidents and Malfunctions. Natural gas development in Battlement Mesa could, potentially, affect each of these eight areas of concern and human health. For example, trucks, drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes add sources of noise that would not exist were it not for natural gas development. Noise is also associated with various other health outcomes (e.g., stress, heart disease). The principal findings of the HIA are that health of Battlement Mesa residents will most likely be affected by chemical exposures, accidents/emergencies resulting from industry operations, and stress-related community changes. To address these potential health impacts we provide more than 70 specific recommendations. These recommendations address the principal findings by focusing on pollution prevention; advancement of public safety; and development of a Community Advisory Board. Methodical assessments of each of the areas of concern use available data, tools and scientific literature to provide justification for the recommendations. The HIA identified several information gaps. Because of these gaps, we were not able to provide precise predictions of health outcomes potentially associated with the natural gas project. The recommendations provided were developed to protect public health in light of these gaps. Recommendations to fill information gaps are also included. The document is a revision of the original HIA which was released for public and stakeholder comment in September 2010. The HIA was revised and reorganized based on public and stakeholder comments and newly available information. Appendix E contains comments. We assigned a code (e.g. Al or BCC1) to each comment. These codes then correspond to our specific response to comments contained in Appendix F. For example, a comment assigned a code of Al in Appendix E has a specific response coded Al in Appendix F. Below is a summary of the natural gas project plans, community concerns and responses to these concerns to date. Also below is a summary of the Battlement Mesa Baseline Health Profile. Part One Page 3 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 1.1 Antero's Plan to Drill within the Battlement Mesa PUD Technological advances (e.g. hydraulic fracturing) have contributed to natural gas development in areas previously not considered for such activities. Whereas oil and gas development has historically taken place in locations that are geographically distant from human habitation (other than, perhaps, the housing for oil and gas workers themselves), it is increasingly common for drilling activities to occur in rural, suburban, and urban areas close to where people otherwise unaffiliated with the industry live, work and playa. Throughout the United States and in Garfield County, the residents in close proximity to drilling activities are raising concerns about the potential impacts drilling may have on air quality, water quality, public safety, and public health4. In its purpose statement accompanying their rules, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) specifies counties, including Garfield, within Colorado's Piceance basin as facing particularly challenging public health issues because of the rapid growth of the industry into populated areas in this areas. The human health impact of natural gas development and production has not been thoroughly studied. In the Spring of 2009, Antero announced plans develop natural gas within the Battlement Mesa PUD, utilizing mineral rights acquired from Exxon, The Battlement Mesa Company (BMC), and others'. Figure 1 shows the locations of the 9 well pads Antero intends to develop within the PUD as well as 3 other pads outside the PUD. There will be approximately 200 wells on the pads in the PUD. Antero also plans to develop a water storage and management system within the PUD, which will reduce truck traffic associated with the well development process. In addition, pipelines for natural gas and water movement will be installed. The contract that establishes the PUD requires the Garfield County BOCC to review any proposed land -use changes within the Battlernent Mesa PUD through a Special Use Permit (also known as the SUP) process. The Garfield County BOCC has the authority to require modifications to the plans outlined in a given Special Use Permit application. Because its plans pertain to the Battlement Mesa PUD, Antero will submit a Special Use Permit to the BOCC before initiating drilling activities. In addition to county review, Antero will also submit plans through a state permitting process, conducted by the COGCC. Under a 2008 rule7, natural gas operators may submit Comprehensive Drilling Plans to COGCC5. If Antero submits a Comprehensive Drilling Plan to COGCC, COGCC will review the development project as a whole, which streamlines permitting for individual wells within Antero's project. There have been no permit applications submitted to Garfield County or COGCC as of the date of this HIA report. Antero has, however, entered into a legally -binding Surface Use Agreement with the BMC. This Surface Use Agreement outlines characteristics of the natural gas drilling plans for the Battlement Mesa PUD. While not as detailed as a Special Use Permit or Comprehensive Drilling Plan, the Surface Use Agreement between Antero and the BMC provides some information regarding Antero's plans for the Battlement Mesa project. Furthermore, Antero held 19 community meetings, which were open to the public, during 2009- 2011 where plans for Part One Page 4 Dra'R Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Antero's project were described. Power point presentations from these meetings are available online$ -9. These sources of information plus information provided to us by Antero are used as a basis for this HIA. Appendix A includes a summary of the natural gas drilling process. Appendix B includes a review of energy development in the Piceance basin and the Surface Use Agreement between Antero and BMC. Appendix BB includes a site description of the Battlement Mesa Community. 1.2 Community Concerns After Antero announced its intentions to drill within the Battlement Mesa PUD, community members living in Battlement Mesa expressed concern regarding potential environmental, health, and safety impacts. Citizen concerns have included but are not limited to: • The proximity of drilling and gas production to homes, recreational areas, and schools • "Vulnerable" populations with diminished immune capacity • Exposure to airborne volatile organic compounds (VOCs), diesel emissions, particulate matter (PM), and other air contaminants • Exposure to fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, hydrocarbons, and VOCs through soil or water exposure routes • Potential increased risk of fires, explosions and/or motor vehicle crashes • Changes in community "livability" A grassroots advocacy organization, the Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens (BCC) formed under a parent organization, the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance. In November 2009, the BCC submitted a citizen petition to the Garfield County BOCC requesting that BOCC require Antero to address health concerns before drilling for natural gas within the Battlement Mesa PUD. While the human health impacts of natural gas development and production have not been specifically studied using state-of-the-art public health epidemiologic research methods, there has been substantial research related to exposures of potential concern in the natural gas industry. For instance, drilling for natural gas has the potential to increase occupational and community exposures to VOCs such as benzene, toluene, ethyl -benzene and xylene (BTEX). Heavy metals associated with drilling waste, particulate matter (PM) generated by transportation activities and diesel fuel combustion, and ozone precursors (ozone formation) are also known to be associated with natural gas development. Some constituents of hydraulic fracturing chemicals may pose health risks to workers or community members. Sufficient exposures to these chemical compounds are associated with serious negative health outcomes such as lung disease in children and adults (i.e., asthma, chronic bronchitis, obstructive disease), cardiovascular disease, poor birth outcomes (premature birth, low birth weight, congenital malformations), various cancers, and other long and short-term health issues 1U-14. Part One Page 5 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Environmental contaminants to which people may be exposed include air emissions, ground and surface water pollution and soil contamination. In addition, physical hazards can include increased truck traffic and domestic explosions associated with gas seepage into domestic water supplies. Social hazards can include a variety of community disruptions associated with boom - and -bust cycles, itinerant workforces, and industrialization of residential areas15. 1.3 Initial Responses to Community Concerns In response to community concerns, Antero has held several informational community meetings9 and has responded to community concerns by modifying some of its drilling plans, for example the removal of drilling pad C (replaced by the Parks and Rec pad). The Surface Use Agreement between Antero and BMC includes some measures which are intended to reduce the impact on the community's health and quality of life. Even before it commissioned the HIA, Garfield County had undertaken many steps in response to community concerns regarding natural gas development and production in the county. Garfield County Public Health Department (GCPH), the county health department, initiated and managed the Saccommano Report and currently manages on-going ambient air monitoring stations at several locations in Garfield County. The Garfield County Oil and Gas Department (GCOG) initiated and managed an intensive study of water quality and hydrology of the Mamm Creek Gas Field. GCPH also has participated in numerous Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), COGCC, and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air and water studies documenting: • Air toxics (e.g. benzene) in ambient air, at levels higher than levels measured in a neighboring county with no gas development 16 • Evidence of ground -level ozone formation, which once surpassed the EPA 8 hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) in 2008 17 • Ground water containing thermogenic methane in natural gas development and production areas 18-2O • Trends in health impacts consistent with potential exposures (via a county -wide health assessment) 21 • Citizen concerns over oil and gas impacts to health (via county -wide surveys)22 In November 2011 the BOCC instructed GCPH to address the BCC's concerns raised in its citizen petition. GCPH approached the CSPH with a request to collaborate on a HIA. Subsequently, the BOCC agreed to contract with the CSPH to conduct this HLA. Through funding from the Pew Health Impact. Project, a Canadian HIA consultation firm with experience in resource development projects, Habitat Health Impact Consulting has provided technical assistance to the CSPH for this HIA. Part One Page 6 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 1.4 Battlement Mesa Health Profile As part of the HIA, we completed the Battlement Mesa Health Profile. We used available data to evaluate the baseline health of the residents of the Battlement Mesa Community. These data were analyzed using the 2000 U.S. Census information to calculate rates. Several measures of health are best determined by using zip code to define a community. We use the zip codes 81635 and 81636, which are used by the residents of Battlement Mesa, Parachute and surrounding areas. Because these zip codes are shared, Parachute is included along with Battlement Mesa in the descriptions of physical health determinants and some social health determinants. Some of the social health determinant measurements were not available at a zip code level, and so we provide descriptions of these at a county level. While the assessments of stressors focus on the impacts to those living within the Battlement Mesa PUD, others living nearby may experience some effects as well. The entire Battlement Mesa Baseline Health Profile is available in Appendix C. 1.4.1 Measures of Physical Health To assess the baseline physical health of the Battlement Mesa/Parachute area, we obtained inpatient hospital diagnoses, cancer, birth, and death analyzed information from the CDPHE for the years 1998-2008. The analysis included health diagnoses, birth outcomes, and causes of death with a known association between disease and the exposures of concern, as well as those for which community members voiced concerns of elevated occurrence of disease. Major categories of disease and death included depression and those involving the nervous system, ear/nose/throat, vascular system and pulmonary system. Major categories of cancer included: Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, melanoma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, and cancer of the adrenal gland. Birth outcomes included low birth weight and preterm delivery. Health for Battlement Mesa/Parachute residents was compared to the health of Colorado residents. Overall, the citizens of Battlement Mesa appear to be generally healthier than other citizens of Colorado. They experienced fewer hospitalizations and fewer deaths. Battlement Mesa women experienced the same rates of cancer and of negative birth outcomes as other women in Colorado. In Battlement Mesa men, we observed a slightly higher than expected rate of prostate cancer, which we felt is an observation likely due to variability of small numbers or statistical chance (when multiple independent tests are compared, there is a statistical probability that 5 % of the tests will be abnormal by chance alone). No other differences were noted between men in Battlement Mesa when compared with other Colorado men. There are no systematic databases describing out-patient or emergency room visits. Data regarding mental health was not available. Part One Page 7 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 1.4.2 Measures of Community Health To evaluate the baseline community health in Battlement MesalParachute, we obtained available information regarding sexually transmitted infections, crime, substance abuse, and education. Where information concerning Battlement Mesa was not available, we looked at Garfield County data. Systematic collection of measures of community health, cohesion and well-being in Battlement Mesa being are not being conducted. Overall, the incidence of sexually transmitted infections in Garfield County rose during the years 2005- 2008, peaking between 2007 and 2008. Between the years 1992-2005, for adults, violent crime arrests doubled; property arrests fluctuated throughout the period, and increased slightly; and drug violations increased almost ten -fold. In the same time period, for juveniles, violent crime arrests increased; property arrests fluctuated but did not change significantly; and drug violations increased almost ten -fold. Substance abuse and mental health information extracted from the GCPH's 2006 assessment on community needs indicates depression, anxiety and stress along with tobacco smoking and alcohol abuse appear to be the top indicators of the burden of mental health and substance abuse, respectively, in Garfield County, Part One Page 8 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision ] February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Figure 1: Locations of Proposed Well Pads within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development Part one Page 9 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 3 Findings and Recommendations In this section, we provide over 70 specific recommendations, based on the assessments of the eight areas of concern, to protect the health of the Battlement Mesa residents for the duration of Antero's project. 3.1 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Air Quality Assessment What we know: Air pollution is a known hazard to the public health. There is sufficient information available to indicate that even with current practices and technologies the natural gas industry produces large amounts of air pollutants. In addition, Antero's recent well development activities on the Watson Ranch pad resulted in short term health impacts. Antero has proposed additional mitigation measures for the project in Battlement Mesa but these mitigations are as yet untested. Further mitigation measures may be needed to reduce the likelihood of health effects. As it stands, the Antero project has the potential to pollute the air and negatively impact the public health in Battlement Mesa. Many information gaps exist. What we do not know: Currently, there is not enough information to determine whether or not current federal, state, and COGCC regulations and rules are sufficient to protect public health from air pollution resulting from natural gas development and production in high population density areas such as the Battlement Mesa PUD. To protect the health of Battlement Mesa residents, we recommend the implementation of air pollution prevention measures some of which may be above and beyond those mandated in federal, state, and COGCC regulations and rules as an integral part of Antero's project and the monitoring of air quality and the health of residents in Battlement Mesa to ensure public health is protected throughout Antero's 30 -year project. Prior to approval of the special use permit, we recommend the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Demonstrate that the low emissions flow back technology Antero is developing is effective in reducing air emissions. Antero should pilot test the system and monitor air emissions using EPA methods with detection limits adequate for the assessment of human exposure and prevention of human health effects. An effective demonstration would show that levels of air pollutants, such as benzene, as measured in 24-hour ambient air samples at 350, 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 feet and in each cardinal direction, from the well pad perimeter, are not higher than those measured at the Battlement Mesa monitoring station. Antero should make all test results publically available on Garfield County's website and/or on a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community, three months prior to any drilling within the PUD. Part One Page 12 Draft Battlement Mesa FHA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 2. Disclose all chemicals that will be used on its well pads within the PUD. We recommend Garfield County to keep a list of these chemicals on its website and/or on a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community. 3. Establish a system for immediate response to odor complaints that includes options for ceasing operations, notification of affected residents, and temporary relocation of residents until the source of the odor is identified and resolved. We encourage Antero to communicate the tinning of well completion activities to Battlement Mesa residents, which could allow for voluntary shutting of windows and air intakes or temporary relocation. 4. Submit a quality assurance project plan (also known as a QAPP) to GCPH and GCOG for review and approval for all monitoring specified in these recommendations to assure monitoring information will be adequate for informing public health decisions prior to any activities in the PUD. As a condition of the special use permit, we recommend that the B©CC require Antero to: 5. Complete the installation of a fully functional water storage facility and water pipeline network prior to any drilling within the PUD to realize the full air pollution prevention benefit. 6. Use permitted tanks rather than a pond at the centralized water storage facility. See recommendations for Water and Soil Assessment for further details of water storage facility recommendations. 7. Use an effective and validated low emissions flow back process for all well completions within the PUD. 8. Route production tank venting emissions through a VOC combustor operated with auto - igniters on all well pads within the PUD. 9. Use vapor recovery technology when available, rather than combustion, to further reduce air pollution. 10. Obtain an emissions permit from CDPHE for each well pad production tank within the PUD, per COGCC rules. The COGCC rules require permitting for production tanks within '% mile of an occupied structure with the capacity for 5 tons per year of VOC emissions, which is the case for most of Antero's proposed well pads. Our recommendation may be beyond the COGCC rule at one or two well pads. This recommendation is necessary, however, for the protection of public health because odors have been noticed up to %z mile from the Watson Ranch pad. The Y mile distance in the rule is not based on a health -based air pollution standard, and the permit provides a mechanism for the establishment of inspection and monitoring requirements. 11. Work with GCPH to implement an air monitoring program for all well completion activities within the PUD and at the centralized water storage facility. At a minimum, this program should include collection of 24 -ambient air samples and grab samples, real- time VOC monitoring, odor monitoring, and collection of grab samples when odors are noticed. Part One Page 13 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 12. Annually disclose all chemicals and volumes used on its well pads within the PUD and include any chemicals that are VOCs in the air monitoring program. We recommend Garfield County to keep a list of these chemicals on its website and/or a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community. 13. Implement the system for immediate response to odor complaints that includes options for ceasing operations. Implement a system for notification of affected residents, and temporary relocation of residents until the source of the odor is identified and resolved. We encourage Antero to communicate the timing of well completion activities to Battlement Mesa residents, which could allow for voluntary shutting of windows and air intakes or temporary relocation. 14. Make all air monitoring results within the PUD publically available for posting on the Garfield County website and/or a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community, no later than 60 -days following the collection of samples. 15. Comply with COGCC green completion practices and EPA's natural gas STAR program to reduce VOC emissions to the lowest level technically possible at all well pads within the PUD, 16. Specify where in the PUD Antero will use electric grid power for drilling and/or other operations. 17. Adhere to dust control measures and traffic measures specified in the Special Use Agreement. 18. Establish and implement a plan that ensures all trucks used for its plan within the PUD meet emission standards specified in the Clean Fuel Vehicles (heavy trucks) for the Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFR Part 88.105-94) to reduce VOC, PAH, and PM emissions. This will reduce air pollution in the PUD. 19. Prevent the idling of trucks on well pads and along roads in the PUD for longer than 10 minutes. 20. Ensure truckloads of dirt, sand, aggregate materials, drilling cuttings, and similar materials are covered to reduce dust and PM emissions. We recommend that the BOCC: 21. Assign a county inspector to monitor Antero's compliance with the special use permit and that the special use permit contain provisions for regulatory action if Antero is found to be in non-compliance. 22. Assign an independent observer acting on their behalf, to participate in the demonstration of the low emission flow back tank described in recommendation 1. The independent observer would be responsible for confirming sample locations and timing as well as monitoring for odors. The independent observer would collect grab samples if odors are noticed during the demonstration for evaluation of possible short-term peak exposures. Finally, we strongly encourage Antero to: Part One Page 14 Draft Battlement Mesa HEA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 23. Use all its best management practices for reduction of air pollution in the PUD during the next phase of drilling and well completions at the Watson Ranch pad and /or other pads outside the PUD, to conduct rigorous air and odor monitoring, and to make all results publically available. This is an ideal opportunity for Antero to show the BOCC and the residents of Battlement that it can effectively control air emissions and address community concerns. 3.2 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Water and Soil Quality Assessment What we know: Water pollution is hazardous to the public health. Garfield County Oil and Gas studies, EPA studies, and other studies demonstrate that natural gas development and production. can release contaminants to domestic water supplies and compromise water quality. Individual circumstances can influence the potential contamination of water. In Garfield County, accidents and malfunctions have been the most common cause of water contamination from natural gas development and production. However, the Mamrn Creek Hydrological Study indicates some impacts to groundwater, such as increased levels of chloride and methane, from routine natural gas operations. If a domestic water resource is contaminated, remediation is time and cost intensive and may not restore the water resource to a quality for domestic use. What we do not know: The hydrogeology in Battlement Mesa has not been characterized and the relationship between groundwater, domestic water supplies, and the Colorado River in not. well understood. The extent of the impact of routine natural gas development and production on water quality is not known. Systematic monitoring is needed to verify that ground water is not compromised by routine natural gas development and production operations. Systematic monitoring can also provide early warning if water becomes contaminated. To protect the health of Battlement Mesa residents and to protect the Battlement Mesa's secondary drinking water source, we recommend the implementation of water and soil pollution prevention measures some of which may be above and beyond those mandated in federal, state, and COGCC regulations and rules as an integral part of Antero's project and the monitoring of water quality and the health of residents in Battlement Mesa to ensure public health is protected throughout Antero's 30 -year project. As a condition of the special use permit, we recommend that the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Disclose all chemicals that will be used on its well pads within the PUD. 2. Characterize the geology and hydrogeology within the Battlement Mesa PUD and the primary and secondary domestic water supplies, according to the specifications in COGCC rule 908. 3. Submit a quality assurance project plan (also known as a QAPP) to GCPFI and GCOG for review and approval for all sampling and monitoring specified in these recommendations to assure monitoring information will be adequate for informing public health decisions. Part One Page 15 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 4. Complete the installation of a fully functional water management facility and water pipeline network prior to any drilling within the PUD to decrease potential of contamination of soil and surface water on individual well pads and decrease potential for truck accidents to contaminate surface waters and soils in case of an accident. Before approval of the special use permit, we recommend that the &DCC require Antero to: 5. Comply with COGCC rule 908, which pertains to non-commercial centralized E&P waste management facilities, for the centralized water storage facility, which will be handling E&P waste (i.e., recycling water used in well completions). One of the best management practices Antero has proposed for its Battlement Mesa project is a centralized water storage pond, which will allow for pit -less drilling on the pads, the recycling of water used in well completions, and reduced potential for water and soil contamination at the well sites. We have recommended that this facility be installed prior to any drilling. COGCC rule 908 requires permitting, a hydrogeological characterization, groundwater, soil, and surface water testing for centralized E&P waste management facilities. 6. Use permitted tanks, rather than a storage pond for water storage at the centralized water storage facility. While tanks are not required by COGCC, the use of tanks reduces the potential for water and pollution that could occur if a pond/pit liner was compromised or if a pond/pit overflowed. Tanks also have the added advantage of reducing air pollution and reducing inadvertent wildlife and pet exposures. 7. Locate the centralized water storage facility be located at least a mile from any residential structure or school as a condition of approval of the special use permit. This is because the water storage facility will be handling E&P waste (i.e. recycled water from well completions). 8. Annually disclose all chemicals and volumes used on its well pads within the PUD and include any chemicals that are VOCs in the water monitoring program as a condition of the special use permit. We recommend Garfield County to keep a list of these chemicals on its website. 9. Install at least one up -gradient and two down -gradient groundwater monitoring wells at each well pad as well as at the centralized water storage facility, in addition to the voluntary water well testing program specified in Antero's best management practices. Antero should also conduct baseline sampling for, at a minimum, the following: all major cations and anions, total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, nitrates, nitrites, selenium, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, methane, pH, specific conductance, and any chemical identified in the full disclosure of chemicals of potential concern. This monitoring will ensure that drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other operations do not compromise ground water. 10. Conduct monthly monitoring of the well site groundwater wells for the parameters specified in the proceeding recommendation during well drilling and completion activities, followed by annual monitoring for the duration of Antero's project. All results of this monitoring should be made available to the public within 60 days of sample collection and posted on Garfield County's website. If (1) benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, or xylenes are detected at levels greater than the concentration levels specified in Table 910-1 of the COGCC rules; (2) any cations, anions, metals, or total dissolved solids exceed 1.25 times background Part One Page 16 Draft Battlement Mesa HBA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health concentrations; (3) methane or any chemical identified as a concern from the full disclosure of chemicals exceeds 1.25 background concentrations; or (4) if pH or specific conductance exceeds the limits specified in COGCC table 910-1, the BOCC should require Antero to remediate as a condition of the special use permit. This type of monitoring is the best way to ensure pollution control measures are effective in protecting the groundwater resource. 11. Conduct baseline soil and surface water testing at all well pad locations and at the location of the centralized water facility for the parameters specified in COGCC Table 910-1, in addition to the wetland/drainage survey and mapping specified in Antero's best management practices 12. Perform monthly monitoring of any surface water bodies that are located within mile of a well pad or the centralized water storage facility using the same parameters specified for the groundwater monitoring during well drilling and completion activities, followed by annual monitoring for the duration of the project. This type of monitoring is the best way to ensure pollution control measures are preventing exposures through contamination of surface water. 13. Conduct soil testing at all well pad locations and at the centralized water facility during reclamation activities. All results of this monitoring should be made available to the public within 60 days of sample collection and posted on a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community website. If (1) benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, or xylenes are detected at levels greater than the concentration levels specified in Table 910-1 of the COGCC rules; (2) any cations, anions, metals, or total dissolved solids exceed 1.25 times background concentrations; (3) methane or any chemical identified as a concern from the full disclosure of chemicals exceeds 1.25 background concentrations; or (4) if pH or specific conductance exceeds the limits specified in COGCC table 910-1, the BOCC should require Antero to remediate as a condition of the special use permit. This type of monitoring is the best way to ensure pollution control measures are preventing exposures through contamination of soil. 14. Adhere to COGCC rules 317B, 603, 904, and 908, including provisions in these rules that are at the discretion of the director, and identify any variances or exceptions to these rules and make any variances or exceptions publically available (as posted on Garfield County website and/or a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community) 2 months prior to submission of the special use permit. 15. Develop and implement plans to ensure removal of mud from vehicles leaving the well pads and access roads to prevent tracking of mud onto Battlement Mesa and Garfield County roads. 16. Adhere to all its best management practices in Appendix E for spill prevention, control, and storm water control, and groundwater and surface water resources. 17. Create a berm for all down gradient well pad perimeters and surface water diversion ditches to prevent pollution of water and soil. 18. Conduct monthly inspection of water and gas pipeline for leaks to prevent water and soil pollution and that the results of the inspections be posted on the Garfield County Website. 19. Immediately Report to GCOG (in addition to COGCC) any spill of one or more barrels. Notification should take place within 24 hours and keep records of spill quantities, clean-up activities and preventive measures taken to avoid future spills. Notification should be immediate if water sources are impacted. Part One Page 17 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 20. Cover all drill cuttings when stored on well pads to prevent wind transport and soil pollution. We recommend that the BOCC: 21. Assign a Garfield County inspector to monitor Antero's compliance with the special use permit and that the special use permit contain provisions for regulatory action if Antero is found to be in non-compliance of the special use permit. 3.3 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Traffic and Transportation Assessment What we know: An increase in traffic is associated with an increase in risk for motor vehicle accidents that can involve cars, pedestrians, and bicycles. These accidents can result in severe injury and death and the risk of severe injuries in motor vehicle accidents increases as the speed of traffic increases. Accidents involving heavy trucks have greater potential for death than those involving smaller vehicles. Increased traffic also increases air pollution and noise levels, and decreases quality of life for those living nearby. We know that Antero anticipates increased truck traffic on residential roads for the duration of the 5 year well development period. What we do not know: We do not know if Battlement Mesa has dangerous traffic spots or the normal pedestrian/bicycle patterns. Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to reduce the potential impact of traffic and transportation. As a condition of the special use permit, we recommend that the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Install a fully functional water storage facility and pipeline network before any development of well pads in the Battlement Mesa. 2. Develop industrial haul routes outside the PUD to remove natural gas development and production -associated traffic from residential roads prior to any well pad construction within the PUD. Industrial traffic should be diverted from Stone Quarry Road to industrial haul routes at locations were homes are backed along the road. If industrial haul routes outside the PUD are not constructed then we recommend the following conditions be met: 3. Communicate and coordinate with the local school district to develop a plan for transportation and safety needs of all children going to and from school by car, bus, bicycle and walking during and outside of school zone hours to prevent injury to school children. 4. Enforce truck speed limits to 20 mph within the PUD for all areas for all truck traffic associated with the project to reduce the severity of injury should an accident occur. Part One Page 18 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 5. Mark pedestrianlbike high use routes and establish safe crossing zones where they intersect Battlement Mesa Parkway or other haul routes to alert drivers of potential pedestrians and bicyclers. 6. Install safety measures (ie, signaled cross walks, elevated sidewalks, green space buffers) for pedestrians/bikes where established walking/biking routes overlap/run along haul routes to prevent accidents. 7. Require safe driver training for workers and subcontractors and Antero implement penalty system for unsafe workers, to encourage safe driving. 8. Implement a system to identify and remove unsafe drivers to prevent accidents and injuries. We recommend that Garfeeld County: 9. Provide Sheriff's Auxiliary Unit with authority to log speeding and unsafe driving incidents and complaints within the PUD. Information about incidents involving the Antero workers or subcontractors can be provided to Antero, subcontractors and the Sheriffs department so that problems and unsafe conditions can be resolved. 10. Request that the Garfield County Sheriffs Department or other qualified entity review Antero's Traffic Impact Analysis and request feedback on possible safety mitigations and traffic hot spots to ensure the plan is protective of public health. We recommend that Antero: 11. Consider speed control measures on worker ingress and egress routes within the PUD (ie decreased speed limits, signage, real time speed measurement signs, photo speed ticket vans, speed bumps or other measures) to prevent speeding. 3.4 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Noise, Vibration, and Light Assessment What we know: Noise can have negative effects on public health yet can vary at the individual level. Background noise levels in most of Battlement Mesa are low. We know that well development activities will last several months for each well pad and that some homes will be proximate to more than one well pad, thus experiencing well development noise for many months. COGCC noise rules do not take into account possible health impacts of noise from extended well development periods. Noise levels associated with well development activities have been measured above levels that are likely to cause health impacts, even though these levels meet COGCC permissible levels. Noise mitigation effectiveness may be in part determined by local topography and meteorology. What we do not know: We do not know if planned noise mitigation strategies will bring noise levels at residences below which health impacts do not occur. We do not know a single distance from wells that is sufficient to provide protection from noise impacts. Part one Page 19 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to reduce the potential impacts to public health from Noise, Vibration, and Light. As a condition of the special use permit, we recommend that the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Improve sound mitigation to achieve noise levels below 55 dbA in the day and 50 dBA at night during all well development and production activities at the distance of 350 feet from the noise source on the well pad. Require Antero to monitor noise and to use best mitigation technology available to maintain these levels throughout the development period. 2. Require best available noise reduction technology for heavy equipment, including trucks and truck brakes, to reduce noise levels. 3. Develop and implement Community Advisory Board which can address the Battlement Mesa resident's concerns about noise. This can help prevent long-term nuisance noise levels, in cooperation with Battlement Mesa residents and Garfield County. For further details regarding the recommendation for a Community Advisory Board, see recommendation for Community Wellness Assessment. 4. Alert residents of anticipated noise, including time, duration, decibel levels, and machinery to be used to protect public health. 5. Develop industrial haul routes to remove truck traffic from the PUD and away from the homes on Stone Quarry road. If industrial haul routes are not developed then: 6. Reduce speed limits for trucks within the PUD to 20 miles per hour to reduce noise and vibration levels. 7. Consider installation of traffic noise barriers near the St. John Elementary School and/or Grand Valley Middle School to reduce noise levels at schools if school staff indicates that there are noise impacts at the school. 8. Install permanent/semi-permanent noise mitigation structures (sound walls) along haul routes CR3OO and other routes where trucks are anticipated to be passing throughout the development period to reduce noise levels. 3.5 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Community Wellness What we know: A variety of physical and social factors impact the health of a community. Natural gas development can have positive and negative social and community impacts, mostly during the development period. Battlement Mesa saw increases in crime, sexually transmitted disease and school population and a decline in educational environment during the years of natural gas boom in Garfield County. Drug and alcohol abuse are of concern within the natural Part One Page 20 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health gas industry. Citizen concerns reflect the community's previous and current experience with the natural gas industry. Citizens report current decline in social cohesion and community experience and some citizens report health impacts due to these changes. The Antero project will impact outdoor amenities. Impacts to the community will in a large part depend upon how well other concerns, such as air quality, traffic and noise, are mitigated. What we do not know: We do not know the extent to which the Antero project will support existing and new local business, or the way the one million dollar donation to the community will be used. We do not know what fraction of citizens are currently experiencing decline of quality of life, nor how many are likely to have such concerns once the development period begins. Measurements related to mental health and suicide, substance abuse, lifestyle and social cohesion are not routinely monitored. Recommendations to Reduce Impacts to Community Wellness Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to reduce the potential impacts to community wellness. We recommend that Antero, Battlement Mesa Citizens, and Garfield County: 1. Establish a Community Advisory Board to facilitate on-going community engagement between Antero, Garfield County officials, Battlement Mesa Company and residents of Battlement Mesa for early identification of impacts to community wellness. A Community Advisory Board can provide direct and frequent interactive communication between these groups. It can provide an ongoing mechanism for citizens to report problems and concerns to Antero and can allow Antero to address concerns in a timely manner. It can also provide feedback to the county regarding success of residential natural gas development. A Community Advisory Board can also provide an opportunity for Antero to apprise the residents of current activities and changes to plans, which can help reduce uncertainty for residents and may decrease anxiety. The Community Advisory Board can also provide input regarding the use of the one million dollar donation to ensure that the use of this money supports community and physical health. We recommend that Garfield County: 2. Review sexually transmitted infection clinic access, outreach and education, with particular attention to in -migrant workforce to reduce spread of sexually transmitted infections within the community. 3. Identify operators and subcontractors that have implemented drug and alcohol free work- place programs and encourage Antero to do so and subcontract to companies that also do so. Provide Antero with contacts to those that educate employers regarding benefits of such programs. Part One Page 21 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health We recommend that Garfield County and Antero: 4. Support baseline and ongoing studies to determine the impact of residential natural gas development on community health and the effects on individual health. This information will provide direct feedback to the Antero -Battlement Mesa project, allowing for improvements in community aspects as the project continues. It will also provide valuable information for other communities experiencing or anticipating residential natural gas development. These studies should include measurements related to lifestyle and social cohesion, education, crime, sexually transmitted infection, mental health and suicide, and substance abuse. 5. Ensure recommendations to mitigate other concerns (air quality, traffic, and noise) are implemented. Recommendations to Support Benefits to Community Wellness Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to foster the potential benefits to community wellness. We recommend that Garfield County: 6. Encourage use of local business, especially those that enhance community cohesion, such as local restaurants and coffee shops. 7. Utilize Antero's one million dollar donation to enhance community cohesion. 3.6 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Economic and Employment Assessment What we know: The Antero project in Battlement Mesa will employ approximately 120-150 people. Some Battlement Mesa residents will benefit directly from the Antero project but most residents will not directly benefit. Natural gas development causes a decline in property value, especially during the development phase of the project and land values partially recover when the development phase of a project ends. The development phase for the Antero project in the PUD is expected to last at least 5 years. Antero's project within the PUD will not likely initiate a boom and bust cycle. Land values effects will be impacted by how well other concerns, such as air emissions, traffic, noise and community wellness, are mitigated. What we do not know: Specific timelines for development and maintenance activities for the project are not known and this gap contributes to uncertainty. It is not known if the Antero project will impact rental or sales housing demand in Battlement Mesa. It is not known how land values will respond to the 5 year development period or if land values in Battlement Mesa will follow the same patterns as those seen in the Land Values Study. Recommendations to Reduce impacts from Economic Effects Part One Page 22 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to reduce the potential impacts to property values. We recommend that before the project starts, the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Require that Antero develop a reasonable and specific timeline for all activities associated with development and maintenance of the wells. Require that Antero communicate changes to the plans at the earliest possible time before any changes in the plans occur. This would address some concerns in the real estate market. If sellers and buyers can confidently anticipate the steps and tithing of the well development process, the real estate market may react less unfavorably to the project. We recommend that Antero, Battlement Mesa Citizens, and Garfield County do the following before the Project starts: 2. Establish a Community Advisory Board that meets regularly and frequently with Antero (at least every month). Garfield County, citizens, Antero and the Battlement Mesa Company should be a part of this board. The Community Advisory Board can actively interact with Antero to facilitate communication to and from the residents and the county. Establish clear and timely communications methods to facilitate information regarding changes to the timeline and activities. Provide the Community Advisory Board with sufficient powers to allow for resident input, which can demonstrate that residents can voice their concerns. 3. Consider multiple methods of communication to residents regarding development and maintenance activities. We recommend that Garfield County: 4. Continue to consider public health as a high level priority when judging uses of local government revenues derived from the natural gas development and production to maximize protection of public health. 5. Ensure recommendations to mitigate other concerns (air quality, traffic, noise and community wellness) are implemented. Recommendations to Support Benefits from Employment Effects Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to foster the potential benefits from employment. We recommend that Garfield County: Part One Page 23 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 6. Support local educational institutions that provide training for industry related jobs during the development period and retraining for when industry jobs end after the development period. 3.7 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Health Care Infrastructure What we know: The availability of healthcare facilities and professionals affects public health. The level of health insurance in an area affects health care infrastructure. Battlement Mesa has primary care and some specialist services in the community. Specialized and emergency care is at least 20 miles away. It is not expected that health care infrastructure will be impacted by the Antero project to the extent that will impact health of the residents. What we do not know: The level of health insurance coverage amongst workers in natural gas development and production is not known. The number of Antero workers and families that will utilize medical care in Battlement Mesa is unknown. Based on these findings, the following are specific recommendations to prepare for the potential impact to the Health Care infrastructure. We recommend that Garfield County: 1. Monitor which companies, including Antero and subcontracting companies, provide health insurance to employees to determine how the natural gas industry contributes to health care infrastructure. 2. Monitor health care utilization in Garfield County to determine if rates of uncompensated care are associated natural gas industry cycles. 3. Ensure that county revenues continue to meet changes in county services, including public health services. 3.8 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions What we know: A small number of accidents and malfunctions occur on a regular basis in natural gas development and production. These accidents and malfunctions can have minor to catastrophic consequences and can impact air, water, and soil quality along with the health of workers and nearby residents. Lack of adherence to rules and regulations, as well as regulatory oversight and enforcement increases the likelihood of accidents and malfunctions. While Part One Page 24 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2033 increased preventive measures and enforcement of regulations can reduce the likelihood of accidents and malfunctions, they cannot ensure that a catastrophic event will not occur in the Battlement Mesa PUD as a result of Antero's project. Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health What we do not know: We do not know how many accidents and malfunctions will occur in the PUD and we do not know if a catastrophic event will occur in the Battlement Mesa PUD as a result of Antero's project. We do not know if the current setbacks and placements of pads, pipes, and maintenance stations are sufficient to protect residents from catastrophic malfunctions. We also do not know if there are emergency plans in place that adequately address catastrophic incidents. Based on these findings, the following are some of the specific recommendations to reduce the potential public health impact from accidents and malfunctions. We recommend that as a condition of the special use permit the BOCC require Antero to: 1. Work with emergency responders in Battlement Mesa (e.g., the sheriff and fire departments) and Battlement Mesa residents to establish a comprehensive emergency response plan that includes notification and communication systems, evacuation routes, plans for evacuating schools, the assisted living facility, and capacity of local emergency responders hospitals, and sheltering in place, accurate maps of pipelines, shut-off valves, and well pads, as well as identifying air intakes at the schools, assisted living facility, and recreation center prior to any activity in the PUD. We recommend that the copies of the emergency response plan be kept at the sheriff department, fire department, all responding hospitals, and on a Garfield County website and /or a publicly accessible website approved by the Battlement Mesa Community. 2. Test the emergency response plan in cooperation with emergency responders by performing a drill prior to any natural gas operations commence in the PUD and annual drills thereafter, as well as annual reviews and updates of the emergency response plan. 3. Annually disclose all chemicals used on its well pads within the PUD and include a list of these chemicals in the emergency response plan. 4. Notify the sheriff and fire department one week prior to well drilling, hydraulic fracturing, flow back, and pipeline pigging activities. 5. Implement the emergency response provisions provided in Antero's best management practices submitted as comments to the September 2010 Draft HIA. 6. Implement the well site and facility security provisions provided in Antero's best management practices submitted as comments to the September 2010 Draft HIA. 7. Adhere to its best management practices for pipelines and all COGCC rules throughout the life of the project as a condition of the special use permit. 8. Institute mechanism for reporting safety concerns, near -misses, and minor incidents to the appropriate designated county agency or department to reduce accidents and malfunctions. Reports of these concerns and incidents should also be made to the Community Advisory Board, along with plans for preventive and corrective actions. Part One Page 25 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 9. Develop an ongoing fire prevention program in coordination with the local fire department's community fire prevention program. This program should include routine inspection and implementation of wildfire mitigation plans (for example, all areas surrounding well pads are kept clear of vegetation that could contribute to spreading). We recommend that Garfield County: 10. Clearly mark primary and secondary evacuation routes from Battlement Mesa. 11. Perform quarterly tests of emergency notification systems within Battlement Mesa (e.g., sirens and reverse 911). 12. Request the Battlement Mesa fire department to inspect all proposed well pad locations and make recommendations for the prevention of well pad fires spreading from the pads up to relocation of pads and that these recommendations are incorporated into the special use permit. 13. Require all gas pipelines to follow established truck haul routes and allow no gas pipelines through the center of the PUD. 14. Assign a county inspector to oversee and inspect all pipeline construction and maintenance in the PUD. Part One Page 26 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 4 Summary of Assessments on Health in Battlement Mesa Eight potential stressors to health were identified and assessed: air quality; water and soil quality; traffic and transportation; noise/vibration/lighting; community wellness; employment /economy; health system infrastructure; and accidents/malfunctions. These assessments take into account Antero's proposed control plans and mitigation strategies, to the extent that they are known (from public presentations, Surface Use Agreements, and other information provided by Antero). Any significant deviation from the currently available information will not necessarily be reflected in this assessment. Scientific literature describing known impact of stressors to health was reviewed. Each stressor was qualitatively characterized based on seven attributes relevant to public health: direction of health effects; geographic extent; likelihood; vulnerable populations; duration of exposure; frequency of exposure; and magnitude/severity of health effects. For each attribute, consistent definitions were created as shown in the tables below. The characterization consists of describing and ranking each potential health impact in terms of each attribute and prioritizing (low, medium, and high) the potential stressor as it relates to other potential stressors. Direction of Potential Health Effects Positive Changes that may improve health in the community Negative Changes that may detract from health in the community Geo rahic Extent of Health Effects Localized Effects mainly occur in close proximity to drilling or other related activities Community -wide Effects occur across most or all of the Battlement Mesa PUD Presence of Vulnerable or Benefited Populations within Battlement Mesa Yes There are subpopulations that are more susceptible to adverse health impacts (e.g. children, the elderly or people with pre-existing health conditions) or will benefit more than the rest of the population No Affects all subpopulations evenly Duration of Exposure [hort Lasts less than one month Part One Page 27 Draft Battlement Mesa 1-i1A, Revision 1 February 2011 Medium Long Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Lasts at least one month but less than one year Lasts one year or more Frequency of Exposure EInfrequent Frequent Occurs sporadically or rarely Occurs constantly, recurrently and/or numerously Likelihood of Health Effects Unlikely Possible Likely There is little evidence that health effects will occur as a result of the Antero drilling in the PUD Evidence suggests that health effects may occur, but are not common in similar situations Evidence suggests that health effects commonly occur in projects of this type Ma;_nitude/Severity of Negative Health Effects Potential to cause health effects unlikely or that can be quickly and easily managed or do not require treatment Potential to cause health effects that necessitate treatment or medical management and are reversible Potential to cause health effects that are chronic, irreversible or fatal Low Medium High Magnitude of Positive Health Effects Potential to improve health unlikely or minor Low Medium High Potential to make some improvements to health Potential to make major improvements to health EXAMPLE: The following characterization of a hypothetical health impact from Antero's plan illustrates how attribute levels are assigned. Impact othetical Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Localized Vulnerable/ Benefited populations No Duration of exposure Short Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Pro`ect Magnitude of health effects Low Priority Low The hypothetical health impact may produce negative health effects only in areas in close proximity to the development areas and is localized. No particular population is more vulnerable to the health effect. The duration of the hypothetical impact is expected to be less than a month, short, and only occur once, infrequent. It is unlikely to occur and any health Part One Page 28 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 effects could be easily managed at home and would be low. a low priority compared to other potential stressors. 4.1 Summary of Health Assessments Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health The hypothetical health impact has The following table summarizes the characterization of stressors and the numerical ranking of impacts on the health in Battlement Mesa. By prioritizing the stressors we are able to conclude that air quality, traffic, and accidents/malfunction are more likely to negatively impact the public health of residents throughout the community than other stressors. Other stressors that may produce relatively important health impacts include noise and community stress. We have prioritized community stress as medium but recognize that the impacts to the community depend in a large part on the mitigation of other stressors. If mitigation of air, traffic and noise are not sufficient then the sense of community will be negatively impacted, associated stress will increase, and steps to protect community wellness should take a high priority. Compromise of water supplies could produce important effects to health but are not likely to occur. There will be some positive impacts associated with employment and possibly community wellness. We have prioritized accidents and malfunctions as high but note that incidents of this nature are difficult to predict. Recent events have demonstrated that although accidents and malfunctions are infrequent, on rare occasions they can be devastating; therefore, significant care should be taken to prevent them. Assessment Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable/ Benefited populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Air Quality Negative Local to Community- wide Yes Long Frequent Likely Moderate to High H igh Water and Soil Quality Negative Community- wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Moderate to High Medium Traffic Negative Community- wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low to high High Noise, Vibration, Light Negative Local Yes Long Frequent Possible Low- Medium Medium Community Wellness Positive Community wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low Low Community Wellness Negative Community wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low to High Medium - High Economy, employment and property value Positive Community wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low Part One Page 29 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Assessment Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable/ Benefited populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Economy, employment and property value Negative Community wide Yes Long constant Likely Low to high Low Health Infrastructure Positive Community- wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low Health Infrastructure Negative Community- wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low Accidents and malfunctions Negative Local or Community wide Yes Short Infrequent Possible Low to high High Part One Page 30 Draft Battlement Mesa NIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 5 Assessment of Health Impacts Colorado School of Public Health The following sections provide an assessment, characterization, and recommendations for each potential health impact. 5.1 Assessment of Air Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa "What happens if the air is so bad that I have to close all my windows and shut off my swamp cooler?" June 15 stakeholder meeting Exposure to airborne contaminants from natural gas development and production is a major concern to Battlement Mesa residents. Gas development and production operations result in the release of many airborne contaminants. The potential for release of contaminants to air increases with well installation errors, blow outs, or well fires. Sources of contaminants during these operations include the natural gas resource itself, chemicals used in well development operations, such as hydraulic fracturing, wastes from well development activities such as produced water, and diesel exhaust from trucks and generators. 5.1.1 Air Quality and Health Natural gas development and production operations and the diesel engines used to support them have the potential to release many hydrocarbons, carbonyls, and other contaminants into the air. People can be exposed to these contaminants as they breathe ambient air in and outside of their homes. Some of these contaminants, such as benzene, diesel exhaust, and PM/ 5, are human carcinogens. Others, such as carbonyls, alkanes, ground -level ozone, and 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene, can act as irritants of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract or cause neurological effects23 24. In addition, hydrocarbons, carbonyls, and nitrogen oxides serve as precursors for ground level ozone formation. The health effects of many other potential contaminants are not known. Descriptions of health effects of the air contaminants of potential concern are presented in Section 4 of the Human Health Risk Assessment (Appendix D). In addition to the effects that each of these substances can produce by itself, there is also the possibility of complex health reactions occurring as a result of the interaction of multiple substances. The current state of the science is limited in ability to assess exposures to these complex mixtures of air toxics, especially, synergistic and antagonistic interactions at low levels. Preliminary studies that indicate complex mixtures can act additively or synergistically to increase effects on human health. For example, studies of healthy adults indicate that continuous exposure to sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide increases ozone absorption. Studies of asthmatics suggest that ozone enhances response to allergen challenge. Other studies have reported injury Part One Page 31 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health to lungs with exposure to the combination of ozone and PM is larger than when exposed to either alone. X4-25 5.1.2 Current Air Quality Conditions There are several sources of air emissions that currently affect air quality in Battlement Mesa. The main sources are vehicle emissions and natural gas development and production, as described below. With the exception of two natural gas wells, Battlement Mesa does not currently house any industrial activity. There are many gas wells outside the PUD boundaries that impact the ambient air quality within the PUD. There is a public utility station near the southeast PUD border with the potential for fugitive emissions of natural gas. Current residential traffic in the Battlement Mesa PUD, described in Antero's traffic analysis, also has impact on the current ambient air quality. Interstate -70 impacts the current ambient air quality. The Garfield County Emissions Inventory for 2007 indicates that highway vehicles were a primary contributor to carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions and that highway vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, VOCs, and benzene have all decreased since 1996. The oil and gas industry was a primary contributor to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, VOC, and benzene emissions in 2007 and emissions due to oil and gas sources have all increased in the same time period -6. High concentrations of ozone precursors (VOCs and nitrogen oxides) have been observed in areas with hip natural gas production operations in Garfield Count?'. CDPHE ranked Garfield County as 5` out of 64 Colorado counties in levels of these ozone precursors in 2009, while Garfield ranked only 14th in population'. According to these reports, because VOC levels are already very high, ozone formation in Garfield County is likely to increase as nitrogen oxide increases. In 2008, the 8 -hr average ozone concentrations measured at the Rifle monitoring station surpassed the 75 ppb NAAQS one time and 8 -hour average ozone concentrations did surpass the minimum range of the proposed 60 -70 ppb NAAQS on five days in March and April 2009, with a maximum concentration of 64 ppb28. Overall, ozone levels in Garfield County are increasing since measurements began in 2005. Natural gas industry practices of capturing and flaring emissions reduces VOC emissions, while increasing nitrogen oxide emissions. This may contribute to more ozone formation. It is unclear if ozone concentrations measured in Rifle are representative of ozone concentrations in Battlement Mesa because of differences in proximity to Interstate -70, elevation, industry, and meteorology. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Incorporated (EnCana) began conducting ozone measurements in 2007 at their mountain station in Garfield County. The mountain station is located at 8407 feet above sea level in a remote area with very little natural gas development and production. While Encana's ozone data are from a rural area within Western Garfield County, it may not be a good estimate of ambient ozone levels in the Battlement Mesa PUD. Ground level ozone concentrations vary by elevation, with higher concentrations at higher elevations. Part one Page 32 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health PM -).5 and PMda concentrations are measured at the Rifle monitoring station where several 24- hour PM2.5 concentrations surpassed 351tg/m3 in 2009, with the highest observed concentration at 41µg/m3 28. In 2008, PMi0, concentrations in Parachute surpassed the 150 mg/m324 hour NAAQS standard, likely due to natural gas industry construction activities. The PM,5 and PK() concentrations measured in Rifle and Parachute may not be representative of concentrations in Battlement Mesa because of differences in proximity to Interstate -70, elevation, industry, and meteorology. 5.1.3 What We Know and What We Do Not Know There is sufficient information available to indicate that Antero's project in Battlement Mesa has the potential to impact air quality and the public health. However, many information gaps exist and it is not possible to predict what and how many health effects will occur as a result of Antero's project. There also is not enough information to determine whether or not current federal, state, and COGCC regulations and rules are sufficient to protect public health from air pollution resulting from natural gas development and production in high population density areas such as the Battlement Mesa PUD. To protect the health of Battlement Mesa residents, we recommend the implementation of air pollution prevention measures, some of which may be above and beyond those mandated in federal, state, and COGCC regulations and rules as an integral part of Antero's project. We also recommend the monitoring of air quality and the health of residents in Battlement Mesa to ensure public health is protected throughout Antero's 30 -year project. What follows is a discussion of what we know and what we do not know and specific recommendations for preventing air pollution during Antero's project. What We Know We know that natural development and production impacts air quality in Garfield County. . Garfield County's 2007 emission inventory indicates that the oil and gas industry is the highest contributor to nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and sulfur dioxide emissions within Garfield County. For example, the oil and gas industry contributes five times more benzene to the inventory than any other emission source listed. The oil and gas industry also is a significant contributor to VOC, PM10, and carbon monoxide emissions'. Therefore, it is expected that Antero's project has the potential to impact air quality in the PUD. Garfield County's 2009 Air Quality Monitoring Summary Report attributes natural gas production activities as the largest contributing source of light alkanes in Garfield County. The large amounts of these light alkanes increase the potential for ozone formations. Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, and trimethylbenzene measurements for 2009 in Garfield County were compared to regional measurements from 37 sites across the United States. Levels of benzene, toluene, xylenes, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene measured at the Parachute, Rulison, and Rifle sites in Garfield County were higher than levels measured at most of the other sites, including Grand Junction. These high measurements in Garfield County may indicate more Part One Page 33 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health localized sources for these air contaminants, which have primarily gasoline and diesel combustion sources that include motor vehicles, oil and gas development activities (such as drill rigs and compressor engines) as well as oil and gas production equipment such as condensate tanks2s. Antero has specified that they will use combustors to control VOC emissions from production tanks6 to achieve a 95% VOC control efficiency in compliance with COGCC rules5. Applying a 95% control efficiency to the potential VOCs emissions estimated for the Watson Ranch pad (Appendix E, Antero comment A34) results in 3.4 to 20 tons per year of VOC emissions from the production tanks on all 9 proposed well pads combined. Production tanks are only one of a number of potential sources of VOC emissions from natural gas operations. Some sources, such as flow back operations, are likely to cause a higher emission rate of VOCs, while others, such as glycol dehydrators, may have VOC emissions similar to the production tanks. Monitoring of production sites is needed to assess the long term emissions and how these emissions affect long term exposures to nearby residents. It is important to note that there is a tradeoff when using combustors versus not controlling condensate tanks at all. Combustion of fugitive VOC emissions generates carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, whereas venting results in VOC emissions. Therefore, vapor recovery is preferred over venting or combustion for controlling fugitive VOC emissions We know that well completion operations emit the higher levels of contaminants than drilling operations. The 2008 Garfield County Air Toxics Study which monitored four sites undergoing drilling activities and four sites undergoing well completion activities concluded that the well completion activities emit larger volumes of VOCs than drilling activities. The report indicated that the high concentrations of organic VOCs could be of great concern, as many of the well pads are located close to populated areas in Garfield County. In addition, the report indicates that local wind speeds, directions and surrounding topography are important factors in influencing levels of pollutants at any one sampling site. The report called for further research into how pollution concentrations are affected by these variables and concluded that research is needed to understand the local effects that such drilling and completion activities can have on the public at large29. Furthermore, statistical comparisons of ambient air to well completion sample results for benzene and other contaminants demonstrate that short-term exposures to air pollutants during well completion activities have the potential to be significantly greater than overall ambient air exposures (Appendix D Table 2-12). We know that the COGCC's 350 foot setback for high density areas was based on a 100 meter setback distance established by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board to decrease the likelihood of death from exposure from an accidental release of hydrogen sulfide gas 3° (Stuart Ellsworth, Engineering Manager COGCC, January, 18, 2011). The 350 foot setback does not address short and long term health effects that may be associated with periodic or continuous exposure to other air pollutants, noise exposure, and accidents. At this time there are no known studies that document the safe distance between wells and homes, schools and other places where people congregate. Part One Page 34 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision I Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health February 2011 We know that there are several COGCC rules to address air emissions. Rule 324A requires operators to take precautions to prevent significant negative impacts to air; Rule 317 requires that any gas escaping during drilling must be directed a safe distance from the well and burned (flared); and Rule 805b requires that gas facilities and equipment shall be operated in such a manner that odors and dust do not constitute a nuisance or hazard to public welfare. Rule 805b also requires emission controls and permitting for production tanks with the potential to release 5 or more tons per year of VOCs (uncontrolled emissions) and located with `I mile of an occupied structure. However, recent odor complaints to COGCC and the Garfield County Oil and Gas Department from Battlement Mesa residents in July 2010 suggest that, in some situations, natural gas development and production may have some impact on localized air quality at residences within 1/2 mile of the well pad S' 31. The odor complaints occurred during flow back operations at Antero's Watson Ranch Pad located on the southeast border of the PUD, within approximately 1/2 a mile from several residences, and resulted in COGCC issuing a notice of alleged violation (also known as NOAV) to Antero on 7/14/2010. Grab samples taken in the 2005 to 2007 Garfield County Ambient Air Study, when residents noticed odors (thought to be from natural gas development and production) indicate that odor events could represent a health hazard. These samples contained levels of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes that were greater than EPA regional screening levels for residential ambient air16. EPA Regional Screening Levels are health -based levels above which health effects may occur. We know that many homes within the Battlement Mesa PUD are located within a 1/2 mile of one or more of the proposed wells pads, as shown on Figure 1. For example, homes in Stone Ridge Village and Monument Village are within `/2 mile of pads A, B, and D, and homes in Willow Creek Village and. Fairways Village are within '/2 mile of pads D and M. Antero's project is expected to last up to 30 years and have approximately 200 wells on 9 well pads. The process of well development and completion is estimated to last from 2 to 5 years, depending on the price of natural gas and availability of subcontractors. Therefore due to proximity of the proposed well pads to residences it is likely that both periodic short-term and longer-term exposures to emissions will occur. We know that diesel exhaust from heavy truck traffic, truck idling and generators has the potential to impact air quality within the PUD. Diesel exhaust includes PM, nitrogen oxide, carbonyls, alkanes and PAHs, all of which are known to have health impacts32. Estimates of yearly emissions can be found in Table 4 in the Part Two of the H1A. Levels of acetaldehyde and crotonaldehyde were higher in grab samples collected by Antero in August 2010 than in any of the ambient air samples collected in Garfield County since 2008 (Appendix D, Table 2-7). The Antero samples were collected along the truck access road to the south of the Watson Ranch pad during flow back and hydraulic fracturing activities. This information indicates a need for pollution controls on diesel engines. Since each of the proposed truck routes is near at least one of the Battlement Mesa housing areas, further information is needed to better characterize the level of exposure for residents to carbonyls emitted during natural gas development and production operations and efforts are needed to reduce exposure to truck traffic. Part One Page 35 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health We know that several of the air pollutants associated with natural gas development and production can negatively affect human health. Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and ethylbenzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and crotonaldehyde are classified as possible human carcinogens by the U.S. EPA. Furthermore, toluene, xylene, and benzene may also cause other non -cancer health effects, such as birth defects. Many of these air pollutants cause short-term neurological effects, such as dizziness and headaches, and short and long term respiratory effects, such as nose and throat irritation and decreased lung function. Seniors, children and those with medical conditions are more susceptible to chemical exposures. Battlement Mesa is different from many other Colorado communities in that almost half of the community is either under 18 or over 65 years of age. We know that there are many other sources of air pollution not being measured. We know that fugitive emissions from pipes, valves, pneumatic devices, wellheads and from maintenance operations have the potential to impact Battlement Mesa air quality and can do so over the life of the project, estimated to be at least 30 years. COGCC rules require that no bleed valves be used on pneumatic devices, where technically feasible and Antero has agreed to specific requirements for pipelines in the Surface Use Agreement. Further efforts may be needed to control all sources of emissions. We know that road and construction dust from natural gas operations can impact air quality. The dust from the Antero project has the potential to impact the air quality in Battlement Mesa. As noted earlier, FM10 concentrations measured in Parachute in 2009 surpassed the NAAQS standard, likely due to natural gas industry construction activities. What We Do Not Know We do not know how and to what extent potential air pollutants from Antero's project will be transported within the Battlement Mesa PUD. While levels of air pollutants generally are expected to decrease with distance from a fixed source, actual emission distribution maybe more complex due to varying emission rates and topography and weather conditions. The distribution of air pollutants also will depend on the physical and chemical properties of individual pollutants. Some pollutants, such as ozone require very specific conditions for formation. At this time, there is insufficient measurement and modeling information to determine air pollutant movement from well pads and truck routes to people's homes. We do not know how much of each air contaminant Battlement Mesa residents will be exposed to during Antero's project because there is little information on the concentrations of air contaminants in and around residences. The only information currently available is that from the 15 second outdoor grab samples collected by Garfield County residents when they noticed odors attributed to natural gas development and production activities. This information is limited in that (1) data was not collected to identify a specific source; and (2) the sample was a 15 second grab and therefore did not represent a 24-hour exposure and may have missed the peak Ievel. Part One Page 36 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 February 2011 We also do not know how much of a particular contaminant to which an individual is exposed comes from natural gas operations and how much comes from other sources. We do not know the toxicity of most of the chemicals measured in Garfield County air samples. Health -based toxicity guidelines are only available for about 20 percent of the contaminants that have been identified in ambient air samples collected in Garfield County. For most of the remaining air pollutants, adequate studies to determine health effects have not been done. We do not know the level of many potential air pollutants in ambient air that may be associated with natural gas development and production, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, radon and chemicals used in natural gas industry (e.g., hydraulic fracturing fluids, biocides) . These pollutants have not been measured in Garfield County relative to the natural gas industry. We do not know if health effects will occur as a result of the interaction of the mixture of air pollutants present in Garfield County. The current state of the science is limited in ability to assess exposures and health effects of mixtures of air pollutants, especially interactions at relatively low levels. We do not know how long people will reside in Battlement Mesa and how much time they spend in Battlement Mesa and at their homes. This type of information is used in determining how much an air contaminant a resident would be exposed to during Antero's 30 year project. Specific data on how long residents live in the area and how many days and hours they spend in their homes is not currently available. Because more retirees live in Battlement Mesa than in more typical suburban/rural areas, data from other areas and studies may not apply to Battlement Mesa. These time activity studies also may not account for individuals that work out of their homes. Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health We do not know what the levels of emissions will be after Antero implements all of their pollution control measures. Antero's general best management practices indicate Antero is committed to reducing air pollution. Documentation of the effectiveness of the pollution control measures is needed. 5.1.4 Human Health Risk Assessment To develop a risk assessment, scientists need to identify three main things: • Hazards: identities and toxic properties of the chemicals to which people are exposed. • Exposure Levels and Routes: depend on the amount of exposure, length of exposure, and whether people are exposed through their lungs, digestive track or skin. • Health Outcomes: the potential for health risks, including cancer risk, is the focus of risk assessments. Part One Page 37 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health We used available relevant information to conduct a screening level Human Health Risk Assessment to evaluate the potential impacts to the public health from chemical exposures due to Antero's proposed project. A Human Health Risk Assessment cannot predict what and how many health outcomes will occur as a result of Antero's project. It only provides an estimate of the potential for health outcomes to occur given the information available and is a tool for ranking the relative seriousness of risks from different sources and pathways. It is important to emphasize that the estimates from the Human Health Risk Assessment may be either over or under estimated because of the uncertainties associated the risk assessment process. The Human Health Risk Assessment was conducted according to EPA guidance33" a using data from Battlement Mesa and other locations in Garfield County. A baseline risk for Battlement Mesa was estimated, as well as risks to child, adult, and elderly receptors from Antero's project for five possible exposure scenarios. Appendix D contains the details of the Human Health Risk Assessment. The Human Health Risk Assessment concluded the following: • For Battlement Mesa residents living farther from the well pads (i.e. more than '/2 mile), the long-term health risks is similar to the background risks estimated in the baseline risk assessment for Battlement Mesa (i.e. the risk without. Antero's project). • There is a significantly greater potential for exposure to chemicals in air during well completion activities than during production activities, especially for child, adult, and elderly residents living within 1/2 mile of the well pads. • For Battlement Mesa residents living within 1/2 a mile ofa well pad, the long-term health risks from chemical exposures are greater than the long-term health risks for residents living farther from the well pads and are in the range of concern. These health effects include an increased cancer risk, decreased lung function, anemia, and birth defects. • For Battlement Mesa residents living within '/x mile of the well pads, the subchronic and short-term health risks to may be expected to occur. These health effects may include respiratory effects such as upper airway irritation and decreased lung function and neurological effects, such as headaches and dizziness The 1/2 mile distance is based on the distance at which Battlement Mesa residents reported odors and health effects to COGCC in July 2010. Previous CDPHE human health risk assessments and the Saccomanno Study also concluded that residential long-term and short term exposure to air pollutants may result in an increased risk of cancer and non -cancer health effects. 5.1.5 Antero's Best Management Practices The Human Health Risk Assessment was performed without consideration of Antero's best management practices because there has been no data collected with these best management practices in place. Implementation of Antero's best management practices for its Battlement Part One Page 38 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Mesa project should reduce air emissions during several activities and should reduce the risk of health effects from chemical exposures. Antero's best management practices that are most likely to reduce air emissions include: • Auto -igniters on all production tank combustors should reduce long term emissions of VOCs. Combustion increases nitrous oxide emissions. • Low emissions flow back process (currently under development) for all well pads in the PUD should reduce VOC and other chemical emissions associated with flow back activities. • The centralized water storage facility and pipeline network will decrease truck trips and therefore decrease truck emissions. • Well pad telemetry and remote monitoring will reduce maintenance trips to well pads and decrease vehicle emissions. • Closed tank hatches on hydraulic fracturing and flow back tanks should reduce VOC emissions during well completion activities. • Hydrocarbon absorption blankets on hydraulic fracturing and flow back tanks should reduce VOC emissions. • Batch biocide treatment of hydraulic fracturing and flow back tanks after they have received some water should reduce biocide emissions. • Replacement of diesel generators with electric generators should reduce diesel exhaust emission • Tier 2/3 diesel engines should reduce diesel exhaust emissions. Tier 4 engines would further reduce diesel exhaust emissions. • Low bleed valves and routine maintenance per the EPA Natural Gas Star Program should reduce fugitive VOC emissions. While Antero's best management practices have the potential to reduce air emissions, in many cases, the effectiveness of the practices are unknown. We strongly encourage Antero to demonstrate the effectiveness of their best management practices. In addition, without specific permits or plans, it is unclear the extent of the best management practices will be used in Battlement Mesa. The objective of many of our recommendations assessment is to ensure Antero's best management practices are implemented in the PUD in order to reduce air emissions and protect public health. Antero's air monitoring study at the Watson Ranch pad has added valuable information for evaluating air emissions from natural gas development operations and further monitoring is recommended. In addition to the best management practices, other Antero plans will reduce emissions in Battlement Mesa. Antero has stated that it will not have a centralized compressor stations in the PUDE. Compressor stations are sources of fugitive emissions and noise. Antero has committed to several dust control measures in the Surface Use Agreement6. With these control measures in place, project dust from construction activities, well pads, and access roads is not expected to significantly impact Battlement Mesa air quality. As noted earlier, Antero has committed to Part One Page 39 Draft Battlement Mesa HMA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health installing a water storage and management system, which will reduce truck emissions, dust and noise in the PUD. 5.2 Characterization of the Air Quality on Health The impact of air quality due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows: Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Air Quality Negative Local to Community- wide Yes Long Frequency of exposure Frequent Likelihood Magnitude Priority of health of health effects as a effects result of Pro'ect Likely Low to High* High *For an explanation of the ranking system, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. When considering anticipated air contaminant exposures associated with the Antero development within the Battlement Mesa PUD, impacts to air quality will likely produce negative health effects. These health effects are most likely to occur in the localized areas near well development areas (defined as less than `/ mile) and in areas near truck haul routes. Much of the community will be within 1/2 mile of sources of air contamination. Declining ambient air quality will affect the entire community. Children, seniors and , residents underlying health problems are more vulnerable to the air pollutants. Air quality degradation may last for the duration of Antero's 30 -year project, from well pad preparation through well abandonment, and therefore could be long in duration. The highest levels of air contaminants are expected during the 5 year development period, but long term emissions from producing wells will also compromise air quality. The impacts to air quality are expected to be frequent and occur constantly and/or reoccur. If pollution prevention measures are not implemented it is likely that contaminant concentrations in residential air will be high enough to cause short-term and long-term disease, especially for residents living near wells. Health effects may include respiratory disease, neurological problems, birth defects, and cancer. Some health effects could be managed without medical attention, while some effects will necessitate medical attention some of these effects may not be reversible. Therefore the impacts are rated as low to high. For these reasons, air quality impacts are prioritized as high. 5.3 Assessment of Water and Soil Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa "What will be the effect of chemicals on the water supply?" June 15 stakeholder meeting The impact of natural gas development and production on water and soil quality and the water supply is a major concern to Battlement Mesa residents. Surface run-off, and infiltration from Part One Page 40 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health drilling cuttings and produced water stored in pits on well pads or off-site locations; well installation errors; and uncontrolled well development (kick backs, blow outs, and well fires) could result in emissions of contaminants to groundwater, subsurface soil, surface soil and surface water. Spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids, drilling muds, condensate, and diesel could result in contamination of surface soil. Run-off and infiltration then could result in subsequent contamination of surface waters and of groundwater and subsurface soil, respectively. Exhaust from diesel engines (through dry deposition of particulates) and wind erosion from drill cuttings could contaminate surface soils (through deposition of particulates). If the groundwater or subsurface soil is contaminated, VOCs could infiltrate and accumulate in the air of buildings. Sources of contaminants include the natural gas resource itself, chemicals used in well production activities, wastes from well production activities, and exhaust from machinery used in well production and maintenance. 5.3.1 Water and Soil Quality impacts on Health Natural gas development and production and the diesel engines used to support them have the potential to release metals, salts, hydrocarbons, carbonyls, and other contaminants to groundwater, surface water, and soil. People can be exposed to these contaminants through ingestion of water, incidental ingestion of soil and purposeful ingestion of soil (i.e. individuals with pica), dermal absorption from water, inhalation of soil particulates, inhalation of VOCs released from water during activities such as showering, and inhalation of VOCs in building air, Some of these contaminants, such as benzene35, and several of the PAHs, are human carcinogens. Others, such as the carbonyls, alkanes, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, can act as irritants of the eyes and skin or cause neurologic effects'. Specific health effects of several potential contaminants are described in the in the Human Health Risk Assessment (Appendix D). Significant contamination of water supplies with salts, such as those containing chloride, can make the water unsuitable for human consumption and stress water treatment facilities. The water requirements for natural gas development and production are large, with the potential to tax local water supplies, particularly in the event of a drought. However, many natural gas operators in Garfield County have installed water treatment systems with the purpose of treating and recycling produced water used in hydraulic fracturing, and it is Antero's intent to do so for its project in the Battlement Mesa PUD. With adequate treatment to eliminate harmful chemicals, it is possible that produced water can be recycled. This has the potential to significantly reduce the consumptive water use in natural gas development. 5.3.2 Water and Soil Quality and Natural Gas Operations The Mamm Creek field, located approximately 20 miles to the east of Battlement Mesa in Garfield County, has experienced extensive natural gas development and production, with over 1100 gas wells installed between 2000 and 2007. The two phase hydrogeologic study conducted between 2006 and 2007 on the Mamm Creek field 21-22 provides data that is useful in estimating potential impacts from natural gas development and production on water quality in Part One Page 41 Draft Battlement Mesa NIA, Revision 1 February 2011 Battlement Mesa. An increasing temporal trend of methane and chloride groundwater concentrations coincident with the increasing number of gas wells installed was observed in the hydrogeologic study2l-22, 44. The isotopic methane data indicate a thermogenic origin of methane, which may be attributed to the Williams Fork gas. The increasing chloride concentrations are attributed to Williams Fork production water. Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health In the Mamm Creek field hydrogeologic study, chloride concentrations did not exceed regulatory limits and there is no regulatory limit for methane. Benzene was only detected in groundwater and surface water samples collected in proximity to the West Divide Creek seep and the Amos well. Many of the benzene concentrations in these samples exceeded the 5 ltg/L regulatory limit and the 0.41 p.g/L EPA Regional Screening Level for tap water. At the West Divide Creek seep, a faulty cement job on the casing of the Schwartz well resulted in the migration of natural gas and BTEX over 2,000 feet southeast of the well and seepage into Divide Creek. At the Amos well, Williams Fork gas from poorly installed wells are believed to be responsible for the contamination. Pavillion Wyoming, a community of approximately 166 residents located in Fremont County, also experienced intensive natural gas development and production, with 211 active gas wells, 30 plugged and abandoned wells, 20 "shut-in" wells, and 37 production pits in an 8 square mile area. In response to complaints from Pavillion residents of odors and off -tastes in domestic water, EPA conducted sampling of both domestic and monitoring wells in the area between 2009 and 2010. The sampling results indicate that domestic wells are contaminated with low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and thermogenic methane and that the shallow groundwater is heavily contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX. Natural gas development and production are the most likely source of the petroleum hydrocarbons and BTEX. Several inorganic compounds, such as sodium, sulfate, and nitrate, also were detected which could have sources other than natural gas development and production. The hydrologic connection between the drinking water aquifer and shallow groundwater is not well characterized. In their health consultation based an EPA's results, ATSDR found the quality of the drinking water in several of the domestic wells was not acceptable and concluded that exposure to some of the contaminants could result in health effects3 37. While the groundwater contamination that occurred in Pavillion is not directly comparable to Battlement Mesa because of differences in the natural gas resource and state regulations, it does indicate that natural gas development and production can adversely impact groundwater quality. Review of water quality data in the USGS and COGCC databases indicate that groundwater and surface water contamination from natural gas development and production at levels with the potential to impact water quality and exceed regulatory levels results from incidents such as loss of well control during development, well installation errors, and spills from produced water pits, as described in the Accidents and Malfunctions Assessment. Available routine monitoring data in these databases indicate routine natural gas development and production (i.e. without incidents) may not be a significant source of water contamination, however, routine monitoring is limited and may not be representative of all instances of gas development and production. It is Part One Page 42 Draft Battlement Mesa 1111, Revision l Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health noted, that samples are most often collected in response to a complaint or incident or as part of a remedial action. There is very little data for routine monitoring of impacts to water quality at gas wells or exploration and production (also known as E&P) waste pits, with the exception of required monitoring in the 3 -mile perimeter of Project Rulison. This small amount of data limits the ability to make a true estimate of exposures from groundwater and surface water. 5.3.3 Current Conditions of Water and Soil Quality The primary source of drinking and domestic water in Battlement Mesa is the Colorado River. The Battlement Mesa Water Treatment Plant draws water from two intakes located in the middle of the river for treatment. The available baseline groundwater and surface water data specific to Battlement is Mesa is limited to the annual testing of the surface water intake and back-up groundwater wells at the Battlement Mesa Water treatment facility. These results indicate that there is no VOC, herbicide, or pesticide contamination of either drinking water supply. In addition, a domestic well at the Historic Battlement Mesa Schoolhouse was sampled on May 17, 2010 in response to an anonymous request from a landowner in the vicinity of Antero's Watson Ranch Well. The COGCC concluded the laboratory analysis did not indicate any impacts to this domestic water well from natural gas production operation38 . Garfield County has conducted several hydrogeologic investigations over the past 5 years, including two completed studies and one on-going study of Mamm Creek, and the Piceance Phase IV Baseline Water Quality Study of the area north of the Colorado River up to the Grand Hogback between Rifle and New Castle completed in 2007. In addition, the COGCC conducted hydrogeologic studies associated with the Rulison blast site, southeast of Battlement Mesa in the 1990s, While the hydrological information from these studies do not apply directly to Battlement. Mesa, water samples collected in these studies are useful for overall background assessment. The inorganic results, obtained from the 70 groundwater samples collected in the Piceance Phase IV Baseline Water Quality Stud?° are not applicable to Battlement Mesa, because the water chemistry between these two areas could be quite different. However, the BTEX and methyl-tert-butyl-ether (also known as MTBE) results could be somewhat representative of Battlement Mesa, because they are not naturally occurring at detectable levels in groundwater. No measureable concentrations of BTEX, methyl-tert-butyl ether, or methane were detected in any of the samples. Antero collected groundwater samples from 18 domestic wells surrounding the Watson Ranch Pad in July 2009, prior to drilling (David Simon Antero personal communication .January 27, 2011). The results from these samples are applicable to Battlement Mesa and appropriate for estimating baseline water quality in domestic wells. No measureable concentrations of BTEX, methyl-tert-butyl ether, methane, nitrite, sulfide, boron, cadmium, chromium, manganese, selenium, or silver were detected in any of these samples. Arsenic, barium, chloride, lead, nitrate, and fluoride levels were all below national drinking water standards. Only a few sulfate concentrations exceeded the 250 mg/L secondary national drinking water standard with concentrations ranging from 29 to 930 mg/L. Part One Page 43 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health There is no baseline data for surface soil or subsurface soil within the PUD so current conditions are unknown. The Colorado Department of Labor & Employment's Oil and Public Safety Division has permitted ten underground storage tanks within the PUD, summarized in the following table. Permit Holder Fuel Tank Capacity (gallons) Battlement Mesa Service Gasoline 1,000 Battlement Mesa Service Diesel 1,000 Battlement Mesa Golf Course Gasoline 2,000 Battlement Mesa Golf Course Diesel 1,000 Kum and Go, Stone Quarry Road Gasoline 20,000 Kum and Go, Stone Quarry Road Gasoline 12,000 Kum and Go, Stone Quarry Road Diesel 12,000 Kum and Go, Tamarisk Trail Gasoline 10,000 Kum and Go, Tamarisk Trail Gasoline 10,000 Kum and Go, Tamarisk Trail Gasoline 8,000 These underground storage tanks have the potential to leak and contaminant subsurface soil and groundwater with fuel contaminants, including benzene. The permit holder is required to perform weekly leak tests on the underground storage tanks and the Oil and Gas Public Safety Division performs an annual inspection of the underground storage tanks. Review of the Oil and Gas Public Safety Division files on August 18, 2010 indicated no leaks or contamination of soil or groundwater associated with these underground storage tanks. There also are natural gas production operations occurring on the border of the PUD that could potentially impact the water and soil quality within the PUD, as well as the water supply. Other potential sources of contamination to groundwater and soil are the golf course and landscaping operations (e.g. application of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides). In the event that the Battlement Mesa Water Treatment Plant was shut down, drinking and domestic water for Battlement Mesa residents would be supplied from four groundwater wells along the south bank of the Colorado River. These wells are not directly supplied with water from the Colorado River and the source of water in these wells has not been established (Roger Bulla personal communication July 7, 2010). There could be a hydrologic connection between these wells and the aquifer on Battlement Mesa, allowing for a conduit of natural gas extraction activity contaminants to the secondary drinking water source, although this has not been verified. Part One Page 44 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 5.3.4 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Water and Soil Qual tY In the two samples collected by Antero during completion activities at the Watson Ranch pad in 2010, levels of chemicals were very similar to pre -drilling levels with one exception (David Simon Antero personal communication January 27, 2011). In a sample from the domestic well nearest the well pad at the west perimeter, the manganese level of 0.085 mgIL exceeded the secondary national drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/L. Manganese levels were less than 0.01 mgfL in the sample collected from this well prior to drilling. Manganese is listed on several of Antero's material safety data sheets as a chemical used in pipeline excavation. This one sample result is not sufficient to indicate that Antero's drilling and well completion activities were the source of the elevated manganese and further sampling is necessary to confirm the result and the identify the source of the manganese, Antero has contracted an evaluation of groundwater monitoring data from approximately 500 wells in and around its Gravel Trend leasehold position. However, the results of the evaluation were not available at the time of the HIA (Personal communication, Jerry Alberts, Antero February 15, 2011). The Mamm Creek field hydrogeologic study results and USGS and COGCC databases indicate that natural gas processes could impact water quality in Battlement Mesa, although the likelihood is low. Increasing chloride concentrations could eventually affect the potable groundwater. As previously discussed, incidents resulting from well installation errors, loss of well control during well development, and spills could affect the potable groundwater and water quality to extent that causes exceedence of regulatory standards and triggers regulatory action. These types of incidents also could affect soil quality in Battlement Mesa. The assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions in Section 4.8 discusses the likelihood of such incidents. While there is no permanent surface water body in the PUD, there are intermittent drainages and creeks that could discharge to the Colorado River. Monument Creek, one of the major drainages off of Battlement Mesa discharges to the river downstream of domestic water intakes. It still is possible that surface nm -off could introduce contaminants from upstream well pads into the river. However, the Colorado River has a high volume of water and it is most likely that any contamination would be diluted to non -harmful concentrations. The annual surface water quality results have not indicated any detectable levels of contamination from natural gas development and production at the intakes. In addition, natural gas operators must inform the Battlement Mesa Water Treatment Plant of upstream spills or incidents affecting the river (COGCC rule 317B)5. In the event of such a spill or incident, the intakes to the treatment plant can be shut down. The treatment plant routinely stores a week's supply of water allowing time for remediation of spills. The Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District is subject to the protections of COGCC Rule 317B, which regulates natural gas operations in surface water supply areas, Antero is proposing to employ pit -less drilling systems on the well pads within the PUD and to distribute and store production water at a centralized water storage facility, within the PUD. Part One Page 45 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health COGCC rule 904 requires liners for pits at centralized water storage facilities and has a provisions, at the discretion of the director, for the installation of leak detection systems in sensitive areas such as the PUD. COGCC rule 908 requires that centralized water storage facilities be permitted5; the geologic and hydrogeologic characterization of site; control of public access; fire lanes; surface water diversion systems, waste characterization profiles; an operating plan; baseline groundwater sampling and analysis; groundwater and surface water monitoring (at the discretion of the COGCC director); and groundwater and soil sampling when a pit is closed and the site remediated. Adherence to these rules, including the discretionary leak detection and monitoring, will significantly reduce the potential for impacts to water and soil quality from produced water and other exploration and production waste stored in the centralized pit. However, leaking pipelines and spills from chemical and production water -hauling trucks could still create the potential to impact surface water quality. COGCC rules do not specifically address water pipeline leaks. Any spills that occur on the pads could potentially impact water and soil quality by surface run- off and infiltration during precipitation events. This potential is evidenced in a sample of snow melt collected from a project Rulison well pad that contained levels of benzene greater than regulatory limits39. COGCC rule 603 specifies that in high density areas, such as the PUD, berms (or other secondary containment devices) capable of containing 150 percent of the fluid in the largest tank within the berm be constructed around produced water and condensate tanks. However, this rule does not provide for containment of spills that may occur outside the berm perimeter, such as during transfer of chemicals and materials to and from trucks and at well heads. Wind erosion and surface run-off from drill cuttings stored on Antero's pads could impact surface water and surface soil quality. The COGCC rules do not specifically address drill cutting stored on well pads5. At time of preparation of this HIA, it was not known if Antero is planning for deep injection of exploration and production wastewater within the PUD. COGCC rules require written permission from the COGCC director prior to construction of an injection well. The HIA would need to be updated to include potential impacts to public health, if injections wells are proposed. The Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District has a capacity of 6 million gallons of water per day. Currently, 3-3 ''A million gallons per day are used, allowing for the accommodation of Antero's water needs during well development operations. If water capacity were to significantly decrease, the needs of Battlement Mesa would take precedence to Antero's needs. It is unlikely that Antero's proposed project will have a significant impact on the primary domestic water supply for Battlement Mesa. The potential for a significant impact to the secondary water supply may exist. If the potable groundwater is impaired, Battlement Mesa may not have a back up source of domestic water. In addition, there is the potential for the Antero's project to impact the water quality of intermittent streams, creeks, and puddles, as well as soil Part One Page 46 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA. Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health quality. Finally, it is possible that shallow aquifer contamination could cause VOC off gassing into Battlement Mesa homes, but since the hydrology of the area is not well understood, the likelihood of such an occurrence is not clear. 5.3.5 Characterization of the impact on Water and Soil Quality The impact of water and soil quality due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows: Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable populations i Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Water and Soil Quality Negative Community wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low to High Medium* Tt or an explanation of the numerical ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. When considering anticipated water and soil contaminant exposures associated with the Antero development within the Battlement Mesa PUD, water and soil quality may produce negative health impacts in the areas in close proximity to the development areas and community wide. If the domestic water supply were to be contaminated, the health effects would be community wide. Effects of wind erosion and surface run-off could be more localized, and could impact children more than adults. Children, older adults, and individuals with pre-existing disease may be more vulnerable to water and soil contaminants and are considered a vulnerable population. The duration of water quality degradation could be long and may last through the life of the Antero's project, from well pad preparation through well abandonment. The impacts to water quality are expected to be infrequent and it is unlikely that contaminant concentrations in water and soil will be high enough to cause short-term and long-term disease because the current supply of domestic water is the Colorado River and the COGCC has extensive rules to protect this resource. If exposure were to occur, health impacts may include skin and eye irritation, neurological problems, and cancer. It is likely that medical attention would be necessary for some of these impacts and that some of these impacts will not be reversible. Therefore the health impacts, if exposure were to occur, are rated as low to high magnitude. For these reasons, water and soil impacts are prioritized as medium compared to other potential stressors. 5.4 Assessment of Transportation and Traffic on Health in Battlement Mesa Will there be motor vehicle accidents and related injury and death? February 3, 2010 stakeholder meeting raltvoicragr Draft Battlement Mesa 1-11A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Increases in transportation and traffic can impact health and safety of a community by increasing the risk of motor vehicle accidents, release of hazardous pollutants, creation of road dust, and impediment of walking and biking routes. Development of natural gas wells can cause significant increases in a variety of traffic, especially large truck traffic. Increases in Iarge truck traffic may place residents at greater risk for severe injury or death with the risk increasing with vehicle speed. Residents living in Battlement Mesa have expressed concerns that traffic associated with the Antero gas project will impact the health and safety of those living in the community. This assessment will address traffic impacts to the safety of Battlement Mesa citizens. Air quality, noise, and quality of life impacts due to increased traffic are addressed in other sections. 5.4.1 Traffic and Safety Vehicular traffic is a known hazard to safety. Increases in traffic are associated with increased risk of motor vehicle injury and death, due to vehicle -vehicle, vehicle -pedestrian, and vehicle - bicycle accidents. Motor vehicle accidents can be associated with speeding, poor traffic management at intersections, and heavy vehicle movement. Numbers of injuries/fatalities are directly related to vehicle volume and severity of injury is directly related to vehicle speed4°41 . Large trucks of 10,000 or more pounds are much more likely to be involved in a fatal multi - vehicle crash than passenger vehicles42. 5.4.2 Current Traffic Conditions Currently, large truck traffic within the PUD is mainly from delivery trucks supplying the local businesses, including gas stations and convenience and grocery stores, and natural gas operators servicing well pads outside the PUD. There are established county approved haul routes along the perimeter of the PUD, while most roads within the perimeter are limited to small vehicles. There are two entries into Battlement Mesa. The main entrance is just south of Exit 75 off of Interstate -70. A traffic analysis conducted by Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer, Inc. (SGM) for Antero in September 2009 32 found that this entrance had the highest traffic count in Battlement Mesa with 8,662 vehicle trips per day (vtld). The second entry into Battlement Mesa is from Exit 75 via US 6 west to County Road (CR) 300 (CR 300/Stone Quarry Road) on the southwest side of Battlement Mesa. Traffic counts at the US 6/CR 300 intersection were 2,300 vt/d, but were only 648 vtld on CR 300 where it enters the PUD west of the recreational vehicle (RV) park. Other counts indicate that on West Battlement Mesa Parkway there were 5,340 vt/d and on CR 307 (River Bluff Road) there were 371 vtld. Since there is no current industrial activity and very few retail stores, it is assumed that the large majority of these vehicle trips were passenger cars and light trucks, although this is not specifically stated in the traffic report. The report also projects an increase of 2.3% vehicle trips annually unrelated to the Antero drilling plan, based on average annual growth of Garfield County. Part One Page 48 Draft Battlement Mesa HCA, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Motor vehicle accidents in Garfield County are handled by the county sheriff's office, local municipal law enforcement and the Colorado State Patrol. When looking at accidents handled by the state patrol, Garfield County had the 91h highest number of motor vehicle accidents in the state in 2008, with 1,091 accidents total (14 fatal crashes, 116 that resulted in injury and 961 that resulted in property damage)43. Data from the county sheriff's office and data specific to Battlement Mesa are not currently available. Top 10 Colorado Counties 2008 Fatal, Injury, and Property Damage Crashes by County as Covered by the Colorado State Petrol (not all Colorado Crashes) http://csp.state.co.usTS CrashStat.html County Fatal Injury Property Damage Grand Total Jefferson 19 395 2,530 2,944 El Paso 20 278 1,953 2,251 Adams 13 233 1,773 2,019 Mesa 7 211 1,188 1,406 Larimer 14 275 1,080 1,369 Weld _ 28 258 _ 1,065 1,351 Eagle 6 132 1,073 1,211 Douglas 10 145 1,032 1,187 Garfield 14 116 961 1,091 Boulder 14 182 860 1,056 Grand Total 290 3,895 23,028 27,213 Children attending school in Battlement Mesa arrive and leave via passenger car, school bus, walking, or bicycle. Underwood Elementary (grades 1-3), St. John Elementary (grades 4-5) and Grand Valley Middle School (grades 6-8) are in Battlement Mesa. The Early Childhood Center (Pref -Kindergarten) and Grand Valley High School are in Parachute. Some students are not offered bus service if they live within a "Walk" zone. Specifically, students attending Underwood Elementary and living in Saddleback Village, Tamarisk Village, Tamarack Meadows are not offered bus service; children attending St. John Elementary and living in Willow Ridge, Willow Park, Valley View, Monument Creek Village, Canyon View, and Stone Ridge are not offered bus service; and children attending Grand Valley Middle School and living in Mesa Ridge, Eagle's Point, Willow Ridge, Willow Park, and Valley View are not offered bus service. (Battlement Mesa early childhood students and high school students are all offered bus service and ride together.) School hours in Battlement Mesa schools are 8:40 am -3:40 pm at Underwood (early release at 2:10pm); 8:25am- 3:25pm at St. John (early release at 1:55pm); and 7:50am-7:15pm at Grand Valley Middle School (1:45pm early release). A map detailing Antero's planned haul routes and school bus stops will be included in the final report. Part One Page 49 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 5.4.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Traffic Traffic associated with natural gas development is related to earth moving construction of well pads; movement of materials and waste to and from the well site; installation of pipelines; long term production; maintenance operations; final reclamation of the site after production is completed; and travel of workers to/from work. The most traffic intensive phases involve pad construction, drilling and well completion and pipeline construction. Antero has described a three phase development plan for the Battlement Mesa project as described in presentations at the public meetings. Phase 1 will develop the Stierberger Pad, Pad E, Pad 0, and the water storage facility (Pad F) on the south side of the PUD. Phase 2 will develop the Parks and Rec Pad, Pad A, Pad B, and Pad D on the north side of the PUD. The Parks and Rec pad replaces the Pad C originally planned. Phase 3 will develop the L and M pads on the northeast side of the PUD. Each phase will involve access road, pad and pipeline construction needed to develop the wells and tie them to the water movement system and the gas gathering lines at the eastern edge of the PUD. The traffic analysis conducted by SGM used estimates from previous Antero development sites in the Mamm Creek area to project average and maximum trips per day, for the Battlement Mesa project. Trips per day range from 2 (production phase) to 280 or more (intensive construction phase). Drilling completion, light construction, and pipeline installation range from on average 16-31 vt/d and a maximum of 30-46 vtld. The duration of the pad construction ranges from 10- 30 days and the other phase durations per well are drilling (18 days); completion (30 days); pipe installation (60 days/ mile); duration of each phase per pad was not calculated but efficiencies associated with drilling multiple wells sequentially on a pad will reduce the time of each phase on a pad. Production is projected to last 20 years. Reclamation after production is expected to have 7-10 vt/d for 11 days per pad. Although initial presentations to the public describe well development phases to last 3-4 years, more recent estimates in the traffic analysis indicate that well development is expected to occur for at least five years, maybe longer, depending on economic and regulatory conditions. Antero has indicated that it will consider on public input regarding the duration of the well development phase of the the project. Well development phases will overlap on different well pads so that while pad construction is occurring on one pad, drilling is accomplished on another and completion may be occurring on another pad. Therefore, traffic will be overlapping as well, with trucks associated with construction, drilling, pipeline and completion using the haul routes simultaneously. Trips per day for each of these phases are added to estimate the number of trips per day expected during the first five years when well development is occurring. The number of trips per day is estimated to be 90-120 vtld when light construction is occurring. When more intense well pad construction is occurring (during the Phase 2 well pad construction) traffic is projected to be 340 vtld for approximately 120 days. Well drilling will occur 24 hours a day and the vehicle trips will be spread throughout the day and night. Antero has stated they will limit Part One Page 50 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health truck hauling to hours outside of school zone hours. The majority of these trips are expected to be heavy trucks. Antero plans to use county haul routes for traffic. During all phases entrance and exit from Battlement Mesa will be via the US 6/ CR 300 route (Stone Quarry Road), on the southwest side of the PUD. Phase 1 also will utilize CR 303, CR 308 and CR 302. Phase 2 will utilize CR 303, CR 308, East Battlement Mesa Parkway, South Battlement Mesa Parkway, and CR 307 (River Bluff Road). Phase 3 will utilize CR 303, CR 308, East Battlement Mesa Parkway, North Battlement Mesa Parkway, and West Battlement Mesa Parkway. The county restricts hauling on CR302, CR 307, South Battlement Mesa Parkway, and West Battlement Mesa Parkway. It is assumed that Antero will be required to obtain special permits to use these roads. School buses for all the schools use and cross Antero haul routes. Although all children in the PUD may be impacted by crossing the haul routes while going to and from school, middle school age children may be the most impacted since the middle school is near two haul routes and children this age are more likely than younger children to be walking or bicycling on their own. According to the traffic analysis plan, Antero has decided to avoid any heavy truck hauling during school zone hours. Children going to/from school outside of school zone hours may be crossing haul routes while truck traffic is occurring. Antero has planned mitigations to decrease impacts of traffic on the Battlement Mesa Community, as evidenced in its best management practices (Appendix E). Of significance, Antero has committed to building a water management system comprised of water distribution pipes going from the well pads to the water storage site on the south side of the PUD. This water management system is intended to decrease movement of water by trucks and it is estimated that there will be fewer trips during the development phases because of this system. Antero estimates that there will be 50,000 fewer trips (Appendix E). In addition to heavy truck traffic, there will be workers coming into Battlement Mesa and traveling within Battlement Mesa in passenger cars and light trucks. It is estimated that there will be an average of 120-150 workers iit Battlement Mesa during the five year development period. Antero intends to house some workers in Battlement Mesa to decrease worker movement into and out of the PUD. Workers exceeding speed limits can put other vehicles and pedestrians at risk for injury and fatality. . Antero management emphasizes safe driving but a formal safe driving program does not exist. It is expected that the increase in heavy truck volume from negligible to tens or hundreds per day within the PUD may compromise road integrity and needs for increased road maintenance is anticipated. County funds will be needed to maintain haul routes as well as installation of road and pedestrian safety mitigations if needed. 5.4.4 Characterization of Traffic Impacts on Safety Part One Page 51 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health The following table summarizes the characterization of impacts from traffic. Impact Direction of health effects Geographic extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Traffic and Transportation Negative Community- wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low to high High* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. When considering public health to residents of Battlement Mesa, the increased traffic within the PUD is likely to create negative health effects due to increased safety risks. Because the haul routes include the entire circle of the Battlement Mesa Parkway as well as other roads within and on the perimeter of the PUD, the impact of the traffic is likely to be community -wide. There will be certain parts of the community that will be greater impacts for the duration of Antero's project (those homes next to CR300/Stone Quarry Road) while others will be impacted by very high volume traffic during the construction of the Phase 3 pads (those along River Bluff Road). Because children often walk and ride bicycles and are not as safety conscious, they are more vulnerable than most adults to the impacts of traffic within the PUD. Antero has committed to limit heavy truck traffic during school zone hours which will decrease risk to children traveling to and from school at those times. Children staying after school for sports and other activities may be at risk for traffic incidents related to truck traffic outside of those hours. Furthermore, truck traffic is likely to continue on weekends and holidays and children may be crossing haul routes at those times. The duration of exposure to increased traffic will be long, spanning the entire duration of the development of all three phases, at least five years. The traffic will be frequent, in some cases (River Bluff Road), up to 280 trucks may be be passing some days for several months. Along Stone Quarry road, there will be 45 to 113 trucks passing a day for approximately five years. Increased traffic is known to be associated with increased risk of traffic accidents and it is possible that there will be traffic related accident as a result of the Antero project. The magnitude will depend upon how well the traffic is controlled, how well mitigation efforts are adhered to, and to unrelated or perhaps chance factors. Traffic can cause minor to severe/fatal injuries and as such, the magnitude of the impacts will be low to high. . For these reasons, traffic impacts are prioritized as high compared to other potential stressors. 5.5 Assessment of Noise, Vibration, and Light Pollution on Health in Battlement Mesa "I am concerned that noise and vibration will affect my sleep. Will these be addressed?" June 15 stakeholder meeting Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Increased noise, vibration, and light are common concerns for citizens near construction and industrial sites. At natural gas sites noise and vibration can occur in the construction phase, drilling and completion phases, and due to truck traffic. Light pollution can occur due to 24 hour lighting during development and production operations. Because of these sources, noise, vibration, and light concerns have been expressed by Battlement Mesa residents at stakeholder meetings. COGCC Rule 80244, based upon the State of Colorado Noise Ordinance45, states that pad construction operations are considered industrial sites and site noise may not exceed 80 decibels (dB) in the day and 75 dB at night at 350 feet from the well. In residential zones, during normal production operations noise at 350 feet from the well must not exceed 55 dB in the day and 50 dB at night. The rule does not address noise levels at a home either during well development or production phases. The noise rule does not address well development noise levels for residents in areas where development activities are expected to occur for extended periods of time, such as is being proposed in Battlement Mesa. In such cases, the COGCC rule may not be protective of health. COGCC Rule 80346 states "site lighting shall be directed downward and internally so as to avoid glare on public roads and building units within seven (700) hundred feet." COGCC does not have a rule limiting ground vibration, but according to the US Department of Transportation ground vibration is generally not felt below 65 VdB and annoyance can be experienced at 70 VdB47. According to EPA research, construction equipment can produce noise ranging from 80-89 dB at a distance of 50 feet and 60-69 dB at 500 feet". Heavy construction equipment can cause vibration of 85 VdBA 50 feet from the source". Because there is a potential for noise, light and vibration to exceed COGCC rules and background levels, a review of potential noise, vibration and light impacts is warranted. 5.5.1 Noise, Vibration, Light pollution and Health Both acute loud noise and chronic lower level noise have been associated with a variety of negative health effects. Hearing loss and impairment are known to occur as a result of exposure to acute, high decibel noise (greater than 85 dB). The odds of hearing loss increase as the decibel level increases. A dose relationship between noise level and hearing loss exists". Studies looking at the relationship between noise and cardiovascular disease, hypertension, psychological symptoms, and respiratory impairment are numerous. Reviews and meta-analysis of these studies conclude that noise has the potential to impact these health outcomes" -53. Part One Page 53 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Cardiovascular risk factors have been shown to be impacted by noise levels in the range of 51-70 dB in persons with several years of exposure54. Noise annoyance can lead to stress related impacts on health such as feelings of displeasure, interference with thoughts, feelings, and activities and disturbed sleep and can have impacts on mood, performance, fatigue, and cognition55. Studies indicate that noise levels which produce these impacts can vary: annoyance can occur at 55dB; school performance can be impacted at 70 dB; and sleep can be impacted by as little as 35-60 dB. Ground vibration and low frequency noise may cause health impacts similar to those associated with noise annoyance. Establishment of causal relationships between noise/ vibration and health impacts is complicated by the fact that noise annoyance in particular can vary with pitch, frequency, and duration. In addition, individual adaptation to noise can vary and complicates subjective reporting as well as expected outcomes. Nevertheless, the studies suggest that some persons may experience impacts at noise levels that meet the permissible COGCC and State of Colorado regulations. Preliminari research suggests that light at night may affect health by disrupting normal circadian rhythms56 7. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed shift work a Class 2A (probable) carcinogen based on epidemiologic links to breast cancer. Mechanisms for the health effects of light at night are actively being studied and include altered melatonin and other hormone release". 5.5.2 Current Noise, Vibration, and Light Conditions Residences in Battlement Mesa are located approximately one half mile or more from Interstate - 70 and most homes are not likely to have noise impacts from this source. There is not any baseline/ background noise monitoring data available for Battlement Mesa. In 2002, La Plata County, Colorado conducted noise sampling in rural, residential, traffic corridors and light industrial areas59. Twenty-four hour residential subdivision noise ranged from 37-53 dB, with an average of 42-45 dB. Traffic corridors ranged from 55-65 dB, with an average of 57 on a state highway and 45 on a collector road. Although it is not possible to know if the La Plata information is representative of all of Battlement Mesa, it is reasonable to expect that noise for most of the homes in Battlement Mesa is similar to that measured in the residential subdivision in La Plata. Likewise, night time light is likely to be similar to other residential areas, consisting of municipal street and outdoor bonne lighting. Baseline lighting measures for Battlement Mesa do not exist. Some residences in Battlement Mesa, however, may already be proximate to natural gas production sites located outside the PUD and maybe experiencing or have experienced noise and light trespass elevated above background in relation to this development. There does not appear to be any significant sources of vibration within the PUD. Part One Page 54 Draft Battlement Mesa 111A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 5.5.3 Antero drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and NoiseNibration/Light Interpretation of Antero Noise Monitoring and Noise Modeling: Antero provided the CSPH with documentation of noise monitoring conducted at the Watson Pad on 8/29/2010 through 9/2/2010. Antero also provided CSPH with reports of noise models for a drilling scenario at the Watson Pad and a fracturing scenario for the D -pad. CSPH interpretation of these reports is as follows: 1) Noise monitoring conducted during drilling operations on the Watson Pad on 8/29/2010- 9/2/2010 indicate that noise at 625 feet (residence is 925 feet) to the northwest and 540 feet (residence is 655 feet) to the south east, was measured below industrial noise limits of 75 and 80 dBA (night and day time, respectively). While these measurements do not constitute a violation, the measured noise was above levels that may cause health impacts. In addition, the results of this report indicate that noise levels can vary as much as25dBA, 2) A second report documents noise monitoring conducted on 8/30/2010 through 8/31/2010 before and after the rig floor blankets, draw works brake shroud were installed. The results of the study indicate these mitigations can decrease noise levels. 3) Noise mitigation effectiveness may be in part determined by local topography and meteorology. 4) There was no measurement of background/ baseline noise levels in Battlement Mesa or on the Watson Pad when the noise monitoring was conducted. 5) A third report provides results from use of a model to predicted noise levels during a drilling scenario at Watson Ranch. Comparison between the model's predicted noise levels and the average of the measured noise levels suggest the model may be within 10 dBA of the measured noise. This suggests that modeling may be a reasonable tool for planning mitigation efforts. However, because noise Levels can vary by as much as 25 dBA, it is still necessary to monitor noise so that mitigation efforts can be documented and improved upon should noise levels exceed COGCC rules or exceed levels that may impact health. 6) A fourth report provides results from use of a model to predict noise levels during a fracturing scenario at the D pad within the PUD. The model indicates that noise levels would be above the levels that may impact health, although they meet permissible COGCC rules. Two proposed mitigations ("Option A" and "Option B") could reduce noise to levels that are still within range of health impacts but are improved over unmitigated scenarios. Again, it is necessary to monitor noise during these activities to ensure that noise achieves levels that are less likely to impact health, even if then noise levels meet COGCC rules. Additional mitigation efforts may be necessary to protect health. Part One Page 55 Draft Battlement Mesa HA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Antero data indicate that noise associated with could range from approximately 40-70 dBA at 350 feet during drilling activities and models suggest that unmitigated noise during fracturing could be over 85 dBA at 350 feet. According to the models, mitigation is expected to reduce noise from these activities to the 50- 63 dBA range. In community meetings, Antero has described possible noise abatement strategies, including hay bale walls, blankets, brake shrouds and beans. According to meetings documents and the Surface Use Agreement, Antero is not planning centralized compression (a significant noise source). Well head compression if utilized will be housed with noise suppression equipment. It is unclear how well these strategies will reduce noise below levels that impact health. Simple attainment of the COGCC permissible limits may not be sufficient to protect from health impacts due to noise from the extended well development period. It is important to note that other noise sources will include large truck traffic; road and well pad construction machinery; diesel engines used during drilling; hydraulic fracturing and completion stages; drill rig brakes, pipeline construction activities and possibly other activities. Antero has stated it is possible that they will use electric engines for some drilling operations within the PUD but that diesel engines will be used for all completion activities. Noise is expected to range from intermittent (traffic and drill rig brakes) to continuous (diesel engine use during drilling and hydraulic fracturing) for several weeks to months. Drilling noise will occur around the clock. Fracturing is conducted during daylight hours, however other completion operations may contribute to nighttime noise. Although specific distances from truck haul routes to schools is not available, rough estimates indicate that schools are roughly 1,000 feet or more from truck routes and may not experience significant noise impacts, although this should be verified with school staff. Residents living less than 500 feet from truck routes, such as along CR 300 (Saddleback Village) or West Battlement Mesa Parkway (Willow Creek Village), are close enough to experience noise that could be between 65 and 85 dB when trucks are passing, at times 9- 12 times per hour or more. These areas could experience some associated intermittent vibration as well. Because drilling operations occur round the clock, the well pad is lighted and may contribute to light intrusion at nearby residences throughout the drilling operations for each pad. In addition, security lighting may be in place for the duration of the well pad life. Antero has also proposed light abatement strategies, including sodium vapor lights, light shields, and rig placement modifications. Antero modeling indicates that these measures will adequately reduce light intrusion to residents. It will be important for Antero to respond with further mitigation if residents report impacts from noise or light. 5.5.4 Characterization of Noise, Vibration and Light Impacts Part One Page 56 Draft Battlement Mesa 111A, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health The impact of noise due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows: Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable Populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Rank Noise, Vibration, Light Negative Local Yes Long Frequent Possible Low- Medium Medium When considering anticipated noise, vibration, and light exposures associated with the Antero development within the Battlement Mesa PUD, noise, vibration and light may produce negative health effects. Of the three, noise is likely to have the most impact on health. While all or most parts of the community may be proximate to noise sources at different times, it is not likely that the entire community will be affected by noise during the development of an individual pad or by truck traffic. There are some residents close to haul routes that may experience elevated noise due to truck traffic for five years or more. Noise impacts will therefore be local to areas in close proximity to the development areas and areas close to truck traffic routes. The elderly may be more vulnerable to noise annoyance and may experience more health impacts due to noise due to underlying cardiac disease and/or other stress conditions, The elevated noise is expected to be associated with construction and development phases and with truck traffic on haul routes. The pad development phases will last several months, while nearby truck traffic may last several years for some residents, and so, duration of exposure is expected to be long depending on location. Significant noise levels are not expected during normal production phases in the years subsequent to well development. Should reworking of wells be conducted, noise levels are expected to increase, again for several months, during the reworking phase. When noise occurs is expected to occur frequently as it will be constant and/or frequently reoccurring. It is unlikely that residential noise will be loud enough to cause noise induced hearing loss or long enough in duration to impact cardiovascular disease. In general, health impacts are likely to result from annoyance due to noise above background and may cause sleep disturbance, displeasure, fatigue, etc. It is not likely that medical attention will be necessary for most people, although some may seek medical assistance. Therefore the health effects are rated as low- medium magnitude. It is possible that in some individuals, noise levels will produce significant annoyance and may produce Larger health effects. 5.6 Assessment of Impacts on Community Wellness Will the development have impacts on education? What will be the mental health impacts? Will there be more or less services in the community? February 3, 2010 stakeholder meeting Draft Battlement Mesa FHA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Residents of Battlement Mesa are concerned that the Antero project may affect the well-being of their social and community environment. Current epidemiologic literature cites a myriad of challenges in understanding the specific effects of the community and social environment on individual physical and psychological health. Largely, this is due to the difficulty in analyzing the separate and complex processes through which community and individual factors work together to influence health6°-b1. Never the less, it is widely accepted that societal factors contribute to the health status of individuals through either the promotion or hindering of healthy choices and behaviors, and it is the collective health of individuals which contribute to the broader sense of community well-being among residents�-63 While there is no single determinant or definition of a healthy community, we assessed current quantitative community wellness conditions through societal -based factors which were expressed as concerns by Battlement Mesa citizens. School enrollment, crime rates, prevalence of substance abuse, prevalence of sexually transmitted infection, and social service availability were assessed as surrogate measures of community health. Other measures of quality of life, such as the availability of and participation in recreational activities and the depth and breadth of active social networks that lead to the experience of community were also considered. Many resident statements made during stakeholder meetings and comments to the draft HIA serve as examples of ways that the experience of community can influence an individual's experience of well-being. 5.6.1 Community Wellness and Health Many factors contribute to community wellness and health as follows: Community Experience: Well-planned combinations of built and natural environments promote social interaction and pride in community living, which are in turn determinants of mental health and well-being6-. Strong social support and community networks have generally positive effects on physical and mental health of individuals. Changes to a community can result in positive, negative or mixed impacts to the health of a community6$0. There is limited data available to directly assess the functioning level of social capital and cohesion in any community. Monitoring access and use of public health and social services may serve as measurement of some of the outcomes related to community health. As population of an area changes or grows, it is expected that the infrastructure of services rendered to that community may need to adapt to meet increasing or changing demands Education: Inherent with changes in population come changes to school enrollment; increased population may lead to an increase in the class size, and possibly an increase in the ratio of students -to -teachers. Larger class sizes can also put a strain on the physical aspects of Part One Page 58 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health educational facilities. Influx of a semi-permanent or long-term work force coupled with a booming local economy can increase local school enrollments beyond capacity and expected annual growth rates. High turnover of students can also disrupt classrooms and lead to compromised learning environments. In Colorado, if students are present when school counts occur, increased school enrollment may lead to increased funds, which can improve educational services and options. However if students arrive after the count date, the school does not receive extra funding for new students. Mental Health and Suicide: Treatment for mental health conditions and suicidal tendencies is conducted predominantly in the outpatient setting. As such, hospital discharge data for these and related conditions generally do not reflect the true burden of these issues in any given community. Additionally, due to their highly sensitive nature, outpatient data for these issues at the local community level is not publicly available. Studies of the community impacts of industries such as natural gas do not offer clear evidence for direct impacts to mental health,. other than to suggest that changes in other measures may add or subtract from the levels stress, worry, and satisfaction experienced by individuals in the community73' 78. Sexually Transmitted Infection: In any population, sexually transmitted infections (STI) are an important public health prevention priority'). In addition to a variety of fertility problems caused by STI, syphilis and HIV/AIDS cause substantial health problems in all those infected. In addition to long-term health effects of acquired sexually transmitted infections, there are the daily consequences of pain, discomfort, and often embarrassment. Loss of worker productivity is also a concern with sexually transmitted infection, due to time required away from work to access testing, and received results and treatment, a process which may involve two days off work depending on travel distance to the nearest confidential testing/treatment center76.77. 5.6.2 Natural Gas Industry and Community Wellness Boomtowns Changes: There are a small number of case studies available relating community impacts to boomtown effects of the natural gas industry. Some of the available studies provide evidence that exposure to natural gas development and production can have negative psycho- social health implications71' 78-80, while a few others find positive effects70 , Additionally, there are a few studies that find no association at all between natural gas development and production and social and psychological health15• 70 Social problems of mental health, criminal activity, divorce, suicide and alcoholism are said to occur at disproportionate rates in boomtown natural gas economies71. 78-80. This literature also describes disruptions in social cohesion due to population influx and opposition that arises between the "new comers" (both temporary and permanent new residents) and the "old timers"71' 78-80. Both groups are likely to be vulnerable to combination of positive and negative community impacts. Part One Page 59 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Crime: Several research studies have correlated increased crime rates with communities involved in natural gas development and production, including crimes such as domestic violence, rape, prostitution, assault, child abuse, and homicide66- 9. Because jobs in natural gas development and production often involve a transient workforce, residents in affected communities often attribute increasing crime rates to the industry workers. On the other hand, there has also been some literature reporting lower crime rates after the commencement of natural gas development and production and some research arguing that there is no association at all between natural gas development and production and social and psychological health outcomes 15' 7°. Substance abuse: Several studies have reported an increased burden of substance abuse behaviors in communities involved in natural gas development and production, with primary emphasis being that substance abuse is prevalent among workers in the oil natural gas development and production 65, 69, 72In some cases, increased illegal substance activity has been associated with seasonal increases in natural gas development and production ". Mental health: Studies of the community impacts of boomtown industries do not offer clear evidence for direct impacts to mental health, other than to suggest that changes in other measures may add or subtract from the levels stress, worry, and satisfaction experienced by individuals in the community"' 78 . Sexually Transmitted Infection: Increases in the community burden of sexually transmitted infection have been identified as a health effect of extraction industries in many low- and middle-income countries 76-". Although literature regarding STI and the extraction industries in North America does not exist, this is an area which should be monitored. Key factors perceived to increase the spread of sexually transmitted infection within the extraction -industries include the transient nature of the in -migrant worker population who are away from social controls of their home community, the long and difficult work days possibly fostering desire for drug and alcohol binges during time off, and high salaries and disposable income in a young work-force7{'- 77. These factors contribute to the difficulties experienced in providing sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment for an itinerant natural gas development and production workforce. In addition to the inherent stigmas often associated with sexually transmitted infection testingltreatment, workers cite lack of access to sexually transmitted infection services due to geographic isolation from sexually transmitted infection services, lack of available walk- in testing and sexually transmitted infection clinic hours overlapping with their own working hours"-". 5.6.3 Garfield County and Battlement Mesa during the Garfield County 2003-08 Boom The 2008 Saccomanno Study reported several social and community concerns, including increase in spouse and child abuse, child neglect and stressed family relationships; increase in Part One Page 60 graft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision l Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health alcohol abuse and drug abuse (especially methamphetamine); high suicide rates; increase in sexually transmitted infection (related to increase in temporary workers); access to health care and mental health services, availability of housing, cultural clash between longtime residents and industry workers; and traffic and public safety21. Concerns of the Battlement Mesa residents are similar to those reported in the Saccomanno report and reflect the county's earlier experience with the natural gas industry during the 2003-08 boom. Primary data on several baseline community health characteristics were collected and described below. These baseline characteristics are described in detail in Appendix C, including data on school enrollment, criminal activity, mental health and substance abuse, and sexually transmitted infections. The years 2005-2008 appear to be a period of increase for several of the measures observed. Education: During 2005-08, school enrollment in Garfield County's District 16 increased by 37.4%. There was a change in the raciallethnic distribution of students enrolled during this time, demonstrated by the decrease in the proportion of Caucasianlnon-Hispanic students accompanied by a rise in the percentage of Hispanic children. Comments received from local education professionals indicate that classroom turnover of children of transient workers led to classroom disruption and diminished educational experience for all children. While the Antero project by itself will not likely cause a severe increase in the number of students, it is possible that the project could attract transient workers with families to Battlement Mesa and which may lead to some classroom turnover and subsequent educational disruption. Crime: Crime data is not available for Battlement Mesa, so data from near -by Parachute Colorado is reviewed. Criminal activity was elevated during 2005-08, with a calculated average of over 300 arrests per year during that time, an increase of 50% over previous years. Crime rates decreased to previous levels of approximately 200 per year in 2009. It is unclear if the increase number of crimes simply reflects an increased population or is linked to the nature of the population of transient workforce. In any case, it is important to consider additional policing needs when there is a rise in criminal activity. Sexually Transmitted Disease: Chlamydia and gonorrhea counts in Garfield County steadily increased during the 2005-2008 time period. In Battlement Mesa the largest number of cases occurred in 2007 and 2008. For the purposes of community health monitoring, it is important to review these data prospectively to evaluate future changes and trends. Mental Health: Longitudinal data on mental health, substance abuse and suicide were not available for similar analysis. Results from a 2006 public health survey conducted by the Garfield GCPH found that upwards of 17% of residents were burdened by at least one of these conditions. Further, in many cases, when respondents reported experiencing mental health problems (defined as experiencing depression or stress), they also reported difficulties coping with substance abuse issues and engaging in physical activity". . A 2006 study of hospital discharge data for Garfield County regional hospitals found that 275 persons had been hospitalized for alcohol/substance abuse or suicidal behavior during the period 2003-05. Of Part One Page 61 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health those 275, 47 (17A%) had an alcohoUdrug abuse diagnosis and 228 (82.9%) had a diagnosis of suicidal behavior 82. Data from before or after this time period was not identified. Substance Abuse: A 2006 survey of EnCana subcontractors working in Colorado, conducted by White River Counseling, reported that 66.3% of subcontractors were concerned about methamphetamine use among their employees, and 68.9% were concerned about heavy drinking. Concern was rated primarily with respect to productivity and workplace safety, however questions about community impact were also assessed. Notably, the respondents who reported higher levels of concern about the potential impact of employee substance abuse affecting the local community also had stronger feelings about being proactive to prevent alcohol and drug abuse74. While not a conclusive study, this indicates that workers may be receptive to substance abuse prevention and intervention efforts presented as part of a community health initiative. For these reasons, it is important to monitor whether drug and alcohol use among community residents shifts with the introduction of gas drilling. 5.6.4 Current Battlement Mesa Community Amenities and Services Community Experience: Battlement Mesa is a residential community with very little current commercial activity and no industrial activity within the PUD. The focus of the community has been on providing high quality residential experience. The community has been on the periphery of natural gas development during the county's 2003-08 boom and is currently experiencing natural gas development in several areas just outside the PUD boundaries. This past and current experience with the natural gas industry has influenced many citizens' perceptions of how the industry will impact the experience of living in Battlement Mesa. Lifestyle! Outdoor Amenities: Bike trails, golf course, community center, open space, visual vistas, Public .Health Services: To meet area community health needs, Garfield County operates a comprehensive Public Health Department (the GCPH) with locations in Rifle and Glenwood Springs83. Battlement Mesa residents are eligible for all services provided by the GCPH. Some services relevant to the community health measures discussed include: • General health education and screenings • Communicable disease surveillance • STD/HIV screening • Crisis support hotlines for domestic violence, suicide and mental health • Tobacco prevention • Emergency service and assistance • Adult education programs • Human services, including employment, food and housing assistance programs Part One Page 62 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision l Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health • Services of a designated environmental health department, including the C.A.R.E.S. project for responding to community concern about environmental health issues 5.6.5 Current and Possible Anticipated Impacts to Community Wellness from the Antero Project Positive Community Impacts: It is possible that the increased workforce could help support new business within the community, such as a restaurant or coffee shop, which could enhance the community experience. Other positive economic impacts are included in the Economic Assessment. Additional students would bring new funds to the schools, which could improve the educational experience for all Battlement Mesa children. Students would need to be present on "count day" (usually in early October) for the school to receive additional funds. Rapid turnover of students may decrease the positive impact of additional funds. Antero has pledged one million dollars to the community, however, it is not known how these funds will be used but it is possible that this money could be used to enhance the community in some way. Negative Impacts to Quality of Life: Citizen statements and comments indicate that some residents view the impending natural gas development as a change that already alters their experience of the Battlement Mesa community for the worse. According to several residents' comments, Battlement Mesa represents an active choice of lifestyle and the industrial nature of the Antero project invalidates this choice. Furthermore, just the anticipation of near future development has altered the experience of community. Many resident comments and statements suggest that the shift of community focus from residential to industrial decreases the importance and influence of the residential life within the Battlement Mesa. Residents express concern that a rise of industrial influence, at the expense of residential influence, will lead to reduced quality of life experience. Uncertainties regarding many aspects of the development also serve to influence the experience of community for some residents. Some citizens report that the anticipation of natural gas development has led to anxiety and depressive symptoms. One former resident stated that the anticipation of the project led to loss of quality of life and the subsequent associated symptoms were a primary reason for leaving Battlement Mesa. Residents also report that uncertainty regarding the project contributes to anxiety and other symptoms. Diminished access to outdoor recreational space, limited by industrial traffic and well development, is possible. In addition, the quality of outdoor recreational pursuits such as walking, biking, and golfing may be diminished by increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and other industrial activities. Such activities may also serve as constant reminders of the changed community focus. For example, the presence of many trucks can change the quality of a walk or bike ride, in addition to being a safety hazard and releasing pollutants into the air. If industrial traffic causes residents to feel the need to leave Battlement Mesa for a peaceful walk rather than Part One Page 63 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health go out their door, then the quality of life has been impacted. Such unquantifiable, yet valued aspects of community appear to be at risk for some Battlement Mesa residents. Negative Impacts to Social Capital/Social Cohesion: Perhaps the biggest contributor to the social cohesion of Battlement Mesa is its status as a "planned community", where business, schools, and facilities and access for recreation are cohesively integrated with residential living9. As such, effects on the social cohesion of Battlement Mesa residents may be determined and intertwined with physical effects to the community itself, such as damaged or neglected roads, neighboring homes and businesses, public lands and parks. The Antero project seems to have already led to changes to social capital and cohesion. Whether further disruption to social cohesion takes place will depend on the extent to which the Antero project disrupts planned nature of the Battlement Mesa community, particularly during the 5 years of well development. It is possible that traffic, noise, truck emissions, well site emissions may disrupt the interaction of community and environment, providing a means for decreased social cohesion. Boomtown Effects: The projected workforce of 120-150 is not expected to produce boomtown effects in Battlement Mesa. However, some impacts may occur on a smaller scale, therefore, consideration should be given to potential impacts of this relatively small workforce on this community. Education: At this time it is not known how many students may be associated with the Antero workforce in Battlement Mesa, however, it is not likely that this workforce will increase school enrollment beyond capacity. However, children of transient workers may enter the school system in Battlement Mesa and frequent turnover may disrupt classrooms. In addition, it is possible that students entering school throughout the school year could burden school resources. If additional students are present at the time of "count", the school would receive additional funds for these students. If, however, students enter the school after the "count" day, no additional resources are allocated from the state for those additional students. Crime: Crime rates in Parachute during the last natural gas boom suggest that if the population of Battlement Mesa increases as a result of the Antero workforce, additional law enforcement may need to be considered. 5.6.6 Characterization of Community Wellness Impacts As described above, community wellness is characterized by qualitative factors such as quality of life, social cohesion and the general experience of community, as well as quantitative factors such as school enrollment, rates of sexually transmitted infection, incidence of criminal activity, burden of substance abuse. For the purposes of this project, the impact due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the community wellness of local residents was calculated in terms of both positive and negative impacts as follows: Positive Health Effects Part One Page 64 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Populations that Benefit Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects ^ Priority Community Wellness Positive Community wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low Low* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. The Antero project could support positive community change by supporting businesses that enhances community cohesion, such as a coffee shop or restaurant. The community would be enhanced by increased school funds, if additional students are present on school count days. In addition, the one million dollar contribution to the community could be used in such a way as to enhance the experience of community for Battlement Mesa residents. Positive community impacts would be expected to be community -wide, affecting residents throughout the Battlement Mesa PUD. Improved school funding would positively impact youth in particular. Positive community effects associated with the Antero project would be expected to last during the five year development phase and therefore be considered long in duration. Positive community effects are likely to frequent if they occur. However, whether there will be a positive health impact to the community is uncertain, particularly because it is unknown how much the workforce will support existing or future local business or whether children will be enrolled in the schools on count day. It is also unknown how the one million dollar contribution to the community will be used. Therefore, it is estimated that positive health impacts is possible. The magnitude of positive health effects are expected to be low. Part One Page 65 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 February 2011 Negative Health effects Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Community Wellness Negative Community wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Low to High Medium - High* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. Negative health effects that may be experienced include changes to social cohesion and declining quality of outdoor experience associated with the shift of residential to industrial community. In addition, stresses associated with perceived or real increased threat of crime, heavier industrial traffic, visible impacts to natural environment and recreation areas, rapid influx and possibly turnover of newcomers to the community, exposure to STI and substance abuse, and stress on schools. Much of the anticipated concern is rooted in the previous experience of the community with the 2003-08 natural gas boom, Many of these stressors may be felt by citizens throughout the Battlement Mesa PUD and therefore impacts would be community wide. Elderly and children may be more vulnerable potential negative to the community. The elderly may be more susceptible to crimes of theft or burglary, and may be most affected by changes in social cohesion and community experience. Children would be most affected by changes in school enrollment and classroom stability. They may also be affected by changes in outdoor areas used for play, which may overlap with areas prone to more industrial activity or along roadsides used more frequently for hauling drilling materials. We expect the community impacts to continue for the duration of Antero's project (five years), and therefore be long. Even though the Antero project is relatively small, its location within the community will have more impact on community than development located outside the community boundaries. Therefore, it is expected that exposure to negative effects will be frequent. The likelihood that health impacts will occur as a result of negative effects to the community is probable. The overall magnitude of health effects is expected to be low to medium for most residents, however, some residents may experience high magnitude effects. We have prioritized community stress as medium but recognize that the impacts to the community depend in a large part on the mitigation of other stressors. If mitigation of air, traffic and noise are not sufficient then the sense of community will be negatively impacted, associated stress will increase, and steps to protect the community should take a high priority. 5.7 Assessment of Economic and Employment Impacts on Health in Battlement Mesa Part One Page 66 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Will a boom and bust cycle occur? We are now in a bust and the food banks drying up. What will happen to the property values? February 3, 2010 stakeholder meeting Economic conditions of a region can have important impacts on the health of the population. Employment status can impact individual health and well-being and economic uncertainty can impact health by increasing stress. Economic development of poor and rural areas is often credited with bringing resources that support health; however natural gas development in Garfield County and other parts of the West have had mixed economic impacts m the past. On the positive side, the natural gas industry brings jobs to a region and the increased economic activity supports other commercial and industrial businesses. On the other hand, the value of private property where natural gas development occurs has been shown to decline. In addition there are anecdotal reports of residents moving out of areas of natural gas development.. Residents of Battlement Mesa have expressed concerns that sudden economic growth within their community may negatively impact the community by causing housing and goods inflation, and impacting services. Others in the community are concerned that gas industry development will decrease the appeal of the community and cause a decrease in home values, leading to physical and emotional stress and impacting community unity. A review of economic and employment impacts of the Antero gas project in. Battlement Mesa is warranted. 5.7.1 Ways Economic Activity can Influence Health Income and employment influence many central determinants of health and wellbeing, including quality of housing, education, diet, lifestyle, and access to health services. In developed countries, employment is directly related to positive health outcomes84. In the United States, stress related to job loss, unemployment, and job instability is strongly correlated with self-report of poor health85. Also in the Untied States, health insurance access is directly related to employment for those under the age of 65. Loss of insurance can lead to decreased health care access and poorer health. Increased economic activity of a region can increase jobs and tax revenues which can support public services, thereby enhancing community wellness. On the other hand, if the economic activity leads to a decrease in land values, resulting psychological stress may impact health. Boom and bust cycles of an industry can also lead to community stress and cause disruption of public services, which may impact health. Prolonged stress can impact overall physical and mental health, including impacts to cardiovascular disease, immune system effects, depression, and anxiety$6. 5.7.2 Past Natural Gas Economic Impacts in Garfield County ,Employment: The 2007 Socio -Economic Impact study, commissioned by Garfield County and conducted by BBC Research provides a breakdown of economic activity in the county during the 2003-2008 natural gas boom. In 2005, industry contributions to total county employment. included regional services, tourism, external household funding (retiree and non/wage income) Part One Page 67 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 gas development, government services, net out -commuting (to jobs in neighboring counties) manufacturing and agriculture. External monies brought to the county by retiree/non-wage income ranked 3rd highest in total jobs supported, while the natural gas industry ranked 4`" highest in total jobs in the county8 The subsequent global economic slowdown and national decline in natural gas prices in 2009 led to a rapid decline of jobs and economic activity associated with the industry. Property Values: Housing prices may be adversely affected by proximate natural gas development activities. The Garfield County Land Values and Solutions Study, conducted in 2006 by BBC research determined that property values decreased when a natural gas well was developed on the property. The value of the property was lowest during the drilling phase and began to recover during the completion phases. While the value continued to rise as time since drilling increased, the value of a property did not achieve the same level of appreciation as similar properties without a well. The report also states that increased property value as a whole may occur as a result of increased demand due to natural gas industry worker influx, but the increase is diminished in instances when the property has a well on it. The authors used interview information to determine that possible causes of decreased value include uncertainty and risk adverse behavior on the part of buyers, realtors, and lending institutions". Boom/Bust: Natural gas development has created boomlbust economies in Wyoming, Colorado and other regions of the West over the last decade, with mixed economic impacts to local residents and workers. A case study conducted in Wyoming indicates that many high paying industry jobs require particular skill sets and these jobs are often filled by itinerant industry workers. There were local residents that directly benefited from increased economic activity. On the other hand, some local residents experienced negative economic impacts associated with inflation, increased property taxes and decreased services71' 8°. Some local businesses benefit from an increase in commerce, but other businesses were not able to expand to meet demand. Increased commerce may bring " big box" stores and other new businesses, which put strain on longtime local business, and some ended up closing. Some local residents not earning high industry wages were not be able to keep up with rising cost of living, housing prices, and property taxes. While those working for the industry and related service industries may have less stress and better health related to the economic activity, a local, inflationary economy can cause psychological stress to local workers and residents79. Because the gas well development phase is very labor intensive, boom economics associated with worker population influx predictably cycles to bust economics when the development phase for the area is over and development moves on to other regions. Economic changes associated with natural gas development may improve health for some due to individual improvement in job status. Others may be at risk of increased stress associated with declining property value. In addition, changes could bring job insecurity to some residents, thereby increasing stress. Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health 5.7.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa Part One Page 68 Draft Battlement Mesa FHA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Employment: The number of workers involved in well development can vary widely according to pad site topography and geology, number of wells per pad, characteristics of the gas, etc. Most workers are employees of companies subcontracted to perform very specific development jobs and remain on a given pad only as long as needed, sometimes only days, weeks or a few months. Antero plans to use two rigs to develop approximately 200 wells in the PUD over the course of approximately five years. Antero estimates that this kind of serial operation will keep approximately 120-150 workers working within the PUD. Once all the wells in the PUD are developed, the workforce needed to maintain the wells over the 20 years of production is relatively small. Industry workers will realize direct economic benefits of high wage industry jobs. Tax revenues from the Antero project will be realized at a county level. The presence of 120-150 workers in the PUD will provide indirect economic benefits to some local businesses. However, there are very few businesses in the PUD, therefore this trickle down effect is not likely to have a substantial positive impact on most of the Battlement Mesa citizens. Local residents not employed by the industry or supporting businesses may not benefit from economic growth but may be at risk for negative impacts of decreased housing values, goods price inflation, and potentially compromised services. Property Values: The impact of job growth to the economy of Battlement Mesa is likely to include some demand for local housing. Some workers may live in Battlement Mesa, thereby creating demand for housing, although it is not clear if this will be primarily in the rental or sales market., Some workers will live outside of the Battlement Mesa community. The 2006 Garfield County Land Values and Solutions Study focused on rural properties with a well on the property. The natural gas development project in Battlement Mesa is different in that there will be 200 wells within the PUD, but none on any individual residential property. In Battlement Mesa, the development period, which was noted to have the most profound impact on land values, will be at least 5 years. This development period will be longer than development period for wells in the study. It is likely that Battlement Mesa citizens will see decreased property values as a result of well development within the PUD and the impacts could affect most of the properties in Battlement Mesa. Furthermore, the impact may be substanitial given the prolonged development period. While the recent economic downturn has also universally impacted property values, properties close to natural gas development are likely to be additionally impacted by the development as well as the economy. Once the development is over and the sites are undergoing only production activities , land values may recover, although the Land Values Study suggests that values may not ever become equivalent to properties not impacted by natural gas. Boom/Bust: It is not likely that the two rig operation will create a boom or bust economy in Battlement Mesa. Part One Page 69 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health 5.7.4 Characterization of the Economy, Employment and Property Values Impacts on Health Positive Health Impacts The positive health impacts on the economy, employment and housing values due to the Antero roiect in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows: Impact Direction of health effects Geographic extent of exposure Populations that benefit Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of project Magnitude of health effects Priority Economy. employment and property value Positive Community wide Few Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. Positive health impacts could be expected in relation to less stress associated with employment for workers living in Battlement Mesa, as well as increased economic activity for those operating some businesses within the PUD. The positive impact of employment and economic activity may be felt community wide should businesses and services increase as a result of the workers presence. Children and families of those employed by Antero and the subcontractors and local businesses are likely to benefit by decreased stress associated with economic security and possibly by increased access to health care if health insurance is offered with their job, but these are likely to be few relative to the entire Battlement Mesa Community. The duration of the economic benefits is likely to occur during the 5 year development period, therefore be long in duration. The economic benefits of this small operation are likely to be distributed throughout the county, therefore the frequency of economic benefits in Battlement Mesa are likely to be infrequent. However, because the economic gains to the Battlement Mesa residents will be small, the likelihood of positive health impacts resulting from the small economic gains in Battlement Mesa is unlikely. The magnitude of the health impacts are expected to be low. Negative Health Impacts The negative health impacts on the economy, employment and housing values due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows: Impact Direction of health effects Geographic extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of project Magnitude of health effects Priority Economy, employment Negative Community wide Yes Long constant Likely Low to high Low* Part One Page 70 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health and property value *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. Economic impacts, and subsequent stress and related health effects are likely to be negative for those not directly employed by the industry. The adverse economic effects of decreasing property values are likely to increase stress for many residents of Battlement Mesa. Negative economic impacts, including decreased property values, may be experienced community -wide. Those on fixed incomes may be more vulnerable to the loss of property value. The decline of property value is likely to be long lasting: at least as long as the development period, which is expected to be at least 5 years. It is unknown how long property values may be impacted after the end of the development period. The frequency of having stress and related symptoms as a result of declining property value may be constant. It is possible that the severe stress could worsen underlying disease. The magnitude of health impacts would be related to the degree of stress felt by the individual and may be low to high. 5.8 Assessment of Impacts to Health Infrastructure in Battlement Mesa "What will be the impacts to health care in Battlement Mesa? February 3 stakeholder meeting Health infrastructure can include private and public medical services, hospitals, and emergency transport services. Availability, access and quality of local clinical and public health services can be limited in small communities, due to small populations, low rates of insured patients, and limited public resources. New industry can lead to positive and /or negative impacts on the health care infrastructure. Industrialization of a rural community can increase the insured population and local revenues, which may provide resources for expansion of local clinical and public health care services. On the other hand, without substantial investment in health infrastructure, population and employment changes may increase both clinical and public health care utilization, stretching already limited resources. The citizens in the rural community of Battlement Mesa have expressed concerns that development of natural gas resources in their community may negatively impact available medical resources. Because the Battlement Mesa health infrastructure may be exposed to utilization changes, a review of potential health impacts is needed. 5.8.1 Private and Public Health Services and Health Availability, access and quality of medical health services can have direct impacts on individual physical health. Research demonstrates that residents of rural communities often have decreased clinical health care services available to them, negatively impacting health ;fie -92 Limited Part One Page 71 Draft Battlement Mesa 1-I1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health availability can be due to a combination of small population and low health insurance coverage, both of which limit the financial viability of both clinical and public services. As a result, residents of rural communities may need to travel long distances for care. Increased economic activity in a community may bring more patients and insurance coverage which can support increased and diversified clinical medical services. On the other hand, a rapid increase in population, particularly uninsured population, can increase utilization of services beyond capacity and may strain the finances of small medical facilities and decrease incentive to increase services'$. Public health rograms provide services to the general community and can fill some gaps for the un-insured93 q . Vaccination programs, health screenings, and communicable disease clinics provide limited clinical health care to uninsured populations. Public health programs that focus on food safety programs and health education programs benefit the community at large. When the local population increases, particularly an uninsured population, local public health services may experience increased utilization while capacity may lag or never catch up. Cyclical economic conditions may also cause intermittent strain on public health programs while making it difficult to adjust capacity to need. On the other hand, local revenues may be able to increase public health services, should tax and royalty structures and community priorities permit it. In some cases, severance taxes from extractive industries are sent to state agencies, with little benefit to the localities where the industrial activity is occurring78. 5.8.2 Current Health Infrastructure Conditions Currently, primary clinical health services in Battlement Mesa include a primary care clinic administered by the Grand River Hospital District, staffed five days a week by family medicine providers and visiting specialists. The clinic also provides physical therapy services three days a week. There is also separate chiropractic, orthopedic, and dental services in Battlement Mesa. There are four hospitals within 60 minutes of Battlement Mesa. The closest hospital is Grand River Medical Center in Rifle, 20 minutes away. This is a 12 -bed hospital with an emergency room, surgical, acute care facilities, and outpatient clinics. Grand River Medical Center is a Level 4 trauma center; it does not provide have obstetric (baby delivery) services. Valley View Hospital in Glenwood Springs, 46 miles away, has 80 beds, a 24 hour emergency department, and obstetric services. Community Hospital in Grand Junction, 48 mile away, has 78 beds and does not provide obstetric services. St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, 49 miles away, is a Level 2 trauma center and has obstetric services. The closest Level 1 trauma center is 4 hours away in Denver. Patients needing such services may be airlifted. Emergency response and transport is provided by the Grand Valley Fire Protection District. There is an occupational health clinic operated by Grand River Hospital District in Battlement Mesa that sees work related injuries five days a week. Part one Page 72 Draft Battlement Mesa HI A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health There is a 40 room assisted living facility in Battlement Mesa. The closest skilled nursing facility is in Rifle and there are other nursing facilities in the county. Meals on Wheels is offered in Battlement Mesa and a senior center in Parachute offers lunch daily. Public Health services for Battlement Mesa citizens are offered by GCPH. Services include vaccination clinics, communicable disease surveillance, health education programs, safety programs, health screening for Medicaid patients, and programs for underinsured children and low income families. The Environmental Health Program serves the public by evaluation and education regarding environmental health risks related to air and water quality, sewage treatment, mosquito control, and environmental sustainability. The GCPH offices are located in Rifle and Glenwood Springs. Insurance coverage rates for Battlement Mesa residents are not available. According to the Colorado Household survey conducted in 2008-9 by the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing45, 14% of Colorado residents were uninsured and in the five county region that included Garfield County, 21% of the population was uninsured (the highest in the state). In Colorado, 15% of employed adults were uninsured. Insurance status for natural gas industry workers is unavailable. 5.8.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Healthcare Infrastructure The development of natural gas wells requires several labor intensive phases, which can last several years for large natural gas projects. Most health infrastructure impacts relate to the expanded workforce during the well development phase. Antero estimates an average of 120- 150 workers will be working in Battlement Mesa. Workers associated with natural gas development and production projects can increase utilization of emergency services due to increased work related and transportation related accidents associated with the injury's. Insured natural gas workers utilizing the health care system could provide positive support to the system as long as the utilization does not exceed capacity. Should utilization exceed capacity, then the availability of services may be negatively impacted. Uninsured workers strain the health care system. Public health programs may see an increase of utilization as a result of an increase the insured and uninsured population. On the other hand, pubic health programs may benefit from increased local revenues, as long as utilization does not exceed capacity. Should this happen without increased supporting revenue dedicated to public health, then services may be compromised. The cyclical nature of the natural gas development and production, which is dependent upon market influences, technological advances and regulatory forces, can make both clinical and public health infrastructure planning difficult and lead to a mismatch between needs and services. Some workers and their families are expected to utilize clinical and public health services in Battlement Mesa and other local services. According to Antero representatives, Antero workers are offered health insurance; however, information regarding health insurance coverage for Part One Page 73 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health subcontracted workers (the majority) is not available. Some clinical services may see an increase in utilization, including emergency, urgent care and trauma services and services related to pediatric care for young families. Depending on the insurance status of the workers, these services may or may not be directly supported by the industry. Utilization of health services by insured gas workers will support the health system. Clinical and emergency providers may be negatively impacted by uncompensated care, and public health services may see an increase in local needs without increased funding. Revenues to Garfield County could be used to support public health services, depending upon prioritization of needs. 5.8.4 Characterization of Healthcare Infrastructure Impacts Positive Effects on Healthcare Infrastructure The positive health impacts on healthcare infrastructure due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows Impact Direction of health effects Geographic al Extent of exposure Benefited populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Project Magnitude of health effects Priority Health Infrastructure Positive Community- wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. Positive impacts to the health care system are anticipated to be small given Antero's project involves 120 to 150 workers, spread into a community of approximately 5,000 in Battlement Mesa and 55,000 in Garfield County. Positive health impacts could be expected in relation to increased utilization of health care services by insured patients. Any insured workers or family members utilizing health care services in Battlement Mesa provide clinic support, necessary for continuing clinical operations. However, the extent of such support may not be sufficient to lead to increased availability, quality, or diversity of services. Local tax revenues from the Antero project will contribute to the overall county fund which may be used to support public health services, but are not likely to be large enough to directly impact public health services in Battlement Mesa. Should health services be supported in Battlement Mesa, the improvements would be beneficial for the entire community. Those that utilize health care services most frequently such as the elderly, young children and disabled may derive the most benefit of expanded services. Should health service impacts occur, they are likely to be noted during the development period lasting approximately 5 years. Given the relatively small number of workers and families associated with the Antero project the frequency of positive effects on the health care system in Battlement Mesa are likely to be sporadic, occurring when an insured worker or family member utilizes the health care system. Not all workers/families are expected to utilize Battlement Mesa health services it is unlikely that Battlement Mesa citizens will Part One Page 74 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health February 2011 experience positive impacts as a result of positive changes to the health care infrastructure related to the Antero project. The magnitude of positive health effects due to health infrastructure impacts are expected to be low. For these reasons, the health care infrastructure is prioritized as low compared to other potential stressors. Negative Effects on Healthcare Infrastructure The negative health impacts on healthcare infrastructure due to the Antero project in Battlement Mesa on the health of local residents can be characterized as follows Impact Direction of health effects Geographic al Extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects as a result of Pro'ect Magnitude of health effects Priority Health 1 nfrastructure Negative Community- wide Yes Long Infrequent Unlikely Low Low* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. Negative impacts to the health care system are anticipated to be small given Antero's project involves 120 to 150 workers, spread into a community of approximately 5,000 in Battlement Mesa and 55,000 in Garfield County. Negative impacts to local health infrastructure could occur if uninsured workers utilize local health services without the ability to pay for the services, however, the extent of such a strain may be small enough that it is unlikely to lead to decreased availability and quality of services. Impacts of uninsured workers are likely to be noted by providers, but it is unclear that this would reach a level that would negatively impact either clinical or public health services. Should health services be affected in Battlement Mesa, the effects would involve the entire community, although those that utilize health care services most frequently such as the elderly, young children and disabled may be more vulnerable to negative impacts such as decreased availability. Should health service impacts occur, they are likely to occur during the 5 years of well development. Given the relatively small number of workers and families associated with the Antero project the frequency of negative effects on the health care system in Battlement Mesa are likely to be sporadic, occurring when an uninsured worker or family member utilizes the health care system. It is possible that large financial strain to local providers, particularly emergency care providers, could occur should expensive emergent care become necessary for an uninsured worker, but this is anticipated to be an infrequent event. It is unlikely that Battlement Mesa citizens will experience negative health impacts as a result of changes to the health care infrastructure related to the Antero project. The overall magnitude of health effects due to health infrastructure impacts are expected to be low. For these reasons, the health care infrastructure is prioritized as low compared to other potential stressors. 5.9 Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions Impacts on Health Is there a plan to prevent pipeline leaks and explosions? Febr-uary3, 2010 stakeholders meeting Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Accidents and malfunctions can occur as a result of a variety of causes, including equipment failure, human error, and environmental hazards. Identification of potential sources of accidents and malfunctions can lead to effective prevention efforts, while recognition of potential health, community, and environmental effects can direct response strategies which can decrease impacts should an incident occur. COGCC addresses accident prevention (fire, explosion, hazardous materials release, pipeline maintenance) throughout the Rules Documents. The 600 series rules address safety regulations. For example, setbacks for pad locations are 150 feet in low population density areas, 350 feet in high population areas and 1000 feet for other facilities such as schools, hospitals, etc. Rule 906 specifies reporting, prevention and clean up requirements for spills and releases. Pipeline regulations are found in Rules 1101-1103, however, there is not a designated setback for pipelines in the COGCC rules. According to the Denver Post, there were over 1,000 spills statewide and over 230 in Garfield County reported to the COGCC between January 2008 and June 201086. There were 21 fires, loss of well control (including gas kicks), and explosions in Garfield County that were reported to the COGCC from January 1997 to August 2010 (COGCC database). The Battlement Mesa citizens have expressed concerns regarding the potential for accidents and spills and the potential for related health and safety impacts. Because incidents of this nature happen with low, but predictable, regularity, an assessment of potential health impacts is warranted. 5.9.1 Accidents, Malfunctions and Health Accidents and malfunctions can occur as a result of well installation errors, material failure, construction and operations accidents, equipment accidents and failures, third party activities, and environmental episodes. Incidents can manifest as fires, explosions, hazardous material losses, and/or spills. Fires and explosions may result from well blowouts, gas kicks, pipeline leak or rupture, ignition of flammable materials during storage, transportation or transfer. Hazardous materials spills/loss may be due to transportation accidents or equipment failure, during material transfer, leaking valves, fittings, etc in storage equipment, well blowouts, and improper disposal of hazardous materials. Environmental conditions such as wildfires, tornados, lighting, blizzards, and extreme heat and cold may cause or exacerbate incidents. These incidents may result in release of contaminants into surface water, ground water, soil, and air. Releases associated with significant accidents and malfunctions are likely to be acute, high level emissions. Releases of produced water into soil and water sources contain salts, metals, VOC/BTEX, drilling fluids, and hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Spills of drilling and hydraulic fracturing materials could include a variety of chemicals such as diesel fuel and other hydrocarbons, VOCs, acids, glutaraldehyde, and other proprietary chemicals. Releases of natural Part One Page 76 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 February 2011 Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health gas into water or air contain VOCs. Combustion products of hydrocarbons released during fires contain PAHs, including naphthalene, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, PM and other chemicals. Examples of potential health effects of chemicals given sufficient exposure: Chemical Acute health effect VOC Irritant, neurological Benzene Neurological, anemia Naphthalene Anemia Combustion Products Respiratory, cardiovascular, irritants Hydrochloric acid Irritant Glutaraldehyde _ Irritant, allergic reactions In addition to chemical exposures, accidents and malfunctions can expose nearby persons to injury or death. Although outcomes are potentially severe, these exposures are generally short- term, infrequent, and only those in close vicinity at the time of the accident are at risk. Employees on the well pad during a fire or explosion are at most risk for injury. Although the likelihood of an explosion involving a pipeline is small, persons in the community may be at risk for serious injury or death should such an incident occur. For example, an explosion occurred in a rural area of Johnson County Texas on July 7, 2010 when crews installing a communications pole hit a 36 -inch gas transmission line. Newspaper reports indicated that one worker was killed, and seven injured. The fire was reported to be 400-600 feet in circumference and intense heat was felt 900 feet away. The gas line valves were shut off 1.5 hours after the explosion, and the fire stopped. A more recent explosion of a 30 inch gas distribution line in San Bruno, California on September 9, 2010, destroyed 150 homes and killed four people. The cause of this explosion is still unknown. Other accounts of explosions related to natural gas development, production, and distribution can be found in newspaper accounts throughout the country. 5.9.2 Current Conditions for Accidents and Malfunctions According to the Denver Post, 236 spills in Garfield County were reported to the COGCC between January 1, 2008 and June 15 2010, involving 66,386 barrels of fluids (primarily drilling liquids and produced water)96. During that time, Antero submitted approximately 5 percent of the gas permits in Garfield County, reported 15 spills to the COGCC (6 percent of the spills). Antero's contribution of 1707 barrels of fluids to the total barrels spilled in Garfield is small (2.6 percent). Five of Antero's 15 spills have required remedial action and one resulted in a notice of alleged violation (also known as NOAV) because of failure to report the spill to COGCC per the oil and gas rules. The number of spills reported to COGCC may not capture the total number of spills that have occurred because COGCC only requires reporting of spills involving five or more barrels, It is not known how many spills of less than five barrels have occurred in Garfield County. However, it is reasonable to assume that there have been some spills involving less than five barrels that have not been reported to COGCC. Part One Page 77 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health Antero has received four other Notice of Alleged Violations since January 1, 2008. The lastest on July 27, 2010 was in response to the release of an unknown quantity of water and hydrocarbons to a seep on the Eastern wall of Grant Brothers Gravel pit as a result of a faulty pipe joint weld on a pipeline. Another Notice of Alleged Violation on July 14, 2010, was in response to several odor complaints filed during flow back operations on the Watson Ranch well pad. Another Notice of Alleged Violation issued on January 04, 2010, resulted from lack of secondary containment of condensate from hydraulic fracturing tanks and observation of condensate lying on the ground around hydraulic fracturing tanks and separation units. COGCC issued a fourth Notice of Alleged Violation because Antero spudded a well prior to permit approval in June 20093'. Local newspapers and COGCC databases have recorded numerous incidents of well fires, blowouts, tanker spills, condensate tank emissions and pit discharges in Garfield County. These incidents have resulted in contamination of surface and ground water with BTEX, and other chemicals. Residents have reported a variety of health effects, including acute and long term neurological complaints, upper respiratory issues, headaches and fatigue, and nausea. There have been no reported fatal injuries related to accidents or malfunctions in Garfield County reported to COGCC. As noted in comment CIT61 on the September 2010 Draft HIA, there may well be more of these types of incidents than are reflected in the local media and the COGCC database. 5.9.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Accidents and Malfunctions Applying Antero's spill rate of 15 spills per 252 permit applications (6 percent) and rate of 5 remediations per 15 spills to the 200 wells proposed for Battlement Mesa it is estimated that approximately 12 spills of 5 barrels or more may be expected in Battlement Mesa over the life of the project. It can be expected that at least four of these spills may have some impact to soil, groundwater, or surface water requiring remediation and have the potential to impact public health, As discussed in the Water and Soil Quality Assessment, Battlement Mesa residents use a municipal water system that draws water from the Colorado River. Secondary water supplies include four shallow ground water wells which were used prior to the establishment of the water treatment plant. These wells are monitored once a year for quality. The Surface Use Agreement between Antero and The BMC specifies a temporary 50 foot easement for pipeline construction and a permanent 25 foot easement for gas gathering lines. Antero also plans to build a wastewater pipeline system along the same easements. The Surface Use Agreement states that the gas gathering lines will be 48 inches below the surface. The gas gathering lines in Battlement Mesa will be 12 inches in diameter, According to maps provided at community meetings, the pipelines primarily follow haul routes, however, there is one pipeline that will cross an open space in a residential area between Valley View Village and Fairways Village and another that crosses open space to the north of Stone Ridge Village. In addition, the Part One Page 78 Draft Battlement Mesa HIA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health proposed pipelines for the Parks and Recreation pad, A pad, and B pad appear to be very close to some homes in Stone Ridge Village and Tamarisk Meadows. It is unclear from available maps exactly how far this pipeline, or any other pipeline on the map, is from residences, schools and other buildings. Although the COGCC rules allow for 350 foot well pad setbacks in densely populated areas, the Antero well pads in Battlement Mesa are all at least 500 feet from the nearest residence. Antero has proposed measures in addition to those required in the COGCC oil and gas rules to prevent well blow outs. These measures include used of blow preventers rated to 5000 psi and surface casings set to an average of 2,200 feet. However, preventative measures do not rule out the possibility of a catastrophic event arising from a pipeline explosion, well fire, or major spill in the Battlement Mesa PUD as a result of Antero's project. There also is the possibility for catastrophic events as a result of vandalism and sabotage of Antero's project. In the comments on the original version of the HIA, the Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens raised the concern of well pad locations at the base of steep slopes with dry vegetation that could increase the risk of a well pad fire spreading rapidly up slope towards homes. 5.9.4 Characterization of the Impact from Accidents and Malfunctions Impact Direction of health effects Geographical Extent of exposure Vulnerable populations Duration of exposure Frequency of exposure Likelihood of health effects Magnitude of health effects Priority Accidents and malfunctions Negative Local or Community wide Yes Short Infrequent Possible Low to high High* *For an explanation of the ranking system used, see the chart at the beginning of Section 4. When considering the possible health impacts due to an accident or malfunction of Antero gas operations in Battlement Mesa, the health effects are likely to be negative. Depending upon the size and nature of the incident, health and safety impacts may be felt only in close proximity (local) or throughout the PUD (community -wide). Again, depending upon the nature of the incident, certain populations may be more vulnerable to health impacts. For instance, elderly or frail and those living in the assisted living facility, may have difficulty evacuating an area quickly. Children in school may also be slower to evacuate. Those with underlying medical conditions such as pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, may have negative health effects from fires or air emissions at levels that are may not have significant impact to others. Accidents and malfunctions are likely to be short in duration and infrequent. Given the 6% rate of incidents in the industry and within Antero's other operations in Garfield County, incidents are likely to occur and it is possible that health impacts will occur. The health effects will be low to high in magnitude, potentially ranging from minor irritation to severe injury or death. For these reasons, accidents and malfunctions are prioritized as high compared to other potential stressors mainly because of the possibility for severe injuries and death in the event of a catastrophic event. Part One Page 79 Draft Battlement Mesa H1A, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health 6 Conclusions In May, 2010, the Garfield County BOCC engaged the CSPH to perform a HIA to respond to citizen concerns about natural gas drilling in Battlement Mesa, Colorado. We worked closely with the GCPH to ensure the scope of the HIA addressed the concerns outlined by the citizens in their letter to the BOCC as well as those voiced in citizen meetings. Throughout HIA process, we held several meetings with various stakeholders (the BCC and other residents, COGCC, the CDPHE, Antero, Colorado Hospital Association and West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association) to ensure that everyone with pertinent data and information had an opportunity to be involved in the HIA process. This revised draft of the HIA takes into account stakeholder comments received during the comment period and discussed in January and February 2011. The stakeholder process identified eight areas of concern associated with natural gas operations that have the potential to impact health. These areas of concern include air emissions, water and soil contamination, industrial traffic, noise/vibration/light, community wellness, economic and employment changes, health infrastructure stress, and industrial accidents and malfunctions. Using the medical and social health literature, we reviewed the links between these stressors and health and then applied current conditions and Antero's natural gas development and production plans and best management practices to assess the potential future impacts of these physical, psychological and social stressors. We conducted a longitudinal review of multiple Garfield County air and water monitoring studies as well as COGCC reports of water contamination in the county. This information was used to conduct a Human Health Risk Assessment. We also obtained demographic, physical and social health outcome data and used it in a comprehensive review described in the Battlement Mesa Baseline Health Profile. We reviewed all publicly available information on Antero's plans to drill in Battlement Mesa, as well information made available to us by request from Antero. In the revised HIA we included references to Antero's best management practices where applicable and where we had sufficient information about the use of the best management practices in Battlement Mesa. The key findings of our study are that health of the Battlement Mesa residents will most likely be affected by chemical exposures, accidents or emergencies resulting from industry operations and stress-related community changes. We found that chemical exposures will occur primarily through air emissions during well development activities. Increased truck traffic will be a safety risk to Battlement Mesa residents; contribute to increased air and noise pollution; and impact quality of life. Increased noise may be a problem for some residents, but mitigation efforts by Antero to bring noise levels below COGCC permissible levels should decrease risk of health impacts. The impacts to community wellness will in part be determined by the success of mitigation of other concerns, such as air emissions, traffic and noise. It is not likely that the Part One Page 80 Draft Battlement Mesa HEA, Revision 1 Conducted by February 2011 Colorado School of Public Health primary water supply for Battlement Mesa will be contaminated by Antero activities; however, efforts to monitor and protect the secondary drinking water supply are needed. Industrial accidents and malfunctions occur in the industry and are likely to occur in Battlement Mesa. Most are expected to be minor incidents; however each incident should be considered a near - miss and evaluated to prevent more significant events. The Antero project will provide benefits for some Battlement Mesa citizens. The project may provide jobs for some residents and will provide increased economic activity for local businesses, including health clinics. This increased economic activity can be positive for the community. Other aspects of community wellness may be negatively impacted; opportunities for recreation could decrease. Residents currently report decreased social cohesion and quality of life as a result of the proposed project and this could be worse once the project begins. Property values are likely to decline. While the positive effects of employment and increased economic activity will be important for some residents, it is not likely that the project will have large economic benefit for the most of the community. On the other hand, negative impacts to outdoor amenities may and other quality of life compromises, as well as decreased property values, will likely have broader impact throughout the community. Although the HIA identified numerous information gaps, there was sufficient information to justify the key recommendations of pollution prevention, protection of public safety and increased communication through the development of a Community Advisory Board. In Section 3, we provide over 70 specific recommendations aimed at decreasing negative impacts or improving positive impacts. Central to decreasing air pollution is continued efforts to decrease all possible emission sources. To bring emissions to the lowest possible level, it is important that the best available current technology be utilized, and new technologies be developed, tested and adopted. In addition, continued ambient and well pad monitoring of emissions is needed to determine if mitigation efforts are sufficient or additional measures are needed to protect health. For the full benefit of the water storage and distribution system to be realized, the system should be fully operational before any well development activity occurs. Traffic mitigation should also be a priority and we recommend that alternate haul routes for industrial traffic be developed to remove truck traffic off residential roads and out of the PUD. In addition, a spur off Stone Quarry Road should be developed to move industry traffic away from homes backed on to that road. The development of alternate routes will address the issues of safety, air pollution, noise and quality of life related to industrial traffic on residential roads. Noise associated with Antero's project should be monitored and efforts to decrease cumulative noise due to development activities, including truck traffic, pipe installation, well maintenance, and other activities should be undertaken. Finally, efforts should be made create an active Citizen Advisory Board, which will provide all stakeholders an opportunity to bring forth and find solutions for future concerns. The Community Advisory Board will also provide Antero a means to communicate to the citizens in a timely manner. The HIA process identified many information gaps, which limited our ability to provide precise predictions of rates and types of disease. Some gaps may have also precluded our ability to Part One Page 81 Draft Battlement Mesa 1-11A, Revision 1 February 2011 anticipate all possible mitigations. The CSPH investigators and the BOCC recognize that further investigation is needed to document environmental exposures and subsequent health effects of the natural gas industry. To that end, the BOCC has provided funding to CSPH to design a long term Environmental Health and Monitoring Study (EHMS) in Battlement Mesa and/or Garfield County to address these issues. This long term study will: 1) further characterize air emissions associated with natural gas production; 2) characterize air emission exposure levels for persons living in close proximity to natural gas production; 3) further characterize emission sources during development and production phases; 4) develop methods to characterize surface and ground drinking water contamination; 5) conduct health surveillance of residents in areas impacted by natural gas and in similar comparison populations not affected by natural gas development and production; 6) conduct social and community health surveillance of areas impacted by natural gas development and production. 7) conduct studies to investigate health effects of ambient air quality on the general population In Colorado, recent legislation will compel Front Range electrical plants to switch to natural gas. On the Western Slope, there are plans for several natural gas fueling stations. These and other market enhancing projects and policies will mean Colorado natural gas development and production projects will continue to grow. The recently updated COGCC rules included provisions to protect health and environment. These rules should undergo regular review and update in order to reflect new understanding and technologies as they emerge as well as develop regulations that further protect public health. The COGCC should consider rules that can be tailored to particular situations, such as residential natural gas development. The HIA team supports the CDPHE role in their consultative role to the COGCC and encourages all parties to continue efforts to address public health concerns. Conducted by Colorado School of Public Health Part one Page 82 AESTHETIC AND NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS 801. INTRODUCTION EXHIBIT The rules and regulations in this section are promulgated to control aesthetics and noise impacts during the drilling, completion and operation of oil and gas wells and production facilities. Any Colorado county, home rule or statutory city, town, territorial charter city or city and county may, by application to the Commission, seek a determination that the rules and regulations in this section, or any individual rule or regulation, shall not apply to oil and gas activities occurring within the boundaries, or any part thereof, of any Colorado county, home rule or statutory city, town, territorial charter city or city and county, such determination to be based upon a showing by any Colorado county, home rule or statutory city, town, territorial charter city or city and county that, because of conditions existing therein, the enforcement of these rules and regulations is not necessary within the boundaries of any Colorado county, home rule or statutory city, town, territorial charter city or city and county for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. 802. NOISE ABATEMENT a. The goal of this rule is to identify noise sources related to oil and gas operations that impact surrounding landowners and to implement cost-effective and technically - feasible mitigation measures to bring oil and gas facilities into compliance with the allowable noise levels identified in subsection c. Operators should be aware that noise control is most effectively addressed at the siting and design phase, especially with respect to centralized compression and other downstream "gas facilities" (see definition in the 100 Series of these rules). b. Oil and gas operations at any well site, production facility, or gas facility shall comply with the following maximum permissible noise levels. ZONE 7:00 am to next 7:00 7:00 pm to next 7:00 pm am Residential/Agricultural/Rural 55 db(A) 50 db(A) Commercial 60 db(A) 55 db(A) Light industrial 70 db(A) 65 db(A) Industrial 80 db(A) 75 db(A) The type of land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Director in consultation with the Local Governmental Designee taking into consideration any applicable zoning or other local land use designation. In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 the noise levels permitted above may be increased ten (10) dB(A) for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes in any one (1) hour period. The allowable noise level for periodic, impulsive or shrill noises is reduced by five (5) dB (A) from the levels shown. (1) Except as required pursuant to Rule 604.c.(2)A., operations involving pipeline or gas facility installation or maintenance, the use of a drilling rig, completion rig, workover rig, or stimulation is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for industrial zones. 800-1 As September 30, 2014 (2) In remote locations, where there is no reasonably proximate occupied structure or Designated Outside Activity Area, the light industrial standard may be applicable. (3) Pursuant to Commission inspection or upon receiving a complaint from a nearby property owner or local governmental designee regarding noise related to oil and gas operations, the Commission shall conduct an onsite investigation and take sound measurements as prescribed herein. 802.c. The following provide guidance for the measurement of sound levels and assignment of points of compliance for oil and gas operations: (1) Sound levels shall be measured at a distance of three hundred and fifty (350) feet from the noise source. At the request of the complainant, the sound level shall also be measured at a point beyond three hundred fifty (350) feet that the complainant believes is more representative of the noise impact. If an oil and gas well site, production facility, or gas facility is installed closer than three hundred fifty (350) feet from an existing occupied structure, sound levels shall be measured at a point twenty-five (25) feet from the structure towards the noise source. Noise levels from oil and gas facilities located on surface property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the operator shalt be measured at three hundred and fifty (350) feet or at the property line, whichever is greater. In situations where measurement of noise levels at three hundred and fifty (350) feet is impractical or unrepresentative due to topography, the measurement may be taken at a lesser distance and extrapolated to a 350 - foot equivalent using the following formula: db(A) DISTANCE 2 ' db(A) DISTANCE 1 — 20 x log 16 (distance 2/distance 1) (2) Sound level meters shall be equipped with wind screens, and readings shall be taken when the wind velocity at the time and place of measurement is not more than five (5) miles per hour. (3) Sound level measurements shall be taken four (4) feet above ground level. (4) Sound levels shall be determined by averaging minute -by -minute measurements made over a minimum fifteen (15) minute sample duration if practicable. The sample shall be taken under conditions that are representative of the noise experienced by the complainant (e.g., at night, morning, evening, or during special weather conditions). (5) In all sound 'level measurements, the existing ambient noise level from all other sources in the encompassing environment at the time and place of such sound level measurement shall be considered to determine the contribution to the sound level by the oil and gas operation(s). 802.d. In situations where the complaint or Commission onsite inspection indicates that low frequency noise is a component of the problem, the Commission shall obtain a sound level measurement twenty-five (25) feet from the exterior wall of the residence or occupied structure nearest to the noise source, using a noise meter calibrated to the db(C) scale. If this reading exceeds 65 db(C), the Commission shall require the operator to obtain a low frequency noise impact analysis by a qualified sound expert, including identification of any reasonable 800-2 As September 30. 2014 control measures available to mitigate such low frequency noise impact. Such study shall be provided to the Commission for consideration and possible action. 802.e. Exhaust from all engines, motors, coolers and other mechanized equipment shall be vented in a direction away from all Building Units. 802.f. All Cil and Gas Facilities with engines or motors which are not electrically operated that are within four hundred (400) feet of Building Units shall be equipped with quiet design mufflers or equivalent. All mufflers shall be properly installed and maintained in proper working order. 803. LIGHTING To the extent practicable, site lighting shall be directed downward and inward and shielded so as to avoid glare on public roads and Building Units within one thousand (1000) feet. 804. VISUAL IMPACT MITIGATION Production facilities, regardless of construction date, which are observable from any public highway shall be painted with uniform, non -contrasting, non -reflective color tones (similar to the Munsell Soil Color Coding System), and with colors matched to but slightly darker than the surrounding landscape. 805. ODORS AND DUST a. General. Oil and gas facilities and equipment shall be operated in such a manner that odors and dust do not constitute a nuisance or hazard to public welfare. b. Odors. (1) Compliance. A. Oil and gas operations shall be in compliance with the Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation No. 2 Odor Emission, 5 C.C.R. 1001-4, Regulation No. 3 (5 C.C.R. 1001-5), and Regulation No, T Section XVI1.B.1 (a -c) and Section XI1. B. No violation of Rule 805.b.(1) shall be cited by the Commission, provided that the practices identified in Rule 805.b.(2) are used. (2) Production Equipment and Operations. A. Crude Oil, Condensate, and Produced Water Tanks. All crude oil, condensate, and produced water tanks with uncontrolled actual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) of five (5) tons per year (tpy) or greater, located within 1,320 feet of a Building Unit, or a Designated Outside Activity Area shall use an emission control device capable of achieving 95% control efficiency of VOC and shall obtain a permit as required by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation as set forth in 805. b. (1). 800-3 As September 30, 2014 B. Glycol Dehydrators. All glycol dehydrators with uncontrolled actual emissions of VOC of five (5) tpy or greater, located within 1,320 feet of a Building Unit , or a Designated Outside Activity Area shall use an emission control device capable of achieving 90% control efficiency of VOC and shall obtain a permit as required by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation as set forth in 805.b.(1). C. Pits. Pits with uncontrolled actual emissions of VOC of five (5) tpy or greater shall not be located within 1,320 feet of a Building Unit, or a Designated Outside Activity Area. For the purposes of this section, compliance with Rule 902.c is required. Operators may provide site-specific data and analyses to COGCC staff establishing that pits potentially subject to this subsection do not have a potential to emit VOC of five (5) tpy or greater. D. Pneumatic Devices. Low- or no -bleed pneumatic devices must be used when existing pneumatic devices are replaced or repaired, and when new pneumatic devices are installed. (3) Well completions. A. Green completion practices are required on oil and gas wells where reservoir pressure, formation productivity, and wellbore conditions are likely to enable the well to be capable of naturally flowing hydrocarbon gas in flammable or greater concentrations at a stabilized rate in excess of five hundred (500) MCFD to the surface against an induced surface backpressure of five hundred (500) psig or sales line pressure, whichever is greater. Green completion practices are not required for exploratory wells, where the wells are not sufficiently proximate to sales lines, or where green completion practices are otherwise not technically and economically feasible. B. Green completion practices shall include, but not be limited to, the following emission reduction measures: i. The operator shall employ sand traps, surge vessels, separators, and tanks as soon as practicable during fiowback and cleanout operations to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the environment. ii. Well effluent during fiowback and cleanout operations prior to encountering hydrocarbon gas of salable quality or significant volurnes of condensate may be directed to tanks or pits (where permitted) such that oil or condensate volumes shall not be allowed to accumulate in excess of twenty (20) barrels and must be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. The gaseous phase of non-flammable effluent may be directed to a flare pit or vented from tanks for safety purposes until flammable gas is encountered. iii. Well effluent containing more than ten (10) barrels per day of condensate or within two (2) hours after first encountering hydrocarbon gas of salable quality shall be directed to a 800.4 As September 30, 2014 combination of sand traps, separators, surge vessels, and tanks or other equipment as needed to ensure safe separation of sand, hydrocarbon liquids, water, and gas and to ensure salable products are efficiently recovered for sale or conserved and that non -salable products are disposed of in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. iv. If it is safe and technically feasible, closed -top tanks shall utilize backpressure systems that exert a minimum of four (4) ounces of backpressure and a maximum that does not exceed the pressure rating of the tank to facilitate gathering and combustion of tank vapors. Vent/backpressure values, the combustor, lines to the combustor, and knock -outs shall be sized and maintained so as to safely accommodate any surges the system may encounter. v. All salable quality gas shall be directed to the sales line as soon as practicable or shut in and conserved. Temporary flaring or venting shall be permitted as a safety measure during upset conditions and in accordance with all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations. C. An operator may request a variance from the Director if it believes that using green completion practices is infeasible due to well or field conditions, or would endanger the safety of wellsite personnel or the public. D. In instances where green completion practices are not technically feasible, operators shall employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce emissions. Such BMPs shall consider safety and shall include measures or actions to minimize the time period during which gases are emitted directly to the atmosphere, and monitoring and recording the volume and time period of such emissions. 805.c. Fugitive dust. Operators shall employ practices for control of fugitive dust caused by their operations. Such practices shall include but are not limited to the use of speed restrictions, regular road maintenance, restriction of construction activity during high- wind days, and silica dust controls when handling sand used in hydraulic fracturing operations. Additional management practices such as road surfacing, wind breaks and barriers, or automation of wells to reduce truck traffic may also be required if technologically feasible and economically reasonable to minimize fugitive dust emissions. 800-5 As September 30, 2014 COLORADO Division of Water Resources Department or Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 821 Denver. Co 80203 MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT CC, Date: September 14, 2015 To: Fred Jarman, Garfield County, Director Community Development Department From: Megan Sullivan, P.E., Water Resource Engineer Re: Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad, MIPA-06-15-8341 Battlement Mesa BMC B Well Pad ,MIPA-06-15-8342 Phase I Pipeline, PDPA-08-15-8378 This office has reviewed the three land use applications for the development of two natural gas well pads for the development of 24 — 28 wells on each pad and to construct three co -located pipelines (one gas and two water) of approximately 2.5 miles length servicing both proposed well pads on properties located in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Garfield County, just south and adjacent to the Town of Parachute. During drilling and completion operations, potable water will be provided via an existing water agreement with the Town of Silt. Non -potable water for use in drilling and dust control will be provided by the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District. During the production phase, potable water will not be required for daily operations and sanitary services will be handled by portable toilets. A watering system is not required to maintain any proposed planting. Produced water from the operation of the natural gas wells will be transported via pipeline away from the well pads for disposal at permitted water disposal facilities. The applicant did not indicated in the submitted information from which formation or formations the wells would produce water. For wells completed in formations that are determined to be non -tributary pursuant to the Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules, non -CBM (coal -bed methane) wells producing non -tributary ground water are not subject to administration in the prior appropriation system and may operate without a plan for augmentation or a substitute water supply plan. These wells are not required to be permitted so long as the water is used only by the operator in the same geologic basin to facilitate or permit the mining of minerals. If, however, a non -CBM well produces tributary ground water that impacts an over -appropriated stream, the well must operate only according to a water court -approved plan for augmentation or a substitute water supply plan approved pursuant to 37-92-308(4) or 37-92-308(5). This office has no objection to the application. The applicant should refer to the Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules and the Well Permits and Substitute Waters Supply Plans Submittal Process Memorandum dated 3/24/2010 for further guidance (links to both of which can be found on our website under Ground Water Administration). Please note, the locations of these land use applications do overlay nontributary formations which can be found in the map series A-7 and A-8 of the Produced Nontributary Ground Water Rules. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact me at this office. '313 Sherman Street. Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 F 303.866.3589 www.water.state.co.us I ek ' !Sr. e .. Fred Jarman From: Hoyer - DNR, Scott <scott.hoyer@state.co.us> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:11 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Michael Warren - DNR Subject: Re: Garfield County Land Use Application Referral Mr Jarmen, EXHIBIT DY ____ni Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed well pads and pipeline to be built by Ursa Resources in the vicinity of Battlement Mesa. After reviewing the application materials, CPW has concluded that the locations and scope of development are accounted for in the Wildlife Mitigation Agreement between Ursa and CPW. Therefore, CPW is not providing additional comments at this time. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 970 250-0873. Scott Hoyer On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Fred Jarman <tjarman ct garfield-county.corn> wrote: Greetings Everyone, The Garfield County Community Development Department has received three land use applications for the development of two natural gas well pads for the development of 24 — 28 wells on each pad and to construct 3 co -located pipelines (1 gas and 2 water) of approximately 2.5 miles length servicing both proposed well pads on properties located in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD) just south and adjacent to the Town of Parachute, CO. As the attached form will provide, the three separate applications are defined as follows: MIPA — 8341 (Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad) MIPA — 8342 (Battement mesa BMC B Well Pad) PDPA — 08 — 15 — 8378 (Phase I Pipeline) September 14, 2015 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planning 108 8t11 Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting alit! Design EXHIBIT e RE: URSA, Battlement Mesa PUD Phase 1, Pipeline Grading Permit: PUPA -68-15-8378 Dear Fred: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Battlement Mesa PLJD Phase 1 Pipeline Grading Permit Application of Ursa Operating Company, LLC. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The Applicant should include fittings or transition necessary to transition from a 12" pipe to a 16" pipe at station 47+00. 2. There are two horizontal bends proposed in an area of pipeline that is proposed to be bored beneath Stone Quarry Road, station 59+37 to station 61+87. The Applicant should discuss the feasibility of constructing 45° and 870 bends in borings. 3. The Applicant should provide a detail for the proposed valve sets. 4. The typical trench section should be revised to match the Garfield County conditions for pipeline installations. The note on the cover should be revised to reference these conditions also. 5. The "Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan" prepared by West Water Engineering identified locations along the pipeline that had riparian areas and wetlands. The Applicant should identify if any permitting was obtained and/or necessary and the mitigation that was implemented. Specific construction mitigation necessary should be included on the plan sheets. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincere y, Mounia:n Cross Engine ring. Inc. Chris dale, PE 826 '/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 811601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.rnountaincross-ong.com u A i.Ltc�, A O EXHIBIT FF GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRI 124 STONE QUARRY ROAD PARACHUTE, CO 81635 ▪ �▪ � �►1 a PHONE: 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748 7E, 0 September 15, 2015 Fred Jarman Community Development Director 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: URSA Drilling Applications, Battlement Mesa Mr. Jarman, The Grand Valley Fire Protection District has reviewed the applicant's request for drilling permits in the Battlement Mesa PUD and has no objections to the applicant's request. The District has reviewed the Emergency Response Plans, the haul routes and the proposed pipeline routes. The District does not anticipate any safety or environmental incidents based on the applicant's experiences an other sites in the area. Traffic and noise appear to be the biggest concerns that may be associated with this project, but the applicant has made commitments to the community that they have a mitigation plan for these events and will work with the community in the event of any other unforeseen operational issues. As far as safety and environmental concerns, the District has not been called to any of URSA's sites for any incidents that l'm aware of, other than routine site familiarization visits. We believe that there should be no change in the way they conduct the operations planned for the PUD sites. If anything, we anticipate a heightened sense of "operational situational awareness" during these activities because of where they will be working and the communities expressed concerns and involvement in the process. If you have any further questions regarding this letter, I can be reached at 250-9851 (cell). Don't hesitate to call. Respectfully( David A, Blair Fire Chief, GVFPD INAi".til{r{I ,+lVltt'19hi"Irl V1't'. tli Illrl114feri, 111 11i i.,C,.il ltl Vi111, 1 ['Ivo E'I'UIcl Lion 11C411CiY1 h' n111 x'11 11 I% It, 111 ' 1,1', dCt. Ii 11i i'1 p1i'11p{lrlt and K'111 ironllli"ill l}1 01. ,iii Ili (I ,trill ` illi`' rut.. 1, .ilii amass Battlement Mesa Metropolitan 401 Arroyo Drive f Parachute, CO 81635 Tel: (970) 285-9050 j Fax: (970) 285-9631 September 14, 2015 Mr. Fred Jarman Director, Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: MIPA 06-15-8341 (Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad) MIPA - 06-15-8342 (Battlement Mesa BMC B Well Pad) PDPA - 08-15-8378 (Phase I Pipeline) Dear Mr. Jarman. EXHIBIT m Ss is Tic The Battlement Mesa Metropolitan (BMMD) hereby submits the attached comments, detailed by Colorado River Engineering on behalf of the BMMD, in reference to the URSA development application referenced above. The BMMD would request that these comments be addressed as the application moves through the permitting process. Sincerely, Steve Rbppy District Manager Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District * SERVING THE COMMUNITY * WATER & WASTE WATER OPERATIONS * ACTIVITY CENTER * ASSOCIATIONMANAGEMENT CoLoIAoO R IV, ENGINEERING 1 5 0 0 r O r A S 1 0 September 14, 2015 Board of Directors Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District 401 Arroyo Drive Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 Via Email: Steve Rippy <srippy@acsol.net> RE: JOB #1097 — URSA APPLICATIONS GARFIELO COUNTY— BMC PAD B, BMC PAD D, BMC PIPELINE Dear Board of Directors: Colorado River Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the submittal applications by URSA to Garfield County for the BMC -B Well Pad, BMC -D Well Pad, and the BMC B Pipeline Phase 1 project. We have prepared this letter to briefly summarize our recommendations concerning primary issues associated with the projects and its potential impacts to the Association's infrastructure. 1. The BMC Pad B is directly adjacent to and just upstream of the intake to water supply for the Battlement Mesa Services Association (Association) on the Colorado River. Due to the proximity and large population served, we believe measures should be developed to further protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens receiving their water supply from the Association. a. Water Quality Monitoring - Future continuous source sampling for water diverted from the river is recommended to serve as an early warning tool. Water quality parameters could be monitored for hydrocarbons, pH, and other parameters to provide immediate indicators of changes in the water quality. Alarms or controls could alert the Association in the event that monitored parameters exceed alarm levels. b. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Pian - The existing field wide SPCC does not include any contact information or include any direct actions for notifying the Association in the case of an event. The SPCC has placeholders for a site specific plan and an emergency response plan (Appendix A & B) but our copy of the application does not include these documents. The SPCC should be revised to include the contact information, protocols, and emergency actions associated with protecting the water supply intake. An emergency action plan should be developed to identify specific actions, equipment, and protocols to provide protections to the existing water intake and alternative supply. Alternative supply options could include providing a pump and pipeline diverting from the river upstream of the pad site. Go. .ORADO R rtiER ENGINEERING 11. r IAT c. COGCC Rule 317.6 - In the Article 7 Standards Analysis (Section 5.03.08(6) Water Pollution) the application states that the site does not fall within a COGCC 317.6 Buffer Area. We believe the pad site is within the boundary, based on the on-line COGCC GIS mapping tool. The attached map from the COGCC shows the buffer zones and approximate pad location which fall within the "intermediate zone". Attached is Rule 317.B with Section (d) highlighted for the intermediate zone rules. We recommended that site include Rule 317.8 approval from the COGCC. The rule does address the SPCC and emergency response issues presented earlier in our comments. The rule also requires water quality testing for baseline and periodic quarterly monitoring. d. Drainage Plan — We recommend that the outlet system for the detention pond include engineered inlets, designed to provide better storm water quality treatment than currently provided. The current design only involves open ended pipe culverts. The inlets should be multi -tiered inlets with the lowest inlet designed for Water Quality Capture Volume to provide slow release discharge rates for higher frequency small storms (See Garco LUR 7 -204 -C -3.d.). The inlets should include a sump and hooded outlet for oil and water separation. Engineering calculations should be provided to show the routing times through the detention ponds. 2. BMC Pad D — Same comments as BMC Pad B with only noted difference is that Pad D is in the external buffer zone for COGCC Rule 317.B. 3. BMC Pipeline — The pipeline engineering drawings show approximate locations for some of the Association's water and sewer lines. URSA should update the design drawings to accurately depict existing utilities. The design drawings also should provide any details on the plans, profiles, or detail sheets to show construction details related to crossing or paralleling the Association's infrastructure. For example, details should be provided to show how the pipeline will be constructed at water line crossings. The scale provided on the design drawings makes it difficult to review in detail the construction plans related to the Association's infrastructure. We recommend that the design include improved scaled drawings, show separation distances, provide details for crossings or any other engineering design criteria, and incorporate any engineering specifications for relevant design details into the drawings. The submittal set should also include technical specifications for all materials, materials testing, and installation requirements. Once the details and specifications are provided, we request the opportunity to review and provide comments. All of these documents will also be required for the applicant's third party engineer who must certify the construction (QA/QC) as per County regulations. COLQADO *KWER ENG 1 F E E R I N G JNcoLrotATro If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at (970) 625-4933. Sincerely, Christopher Manera, P.E. CC: M:\CREjobrles\1097-BMMO\Word Files\2O15.9-14 BMMO Comments 1etter.docx 317B. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM PROTECTION a. Definitions. For purposes of this Rule 317B: (1) Drilling, Completion, Production and Storage ("DCPS") Operations shall mean operations at (i) well sites for the drilling, completion, recompietion, workover, or stimulation of wells or chemical and production fluid storage, and (ii) any other oil and gas location at which production facilities are operated. DCPS Operations shall exclude roads, gathering lines, pipelines, and routine operations and maintenance. (2) Existing Oil and Gas Location shall mean an oil and gas location, excluding roads, pipelines, and gathering lines, permitted or constructed prior to the later of May 1, 2009 for federal land or April 1, 2009 for all other land or the date that the oil and gas location becomes subject to Rule 3178 by virtue of its proximity to a Classified Water Supply Segment. (3) New Oil and Gas Location shall mean an oil and gas location, excluding roads, pipelines, and gathering lines, that is not an existing oit and gas location, (4) New Surface Disturbance shall mean surface disturbance that expands the area of surface covered by an oil and gas location beyond that initially disturbed in the construction of the oil and gas location. (5) Non -Exempt Linear Feature shall mean a road, gathering line, or pipeline that is not necessary to cross a stream or connect or access a well or a gathering line. b. Applicability Determination. (1) Rule 3178 is applicable to DCPS Operations within Surface Water Supply Areas. The applicability of Rule 317E will be determined by reviewing the Public Water System Surface Water Supply Area Map, attached as part of Appendix VI, or by entering information into the Public Water System Surface Water Supply Area Applicability Determination Tool, also located on the Commission website. (2) The Public Water Systems subject to the protections of this Rule 317B are those listed in Appendix VI. Any additions or deletions to the Public Water Systems listed in Appendix VI or the Public Water System Surface Water Supply Area Map, also located in Appendix VI, shall be by Commission rulemaking, as provided in Rule 529. (3) DCPS Operations at New Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area will be subject to the requirements in Rules 317B.c, 317B.d, or 317B.e based on the buffer zones defined in Table 1, below, DCPS Operations at Existing Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area at which no new surface disturbance has occurred after the date Rule 3178 became applicable to that oil and gas location will be subject to the requirements in Rule 317B.f.(1) based on the buffer zones defined in Table 1. DCPS Operations at Existing Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area at which new surface disturbance has occurred after the date Rule 317E became applicable to that oil and gas location will be subject to the requirements in Rule 3178.$.(2) based on the buffer zones defined in Table 1. (4) For Classified Water Supply Segments that are perennial and intermittent streams, buffer zones shall be determined by measuring from the ordinary high water line of each bank to the near edge of the disturbed area at the oil and gas location at which the DCPS Operations will occur. (5) The buffer zones shall apply only to DCPS Operations located on the surface. The buffer zones shall not apply to subsurface boreholes and equipment or materials contained therein. The buffer zones shall not apply to DCPS Operations located in an area that does not drain to a classified water supply segment protected by this Rule 317B. TABLE 1. Buffer Zones Associated with DCPS Operations. Zone Classified Water Supply Segments (tt Internal Buffer 0 - 300 Intermediate Buffer 301 - 500 External Buffer 501 - 2,640 c. Requirements for DCPS Operations Conducted at New Oil and Gas Locations in the Internal Buffer Zone. DCPS Operations conducted and Non -Exempt Linear Features located at New Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area may not occur in whole or in part within the Internal Buffer Zone identified in Table 1 unless a variance is granted pursuant to Rule 502.b and consultation with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment occurs pursuant to Rule 306.d and a Form 2A or Form 2 with appropriate conditions of approval has been approved, or the Director has approved a Comprehensive Drilling Plan pursuant to Rule 216 that covers the operation. in determining appropriate conditions of approval for such operations, the Director shall consider the extent to which the conditions of approval are required to prevent impacts to the Public Water System. (1) The Commission shall grant a variance if the operator demonstrates that: A. The proposed DCPS Operations and applicable best management practices and operating procedures will result in substantially equivalent protection of drinking water quality in the Surface Water Supply area; and B. Either: i. Conducting the DCPS Operation outside the Internal Buffer Zone would pose a greater risk to public health, safety, or welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources, such as may be the case where conducting the DCPS Operations outside the Internal Buffer Zone would require construction in steep or erosion -prone terrain or result in greater surface disturbance due to an inability to use infrastructure already constructed such as roads, well sites, or pipelines; or H. Conducting DCPS Operations beyond the Internal Buffer Zone is technically infeasible and prevents the operator from exercising its mineral rights. (2) At a minimum, for any DCPS Operation at a New Oil and Gas Location within the Internal Buffer Zone, the Director shall include as conditions of approval in the Form 2A, Form 2, or Comprehensive Drilling Plan, the requirements of Rule 317B.d. e. Requirements for DCPS Operations at New Oil and Gas Locations within the External Buffer Zone. The following shall be required when DCPS Operations are conducted at New Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area and in the External Buffer Zone as defined in Table 1. (1) Pitless drilling systems or containment of all drilling fiowback and stimulation fluids pursuant to Rule 904; and (2) When sufficient water exists in the Classified Water Supply Segment, collection of baseline surface water data consisting of a pre -drilling surface water sample collected immediately downgradient of the oil and gas location and follow-up surface water data consisting of a sample collected at the same location three (3) months after the conclusion of any drilling activities and operations or completion. The sample parameters shall include: A. pH; B. Alkalinity; C. Specific conductance; D. Major cationsfanions (chloride, fluoride, sulfate, sodium): E. Total dissolved solids; F. BTEXJGROJDRO; G. TPH; H. PAH's (including benzo(a)pyrene); and I. Metals (arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, iron. magnesium, selenium) Current applicable EPA -approved analytical methods for drinking water must be used and analyses must be performed by laboratories that maintain state or nationally accredited programs. Copies of all test results described above shall be provided to the Commission and the potentially impacted Public Water System(s) within three (3) months of collecting the samples. In addition, the analytical results and surveyed sample locations shall be submitted to the Commission in an electronic data deliverable format. (3) Notification of potentially impacted Public Water Systems within fifteen (15) stream miles downstream of the OOPS Operation prior to commencement of new surface disturbing activities at the site. (4) An emergency spill response program that includes employee training, safety, and maintenance provisions and current contact information for downstream Public Water System(s) located within fifteen (15) stream miles of the DCPS Operation, as well as the ability to notify any such downstream Public Water System(s) with intake(s) within fifteen (15) stream miles downstream of the DCPS operations. in the event of a spill or release, the operator shall immediately implement the emergency response procedures in the above-described emergency response program. If a spill or release impacts or threatens to impact a Public Water System, the operator shall notify the affected or potentially affected Public Water System(s) immediately following discovery of the release, and the spill or release shall be reported to the Commission in accordance with Rule 906.b.(3), and to the Environmental Release/Incident Report. Hotline (1-877-518-5608) in accordance with Rule 906.b.(4). f. Requirements for DCPS Operations at Existing Oil and Gas Locations. (1) Existing Oil and Gas Locations and DCPS Operations at Existing Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area and within zones specified in Table 1 shall be subject to the following requirements instead of the requirements of Rules 317B.c, 3176.d, or 317B.e provided that no new surface disturbance at the Existing Oil and Gas Location occurs after the later of May 1, 2009 for federal land or April 1, 2009 for all other land or the date Rule 317B became applicable to the oil and gas location: A. Collection of surface water data from a Classified Water Supply Segment consisting of a sample collected immediately downgradient of the oil and gas operation will occur by the latest of June 1, 2009, within six (6) months after the date Rule 317E became applicable to the oil and gas location, or when sufficient water exists in the stream: i. pH; Alkalinity; iii. Specific conductance; iv. Major cations/anions (chloride, fluoride, sulfate, sodium); v. Total dissolved solids; vi. BTEX/GRO/DRO; vii. TPH; viii, PAH's (including benzo(a)pyrene): and ix. Metals (arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, selenium). Current applicable EPA -approved analytical methods for drinking water must be used and analyses must be performed by laboratories that maintain state or nationally accredited programs. Copies of all test results described above shall be provided to the Commission and the potentially impacted Public Water System(s) within three (3) months of collecting the samples. In addition, the analytical results and surveyed sample locations shall be submitted to the Commission in an electronic data deliverable format. B. An emergency spill response program that includes employee training, safety, and maintenance provisions and current contact information for downstream Public Water System(s) located within fifteen (15) stream miles of the DCPS Operation, as well as the ability to notify any such downstream Public Water System(s) with intake(s) within fifteen (15) stream miles downstream of the DCPS Operations.. In the event of a spill or release, the operator shall immediately implement the emergency response procedures in the above-described emergency response program. If a spill or release impacts or threatens to impact a Public Water System, the operator shall notify the affected or potentially affected Public Water System(s) immediately following discovery of the release, and the spill or release shall be reported to the Commission in accordance with Rule 905.b.(3), and to the Environmental Release/Incident Report Hotline (1-877-518-5608) in accordance with Rule 906.b.(4). C. Operators shall employ and maintain Best Management Practices, as necessary, to comply with this rule. (2) Existing Oil and Gas Locations and DCPS Operations at Existing Oil and Gas Locations within a Surface Water Supply Area and within zones specified in Table 1 for which new surface disturbance occurs en or after the later of May 1, 2009 for federal land or on or after April 1, 2009 for all other land or the date Rule 3176 became applicable to the oil and gas location shall be subject to the requirements of Rule 3178.f.(3) instead of the requirements of Rules 317B.c, 317B.d, or 3176.e where the additional new surface disturbance is addressed in a Comprehensive Drilling Plan accepted pursuant to Rule 216, or if: A. The new disturbance from the DCPS Operation will not increase the existing disturbed area prior to interim reclamation by more than one hundred (100) percent up to a maximum of three (3) acres, and B. The new surface disturbance occurs in a direction away from the stream or no closer to the stream if moving away from the stream would result in more damaging surface disturbance such as location on a steep slope, in an area of high soil erosion potential, or in a wetland. (3) Where the provisions of Rule 317B.f.(2) apply, the following zone requirements shall apply: A. For all zones, the requirements of Rule 31781.(1), except that the sampling parameters in Rule 317B.f.(1).A shall occur no later than six (6) months after commencing the DCPS Operations at the Existing Oiland Gas Location, B. For External and intermediate Buffer Zones: pitless drilling systems or containment of drilling, flowback, and stimulation fluids with impervious liners, as provided in Rule 904, C. For Internal Buffer Zones: 1. Pitless drilling systems; ii. Flowback and stimulation fluids contained within tanks and placed on a well pad or in an area with downgradient perimeter berming; iii. Berms constructed in compliance with Rule 603.e.(12) around ail crude oil, condensate, and produced water tanks; and iv. Notification of potentially impacted Public Water Systems within fifteen (15) stream miles downstream of the DCPS Operation prior to commencement of new surface disturbing activities at the site. LAW OFFICE: OF MATTHEW SURA Matthew Sura LLC • 4291 Prado Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 • Phone: 720-563-1866 • mattsura.law@gmai1.cam To: Garfield County Planning Commission Fred Jarman, Director of Garfield County Community Development From: Matthew Sura, Esq. EXHIBIT ti RE: BCC Comments on the Ursa Applications: MIPA - 8341, MIPA - 8342, PDPA - 08 - 15 - 8373 Via email: Fred Jarman, fjarnum( larf eld-eountv.Cour September 14, 2015 Dear Director Jarman and the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission, These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Battlement Mesa Concerned Citizens (BCC). For more than a decade, BCC has worked with citizens and operators in Garfield County to provide education about the benefits and risks of oil and gas development as well as to develop solutions to conflicts between the rights of the surface and mineral estate in the Piceance Basin. BCC has a combined membership and support of hundreds of people in Garfield County. BCC appreciates the opportunity to comment on Ursa's three proposals for large-scale oil and gas development within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development. The applications for two well pads with 52 wells, production facilities, disposal wells and pipelines are file numbers MITA-06-15-8341, MIPA-06-15-8342, and PDPA-08-15-8378. We will be responding to all three of the related applications in these comments. SUMMARY The state will require Ursa to prepare an "alternative location analysis" that could impact the siting of the wells and production facilities. Prior to making a recommendation on the Ursa applications, the Planning Commission should request Ursa to prepare an alternative location analysis. The Planning Director can also request that additional information in his staff report as allowed under 4-101.D.3 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code ("LUDC"). By state law, COGCC Rule 604.c(2)F, a multi -well production facility must be as far as possible from homes". When a multi -well facility is proposed near homes or neighborhoods, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) requires that the operator submit an "alternative location analysis" to show that other surface locations, farther from homes, were unavailable or not practicable. Garfield County may also ask for an alternative location analysis. An alternative location analysis should be a prerequisite to any additional action on this permit. Because the alternative location analysis has not been provided by Ursa, this entire application is premature. Ursa is proposing a large-scale industrial use within the Battlement Mesa residential community. The scale and intensity of its proposed oil and gas operations are incompatible with the existing residential use of Battlement Mesa and therefore, we recommend that the proposal be denied. In addition to the alternative location analysis, Ursa`s proposal is also lacking important information about the location of the Class II injection well(s) it is planning for the area; a Noise Mitigation Study; Visual Mitigation Plan; and a response to the 78 recommendations of the draft Health Impact Analysis conducted by the University of Colorado School of Public Health about the proposal for oil and gas activity within Battlement Mesa. The Community Development Director should require this information before the application goes to public hearing. BCC members have also offered comments about best management practices (BMPs) that are being used around the state to better protect public health, safety and welfare. The Ursa proposal is lacking the best management practices that are commonly required by other county and city governments throughout the state. We ask that Garfield County require Ursa to meet or exceed industry best management practices before they are allowed to develop oil and gas in the heart of Battlement Mesa PUD. DETAILED COMMENTS I) ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS SHOULD BE REQUIRED BCC strongly encourages the Community Development Director to request an alternative location analysis from Ursa before proceeding with a public hearing on this application. The 1982 Garfield County Zoning Code (-1982 Code") requires that Ursa prepare an impact statement that will demonstrate that the proposal is "in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal Governments..." 1982 Code 5.03.07(1). One or both of the proposed locations within the PUD should be relocated because state law requires that the oil and gas facilities be sited as "far as possible" from existing homes. COGCC Rule 604c.(2)E. states, i. Where technologically feasible and economically practicable, operators shall consolidate wells to create multi -well pads, including shared locations with other operators. Multi -well production facilities shall be located as far as possible from Building Units. We encourage the Planning Commissioners to determine if the location is as far as possible from homes by compelling Ursa to prepare an `'alternative location analysis". The alternative location analysis will determine if alternative Iocations, farther from homes, are technologically feasible or economically practicable. Because of the tremendous technological advances in the past two decades, directional drilling is economically feasible and therefore, drilling outside of the PUD should be required. In fact, other operators in the immediate area routinely drill wells directionally for over 3,500 feet. The widely -used technology of directional drilling should eliminate the need for one or both of the pads proposed within the PUD. 2 Commission members will not be setting a precedent with this request. Throughout the state, there have been several proposed multi -well locations that have been moved after being required to provide an alternative location analysis.' Some local governments are now routinely requiring an alternative location analysis as a prerequisite for being able to go through the local permitting process.' Garfield County should also require that industrial -type oil and gas development is located as far as possible from homes by requesting an alternative location analysis. BCC respectfully requests that the analysis be conducted, and the results made public, prior to the Planning Commission issuing any recommendation on the Ursa application. 2) URSA PROPOSAL IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT LAND USES AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DENIED The proposal for a large-scale oil and gas development site to be drilled and hydraulically fractured within the Battlement Mesa PUD is incompatible with adjacent residential uses within the PUD and should therefore be denied. The Garfield County LUDC requires that the design of the proposed development "must be compatible with the existing character of adjacent land uses."3 It must not create "dust, odors, gas, fumes and glare that are reasonably objectionable to adjacent property." The hours of operation shall be established to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Although Ursa proposes to mitigate these impacts, they cannot prevent them from adversely affecting Battlement Mesa residents. As recorded by the county's oil and gas liaison, traffic congestion, odors, loud noise, and poor air quality have prompted Battlement Mesa citizens to complain about surrounding oil and gas development. Battlement Mesa is a residential area that has, for many years, been promoted as a retirement community. The Battlement Mesa covenants clearly state that "no portion of any residential Site, or commercial site shall be used for the purpose of mining, quarrying, drilling, boring or exploring for or removing oil, gas, or other hydrocarbons..." 4 Therefore, Battlement Mesa residents had the reasonable expectation that industrial uses would be prohibited near residential areas within the PUD. Now these citizens are facing a major industrial development of 52 wells, which, by Ursa's own estimates, will take at least 2.3 years to complete. 5 We are additionally concerned that Ursa is NOT proposing limiting its hours of operations to be more compatible with adjacent land uses. Ursa is proposing 24-hour a day drilling and completion activities for over two years. The noise alone produced by a 24-hour a day drilling 1 Examples include the Extraction Oil and Gas location ,proposed near Frontier Elementary School in Greeley, the Synergy well site near an apartment complex in Gilbert, and the Great Western wellsite near a neighborhood in Windsor. 2 In additional to the examples list above, the City of Brighton Land Use Code requires an alternative location analysis is a well is proposed within 1,000 feet of a home. Last month, Adams County requested an alternative location analysis for the Wadley Farms location in response to neighborhood concerns. 3 Garfield County LUDC, (Rev. 2013) Art. 7-301. " "AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR BATTLEMENT MESA" Art. 8.11, Page 29 Recorded on August 13, 1991 at the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder at Rec # 426419 Book 811 page 41. s Ursa estimates 5 days of drilling and 10 days of completion work per well plus 21 days for each well pad in their Project Description, Art. 4-203.8.4 page 4. Combined, it will take 837 days to complete the project — barring no unforeseen delays. 3 and completion activities for over two years could significantly reduce quality of life, and home values, for nearby residents. Ursa's proposal is also in violation of state law. The COGCC Rule 802 allows for industrial levels of noise during drilling and hydraulic fracturing (80 d13— day and 75 dB - night). However, Rule 604.c. states that the noise level must be reduced to light industrial (70 dB — day and 65 dB — night) if there is a home or other "building unit" within 1,000 feet of an oil and gas location. Because there are homes within 1,000 feet of the proposed location, Ursa must meet the lower threshold of 65170dBs. Because decibels are on an exponential scale, 80 dBs is twice the amount of noise of 70dBs. According to their application, Ursa is planning to produce twice the amount of noise as is allowable by state law. Ursa claims that it will employ best management practices to control noise. Unfortunately, Ursa's noise mitigation practices are far from the "best". Encana Oil and Gas recently agreed to meet a standard of 6OdBs for its operations within the Town of Erie. Ursa is proposing to emit four times the noise that Encana will be emitting in Erie. (See Best Management Practices below). If the COGCC complaint log is any measure, Ursa will likely have more odor complaints than noise complaints. Over the past two years, there have been five complaints against Ursa in Garfield County that have been registered with the COGCC.' Four of the complaints were for "toxic odors" that were so strong they could not open their windows or turn on their swamp cooler. At the public hearing, Battlement Mesa residents will attest to Ursa's regular violations of state air quality regulations that prohibit creation of offensive odors. In its application, Ursa does not propose any new best management practices to address past odor complaints. They simply state that odor complaints will be addressed by Land Department personnel immediately.' Ursa's proposal will create noise and odors that are incompatible with adjacent residential land use. In its application, Ursa even admits that its industrial operations are "less compatible" with nearby residential uses.' Ursa acknowledges that the construction, drilling and completion operations are "beyond normal industrial uses of the parcel" during the production phase. Once the drilling and fracking are accomplished, the site will revert to "normal industrial" operations. Any heavy -industrial uses are not compatible within a residential community. Proposing 2.3 years of"beyond normal industrial uses" makes it clear that this proposal is in violation of the requirement that the new use be compatible with existing adjacent uses. The Garfield County LUDC is unequivocal — the Planning Commission is required to put forward a Recommendation of Denial if the application fails to satisfy any one of the applicable requirements and compliance cannot be achieved through conditions of approval. In this case, 6 COGS Database - https://cogcc.state.co.us click "COGIS Database) then "inspection / incident" then search for complaints for Ursa. 7 Impact Analysis Art. 4-203.G - D Pad, page 9. s Impact Analysis, Art. 4-203.8.4 page 3. 4 Ursa's 24-hour a day industrial -scale oil and gas development proposal within Battlement Mesa fails to meet the requirement that the proposed land use is compatible with the existing character of adjacent land uses. Ursa's past behavior and its current proposal make it clear their proposal will lead to odors, fumes, and noise that are reasonably objectionable to adjacent property owners. 3) THE URSA PROPOSAL IS MISSING KEY INFORMATION The Ursa proposal may have been deemed "technically complete", but it does not contain the information reasonably necessary for the Community Development staff or Planning Commission to make an informed decision as to whether or not it should be recommended for approval. In addition to the missing alternative location analysis, the Ursa proposal also lacks adequate information on the issues that are most likely to be of concern to residents— including the issue of whether either of the well pads will have a Class II injection well, a Noise Mitigation Study, a Visual Mitigation Nan, or any response to the recommendations within Garfield County's draft Health Impact Analysis. a. Class II Injection Wells The proposal assumes that a Class II waste water injection well will be approved within the PUD – although they have not applied for it yet – and then references three potential locations for the waste injection well. Ursa's traffic study and pipeline plans assume approval of the injection well within the PUD. BCC believes that the Class II injection well application should be a part of this application. These three applications are incomplete without more information about the location of the injection well and its potential impacts to residents. b. Noise Mitigation Study Another glaring omission is the lack of a `"Noise Mitigation Study". Ursa's "Sound Study" simply reports on what sound levels Ursa recorded at a single location and then makes the assumption that sound walls "have been found to be an effective mitigation." Even if a sound wall was effective in one location, that success will not necessarily translate to other locations. For example, the proposed B Pad is close to the Colorado River and well below most homes in elevation. Will a sound wall be effective in containing noise for the benefit of the homes that are located above the facility? Ursa should be required to submit an actual Noise Mitigation Study that would consider the noise levels, distance, and topography to make estimates of whether or not the noise would be a concern for nearby homes. Once they have an estimate of the potential noise levels, they could design noise mitigation measures to ensure the facilities are not a nuisance to nearby residents. The proposal states that the location "may" be surrounded by a sound wall, if necessary.9 Waiting until there are noise complaints to erect a sound wall is certainly not a best management practice and is not in compliance with the Garfield County LUDC. 9 Standards Analysis Art, 7 — 0 Pad, page 2. 5 c. Visual Mitigation Pian The application is also completely lacking a "Visual Mitigation Plan." The application states that the "well pad will be visually buffered from adjacent residences through topography, distance, and vegetation through landscaping agreed upon by the owner.' However, the proposal neglects to state what the landscaping the site would contain. Simply installing the landscaping `'agreed upon by the owner" does not reassure the adjacent land owners that they will not be looking at a large tank farm for the next 30 years. In most jurisdictions, the applicant submits a site plan that detailed the expected equipment on site, as well as a Visual Mitigation Plan that includes a graphic visual simulation of what the site will look like when the landscaping is complete. The Landscaping Plan for D Pad is insufficient to describe what the facility would look like to nearby residents. The Community Development staff requested more information about proposed visual mitigations in the letter of Non -Technical Completeness. But Ursa's response was still incomplete.' 1 The Community Development staff and Planning Commission should require Ursa to submit a full Visual Mitigation Plan. d. Compliance with Recommendations in the Draft Health Impact Analysis The letter of Non -Technical Completeness stated that, "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." BCC shares the Garfield BOCC opinion that responses to the recommendations in the draft HIA deserve a full response. For example, there are many health and safety recommendations that have not been incorporated in Ursa's application: I2 1. Require periodic maintenance review of water and gas gathering lines to highest industry standards to reduce accidents and malfunctions. 2. Periodically test emergency communications systems. Consider siren, reverse 911, or other system of other mass alert to protect the public health and reduce injury. 3. Institute mechanism for reporting safety concerns, near -misses, etc to the appropriate designated county agency or department to reduce accidents and malfunctions. Ensure timely follow up of all concerns. 4. Review procedures for utility permissions to dig near line location to reduce accidents and malfunctions. 5. Require permanent gas line markers in the field, and other standard practice safety procedures to reduce accidents and malfunctions. 6. Review pipeline system for routes that avoid proximity to homes, schools or other areas used by residents to protect the public health and reduce injury. r° Standards Analysis Art. 7 — 0 Pad, page 2. "See NTC Responses— B Pad, page 5. 12 Witter, et al. Draft Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado at Denver. 2011. Available at: htto:l/www.garfield-county.coma/public-healthlbattlement-mesa-health-irritaact-assessment- draft2.aspx 6 7. Place an inlet protection system, similar to the system in place for Rifle and planned for Parachute, on the two intakes for the Battlement Mesa water treatment plant that would shut off the intakes if contaminants are detected to protect public health. In response to Antero's previous plans to drill within the PUD, the HIA provided objective information and 78 evidence -based recommendations that were based on observation of oil and gas development near Battlement Mesa. Many of the recommendations of the HIA have already been adopted by the state COGCC or local governments throughout Colorado. Ursa's dismissive statements that they intend to respond to the HIA by submitting a "matrix" during the Planning Commission hearing should not have been accepted by the Community Development staff. Neither the Planning Commission members, nor the public, will have the opportunity to review the "matrix" prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The Community Development staff should require full responses to the draft HIA recommendations prior to any hearing before the Planning Commission. 4) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Throughout its application, Ursa reassures the County that it will be employing "best management practices" ("BMPs") to protect public health, safety, and welfare and the environment. But Ursas proposal does not contain many of the best management practices now being commonly used in the industry. BCC encourages Garfield County to require adoption of the best management practice listed below. These BMPs come from a number of sources. These BMPs are found in COGCC permits, in local government land use codes, and in Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") between local governments and industry. Links to some of the documents are provided for your review. Please contact BCC if you would like copies of any of the documents listed below. "Brighton" - City of Brighton Land Use and Development Code, Adopted April 7, 2015. i 3 "Broomfield" --Broomfield Municipal Code Chapter 17-54 "Oil and Gas Land Use Regulations" adopted in 2013.14 "Erie"—Town of Erie Ordinance 21-2015, 2015, Erie, CO. Adopted September 8, 2015; Also Erie Resolution No. 15-98 - Operator Agreement with Encana. Adopted August 26, 2015. "Gunnison County'' - Gunnison County Resolution No. 2012-25, Gunnison County, CO. Adopted August 28, 201215 13 City of Brighton, Colorado. City of Brighton Land Use and Development Code, Adopted April 7, 2015. Available at: http://www.brightonco.koviDocumentCenterNiew/6180 14 City of Broomfield, Colorado. Ordinance No. 1986 "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17-54, Oil And Gas Land Use Regulations, Of The Broomfield Municipal Code" As amended September 24, 2013. Available at: htto://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/5772 14 Gunnison County, Colorado. Gunnison County Resolution No, 2012-25,. Adopted August 28, 2012, Available at: http://www.Bunn[soncountv.arg/DocumentCenter/View/108 7 "La Plata" -- La Plata County Code or Ordinances, Chapter 90. Adopted August 20, 2013)6 "Timnath" - Timnath MOU, signed on March 10, 2015 between the Town of Timnath and Peterson Energy. a. Air Quality Protections In addition to the air quality requirements under Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Section 7, C.R.S., oil and gas production facilities located near homes should meet these additional requirements to ensure that the dust and harmful air emissions (emanations) inherent in oil and gas development do not harm nearby residents. Local governments have explicit authority over air quality issues and can go beyond the states regulations.17 1. Require an air quality assurance plan for review and approval for all monitoring specified in these recommendations to assure monitoring information will be adequate for informing public health decisions. (Broomfield, HIA, Timnath, Brighton) 2. Ambient Air Sampling f Monitoring Program. The Operator agrees to cooperate with the implementation of an ambient air sampling program to be completed by the local government using criteria being developed in conjunction with Colorado State University. The local government shall conduct testing in accordance with requirements of the COGCC and Operator shall contribute a specified amount. (Broomfield, Timnath) 3. Require adherence to EPA natural gas STAR program to reduce VOC emissions to the lowest level technically possible. (Broomfield, HIA, Timnath) 4. Electric -grid powered motors. Require use of electricity from the grid in place of diesel powered generators for well drilling and tracking operations to reduce VOC, PAH, and PM emissions. If electricity from the grid is not available, the operator shall use propane or natural gas to power pumps and motors, if feasible. (Erie, Broomfield, Timnath, Extraction Oil and Gas BMP, HIA, La Plata, CDPHE) 5. Fugitive Dust suppression. Dust associated with on-site activities and traffic on access roads shall be minimized throughout construction, drilling and operational activities such that there are no visible dust emissions from access roads or the site to the extent practical given wind conditions. (COGCC permit requirements in City of Greeley, CDPHE recommendations in Windsor, Broomfield, Timnath, La Plata, Battlement Mesa SUA, HIA, Brighton) Ursa has stated that it will have a water truck located on the pad during drilling and completion operations. This should be stated in the application and a condition of the permit. 6. To the extent practicable, exhaust from all engines, motors, coolers, and other mechanized equipment shall be vented in a direction away from occupied buildings. (HIA, Broomfield, Brighton, Timnath, La Plata) 7. Subjected to an instrument -based leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspection at least once a year — even for equipment emitting less than 2 tons of VOCs per year; (Brighton) S. VOCs destruction or control technologies with at least 95% efficiency must be 16 La Plata County, Colorado. La Plata County Code or Ordinances, Chapter 90. Adopted August 20, 2013. Available at: http://wu .co•laolata.ro.uslsites/default/files/d€partmentsiplanningichaoter 90 2-7-14 revision.pdf 17 C.R.S. § 25-7-128(1) employed on all tanks capable of emitting over 2 tons of VOCs annually; (Brighton) 9. If a leak is discovered the first attempt to repair the leak shall be made no later than 24 hours after discovery. If a repair is not possible within 24 hours, the well should be shut down until a repair can be made. If shutting down the well will not stop the leak, efforts should be made to minimize the leak within the first 24 hours and it shall be reported to the Local Government Designee. (Brighton, Erie) b. Emergency Prevention and Response Garfield County should require detailed emergency response plans in all cases, but certainly within and near the Battlement Mesa PUD. Local governments have exclusive legislative authority to regulate some aspects of oil and gas development such as transportation and emergency response. In the late 1990's two boys playing with matches in Monument Creek started a fire that led to the destruction of nine homes. Battlement Mesa residents know the threat of wildfire is serious. The Emergency Response Plan provided by Ursa appears to adequatety provide for the safety of its own employees. However, Ursa is planning major industrial facilities in the Battlement Mesa PUD — home to approximately 4,500 people. Ursa should have a plan in place to notify and evacuate the neighborhoods closest to the B and D Pads. Ursa should also have foam units onsite or at least a portable foam unit in the area so it is better able to handle fire at its facilities. Emergency response plans should include the following: 1. Require emergency response plan that sets out procedures for evacuation, shelter in place and air intake plans for all locations with high concentrations of persons, such as the schools, the assisted living facility, and recreation center to protect the public health and reduce injury. Allow these entities an opportunity to comment on Ursa and community emergency response plans. (Broomfield, HIA, Gunnison County, Timnath, La Plata, Brighton) 2. Require a foam fire suppression system be located at the well site (CDPHE) 3. Detailed information showing that the operator has adequate personnel, supplies, and training to implement the emergency response plan immediately at all times during construction and operations. (Broomfield, Timnath, Brighton) 4. A process by which the operator notifies the surrounding neighbors to inform them about the on-site operations and provide sufficient information for surrounding neighbors to communicate with the operator. (Broomfield, Timnath, Brighton) 5. Require emergency responders to review evacuation and shelter in place plans for Battlement Mesa community and Ursa emergency response plans to protect public health and reduce injury. (HIA, Timnath, Brighton, Broomfield) 6. Require telemetry system to notify the operator of upset conditions with remote well shut-in capability (CDPHE, Brighton) 7. Use Geographical information System technology to overlay pipelines, pigging stations, well locations within Battlement Mesa community to determine relationship to residences, schools, assisted living facility, etc. (Broomfield, HIA, 9 Tirnnath) c. Transportation Like Emergency Response, transportation is an issue in which the COGCC has conceded that local governments have jurisdiction. The COGCC does not have transportation regulations and expects that regulations of oil and gas transportation will be taken on by the relevant local government. The traffic estimate provided by Ursa is unreasonably low. Garfield County should conduct its own traffic analysis to ensure that Ursas proposal will not harm traffic flows or lead to unreasonable road damage within the Battlement Mesa PUD. 1. Transportation Plan and Circulation. The applicant should include detailed descriptions of all proposed access and haul routes for equipment, water, sand, waste fluids, waste solids, mixed waste, and all other material to be hauled on the public streets and roads of Battlement Mesa. The disposal of water used on site shall also be documented in detail by the operator, including anticipated haul routes, approximate number of vehicles needed to supply and dispose of water and the final destination for water used in operation. (Broomfield, Erie, Timnath, La Plata, Brighton) 2. Waste Management Plan, A Waste Management Plan that describes the handling and storage, transportation, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste generated by the Operation, including exploration and production (E & P) waste. (Erie, Brighton) 3. Roadway Impact Analysis. An analysis of the impacts of the Operation to the public roadway system within the County. (Gunnison) 4. Chains. Traction chains from heavy equipment shall be removed before entering a street or right-of-way. (Broomfield, La Plata, Timnath, Brighton) 5. Mud Tracking. The operator shall take all practicable measures to ensure that vehicles do not track mud or debris onto the streets and rights-of-way. If mud or debris is nonetheless deposited on the streets, in excess of de minimus levels, the streets shall be cleaned immediately by the operator. If for some reason this cannot be done, or needs to be postponed, the local government shall be notified of the operator's plan for mud removal. (Broomfield, Timnath, Brighton) 6. Water Management. Water necessary for drilling and hydraulic fracturing shall be piped to the location if practicable. The availability and use of Battlement Mesa water shall be at the sole discretion of Battlement Mesa. (Brighton, Erie) d. Noise Mitigations Erie's recent "Operator Agreement" with Encana Corp. set a new best management standard for Colorado. Encana agreed to limit its noise to 60 dBs —half the noise that the COGCC allows in residential areas during drilling and fracking. Garfield County should afford the residents of Battlement Mesa the same protections the Town of Erie provided its residents. 1. The operator to meet commercials -level 60 dBs (Erie, Brighton) 2. A noise mitigation plan (Erie, Broomfield, Timnath, La Plata, Brighton) 3. Where the well and well site are in an area of particular noise sensitivity, additional 10 noise mitigation may be required. An area of particular noise sensitivity includes, but is not limited to, the following: hospitals, dwelling units, nursing homes, hotels, churches, and designated wildlife preserves. (Broomfield) 4. Additional noise abatement measures may be required. The level of required mitigation may increase with the proximity of the well and well site to areas of particular noise sensitivity or the level of noise emitted by the well and well site. One or more of the following additional noise abatement measures may be required: (1) Acoustically insulated housing or cover enclosing the motor or engine; (2) Noise management plan identifying hours of maximum noise emissions, type, frequency, and level of noise to be emitted, and proposed mitigation measures (Broomfield, La Plata) 5. The Ursa proposal should require that no Jake brakes be allowed within Battlement Mesa. e. Water Protection Local governments have adopted numerous ways to protect domestic water supplies and reduce the potential for water pollution. In Battlement Mesa, this issue should warrant particular attention since the Proposed Ursa 13 Pad is located in close proximity to the Battlement Mesa water intake on the Colorado River. 1. Identification and plan for protection of all domestic water supplies. (Gunnison, Timnath, Brighton) 2. Require the berming of the down gradient well pad perimeters, as well as surface water diversion ditches for each well pad to prevent pollution of water and soil. (HIA, Gunnison) 3. The Operator shall utilize steel -rim bemrrs around tanks and separators at the Well Sites with sufficient capacity to contain 1.5 times the volume of the largest tank enclosed by the berm plus sufficient freeboard to prevent overflow. (Broomfield, Timnath) 4. There will be no Class 11 injection wells within the City limits (Erie, Brighton) f. Visual Mitigations Visual Mitigation Plans are especially prevalent in municipalities or densely -populated residential areas like Battlement Mesa. The City of Greeley, for example, requires a set number of trees to be planted around the perimeter of every well pad. Greeley also requires that the Visual Mitigation Plan contains a graphic visual simulation of what the site will look like once the landscaping is established. Garfield County can and should require Ursa to submit a Visual Mitigation Plan utilizing the BMPs below. 1. A Visual Mitigation Plan should be required. (Brighton, Broomfield, Timnath, La Plata, Greeley) 2. To the maximum extent practicable, Operator shall comply with the following aesthetic provisions: (Broomfield, Brighton, La Plata) a. Oil and gas facilities shall be located away from prominent natural features such as 11 distinctive rock and land forms, vegetative patterns, ditch crossings, community open space areas, the golf course, and other approved landmarks; b. Structures shall be of minimal size to satisfy present and future functional requirements; d. Applicant shall locate facilities at the base of slopes to provide a background of topography or natural cover; e. Replace earth adjacent to water crossings at slopes less than the normal angle of repose for the soil type of the site; and f. Align access roads to follow existing grades and minimize cuts and fills. g. In Urban Mitigation Areas and Useable Open Spaces, one or more of the following landscaping practices may be required by the local government where reasonably practicable, on a site-specific basis: i. Establishment and proper maintenance of ground covers, shrubs, trees; ii. Shaping cuts and fills to appear as natural forms; iii. Cutting rock areas to create irregular forms; iv. Designing the facility to utilize natural screens; or v. Construction of fences for use with or instead of landscaping. 3. A plan for light mitigation (Broomfield, Timnath, Brighton) 4. For operational activities requiring additional lighting, downlighting is required, meaning that all bulbs must be fully shielded to prevent light emissions above a horizontal plane drawn from the bottom of the fixture. (Broomfield, Timnath, La Plata) 5. City may determine fencing materials around facility taking into account aesthetics, cost, and functionality. (Brighton, Erie) g. Planning and Siting Local governments are beginning to require that oil and gas operators engage with Community Development staff far earlier in the planning process. This has allowed local government planners to steer oil and gas development to areas where it will have the least impact on residents and future development. Ursa's predecessor, Antero Resources, had committed to prepare a Comprehensive Drilling Plan for the Battlement Mesa area. Garfield County should require Ursa to prepare a Comprehensive Drilling Plan as a transparent method to disclose the cumulative impacts of all of Ursa's proposed development on the community. 1. Comprehensive Developrnen/ Plan. The Operator agrees to submit a Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) to the local government describing its proposed operations within or immediately contiguous to the local government boundaries for the next five (5) years, to maximize planning and minimize the impacts of the planned operations. The affected area includes those sites within or immediately contiguous to the local government boundaries as they then exist where the Operator intends to conduct exploration or production activities and install supporting infrastructure (compressor stations, waste water treatment facilities, roads, pipelines, etc.) for a period of five (5) years. (Timnath, Broomfield, Brighton and Erie) 12 2. 1,000 foot setbacks or "best efforts" to maximize distances from homes to the greatest extent possible (Timnath, Broomfield, Erie, Brighton) BCC encourages Garfield County to consider all of the siting tools available to direct oil and gas development away from residential areas. Local governments all over the state are partnering with oil and gas industry operators to address impacts to air quality, emergency prevention and response, transportation, noise mitigation, water protection, visual mitigations, and planning and siting of oil and gas facilities. BCC understands that the industry is important to our economy, but so is providing safe and peaceful places for residents to live. Fortunately, we do not have to choose. As has been demonstrated throughout the state, we can have both. Sincerely, Douglas Saxton Co-chair Battlement Concerned Citizens Matt Sura On Behalf of Battlement Concerned Citizens Figure 1. lirsa's two proposed will sites within the Battlement Mesa PLED. 13 Fred Jarman EXHIBIT err From: Charles Hall <cdhall149@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 9:34 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Bernita Grove; Chuck Hall; Don Mumma; Frances Rose; Lynn Shore Subject: Garfield County Land Use Application Referral for Battlement Mesa PUD In general all of the documents are very complete and describe the planned Land Use for the Battlement Mesa PUD. Several comments relating to each of the documents: • MIPA-06-15-8341 (Battlement Mesa BMC D Well Pad) o 4-118_202 Waiver Request - Support the waiver request for a 2% grade. o 4-203.B.3 Adj Landowners_Mineral Owners - Wells BMC B23D 18-07-95 and BMC B24A 18-07- 95 down hole locations seem to be under house located in Monument Ridge Village. Should these be included as Adj Landowners? o 7-1003.0 ERP - Update contact information were applicable; specific Landman John Doose. • MIPA-06-15-8342 (Battlement Mesa BMC B Well Pad) o 4-118_202 Waiver Request - Support the waiver request for a 2% grade. o 4-203.B.3 Adj Landowners_Mineral Owners - List of land owners stretches farther than the downhole locations. Why are so many landowners listed? o 4-203.E Grading_ Drainage - Drainage Report Cover Page has an incorrect pad location o 4-203.G.4 Geohaz Report - Important note of no significant faults in Pad B location o 7-1003.0 ERP - Update contact informtion were applicable; specific Landman John Doose. • PDPA-08-15-8378 (Phase 1 Pipeline) o 6-17-15 Grading Permit - Under the Noxious Weed Management Plan; on pages 197 &199 the graphic of the pipeline(s) connecting Pad B & Pad D does not show the bore between the two. Regards, Chuck Hall Chairman, Oil & Gas Committee Battlement Mesa Service Association To: Fred Jarman, Community Development Director Garfield County Planning Commission, Bob Fullerton, Chair RE:BCC and GVCA Comments on the Ursa Applications: MIPA --- 8341, MIPA —8342, PDPA — 08 —15 Via email: Fred Jarman flur,n wia garfrelcl-countv.com September 14, 2015 We want to introduce three organizations which will be actively involved with the Planning & Zoning Commission proceedings regarding the Ursa application: Grand Valley Citizens Alliance (GVCA) is a non-profit, civic -action organization founded in 1997 to empower and mobilize Garfield County residents to protect their health, environment, and well-being during oil -and -gas exploration and development. 1.1 In 2009, Battlement Concerned Citizens organized to mitigate large-scale industrial development in their neighborhoods -- proposed close to homes and schools -- especially when they were already impacted by a heavy concentration of drillinglfracking operations surrounding their community. GVCA has also been involved with statewide COGCC rulemaking and has hosted countywide public events. BCC members meet monthly to study potential drilling impacts, sometimes with industry reps. Both groups are represented on the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board. Our members successfully advocated for the county's "Health Impact Assessment" -- and subsequently, now believe that drilling sites should be at least 2,000 feet away from homes to eliminate health impacts. GVCA members have long voiced a need for a local governmental "comprehensive drilling plan" for in -and -around Battlement Mesa to better mitigate the cumulative impacts of large industrial operations in a residential area. Battlement Concerned Citizens (BCC) and the Rifle -Silt -Peach Valley -New Castle (RSPN) groups are sub -committees of GVCA. Under the umbrella of non-profit Western Colorado Congress (WCC,) GVCA shares information and resources in educating community members about the health, social, and environmental effects from residential drilling. At the "public comment" segment of the application review, members of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance and others will be supporting these actions: Drilling inside a PUD - community of 4,500 people requires great care, thought and planning a.) large-scale industrial O&G production sites proven to be as far from homes/schools/dwellings, as possible, with alternative sites identified; b.) Comprehensive Drilling Plan for in and around Battlement Mesa to plan for the accumulative impacts from multi -company drilling currently in production or proposed; c.) consideration of cumulative community and socio-economic impacts; d.) emergency response plans in place (not proposed); e.) increased air & water monitoring; Companies come and go; a community does not a.) residents will have to live with legacy of natural gas development b.) their ideas/concerns should be paramount in this process Members and supporters of GVCA look forward to expressing their concerns to commission members and county staff during the application review process. Because so many of our Battlement residents are senior citizens, we hope that special time accommodations for your "public hearing" segments will be considered. Sincerely, Leslie Robinson, Chair, Grand Valley Citizens Alliance Cnrelcl County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman Re: Ursa BMC B and D Well Pads and Pipeline Application September 14th, 2015 Hello Fred, EXHIBIT 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 Thank you for the opportunity to review this application and provide referral comments from an Environmental Health perspective. We support many of the statements and conditions of approval already made by Garfield County Community Development, particularly those relating to the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and that relate to air and water quality monitoring and protection measures. While the Health Impact Assessment is somewhat outdated due to regulation changes from the COGCC and CDPHE as well as modifications to Ursa's drilling plan, its recommendations can be a useful guide. Many of our comments are in support of these recommendations, particularly those that are not already covered by existing regulations or incorporated into Ursa's standard operating procedures. Ursa has demonstrated in their application and community outreach that they are going beyond what is required for compliance with standards on normal well -pad operations. Given the sensitivity of the location of these sites, we would expect that an energy development company work diligently with citizens and permitting agencies to be sure that their impact is minimized to the fullest extent possible. Our specific comments for the Ursa BMC B and D pads are as follows: Air Quality Garfield County's Environmental Health Department has been monitoring air quality in Battlement Mesa since fall of 2010. In the fall of 2012, monitoring was expanded to include ozone, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, and total VOCs in addition to the 90 speciated VOCs that were already being monitored. Our mobile monitoring unit is located in Glenwood Springs for the calendar year 2015, but will be relocated back to Battlement Mesa in February 2016. Air quality impacts related to oil and gas operations remain a concern for many citizens in the Battlement Mesa area and Ursa's efforts to minimize impacts are critical. Thanks to Ursa for the work they are already doing to minimize these impacts and outlining best practices in their application. 1. Nuisance conditions a. Ursa states in their Impact Analysis that the point -person for receiving complaints related to dust, noise, odor, or glare will be the Landman. This person's contact info should be made available through several avenues to adjacent landowners who may experience impacts related to the wells. This person or team should also continue to make efforts throughout the drilling and production process to partner with citizens and other organizations who operate in the area. They Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease should attend citizen meetings and work with existing groups, and provide transparency throughout their operations. b. Ursa should work very closely with their contractors to be sure they are operating to the same high standards as Ursa employees, including reducing vehicle idling whenever possible (per HIA recommendation 3.1.19). c. Proper dust mitigation during construction and operation of the pads should be used at all times given these well pads' proximity to homes and the sensitive population groups who may live in them. 2. Air quality monitoring Garfield County has seen statistically significant decreases in many of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) since we began our current monitoring program in 2008, including at the Battlement Mesa site. This indicates that our air quality is improving. However, the intent of our program is collect data on ambient air quality for a region, and does not focus on site-specific or source -specific air quality which could contain elevated levels of some pollutants that may pose a health concern to both industry employees and citizens. Therefore, we believe it •would be beneficial for Ursa to further air monitoring efforts at their Battlement Mesa operations. This is addressed in HIA recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.11, and 3.1.14. The methods we suggest for this are: a. Partnering with Garfield County's air quality monitoring program to make us aware of activities that may temporarily increase air emissions so that we can watch for them in our monitoring data. b. Continuing to work with CSU on their natural gas air emissions study. We know that Ursa has already participated in several experiments with CSU, and encourage making CSU aware of all possible opportunities to collect data. We also encourage Ursa to consider making a greater financial contribution to the study should the need arise, as the study is currently not fully funded. c. Collecting VOC samples at the well pad during operations and upon completion for a greater understanding of air emissions at the source. This is suggested in recommendation 3.1.11, with data reporting in recommendation 3.1.14. Ursa does state in their comments on this recommendation that "ail air emission monitoring and records are required by the CDPHE". However, it is my understanding that the monitoring and records they are referring to are related to throughput and not actual emissions monitoring. Garfield County Environmental Health staff are more than willing to partner with Ursa on developing a sampling plan including the methods, equipment, frequency, and data management. Water Quality Ursa is already doing many of the recommendations related to water and soils monitoring in the HIA (such as the use of tanks rather than pits, and pipelines to reduce truck traffic). Some of the recommendations also no longer apply given the fact that there will not be a centralized E&P waste facility or produced water impoundment. 1. Given the proximity to domestic water wells and the Battlement Mesa drinking water intake, Environmental Health supports Community Development in their requirements regarding water quality sampling. In regards to recommendation 3.2.9 on groundwater sampling, Ursa should report to Community Development the locations of wells they plan Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease to sample from. If there are sufficient existing wells in close enough proximity to the well pad, Ursa may be able to use these to collect samples and report the results to Community Development. If not, Ursa should drill wells to test water quality on a regular basis. We suggest use of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment- Lab Services Division's "Drilling Baseline Package" or something similar from a different lab. https://www.colorado.Qovlpacific/cdphelwater-testing. This is particularly critical at the BMC B pad given its close proximity to the Colorado River. 2. When Battlement Mesa Metro District begins developing their Source Water Protection Plan, Ursa should be a key member of the steering committee. This will facilitate good communication with the drinking water operator and allow community members to provide input into protecting their water source. 3. Ursa has already outlined the measures they plan to use at the BMC B pad to prevent any spills from entering the Colorado River. This should be of the upmost importance and we appreciate their efforts. Thank you, Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist III Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease September 14, 2015 Garfield County Development Frad A. Jarman, Director 108 8th Street, Suit 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT ALL The attached package contains a petition from citizens of Battlement Mesa (BM) concerning the request for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to drill inside the BM Planned Unit Development (PUD). We are requesting your planning organization include the petition packet in the your final recommendation package to the Garfield County Commissioners concerning this subject. In addition, the citizens of BM request you hold hearings on this important issue in Battlement Mesa. The logistical issues associated with so many of the BM citizens driving to and parking in Glenwood are significant. Besides, many of our citizens are elderly and the drive to and from Glenwood presents a hardship. By holding the hearings in BM many more of the citizens will be able to attend and participate. Thank you for these considerations. Sincerely, Donald Gray 156 Roan Creek Drive Parachute, CO 81635 September 16, 2015 Battlement Mesa Petition Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners. Over Four hundred -sixty citizens of Battlement Mesa are requesting your support. These Battlement Mesa citizens have signed the attached petition asking that you deny the Special Use Permit that would allow Ursa to drill for natural gas inside the boundaries of the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD). This petition is not about stopping drilling; we believe our country needs the energy and we need the related jobs. However, we also believe the majority of natural gas beneath Battlement Mesa can be extracted by drilling around the outer periphery of the PUD, instead of drilling inside the PUD and damaging our beautiful community and our quality of life. The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) conducted by the Colorado School of Public Health stated there would likely be health impacts associated with drilling inside the PUD. At the time funding for completion of the HIA was withheld, Commissioners stated the HIA recommendations would be considered when making future decisions concerning oil and gas drilling. The future is now, and the citizens of Battlement Mesa are asking you to govern in a manner that avoids the risks found in the HIA.. The issue boils down to more financial profit for Ursa on one hand, versus health risks, life disturbances, damage to our community image, and potential property value impacts for BM home owners on the other hand. Many of our citizens have worked and saved most of their lives to be able to own a nice home in the great Battlement Mesa environment. Many will also rely on their home equity to sustain them in Iater years of their lives. In addition to the health risks identified in the HIA, we also urge you to consider these financial realities, and make decisions that will protect the people you represent. Should Battlement Mesa residents be expected to endure the above noted health and financial risks for the benefit of Ursa's financial gain? Decidedly not. Please deny the Special Use Permit for drilling inside our community and direct Ursa to drill from outside the PUD. It is the Right Thing to do! Respectfully submitted on behalf of petition signers by: Donald Gray 156 Roan Creek Drive Parachute, CO 81635 Phone: 970-285-9632 0- • t' y \ r-vzi p a. ,0 C1� oci .--› m• oljlz "00 ~' r'. w. co —r CD o !C I-4 =-,v:r i. ia,: ro ien 1^Ft, 5. g ., V t< Cr, ' "1 co r . -. : as a. lg. A� 0 ° , -I o Ta v ro • 0 tin z• 1 ro 6' PI tIT CID A: a pot, MIL CD et .-0- 4 •rt4 co v E 1C1�y P } • rIL • dig 4' atpammo uo III - • 1 Lr"., .r▪ r Mer w � cit (74 Kr M+ fr- 2 r - 1 t n N w' ct ITh 1 .r 5 4.j r` L`1 r ' L r P , u,-1 )•• 1 co Lr W O 'd 1 '..-iSi !n ILO • 1 0(p �OZi [IQ - 0 CD Ci C 2 4-1-ro- 1• ' Z ▪ •,1 so sr o w . co 0 4-R. CD CD R ,,,,,Le 2 CO° = !t 0 CD PI- SID w a . 5 A CCD 1 :w. c !p n '1 1.... ti, ▪ ... - N ; L ,' ti rho� °"� 2- tom.. O = R `C fp 0.0 E (D �a CD r. I, i • =▪ t .i7a - d eti Lt cet :4-' ro f 1 N tom.. '" 0 ret f; ID, Q Uv b 2 kik co CL CD 5. .0 r- ,1 u �1! . v. r^-. 1�1 F N.+0 00 a+ vl c.a A!) `.+ 11 r ..lTJX ins r p J H H r a 'G eo G_, I g. w �• R ,"G ep ca.@ (C 0.1,r.p rn ' is 1.10 ig ?' O O ti eo 16 2. (10 Ca ua 0'a ep 1-4 GI a n C, ro g c� `ra ►-d rw f 1 '- 1 1 's- .� 1 � 1 'ice 1l 1 KL 1 1 'r�-�` 1 10 146 45 dtz ssaappd }aaals W IC'I w it 3 Trim 1 I (palurid) acuEN •� go' ig vzy EL, o gqag g art � � 4 4 A? p v 1 • P 0Q v p- rraD [fin d eb trg *to0 -. 0 ay • eD `E -rin I CD co CD C Q. Coea i41 RoV1 V eD LID 5 PIP* 47. r z z l b E alp ams3n w r� — 1� ‘.© as NF 1� it j • T'1 1• ^ r 1.� s — y co \ " li; 2 ° o w at? 12 fp VJ i. C] ▪ 0 CieU ..r CCI ill 0. v 4 pc? e `-G Ps:ota -t r ren . CD on r 1. 0 v CA Cr CO 0 C*ft CIV 0 "'S --1 Q� 0- 3_ Vi �F 1"Mi g O d• cm i P, i▪ � 16 ttt di2'5' Lit — 0". r .A W RJ 1 ' I ....—..-- t E 15 CJI S'r -k { • w to H `til 0 I p • rfe M. MD P 1 tz[o 0, r'' I i : � 6 (41. °a ';f a.. �� 1� I 0 -. Q 1 rr �"`� I 0 .. :x � 1 ? 0 o O AD 2. ' s9c0 QFes.�'11 1tmg o t m 0 v 1 ro G °° '"d ;v o 3 �. " g" w- 'h � °-°ci �cD . c tit a zu CD o t" cm 5' =" n a- a) • ier eo C$ g let) • r - n, c -- 1c 'a 1 1 cn v, w (pa}uud) WIN �j'3� I 1� 1 1� k 1 h Cs co al 99 )11v 1.1 r� C hco .a a ro O Q- ts� fC' • A7• 4 • V oCT ▪ al co va ft xc.rC Pr) 1t: gq o n 0) et, • a. O • W �. 0 arc v er eD o c. • ro ( G 4 • Q ina ro 1-0 ^0^ Y� c 1 1-F O 1 4 d r -I- ca cu rv--1 4, let i • r iY 1 !A. F • • re re 0• 04 �' fA I iv a' eti cr w C G c s cD Cr` tb tcl VIZ Cr ef; 0. g- ... cL io ...E ul0. cra .� 0 • eb L3. 0CD R. fiCi o Ca � p CD ue ? fro m 0 5 1..1 C!1 • a'CA aa. t.a e) a y •C a•:, D o -10 1 • Iag ;: 75. - C�- C C -�; r ti • 4 s :"1\j m n Q©Pia et - " n o = ...r. p� „ito am CD o _ • CI O n ■r. • 1:14 PI fD -. '< • !8 (D ro ril ( O R dig ssa.1ppd 3aa4S 7 2 CD C CP 4ml• emt- a ro— w Q it and direct Ursa to drill from outside the OG ! CA1 i i[ ti Ns, s� p yrs C Q 0Q a.. a cb 0-° Cot 0 IA Pao e "ill t1:1 cr r. cr. ,C CA Cit IFS"Zi ca ta c 1-d 0 rQ ° Qr 8 �.i "I • •.. r�^FjSe a r. Q n TCDD O CI i 10 t Q.� iv -T\ i 12 17. \ " 7 j a 1 ssaapPy xaa.t;S ncon o @ 0 �t L l'1 • a k r w t r•* •CD u "-1 ru ia. ua 0' ;\ith r cr a as ca faa cn a (D co R • G DO 10 co co 1-1 co lar cin " co v w. . © smg • ro ~! O LC ro 0 CD v.)0 111C CD P a o tin Cb � Q E E 0 -. 0 mi CrQ z ro i ▪ 0 - mCD a C LN ct r% oc trA 1, W le? \\J -D iij' 2 • Q Inu '~ l ▪ to cra }0 °r 0 n 4'1• o 0 a. z :. U7 v •. rril o C coo 5' ell lrp ,tb 2 - 'Z 1R = a anta 'r= c --. IV • o ;i m I Itn tIt 44. 7 0. • yKI 'J 1 1 t 1 € ti •t 1) ir IL- 1 • LJ 11 � • CD -.. iA ▪ 0 f Cil - . IDD GI Ca rs e' (Dl • W :. 0 CP CD ros :; Co E. tD 11 UQ 0 E. ro Zi aq erg �� p" ep . 0 (. 5 m ` ua C 1-0 R. (D 0 ty °a.- rt C3. ltls CD arcl .51 cru LA 0 *10 fD V, i=. A 1 1 ^* .2. el:, cos CO CD CI. Si CS. CCD CCD cos eD (. 01.. O tz co c . © 0 C 0 -. 0 N CCD to �► as 00 r~ is, 17 1 -4 ti • H fr l` re. ,rw�' '- dIr 0.0 eb °,a r_ -i E. eci ao ._. '1/4--1 : : : CA a 0. to '' . - 0 a Z r o• Irt Li v CI ..< ¢. 'd. 2. 0 1 q QQ !7 Cn.. r t/] U4 , .. 1. 1 .6' / s••• al. rn (1 1 Cm — C 1 A° - - c H VJ kTh • 1/40 L ao 4-- i-3 w Paaa v1 Q X1.5 A3 �- t9 0rq 0a2. 11 �s ate.. Y � Q o G • fp CD fp gbh ro 1419 0D ryg cn R • �C tri =• rt reP • aoo E O a. Ir 43 k 10 W Rt? P Lj `di 1 ✓ p9 e • o°" 2 n ■r. d — ccr f C co VI0 0 co - cn tb CD h CIO Tr' "4--, I N U ri r Loe (17 V Vsj 4 7/ }727"-- o m w CD0 00 q A IW W. Aro • rt r 0 0 a. o CES! ceD • Q • 4 d car ▪ lo = �c 7s; a. 0-G CD pl" cf.: ..,2. CD "+ A9 --art o aa .r = =AD " n ren �. EN C0 CIO CD 0 co nt b • ph. Cr w. C o a. r.. CD et,• p 9 CD w a ; • A An CD ▪ co ✓ i drZ ssaAppd WI; •i4 w k r '1k :9 =1.1 I V1 0 1116 li CD 0a 1 17-1 ' rD C 2 CO c=o Cl `0 t � eD o 0-- ,. z- 0 `� co o0 (, o p et CI) conp c r.. f;- rl I F. CD rt CD A fp Tei M air M. a" e-- 1;t$ a 2. fpPvan (IQ io Q. -t 0 tl r rro a 0 fp o a o'�a P. "1 d FD. \V Il 1•r rrtr ro rn v rt V CCG 4.44.4 d17 rp o usin loam) 0q1 apts1no urozU ra 41 iV ir . 2 • a 0 1-- 1 1 a zt o a r' ^ °' 7� 1-0 rr \ CD ^'t Ir. rn O CD CD cm 4 Q ce ori n°Q En 0 ro - a r 0eD CCD CFCI co o "s -. fl �q 1 C`, I � C. if" Ar • r n r ., r. fcr "1. v• CD 4 N 5: Eir TIT flto I'lr Q ro CD fl.+ :--t CS�.�D1 RO PO cgoC � 5 0 �. 0 ro s N I w F 1 ay testi 1 1 1 x z . :74 N r rt,ro 0 cn vi 17§O • *10 CD CD ..R• .# CG Cl" ▪ CDD 11,3 o CD CD Coq Gl CD 5- CD cr "I con rt 0 a ©gL- -t D_ cro Q g... Q eb V . Ca = or• — CD • © Imo•- S cr a CD 0-. K r. N ssaappv ;aaaJs CR rs— w F 11 • in) J e't r 4 M1 a r as„Ir co 0 B. co a C° -• 10 • to aa' 0 o” S aM. �_ 0 OAF 0 tt o d • Vi a • ro a. 45-.. eD F• g L. Irk �. L. I -r C CO r-, coea 3 S rF• CD rt, ▪ ISI CD 0 tfi SI'.C 0 1 .• "9 0 • 1.1 rk N, E. C 0 .% .co 5- 1 L ,Qfo --=- CO 'Z'3 I Est tel tmF 0 ¢. CD et ... t re g g 2 CR ¢. a AZ 51 g ▪ • 1- 0 YO GQ �5 r F fl^ Nft • 1 } fr e 1— ci}y + ssaJppv 3a x� 'Fs 4 y to et, O "" Q Co tr�v 121 Do Itn 73' 0 ° o ro (- m r� ns CrI.-. a t en ? ' 51 o CD va 0- Lin two ft —. 0 a g CCD • craG ▪ ea C3. o "' -. E. CA Q CL C O • —. ra {a+ -. • in 5t ,mt co o •Ts 0 -"' wrPo. [� CO h." P -r O-. 0 © g lrt O g e—h C/a ill ,-F co ca N '-t co r Er\t,\:\-J 1.1 • (14z 2s, ss appd pa.i}S r ® l � p fiat CTN 1 � 0 irD g Q 0 CD cn w tv n1 1 r cl El ett 1 ,r Hin r'• -r .L, P CD mr. 0 C Oft 0 0tad' a-crt rei to a roios r' C112 I•10b E`' . '1 "'. CL 8 O O 0 . CP • v p. fb O144. nt >✓. a MGO R CD 2 CD CA cn "IP e4- t� QD r CO 0 R 0 1" f, W OQ P2� co 1:1 o K s a rn dly and direct Ursa to drill from outside the ro -' 0 oco CM Ita st- rig rs Q.a � Q cu to O ie O • n ►� 0 k7 0 C•C 2 B 5. c ' AA E rfl E ".. RIP A: 110 Cinr.40 • CD (TQ G. a ... CfQ 0 0 0. 9a e Permit and direct Ursa to drill from outside the rJI 4- 4 • CX ▪ 17'N CA fD m VA Ei- eb cga N 'D H H , s -: r� [➢ =D 'iy C3 cEln, eW�F r Vt. ( o n iG nF • rr (r)0 f 4 s rp 5~ co r. Cid • 6 •.r 0 o z ▪ IA% AR 0 • d • s o • 2 4 c E..5C• 0 0 a � C n cet ceD w C • a .0 ✓ 1� A L P— �s. aeD •T CC CM P en r CD n - c- 8 LST '" O 4 Cr' cn 'C • r ft 7. 1. o PD-EFet wo ▪ 1-4 eD E' O "t .7 n g "I i. 0in. r4.- p 0 in 4 la cL v ms h ).-1 zr'o r* A 4 `- c" ".-`• fD i e; fi ti lila ry v� r+ (9 7 f; cry DD 2 _. tJ v CA r 1,991s� i Lr. !' 1 L/ 1 T_ I sr I� k L r4 Cis N Ci E. 'e3 ,-3CD 0 TI CD CD tv off-► g no rho �m g "+ - '�+ C C6 0A? c C mzCD 0C aro c) rCI o • 7 A- g��° c goaa cin a • o Q :CD rot 1" 1 f7 4 C@ ro 1,1 � r -h eD w l 1 Po 0 5 -. 0 E. CD CD P‘, r 1 P PL- oa -4 eT w k F z Its.) rt 1 1 I Q. • ect dg 7S' ssa.Ippd Pa- ,o 00 v. - w 1 rc? i Uri P 1 • ti fr w t� (paauud) aWUN 'Li` {D U➢ 0 GG f° O 6/34 :$=1: I rp ft 5. cm z 3 • -1 '] t' • C• CD R • f7 a o ... un a' a=a cr)p Q a' d a 0, CA CZ CD Ch CD pcs' '" C9 (D ssa.iJpV;aai)S A up o; usxn palmp puu bill ammo 'nag eDD D• CD CD • • 3 eD CO —] ON CA . Gi 1 ! ! 11. 1 ir rA rp 0 *•h k3 CiTCD fEl 7 �, O CCD ar eop Iy CD rpCr en. CD SID rya cue ci) fp ca rol • [moo c Cy ebb • `C+ IV rp gTn "' 1-11 O cm CD Q .*cr O e4 •. R. C -. ., Cir© In ci CIS P*• I N 1 1 e�{ — P. a. tit rn coQ A- 5 2 CD -0 O O Cd icm PO eel � � o C° ¢. AD • m C CD co 4 a CD pa 74 ' -a 14 e. ..(1' 0 -t 0 ru F ��cra Q 8 B 1.0 a� "bcii -. ms" -' ( �v Er O mi 0.q a w EA coco C . tto €3 ow• ,a O Q rt CD cpp CD 0 r CD �ZA Ow Cam ro m CP �• ... —. CR r7 - c E !D imby op,iMa 2 a G rt 4 Cho p PI ,—. *I ' �` ren m 9r� d �. e C a' ,r. cc C co CIa o rt .. CD rii On � . cr _. CD E co tt: Ow CDC ee0 a - CD ▪ a o -. 0 CC ro W 1 2 PP • V G!1 1.41 C r3 i I r rCI r.� 2 o l tr Z. (D 0. a PC CD !!, • g 1 o w a • b P© ca CD CD 0- m • (D � •- rI cn • a fIR aq O CCD f"' . EA •n qr cn n "4 o 0 tA • . ro 0 o rt- CO to m n •1 CFQ 1b a) 4 C.00om. . 4i MI -• Q' dY� /g ssaippy ;aa.us JI G w �.I CNA v, .li w IQ_ kJ`; 111-0a r,• ► — Ad kf, r did ' ssaappv 3aa.flS ca D0 Po co— °� •0 aoa /'d o vi✓ 00 ti CD un 0- cro Ora -t a4•1 Gel 1.0 tst P a - - . 1 10 v ati cro c a a 0 w .+� 0- 4 cin 0 c =' 11 11 1� !' Ir -'ora Q 1.4 — • eg OD r� ice' o D • (11 • v CO CD• Fla d M ni E fD iv, I conke• 1 OR �• 1 g ws Fero o••O G+ S Brig iff y - 1 C7o fG ▪ crcl 7 too 0 ti c) • I� L 1 ssaJppv ;aa.';S 1 1\4 1 11 ` R tZt0 eR aE 0 9 .0 N f4i7 W .- 00, r7 )‘,J3 iNt zit ,979111r :ter L _CP a2/, , r rG/ L-y717/77‘7?-7,7y7FriTYS`' 1'1(Pil N-01 ssaJPPV;aaJ;s L 711 -td tf [ 71 -fin 7--- 4 Jig f also aJn}eu21$ Itew3 t d1z ag (pa4u!Jd) aweN •Allunwwoo Inpineaq Jno SulnJasajd Agaiai. :esavj waLualueg jo AJaydiiad Din apls}no woJJ II!Jp o; elan PaJIP asn leDads aqi Auap o; sJauolss!wwoj AjunoD plagJeO 2ul)Ise aJC sauaplsaJ pau2is 2ulnnollal au' •AlglsuodsaJ auop aq 174 2ulll!Jp Jo} 2upise s!4! 1ullllJp Rulddo}s;noge lou sI uowlad siy j kllunwwo3 esalAJ ivawal eg uigTinn 2ui119a Jo; ilwJad asq IePads Auaa o} uo!}i ad Ji - i • t_ ▪ N ▪ — do Do -a a . Cn A Gl 1 1. 0.1 3. ocz Con cD VI CD et. UC f7 CI]cro riT. C ro TO IV f5 a. o g ara C7 170 d 1-0 T o 0 �.17 co alp apisin .ca cc - o, 5► r 'xi y k-3 ca X rev t. 0 Co Z o tV 0''tCr—. 0 co CD at c o CD -$ cm : �j cticol 0 co 4 E. gv Cf) rAta 0 ir N pc t El �.... o ri „• 5 a•n en 0 ro crcz CD C. I. eD 3 ect rF 31.1 f/2 Ir . co o� Rsif )00.14) pore (paiupd) ou N CD cr M. CD imil 0". 0 PIZ CD 6-m MI ' c Cd as m CA M. SIN""' o CD a o CDD cn 0- m gym" a — ( crc 0▪ -4 re cry = v.: • 7 eb Uo 0 to gj 03 Co CSD P' o - "▪ a E0., `S . co • fp M _ .. CM C co 0 y V) - a C 170 • CD .y. PtIl O CD 5 CD 4 [D U5 r) G dil ' ssaJppy pails 11 tsan ;oaim put • a 0 0 C co CD 195 W. 141h Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200 j Garfield County Public Health Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman Re: Ursa BMC B and D Well Pads and Pipeline Application EXHIBIT [I MAI 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 (970) 945-6614 September 14(h, 2015 Director Jarman, Thank you for the opportunity to review the application materials and provide referral comments. My specific comments for the Ursa BMC B and D pads SUP are based around the 2010 HIA, Ursa's response to certain recommendations made in the 2010 HIA, are non binding and are as follows: 1. 3.1.1. In general, more site specific and/or source specific air sampling capabilities need to be invested in. GCPH's current air sampling program is focused on ambient air quality only. Ursa did decide to participate financially in the CSU study as a partner, however they chose to contribute only $100,000 of the original $200,000 that Anadarko agreed upon contributing. While their contribution was very welcome, this has left the CSU study short in funds, which has forced CSU and Garfield County to spend extra time and resources seeking alternative funding sources to complete this mission. The CSU study will be critical in determining how to go about further air sampling and study design to monitor industry specific activities potentially affecting air quality. Preliminary data from the CSU study has been unavailable. 2. 3.5.1. This is currently accomplished through the existing Energy Advisory Board, of which these groups are participating members. 3. 3.5.4. The GCPH will be conducting a Community Health Assessment (CHA) over 2016 and 2017, which will inform priorities that will be set in the Garfield County Public Health Improvement Plan (PHIP) set to be adopted for 2018 thru 2022. In the past the CHA has been for the whole of Garfield County, if specific municipalities or PUD's are to be evaluated separately, this will require additional funding and county resources to accomplish. 4. 3.7.2. It is my opinion that Ursa's response is incorrect. Under meaningful use and done with proper methodology to protect direct patient information (name, address, other personal identifiers, etc.), the recommended study, as well as Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease other population based health studies, can be accomplished with adequate funding and time. 5. 3.8. (full section) could be tied to Ursa's participating in the Garfield County Health Care Coalition/Emergency Support Function #8 group, including planning and exercises, possibly sponsoring trainings, safety briefing and industrial education to the group dedicated to public health and medical emergency response for Garfield County. Thank you, Joshua S. Williams Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease September 11, 2015 Community Development Department 108 8th Street Suite 401 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, Colorado j 60 1 RE: Special Use Permit To All, RECEIVjf' 5 E � Fi 2015 GARF E=LZ) COUNTY Y DMVJAIITY EXHIBIT Iy,y Per the attached letter an the proposed Land Use Change Permit for a Pipeline Development in the Battlement Mesa area. I am a property owner and am sick and tired of all these towers and sub -surface destruction. I vote an absolute NO NO NO NO! Enough is enough. My property assessment has already FALLEN SIGNIFICANTLY AND ANOTHER TOWER IN THE VICINITY WILL MAKE PROPERTY VALUE GO DOWN EVEN MORE. It's time to stop the rape of the land. This was beautiful country. That is why my father moved to this area over 25 years ago, now it is being ruined by GREED. We don't want to look at vistas littered with stupid gas towers that light up at night. The ones already in place are an eye sore. Enough - ough. Donna 98 Dogwood Lane Battlement Mesa OLSSON ASSOCIATES 8/21/2015 Arthur Frank Hewwitt, Jr Trust 2400 NW 80th St Searle, WA 9b117-4449 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Subject: Special Use Permit and a Land Use Change Permit for a Pipeline Development Per the enclosed public notice, Ursa Operating Company and Battlement Mesa Land Investments has applied for a Special Use Permit and Major Impact Review from Garfield County. As a surface owner of record of property within two hundred feet (200') of the property or an owner of mineral interest in the property that is the subject of this application, we are hereby providing you with the enclosed notice. Please note that the Planning Commission hearing date for this application has been set for Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 970-263-7800. Sincerely, Lorne Prescott Senior Scientist Olsson Associates Encl: Public Notice 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 Grand .Junction, CO 81506 TEL 970.263.7800 FAX 970 263.7456 www.o&ssonassociates.corn PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE: that Battlement Mesa Partners, LLC & URSA Operating Company has applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a recommendation of approval for a Special Use Permit on a property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: East'/a of the NW '/ of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 98 West within Practical Description: the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development, a parcel having 1248.87 acres. PID: 2407-081-00-152 Section: 8 Township: 7 Range: 95 ALL THAT PROPERTY LOCATED IN SEC 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 IN 7-95. ALSO THAT PROPERTY LOCATED IN SEC 13 & 24 7-96 ALL WITHIN THE BATTLEMENT MESA PUD. EXCEPT A TR CONT 6.20 AC DESC IN REC #502259. EXCEPT TOWN CENTER FL #5 AS DESC IN REC #513419 CONT 22.370 AC. ALSO A TR OF LAND CONT 18.574 AC +/- AS DESC IN BNDY LINE ADJ BK 17031327, 330 EXCEPT A TR OF LAND CONT. 37.65 AC +1- AS DESC ON THE FINAL PLAT, STONE QUARRY COMMONS, A RE -SUB OF LOTS 5-1 & 5-2 OF BATTLEMENT MESA PUD REC #691907. EXCEPT A TR OF LAND CONT 35.461 AC +1- AS DESC IN WO BK 1877/16 EXCEPT A TR OF LAND CONT 35.33 AC +1- AS DESC IN SWD BK 1947/706. EXCEPT A TR OF LAND CONT. 11.81 AC +1- AS DESC IN THE TOWN CENTER, FLG #6, BATTLEMENT MESA PUD, REC # 743233 & GWD #743971. EXCEPT FOR 6 TRACTS OF LAND - PARCEL 1, 57.68 AC +1-: PARCEL 2, 76.26 AC +1-: PARCEL 3, 52.80 AC +1-: PARCEL 6, 35.67 AC +1-: PARCEL 7, 56.17 AC +1 - AND OLD HIGH SCHOOL PARCEL, 41.35 AC +1- AND DESC IN SWD REC #740298, & TOTALING 319.93 AC +1 - Description of Request: The proposed D Pad location is on a 7 acre portion of the 1248.87 acres adjacent to and south east of River Blucc Road (CR 307) in the Battlement Mesa PUD. The proposed site is west of the Valley View Village residential area and south of the willow Creek Village residential area. This is a Special Use Permit application for Extraction and Production of Natural Resources to develop a natural gas well pad (called the "D Pad") to contain a total of 28 gas wells. The overall pad location will comprise approximately 5 acres. The property is zones "Low Density Residential" within the Battlement Mesa PUD. All persons affected by the proposed plan are invited to appear and state their views, protest or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grand to deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Community Development Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:00 P.M. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Community Development Department Garfield County I, \ EXHIBIT l�o Ursa Ursa Operating Company 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, Colorado 81650 OPERATING COMPANY Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I PipeIir Garfield County, Colorado August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Olsson Associates 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com OLSSON ASSOCIATES THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR TWO-SIDED DUPLICATION. Ursa Operating Company Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan 014-1829 Table of Contents Compliance with Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 1 Project Description 1 5.03 Conditional and Special Uses 1 1 1 5.03(1) Utilities 5.03(2) Street Improvements 5.03(3) Impacts to Adjacent Land Uses 1 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards 2 5.03.08(1) Sound Volumes 2 5.03.08(2) Vibration Generated 2 5.03.08(3) Emissions of Smoke and Particulate Matter 2 5.03.08(4) Emissions of Heat, Glare, Radiation and Fumes 2 5.03.08(5) Storage Area, Salvage Yard, Sanitary Landfill and Mineral Waste Disposal Areas 5.03.08(6) Water Pollution 3 3 9.03.01 Application 3 9.03.01(1) Supporting Information 3 9.03.01(2) Vicinity Map 4 9.03.01(3) Letter to County Commissioners 4 Compliance with Land Use and Development Code Pipeline Development Plan of 2013 4 9-102 Submittal Requirements 4 9-102.A General Application Materials 4 9-102.B Vicinity Map 4 9-102.0 Site Plan 4 9-102.D Project Description 4 9-102.E Property Ownership and Authority to File Application 5 9-102.F Adjacent Property Owners 5 9-102.G Regulatory Permit Requirements 6 9-102.H Primary Project Participants 6 9-102.1 Project Facilities 7 9-102.J Construction Schedule 7 9-102.K Sensitive Area Survey... 7 9-102.L Revegetation Plan 7 9-102.M Weed Management. Plan 8 9-102.N Emergency Response Plan 8 9-102.0 Traffic Impact 8 9-102.P Staging Areas 8 9-102.0 Pressure Testing 9 9-104 Review Criteria 9 9-104.A Located Along Perimeters 9 9-104.6 Noise Abatement 9 9-104.0 Visual Impact 9 9-104.D Access Points to Public Roads 10 August 10, 2015 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 9-104.E Air Contaminant Emissions 10 9-104.F Water Quality Control Standards 10 9-104.G Reclamation Plan 10 9-104.H Removal of Abandoned Pipeline 10 List of Tables Table 1. Road Bore Locations 5 Table 2. Property Ownership 5 Table 3. Regulatory Permit Requirements 6 List of Appendices Appendix 4-101.A.3 Pre -Application Conference Summary Appendix 9-102.A General Application Materials Appendix 9-102.B Vicinity Map Appendix 9-102.0 Site Plan Appendix 9-102.E.1 Property Owner Map Appendix 9-102.E.2 Property Owner Authorization Appendix 9-102.E.3 Payment Agreement Form Appendix 9-102.F Adjacent Properties Map and Mineral Owners Appendix 9-102.K Sensitive Area Survey Appendix 9-102.L Revegetation Plan Appendix 9-102.M Weed Management Plan Appendix 9-102.N Emergency Response Plan Appendix 9-102.0 Basic Traffic Analysis Appendix 9-102.0 Water Services Agreement Appendix 9.03.01(1 ) SWMP Permit Appendix A NTC Response August 10, 2015 OLSSON 11 Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 COMPLIANCE WITH GARFIELD CL) ; 14 i Y ZONING Rte—3,OLUTION OF Project Description Ursa Operating Company (Ursa) is submitting a Special Use Permit and Grading Permit for Garfield County's consideration. The Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I Pipeline (Pipeline) will begin at the BMC B well pad located approximately in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD) off of County Road (CR) 307 in the SW '/ of the NW 1/4 of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. and continuing northeast to the BMC D well pad then south and east through section 17 to the tie-in point in the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. south of CR 302. The entire Pipeline route is within the PUD. Three pipelines will be co -located in the same easement — one natural gas line and two water lines. The pipelines will be approximately 2.5 miles in length (13,538 feet). The natural gas pipeline will be constructed of steel pipe and be 12 or 16 inches in diameter. The water lines will be constructed of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and will be 8 inches in diameter. The pipeline trench have a minimum coverage 48 inches in depth. The total disturbance will be approximately 13 acres. The Pipeline ROW consists generally of a 25 foot permanent ROW with a 50 foot temporary ROW for construction. The Pipeline is generally located adjacent to property lines and county road ROWs, but is not within the road ROWs. Ursa has met with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to discuss its operations in the Battlement Mesa Area including the Pipeline. CPW is supportive of the Pipeline activity as it is located within an established Pipeline corridor and will not disrupt wildlife on a long-term basis. 5.03 Conditional and Special Uses 5-03(1) I itilities Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service are not required for the proposed Pipeline. 0,3(zi rireet Improvements Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed Pipeline are not required. After the Pipeline is constructed, there will be no additional traffic volume associated with the proposed Pipeline, except as required for maintenance of the Pipeline. One of the primary purposes of the Pipeline is to minimize traffic impacts to the area caused by trucks hauling water between well pad sites. 5 03(3) Impacts to Adgacent Land I lses Impacts to adjacent uses of land will be minimal after the construction of the Pipeline is completed. The disturbed area will be regraded to original contours and reseeded to stabilize the disturbance, eliminate visual impacts, and accommodate local wildlife. August 10, 2015 1 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 Construction will occur during daylight hours, typically between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. No access points or lighting will be required for the proposed Pipeline. Only standard pipeline location signs will be used as required by state and federal regulations. Appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will be utilized in accordance with Ursa's Stormwater Management Plan and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments (CDPHE) Stormwater Permit during construction and reclamation of the Pipeline to prevent erosion and sediment from leaving the Pipeline route and impacting adjacent land uses. 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards 5 03 08II 1 }-ound Volumes After construction, no significant sound impacts will be generated by the Pipeline. The occasional pickup truck for maintenance and monitoring purposes will not impact surrounding operations and properties beyond the impacts of the traffic noises from adjacent roads where the Pipeline runs. Operation of the Pipeline will not exceed the Residential/Agricultural/Rural Zone Standards and Colorado Noise Statute 25-12-103 requirements. Construction noise will not impact adjacent residents for an extended period of time. Ursa does not plan to provide noise mitigation for this project as the construction is progressive and fast moving. This proposed Pipeline will comply with Colorado Revised State Statutes and COGCC Rules regarding noise impacts at all times. 5.03,08(2) Vibration 4..G;.;i1 al :,i There may be some measurable vibration caused by earthmoving equipment during construction. These vibrations will not impact adjacent residents for an extended period of time. The construction is progressive and fast moving. There will be no measurable vibration during operations of the Pipeline. 5.03.08(3) Emissiuns of Smoke and Particulate 1 latter Adjacent lands will not be impacted by the generation of dust and smoke beyond those impacts of traffic on the county roads next to the Pipeline ROW after the Pipeline is constructed, Ursa will apply the appropriate level of controls to accommodate potential impacts via adherence to CDPHE Air Quality regulations and the implementation of industry BMPs included in the Stormwater Management Pian and Ursa's dust control plan. During construction, fugitive dust will be controlled using water or other dust suppressants. 5 04 ii s`'3ior , of 1-1- at Radia,tion After construction, normal operation of the Pipeline will not result in heat, glare, radiation, and fumes beyond the impacts of traffic on the county roads next to the Pipeline ROW.. August 10, 2015 2 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 0144829 Ar No No storage areas, salvage yards, sanitary landfills, or mineral waste disposal areas are associated with the proposed Pipeline. The standards regarding these uses do not apply to the proposed Pipeline use. The Temporary Work Areas/Staging Areas (TWA) are associated with boring locations and other known obstacle avoidance locations, such as pipelines, culverts, and pipeline bends. Additional work room is required in these areas, hence the larger TWA area. These areas may also be used to stage pipe and other materials immediately prior to pipe installation. Table 4 shows the locations of the TWAs. Typically, equipment and material heights stored on the TWAs will minimize visual impacts. In addition, the relatively short duration of storage of equipment and materials on the TWAs will minimize visual impacts. Pipe will be laid within the 50 -foot construction easement as needed for construction. Equipment may be stored overnight within the construction easement. 5.03.08(6) v"+later Pollution The proposed Pipeline does not fall within the Town of Parachute's Watershed Protection Area, therefore no permit is required from the Town of Parachute. Ursa will comply with all applicable CDPHE Water Quality Control Standards. A copy of Ursa's Battlement Mesa Field Stormwater Management Permit is included with this application. Ursa will implement a range of BMPs to assure the protection of water quality during construction, reclamation and operation of this Pipeline. All water used for pressure testing will be hauled via truck to Ursa's Wasatch Facility for recycling or disposal, subsequent to testing, as appropriate. The potential for spills associated with the proposed pipeline are specific to the transport of fluids in the water line(s) and the storage of liquids containing hydrocarbons in tanks. Typically the transport of fluids and natural gas along the pipeline route does not require tank storage. In the event of a release of fluids from the pipeline, or if there is a need for tank storage along the pipeline route, Ursa will adhere to the details of their SPCC for control and containment of fluids. Ursa has other response plans that include pipelines, such as their Spill Prevention and Response Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and Mechanical Integrity Testing Program. 9.03.01 Application 9 92 n1! n Inf'.iff'�?Hon All supporting information and plans are included in this application package. The approved Stormwater Permit is included in Appendix 9.03.01(1). CDPHE is currently developing a new permit and associated certification for the above permitted facility. The development and review procedures required by law have not yet been completed. The Construction Stormwater General Permit, which "expired" June 30, 2012, was administratively continued and will remain in effect under Section 104(7) of the Administrative Procedures Act, C.R.S. 1973, 24-4-101, et seq (1982 rept vol. 10) until a new permit/certification is issued and effective. The renewal for this facility was based on the application that was received 5/14/2013. August 10, 2015 3 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 Ursa will obtain utility permits and oversizeloverweight load permits as required from Garfield County Road and Bridge, prior to construction, 9 03 01(2) \licmity Map A Vicinity Map is included in Appendix 9-102.B. Site Plans for the Pipeline route are included in Appendix 9-102.C. A Property Owners Map can be found in Appendix 9-102.E.1. 9.03.014.:; ! ett r l ':.u‘Jridw Commis iu;iei� This application package, in its entirety, serves as the letter to the County Commissioners explaining in detail the nature and character of the Special Use requested. COMPLIANCE WITH LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF 2013 9-102 Submittal Requirements 9-102 A General Apolication Materitils A copy of the signed Garfield County Land Use Application is located in Appendix 9-102.A. A copy of the Authorized Representative authorization letter and Ursa's Statements of Authority also are included in this Appendix. The Vicinity Map is in Appendix 9-102.B. -102 r Site Plan The Site Plan is in Appendix 9-102.C. The Site Plan includes the route of the Pipeline along with the locations of project facilities and staging areas. PraiectDesrnpt?nn Ursa Operating Company (Ursa) is submitting a Special Use Permit and Grading Permit for Garfield County's consideration. The Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I Pipeline (Pipeline) will begin at the BMC B well pad located approximately in the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development (PUD) off of County Road (CR) 307 in the SW % of the NW 1/4 of Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. and continuing northeast to the BMC D well pad then south and east through section 17 to the tie-in point in the SE '/ of the SE % of Section 17, Township 7 South, Range 95 West of the 6th P.M. south of CR 302. The entire Pipeline route is within the PUD. Three pipelines will be co -located in the same easement — one natural gas line and two water lines. The pipelines will be approximately 2.5 miles in length (13,538 feet). The natural gas pipeline will be constructed of steel pipe and be 12 or 16 inches in diameter. The water lines will be constructed of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe and will be 8 inches in diameter. The pipeline trench will average a minimum cover of 48 inches. The total disturbance will be approximately 13 acres. August 10, 2015 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 The Pipeline ROW consists generally of a 25 foot permanent ROW with a 50 foot temporary ROW for construction. The Pipeline is generally located adjacent to property lines and county road ROWs, but is not within the road ROWs. Ursa has met with the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to discuss its operations in the Battlement Mesa Area including the Pipeline. CPW is supportive of the Pipeline activity as it is located within an established Pipeline corridor and will not disrupt wildlife on a long-term basis. Three road bores will be required under county roads for this Pipeline route. The location of the road bores are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Road Bore Locations Road Legal Location Parcel Number Property Owner CR 307 NENW, Sect 18, Township 7S, Range 95W, 6th PM 240708100152 Battlement Mesa Land Investments CR 300 NESE, Sect 18, Township 7S, Range 95W, 6th PM 240708100152 Battlement Mesa Land Investments CR 308 NWSE and NESE, Sect 17, Township 7S, Range 95W, 6th PM 240708100152 Battlement Mesa Land Investments 9-102 E Pronerly^ Ov..nr_ rshin t File P, p i; a!tr:,n The Property Owner Map is located in Appendix 9-102.E.1. A list of the parcels, property owners and the authorizations provided is shown in Table 2. All of the Pipeline is inside the Battlement Mesa PUD. Property owner authorizations and easements are located in Appendix 9-102.E.2. Table 2. Property Ownership Parcel Number Property Owner Authorization 240913406004 Battlement Mesa Partners PO Box 6000 Parachute, CO 81635 SOA from Eric Schmela Letter Agreement wl Ursa First Amendment w/ Antero Surface Use Agreement w/ Antero 240708100152 Battlement Mesa Land Investments 73 G Sipprelle Drive Parachute, CO 81635 SOA from Eric Schmela Letter Agreement wl Ursa First Amendment w/ Antero Surface Use Agreement w/ Antero Adjacent property owner information was obtained July 27, 2015, from the Garfield County Assessor's website for the properties within 350 feet of the Pipeline route. A list of adjacent property owners within 350 feet of the pipeline is included in Appendix 9-102.F. The names and addresses will be confirmed prior to public notifications being sent out. August 10, 2015 OLSSON Ursa Operating Company Adjacent Property maps are included in Appendix 9-102.F showing the adjacent properties and the approximate location of buildings and their uses within 350 feet of the proposed pipeline route. The distance between the improvements and the pipeline are shown on the detail maps. A list of the mineral owners for the pipeline alignment within the Battlement Mesa PUD is included in Appendix 9-102.F. Mineral owners were obtained through research by the Ursa Land Department using the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's records database. Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan 014-1829 9-102.G Regulator Ret: uirerilei its Table 3. Regulatory Permit Requirements Permit Agency Permit Status Garfield County Special Use Permit/Pipeline Development Plan Submitted June 2015 Revised August 2015 Garfield County Road and Bridge Utility Permits for Road Crossings Will be submitted closer to construction time frame Garfield County Road and Bridge Oversize/Overweight Permit Will be obtained as required State of Colorado, CDPHE, Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) Stormwater Construction Permit Approved: Permit # COR -0300000 Certification # COR03K566 P ro -,c,l 1- )rtvr:cants Company Permit Coordinators Rob Neil Ursa Operating Company 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, Colorado 81650 970.625.9922 rbleiI(t ursaresources.com Cari Mascioii Ursa Operating Company 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, Colorado 81650 970.625.9922 cmascioli(a7ursaresources.corn Company Pipeline Construction Prosect Manager Paul Stockebrand Kahuna Ventures 11400 Westmoor Circle, Suite 325 Westminster, CO 80021 303.451.7374 p_stockebrand[ kanhunaventures.com Agent Lorne Prescott Olsson Associates 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Tilda Evans Olsson Associates 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 August 10, 2015. OLSSON 6 Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1629 970.263.7800 970.263.7800 Iprescott[}olssonassociates.com tevans@olssonassociates.com Construction Company To be determined Valve sets are shown on the Site Plan included in Appendix 9-102.C. No other appurtenant facilities or compression stations are planned for this Pipeline. Electric pumps may be used to pump water from the BMC B pad to the BMC D pad and then on to the tie-in point at the eastern end of the Pipeline. Water will move from the east to the west by gravity feed. Gas will be minimally pressurized at the BMC B and BMC D pads as it is moved into the Pipeline for delivery to the sales tie-in point at the east end of the Pipeline. Construction Schedule Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2016. Construction will last approximately 18 weeks. Construction start is dependent upon weather conditions. Construction will occur during daylight hours only, typically between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. Ursa anticipates that construction will take place Monday through Friday, but reserves the right to construct seven days a week, if weather and field conditions dictate, in order to meet the construction schedule. 9-1u. Sensitive Area Survey WestWater Engineering (WestWater) conducted a Wildlife and Vegetation Impact Analysis Survey October 20, 2014, May 28, 2015, and July 23, 2015. The report is located in Appendix 9- 102.K. During the analysis related to the construction and operation of the proposed land uses, Ursa has performed an assessment of potential impacts to Waters of the US and compliance with Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulations. The results of the analysis indicate there will be no ACOE impacts associated with the proposed project(s). Ursa promotes good housekeeping practices that will help to eliminate instances of bear -human interactions. Ursa will follow the recommendations outlined in WestWater's Sensitive Area Survey, Revedetation PI The Revegetation Plan is part of Ursa's Reclamation Plan included in Appendix 9-102.L, The Reclamation Plan includes a plant material list with application rates. The Pipeline route will be reclaimed as soon as practical for optimal growing conditions. Ursa will negotiate the revegetation security with the County and provide an appropriate security bond prior to issuance of the permit. August 10, 2015 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 WestWater performed a field survey of weeds in the construction area of the Pipeline on October 20, 2014. The Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) is included in Appendix 9-102.M. The noxious weed survey encompassed a 30 meter area surrounding the proposed pipeline. Noxious weeds were numerous and observations included Canada thistle, cheatgrass, chicory, common burdock, common mullein, field bindweed, houndstongue, jointed goatgrass, musk thistle, quackgrass, redstem filaree, Russian knapweed, Russian olive, tamarisk, spiny plumeless thistle, and whitetop. Cheatgrass mapping was impractical due to the size of the infestation. In areas where soil disturbances have created growing conditions that favor non-native vegetation, several unlisted nuisance weed species are present. These plants can negate revegetation efforts and cause financial losses due to decreased seeding success and associated costs of replanting. The presence of these plants creates increased competition for resources and can negatively affect desirable native plant species. Plants in this category include cocklebur, kochia, prickly lettuce, prostrate spurge, prostrate vervain, Russian thistle, and tumble mustard. Ursa will follow the recommendations outlined in WestWater's IVNWMP. 9-102.N Emergency Response Plan A copy of Ursa's Emergency Response Plan is included in Appendix 9-102.N. This includes a Fire Protection Plan and a Hazardous Materials Spills Plan. A list of persons to be notified in an emergency is part of the plan, as well as other items outlined in this section are included in this plan. Muster points will be determined at the preconstruction meeting with Ursa's Health and Safety manager. Generally, they will be located at the muster site for the closest well pad to the active construction area. The potential for spills associated with the proposed pipeline are specific to the transport of fluids in the water line(s) and the storage of liquids containing hydrocarbons in tanks. Typically the transport of fluids and natural gas along the pipeline route does not require tank storage. In the event of a release of fluids from the pipeline, or if there is a need for tank storage along the pipeline route, Ursa will adhere to the details of their SPCC for control and containment of fluids. Ursa has other response plans that include pipelines, such as their Spill Prevention and Response Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and Mechanical Integrity Testing Program. A copy of a Basic Traffic Analysis prepared by Olsson Associates is included in this submittal. Ursa will coordinate with Garfield County Road and Bridge and the Battlement Mesa PUD on possible road closures. Ursa will utilize temporary traffic controls such as flaggers and signage, when appropriate. Stanina ,�+• The Temporary Work Areas/Staging Areas (TWA) are associated with boring locations and other known obstacle locations, such as pipelines, culverts, and pipeline bends. Additional work room is required in these areas, hence the larger TWA. These areas may also be used to stage pipe August 10, 2015 OLSSON Ursa Operating Company Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan 014-1829 and other materials immediately prior to pipe installation. Typically, equipment and material heights stored on the TWAs will minimize visual impacts. In addition, the relatively short duration of storage of equipment and materials on the TWAs will minimize visual impacts. Pipe will be laid within the 50 -foot construction easement as needed for construction. Equipment may be stored overnight within the construction easement, Construction will occur during daylight hours only, typically between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm, Ursa anticipates that construction will take place Monday through Friday, but reserves the right to construct seven days a week, if weather and field conditions dictate, in order to meet the construction schedule. Staging Areas are shown on the Site Plan included in Appendix 9-102.0. Table 4 identifies these staging areas. Table 4. Temporary Work Areas and Staging Area Locations Land Owner Legal Description Parcel # Battlement Mesa Land Investments NENW and SENW, Sect 18, T7S, R95W, 6th PM 240708100152 Battlement Mesa Land Investments NESE, Sect 18, T7S, R95W, 6th PM 240708100152 9-107 Pressur. T ir�r'i. The pipelines will be tested with fresh water prior to going into active service. Approximately 3,302 barrels (bbls) of water will be used. Water used for testing the Pipeline will be supplied by Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District (Metro) via a Water Service Agreement dated May 7, 2015 between Metro and Ursa. A copy of the Water Service Agreement is located in Appendix 9-102.Q. Subsequent to testing waste water will be hauled via truck to Ursa's Wasatch Facility for recycling or disposal as needed. Alternatively, Ursa may test the pipelines with nitrogen gas. 9-104 Review Criteria 9-10 04 t Located Along Perimeters The Pipeline right-of-way is located along the perimeter of surface property ownership where possible. The Pipeline route was determined based on the need to accommodate property owners, work within previously disturbed areas, reduce the amount of new surface disturbance, and serve existing and future well sites along the alignment. Noise Ahatemer All equipment used in the construction or operation of the Pipeline will comply with CRS Article 12 of Title 25 in regards to noise abatement as appropriate for the type of equipment or Pipeline. All power sources will have either electric motors or muffled engines. Permanent facilities will comply with noise abatement requirements. Construction noise will not impact adjacent residents for an extended period of time. Ursa does not plan to provide noise mitigation for this project as the construction is progressive and fast moving. Visual inzpa.tt The Pipeline is located to minimize the visual impact by limiting the total amount of new land disturbance by working within previously disturbed areas whenever possible. All disturbed areas August 10, 2015 9 OLSSON Special Use Permit and Pipeline Development Plan Ursa Operating Company 014-1829 will be regraded to the previous contours as much as possible and revegetated in compliance with the plan contained in this application. Approximately 13 acres of right-of-way will be disturbed on private fee property. During construction of the Pipeline, Ursa does not plan to provide visual mitigation for this project as the construction is progressive and fast moving. The Pipeline route will be reclaimed as soon as practical for optimal growing conditions. Access Points lo Public R( All oversized or overweight vehicles will obtain permits prior to beginning work. Public roads that will be used to access the project area include County Roads 215, 300N, 300W, 300S, 300, 302, 307, and 308. All of these roads are classified as haul routes according to the Road Map available on the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department web page. Air Contaminant Ennissionh All air emissions shall be in compliance with provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, Title 25, Article 7. Any required air quality permits will be submitted to the CDPHE prior to construction. VVatar Quulaty Control Starldards Ursa will comply with all applicable CDPHE Water Quality Control Standards. A copy of Ursa's Battlement Mesa Field Stormwater Management Permit is included with this application. Ursa will implement a range of BMPs to assure the protection of water quality during construction, reclamation and operation of this Pipeline. All water used for pressure testing will be hauled via truck to Ursa's Wasatch Facility for recycling or disposal, subsequent to testing, as appropriate. The Pipeline route will be reclaimed and revegetated as described in the Reclamation Plan. Approximately 13 acres of right-of-way will be disturbed on private fee property. Ursa will negotiate the revegetation security with the County and provide an appropriate security bond prior to issuance of the permit. Removal of Abandoned Pirieline The reclamation and weed management plans provided with this application will be used if the Pipeline is abandoned and removed. Ursa will comply with landowner wishes and COGCC Rule 1103 regarding pipeline abandonment. August 10, 2015 10 OLSSON