Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Correspondence & ConditionsO LSSO N ASSOCIATES June 8th, 2012 Molly Orkild-Larson Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. South Middle Fork Water Facility Limited Impact Review Application, Augmented Storm Water Management Plan Information Molly, Olsson Associates (Olsson) was contracted by Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. (Encana) to provide Environmental Engineering and Consulting Services associated with permitting natural gas development operations in Garfield County, Colorado. Encana is requesting a Garfield County (GARCO) Limited Impact Review (LIR) for construction and operation of the proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility (SMF) that will support the natural gas development activities of Encana. Encana is requesting this permit under the "Materials Handling and Water Impoundments" land use(s) that are allowed uses in the Resource Lands zone district. On behalf of Encana, Olsson is hereby submitting an addendum to the previously submitted Limited Impact Review (LIR) application to Garfield County. Encana is in the process of updating their Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and permit to accommodate the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) permit expiration date of June 30, 2012. The attached document reflects the current SWMP, the newly updated version will be provided to the Garfield County Planning Department when it is completed. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact our office at 970-263-7800. Sincerely, A/( Mike Markus Project Scientist enclosure: as stated 826 211/2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.oaconsulting.com • O LSSO N • ASSOCIATES June 8th, 2012 Fred Jarman, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. South Middle Fork Water Facility Limited Impact Review Application Fred, Olsson Associates (Olsson) was contracted by Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. (Encana) to provide Environmental Engineering and Consulting Services associated with permitting natural gas development operations in Garfield County, Colorado. On behalf of Encana, Olsson is hereby submitting the subject Limited Impact Review (LIR) application to Garfield County. As detailed in the enclosed application, Encana is requesting a Garfield County (GARCO) Limited Impact Review (LIR) for construction and operation of the proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility (SMF) that will support the natural gas development activities of Encana. Encana is requesting this permit under the "Materials Handling and Water Impoundments" land use(s) that are allowed uses in the Resource Lands zone district. The water to be handled at this facility is produced from drilling, completion and production operations associated with natural gas wells. Water that is produced from these operations is classified as an exploration and production (E&P) waste by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Pursuant to COGCC Rule 908, this facility will also be permitted as a Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility with the COGCC. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact our office at 970-263-7800. Sincerely, Mike Markus Project Scientist enclosure: as stated 826 211/2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.oaconsulting.com Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Glenn, Mike Markus [mmarkus@olssonassociates.com] Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:38 AM Glenn Hartmann Putnam, Christopher A.; Lorne Prescott; Dion Plsek; Wyatt Popp; Jeff Hofman RE: South Middle Fork Water Facility 1 NorthParachuteRanchSWMP(5-1-08).pdf; North Parachute Ranch COR -037689 (7-12-07).pdf; North Parachute Ranch Stormwate Permit 88 acre covering SMF.pdf; Renewal_ContactUpdate_COR037689_20120329.pdf; SWMP renewal application.pdf Again, thank you for working with us to complete the review of this project and to schedule for the September 10th, BOCC public hearing. As a follow-up to our conversation this morning: 1. SWMP covering the South Middle Fork site: Attached please find documentation as requested. The South Middle Fork site has been added within an additional 88 acre coverage area to the North Parachute Ranch SWMP. 2. Pipeline: Encana is still in the process of producing a pipeline map relating to transporting of water from wells to the SMF site. Encana has installed all pipelines in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution. Depending upon diameter and length, certain portions of the pipeline are exempt from permitting requirements. Encana has a history of properly permitting all pipelines in accordance with applicable Garfield County regulations. Further information and potential well locations may be found in the Nontributary Groundwater Formation Details section under the Supplemental Materials tab. Due to the time necessary to complete the requested information, we request that submittal of the detailed pipeline information and associated documents be incorporated as a Condition of Approval. Additionally, I will be sending you an updated application signature page, payment agreement form and statement of authority with Chris Putnam's (Encana) signature. Please contact me should you have any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Markus 1 Grand Junction Permitting' Olsson Associates 826 21 '/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 1 mmarkus©olssonassociates.com TEL 970.263.7800 1 CELL 970.210.5783 1 FAX 970.263.7456 OLSSON ASSOCIATES tra A Please consider the environment before printing this email. 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Mike Markus [mmarkus@olssonassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:37 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Putnam, Christopher A.; Lorne Prescott; Dion Plsek; Wyatt Popp; Jeff Hofman Subject: South Middle Fork Water Facility Attachments: FW: Meeting Today; SWMP renewal application.pdf; Deeds ownership docs tied to Tom Brtown.pdf Importance: High Glenn, I have the following responses/documents for your completeness review of the South Middle Fork Water Facility: 1. Location of project within Town of Parachute's watershed protection district: Response: The Town of Parachute is a referral agency and it will be up to the Town to make the official determination. However, based upon my preliminary and unofficial assessment it appears that the site may be located within the watershed district boundary and that the proposed activity may require a watershed permit. If a watershed permit is required, we propose that GARCO incorporate this into a COA such as "the operation of this facility shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility" and that the watershed permit would be submitted to Garfield County once obtained. Encana has a general watershed permit issued by the Town of Parachute, and said permit is updated from time to time based upon Encana's activities within the watershed protection district. 2. Review by the state engineer's office. Response: Please see Page 3 of the Project Narrative: "Construction at the site will begin upon approval of this application and may take up to 120 days per impoundment to complete. No Tess than 45 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, Encana will submit a Notice of Intent to Construct a Non-iurisdictional Water Impoundment Structure (as per Section 37-87-125, C.R.S.) to the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources." 3. Waiver request: Section 7-106 — Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater. Response: We request a waiver from the requirements of Section 7-106 -- Adequate Central Distribution and Wastewater. Safe operation of the Encana SMF facility will require the installation of a control building which will house equipment related to data monitoring and data collection. Encana will provide an adequate potable water supply and address wastewater storage to serve the proposed use of the control room facility. Both the potable water supplies and the wastewater controls will be provided by a licensed supplier of these services. Water and waste (sewage) from the facility will be handled via a vault and haul system designed to accommodate a single person and will meet all appropriate CDPHE requirements. A licensed water and sewage hauler will monitor the system approximately every seven days. The system will also be permitted according to Garfield County Building Department requirements." Additionally, please refer to the attached email documentation. 4. Provide a map that clearly shows the conveyance network (pipelines) from the wells to the produced water facility. The application will need to address if pipelines easements have been secured with Surface Use Agreements (SUA) that cross the affected properties. Also, :SUAs are sometimes 1 conditional so the Applicant will need to represent that they will comply with the terms of the SUA. This can be accomplished with a letter to the County stating you will cornply with these conditions ; and, have any of the pipelines to transport the produced water receive a County permit. If so, provide a copy of this permit. If not, indicate why a permit wasn't obtained (i.e., pipeline didn't trigger a permit). Response: Based upon our phone conversation yesterday it is our understanding that there is still a possibility that this item could be captured as a COA. However, Encana is in the process of gathering this information to be submitted for your review. 5. Per GARCO LUR Section 4-502(C)(3), a legal description of the subject site should be provided. Response: A legal description of the subject site will be provided ASAP. 6. Status of SWMP coverage and current permitting for this site. Response: Please refer to the attached renewal application submitted to CDPHE for continued coverage/permitting of stormwater discharges within Encana's North Parachute Ranch coverage area, which includes the South Middle Fork site. 7. Documentation tying the ownership chain from Tom Brown to Encana. Response: Please see attached documentation. Please let me know if you require any further information at this time. Thanks, Mike Mike Markus 1 Grand Junction Permitting 1 Olsson Associates 826 21 '/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 1 mmarkus@olssonassociates.com TEL 970.263.7800 1 CELL 970.210.5783 1 FAX 970.263.7456 OLSSON'u' ASSOCIATES ttri Please consider the environment before printing this email. 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Putnam, Christopher A. [Christopher.Putnam@encana.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:31 AM To: Mike Markus Subject: FW: Meeting Today Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Chris Putnam Contract Permitting Consultant South Rockies Construction Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Direct: 970.285.2757 Fax: 970.285.2763 Cell: 970.208.3409 Christopher.putnamencana.com encana_ �]at�Jra� gaS --- Please note Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. From: Putnam, Christopher A. Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:26 PM To: 'Fred Jarman'; Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Busch, Renata Subject: RE: Meeting Today That sounds great. Thanks Fred. Chris Putnam Contract Permitting Consultant South Rockies Construction Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Direct: 970.285.2757 Fax: 970.285.2763 Cell: 970.208.3409 Christopher.putnam(c�encana.com encana natural gas Please note Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. From: Fred Jarman [ma ilto:fjarman@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:15 PM To: Putnam, Christopher A.; Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Busch, Renata Subject: RE: Meeting Today Thanks Chris and Renata for taking the time to visit with us on this. You have captured it accurately with one exception: we will need to evaluate your definition of "minimal staffing" really on a case by case basis until the code is changed and really clear on this. In the case of the application you are intending to submit next Monday, you are correct and can move forward as you indicated below. Sound OK? Thanks - Fred From: Putnam, Christopher A.[mailto:Christopher.Putnam@encana.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:37 PM To: Fred Jarman; Molly Orkild-Larson Cc: Busch, Renata Subject: Meeting Today Fred and Molly, Thank you for taking time today to meet with us. It was very helpful. I am sending this email to ensure that we all ended up on the same page. To recap: When a manned facility requires an operator building / control building, that building falls under that facility's use as an appurtenance. In the specific case of a water facility, an operators building can exist to provide for the shelter, sanitation, computer, and facility specific needs of the employee and is not required to be permitted under a separate use as an office facility. The building must have a toilet and a sink in order to accommodate the needs of the employee. Vault -and -haul potable water/septic systems may be used for facilities that require minimal staffing. The design of the septic and potable tanks must be delineated in the permit application. Adequate water supply (Compliant with CDPHE Regulations) must also be described. Hauler affidavits from qualified vendors must be included in the permit application and adequate records should be kept to insure that the required testing stipulations are being met. If you agree, or have anything to add, please respond to this email and let me know. Thanks! Chris Putnam Contract Permitting Consultant South Rockies Construction Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Direct: 970.285.2757 Fax: 970.285.2763 Cell: 970.208.3409 Christopher.putnam a,encana.com encana Please note Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. This email communication and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and or proprietary information and is provided for the use of the intended recipient only. Any review, retransmission or dissemination of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender and delete this communication and any copies immediately. Thank you. http://www.encana.com This email communication and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and or proprietary information and is provided for the use of the intended recipient only. Any review, retransmission or dissemination of this 2 information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender and delete this communication and any copies immediately. Thank you. http://www.encana.com Glenn Hartmann From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:41 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: South Middle Fork Ground Water Follow -Up Glenn: I have reviewed the information that was attached in the previous email. There are some questions that the information generated: 1. The raising of the pond bottom may not be suitable. No additional information was provided. 2. The elevation of the groundwater over time has not been evaluated to our knowledge. The elevation of the pond bottom may need to be above the groundwater elevation of all seasons. More information should be provided. 3. Double containment of the pond liner doesn't appear to be proposed, as it was proposed previously. Feel free to call or email any further questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Glenn Hartmann [mailto:ghartmann@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:15 AM To: Chris Hale Subject: South Middle Fork Ground Water Follow -Up Hi Chris: The attached email is in regard to a project approved about a year ago. They had provided supplemental materials and a drainage report for the facility that was reviewed early this year. My files indicate that your follow-up review of the supplemental materials (1/30/13) noted the engineering firms still had concerns regarding ground water (i.e. they had not fully addressed the conditions of approval). The file has been inactive since that time. The email below reflects a proposed solution to the issue by lessening the depth of the ponds. Please take a look at the email and attachments and call with a time that would work for us to discuss this in more detail. The condition of approval anticipated quite a bit more analysis by the Applicant. I am out of the office this Thursday and Friday so sometime next week would work best for me. I'll also be talking with the Applicant and getting a better understanding of any timing needs. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Glenn. Glenn Hartmann Community Development Department From: Busch, Renata [mailto: Renata.Busch@encana.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:41 AM 1 To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: GLEN*Encana South Middle Fork WF_Resolution Glen — In going through some older projects needing signed Resolution/LUCP, I came across Encana's South Middle Fork Water Facility (reference Resolution attached). The conditions were addressed via the attached pdf and one thing left to address was condition 17; regarding the "under drain". Below is a comment from our engineer, as well as the drawing indicated, which should suffice for this condition. Following an extensive review of under drain systems, we have decided to mitigate the under drain requirement by decreasing the depth of the pond. We will assure the lowest elevation of each pond is above the ground water level under the pond. Please find drawing SMF -PROF -4 attached with an example of ground water level and low point of pond indicated. In summary, we are not installing an under drain system, but the ponds will be above ground water levels. Could you please review and advise if this could get on the Consent Agenda any time soon? Thank you. Renata Busch Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. South Rockies Business Unit Regulatory Analyst, Field Lead w 970.285.2825 I I c 970.319.8890 renata.busch@encana.com Please note some Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. This email communication and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and or proprietary information and is provided for the use of the intended recipient only. Any review, retransmission or dissemination of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender and delete this communication and any copies immediately. Thank you. http://www.encana.com 2 Garfield County MEMORANDUM Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384-3470 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner DATE: November 25; 2013 SUBJECT: Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. Extension Request for the South Middle Fork Water Facility (LIPA-7292) REQUEST The Garfield County Community Development Department has received an extension request from Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. for the South Middle Fork Water Facility which received conditional approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on November 4, 2012 by Resolution No. 2012-89 (attached). The Applicant's letter of request and supporting justification is attached (see letter dated 11/20/13). The request is submitted in accordance with Section 4-101(1)(4). This extension request is submitted after the anniversary date (one year expiration time frame) for the conditional approval. Section 4-101(1)(4) does provide that "... the BOCC may grant an extension of an otherwise expired approval upon a finding by the BOCC that the failure to file for an extension was due to extenuating circumstances and that it benefits the public interest to grant the extension." BACKGROUND • The Application was for a Limited Impact Review Land Use Change Permit for Material Handling — Water Impoundment on property located in Sections 33 & 34, T6S, R96W on Assessor's Parcel No. 2177-331-00-020, approximately 3 miles northwest of Parachute. The facility is located on approximately 20.5 acres of an 88.7 acre parcel which is zoned Resource Lands — Gentle Slopes. • The Application proposes construction four water impoundments for the storage of production water from Encana wells in the area. The water will be treated and stored for reuse in Encana's ongoing drilling and completion activities. The facility will be constructed on vacant land adjacent to County Road 215. Surrounding uses are primarily industrial oil and gas activities. Most of the adjacent property is owned by Williams Production or WPX. A large water impoundment facility is located just southeast of the proposed facility. • The Applicant proposes construction of four impoundments for a total storage capacity of 42 million gallons (1.2 million barrels). The impoundments will be constructed to meet COGCC standards and will include double lining, leak detection and covering with an impervious synthetic material to minimize air emission and prevent wildlife access. Ancillary facilities will include a dissolved air floatation (DAF) treatment system/building, pump house, additional tank storage (off-load, condensate, and sludge) with secondary containment, an off-load pad, temporary frac tanks, sediment pond, along with access driveways, parking areas and a control room. VICINITY MAP South Middle rook Wolter Facility Iy ilio I wen tads tmd D/ dirk rad roralo N par rq••u to am•ctra OM* 2 • Resolution No. 2012-89 included Condition No. 16 which required an updated geotechnical investigation regarding pond design and ground water implications. • In January of 2013 the Applicant submitted a packet of information including additional geotechnical evaluations related to ground water concerns. The information was reviewed by the County's consulting engineer and did not resolve the ground water mitigation issues and the related requirements of Condition No. 16. • The Applicant submitted on November 14, 2013, after the one year expiration of the approval additional engineering information that has been submitted to the County Consulting Engineer for additional review. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S ACTION Subject to making the two required findings in accordance with Section 4-101(1)(4) the BOCC may grant the extension request. A resolution documenting any extension would be prepared for the BOCC. The Applicant has demonstrated their intent to address the conditions of approval. As the engineering evaluation of Condition No. 16 and ground water concerns is ongoing, if an extension is approved provision of adequate time to fully address the issue would be recommended. 3 encanam natural gas November 20, 2013 Glen Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Dept. Re: Encana — LIR for a Material Handling— Water Impoundment Facility (South Middle Fork Water Facility) Dear Mr. Hartman, You currently received a follow up addressing an outstanding condition with regard to the above mentioned Resolution (reference attached). The timing of this Resolution, unfortunately, had a way of sneaking up on us, as it was brought to my attention that we just exceeded the anniversary date. Therefore, Encana is reaching out to request an Extension to this Resolution. All other conditions had been addressed well before the anniversary date and the under -drain information and technical analysis was undetermined for an amount of time. In between obtaining the technical information, Encana went through several personnel changes as well as drastic schedule changes. A lot of time and effort went into the original submittal and subsequent hearing and approval and we'd like to be able to keep this Resolution open and obtain the Land Use Change Permit. Please take in to consideration our plea and advise if an extension could be provided on this Resolution. And next we would look forward to having this on the Consent Agenda and obtaining the Land Use Change Permit. Thank you for your time and efforts in this endeavor. I look forward to hearing back from you. Please feel free to give me a call at (970) 285.2825 should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Renata Busch Regulatory Analyst, Field Lead Cc: Mike Sanville, Chris Durrant (Encana Water Management Group) Encl. Resolution for Water Impoundment Facility (South Middle Fork Water Facility) Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215, Suite 100 Parachute„ CO 81635 t 970.285 2825 f 970.285 2691 renata.buschl encana.com www.encana.com ■1111 iI'I. NO.14MINICMCIril Pi 11111 Reception## : 826791 11/09/2012 02,21:12 PM Jean Rlberico 1 of 7 Rep Fee $0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 8th day of October A.D. 2012, there were present: John Martin Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky Carey Gagnon Jean Alberico Andrew Gorgey , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner Assistant County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. ;,2CI A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL HANDLING — WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY, ON AN 88.7 ACRE PROPERTY OWNED BY ENCANA OIL AND GAS (USA) INC. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES NORTHWEST OF THE TOWN OF PARACHUTE IN SECTIONS 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., GARFIELD COUNTY PARCEL NO# 2177-331-00-020 Recitals A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado ("Board") received a request for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for a Material Handling — Water Impoundment Facility as further described in Exhibit A, Site Plan. B. The Encana South Middle Fork Water Impoundment Facility is located on approximately 20.5 acres of an 88.7 acre parcel owned by Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. The ownership of this property is described in a Special Warranty Deed found at Reception Number 655347 in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. C. The subject property is located within unincorporated Garfield County in the Resource Lands — Gentle Slopes zone district, approximately 3 miles northwest of the Town of Parachute, off of County Road 215. 1 NT IV 11111 Receptionft: 826791 11(09/2012 02:21:12 PM Jean Rlberico 2 of 7 Rec Fee,$0.00 Doc Fee -0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO D. Material Handling Water Impoundment Facilities may be permitted in the Resource Lands — Gentle Slopes zone district with Limited Impact Review. E. The Board is authorized to approve, deny, or approve with conditions a Limited Impact application resulting in issuance of a Land Use Change Permit pursuant to the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR"). F. The Board opened the public hearing on the 10th day of September, 2012 for consideration of the Land Use Change Permit and, consistent with the Applicant's request, continued the public hearing to October 8, 2012, without taking any testimony. G. The Board continued the public hearing on the 8th day of October, 2012, for consideration of whether the proposed Land Use Change Permit should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request. H. The Board closed the public hearing on the 8th day of October, 2012 to make a final decision. I. The Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for Material Handling — Water Impoundment Facility related to the South Middle Fork Project 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 adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the ULUR. RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that: 2 1111F111.111x4 ,1W,141.1114i111Cli4 lei! ,11l.1l 11111 Reception##: 826791 11/09/2012 02:21:12 PM Jean Alberico 3 of 7 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. B. The Land Use Change Permit for Material Handling — Water Impoundment for the Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. South Middle Fork Facility is hereby approved subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including air quality and water quality provisions. 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions of Section 7-810 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended including but not limited to potential nuisance impacts. Compliance with County and State noise restrictions shall be required and future mitigation may be required if noise complaints and compliance issues are noted once the facility is operational. 4. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be completed as represented in the Application submittals and County reclamation standards. Security for revegetation shall be provided in accordance with the County Vegetation Manager's Referral Comments dated August 23, 2012 and prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Compliance with long term reclamation plans contained in the Application shall be required. 5. During the construction phase the Applicant shall provide temporary potable water, portable toilets, storm-water/soil erosion management as needed for site disturbance, and shall provide for secure storage and/or daily removal of any trash or refuse from the site. 6. The Applicant's waiver request to allow long term water and waste water service by a vault and haul system shall be approved provided the number of employees consistently working on site does not increase from the representations contained in the Application. Said waiver shall also be conditioned on ongoing use of licensed haulers, periodic cleaning and disinfection of tanks. 7. Compliance with the recommendations of the Applicant's environmental consultant West Water Engineering contained in their Biological and Mitigation Reports dated April 2012) shall be required. Fencing shall meet Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards. 8. The Applicant shall confirm in writing with Xcel Energy that power is available to the facility or shall update site plans and noise analysis with information on proposed 3 VIII 1'ammiiimmiumi ntionlo4 a1 II Reception#: 826791 11/09)2012 02:2112 PM Jean Alberico 4 of 7 Rec Fee -$0 00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO generators. Noise compliance for the pump house shall be required in accordance with County and State noise restrictions and Condition #3. 9. Compliance with the Grand Valley Fire Protection Districts comments (dated August 22, 2012) including but not limited to updating the contact information on the Emergency Response Plan and a request for a preplanning site visit once the facility is constructed. 10. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit and prior to any construction activity, the Applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department for the relocated and expanded access and appropriate permits for the construction of the proposed turning lanes within the County's right-of-way for County Road 215. The Applicant shall provide verification of approval of the final plans/engineering by the County Engineer and/or Road and Bridge Supervisor including adequate truck turning radius for access into the site. Prior to initiating construction the Applicant shall contact the Road and Bridge Department and shall comply with all County requirements for construction management and traffic control during construction of the facility and upgraded access. All access improvements shall be completed prior to operation of the facility. 11. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide additional information/documentation on pipeline locations and permitting to demonstrate that the overall operation of the facility including transportation of water to the facility is in compliance with the County Regulations. 12. Compliance with the Applicant's Stormwater Management Plan and CDPHE Stormwater Discharge Permits shall be required including erosion control and best management practices. 13. Implementation of the Applicant's Dust Control Plan shall be required. Any additional CDPHE Air Quality or Construction Permitting as may be required for the operation of the facility shall be provided. 14. The Applicant shall update existing SPCC Plans as required by the COGCC. The Applicant shall provide the County with copies of said plans as soon as approved. 15. Copies of all COGCC Forms and Permits (including Form 28) applicable to the facility shall be provided to the County upon approval or issuance by the COGCC and prior to operation of the facility. Compliance with all COGCC fencing, lining, leak detection, monitoring well, and high level monitoring/alarms shall be required. 16. Lighting shall comply with County standards including down direction of any fixtures and orientation internal to the site. 4 111 II iP11MANb,I411 I0PCITI CIVT111,INii 11111 Reception#: 826791 11/09/2012 02:21:12 PM Joan Plberico 5 of 7 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 17. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide the following additional technical analyses which shall be reviewed by the County's Consulting Engineer and found to acceptable: a. An updated flood plain analysis demonstrating that the site is outside of any significant flood threat, design and implementation of any recommended flood protection, and finding that site is appropriate for the proposed development. b. A draft SPCC Plan shall be provided for County review demonstrating steps to be taken to avoid any spill affecting Parachute Creek including that which might occur as the result of flooding. c. An updated Geotechnical Investigation regarding pond design and ground water implications including additional ground water measurements, engineering design recommendations to mitigate concerns related to ground water, verification of adequate protection of ground water, and a finding that the site is appropriate for the proposed development. d. An updated drainage engineering supplement and plans including drainage calculations and required storm water detention determinations. 18. The facility shall be limited to storage of water only from Encana wells. 19. The site plan shall be updated to show all power line easements across the site, and any relocation if necessary. A legal survey description of the area of the facility shall also be included on the site plan and stormwater improvements encroaching onto adjoining properties relocated onto the site or easement for said improvements obtained. 20. The Application shall be updated to demonstrate that the use of the site for temporary storage of Frac Tanks is consistent with the Application, clarify the purpose and duration of said storage and demonstrate compliance with any requirements for secondary containment and inclusion in SPCC Plans. Dated this 0 day of -11_ ATTEST: 1 m rk of the Board , A.D. 20 I . GARFIELD C • TY BOARD OF COMMIS' ONER ., GARFIELD DO 5 1111 111111117MIN KJNGl+ IEW 1041. Rini 11111 Reception#: 826791 11/09/2012 02:21:12 PM Jean Rlberico 6 of 7 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN , Aye COMMISSIONER MIKE SAMSON , Aye COMMISSIONER TOM JANKOVSKY , Aye STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 20 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 6 VIII rialleo.ma Ifral.I4IK(#I4 'Ni4C1l J'i 11111 Reception#: 826791 11109!2012 02:21:12 PM Jean Rlberico 7 of 7 Rec Fee:$0 00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT "A" SITE PLAN 7 Glenn Hartmann From: Busch, Renata [Renata. Busch@encana.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:41 AM To: Glenn Hartmann • Subject: GLEN*Encana South Middle Fork WF_Resolution Attachments: South_Middle_Fork_Resolution.pdf; SouthMiddleForkWaterFacility_COAResponse.pdf; 131017 SMFWF Ground Water Mitigation.pdf Glen — In going through some older projects needing signed Resolution/LUCP, I came across Encana's South Middle Fork Water Facility (reference Resolution attached). The conditions were addressed via the attached pdf and one thing left to address was condition 17; regarding the "under drain". Below is a comment from our engineer, as well as the drawing indicated, which should suffice for this condition. Following an extensive review of under drain systems, we have decided to mitigate the under drain requirement by decreasing the depth of the pond. We will assure the lowest elevation of each pond is above the ground water level under the pond. Please find drawing SMF -PROF -4 attached with an example of ground water level and low point of pond indicated. In summary, we are not installing an under drain system, but the ponds will be above ground water levels. Could you please review and advise if this could get on the Consent Agenda any time soon? Thank you. Renata Busch Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. South Rockies Business Unit Regulatory Analyst, Field Lead w 970.285.2825 / / c 970.319.8890 renata.busch@encana.com Please note some Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. This email communication and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and or proprietary information and is provided for the use of the intended recipient only. Any review, retransmission or dissemination of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender and delete this communication and any copies immediately. Thank you. http://www.encana.com 1 Rol Ovlc, 5/3/2013 B'16,33 AM NVId ONIOV dO N r C) SECTION LINE M Z- 00 nD-� Z -rte D71 ZrZ D DrnD z Dm D -0 0 �rn CO 0 OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINES OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINES 11333 ki 37v351 Z Plot umw: 5/3/3013 eae:r. 44 0 e !/ 12 at A=_ -�s Gaw;ngs 's4 Car,r wIr Jct r, O LSSO N ASSOCIATES January 2, 2013 Gafield County Building and Planning Department Glenn Hartmann 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: South Middle Fork Material Handling LIPA-7292 Dear Mr. Hartmann: The following is provided as a response to the COAs as identified in in the resolution of approval adopted by the BOCC at the October 8, 2012 public hearing. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including air quality and water quality provisions. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions of Section 7-810 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended including but not limited to potential nuisance impacts. Compliance with County and State noise restrictions shall be required and future mitigation may be required if noise complaints and compliance issues are noted once the facility is operational. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 4. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be completed as represented in the Application submittals and County reclamation standards. Security for revegetation shall be provided in accordance with the County Vegetation Manager's Referral Comments dated August 23, 2012 826 211/2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com and prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Compliance with long term reclamation plans contained in the Application shall be required. Encana Response: Encana has provided revegetation security in the amount of $7,250. A copy of the bond submitted to Garfield County Treasurer's Office is attached to this letter. 5. During the construction phase the Applicant shall provide temporary potable water, portable toilets, storm-water/soil erosion management as needed for site disturbance, and shall provide for secure storage and/or daily removal of any trash or refuse from the site. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 6. The Applicant's waiver request to allow long term water and waste water service by a vault and haul system shall be approved provided the number of employees consistently working on site does not increase from the representations contained in the Application. Said waiver shall also be conditioned on ongoing use of licensed haulers, periodic cleaning and disinfection of tanks. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 7. Compliance with the recommendations of the Applicant's environmental consultant West Water Engineering contained in their Biological and Mitigation Reports dated April 2012 shall be required. Fencing shall meet Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 8. The Applicant shall confirm in writing with Xcel Energy that power is available to the facility or shall update site plans and noise analysis with information on proposed 3 generators. Noise compliance for the pump house shall be required in accordance with County and State noise restrictions and Condition #3. Encana Response: A service letter from Xcel Energy is attached to this letter. 9. Compliance with the Grand Valley Fire Protection Districts comments (dated August 22, 2012) including but not limited to updating the contact information on the Emergency Response Plan and a request for a preplanning site visit once the facility is constructed. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 10. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit and prior to any construction activity, the Applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department for the relocated and expanded access and appropriate permits for the construction of the proposed turning lanes within the County's right-of-way for County Road 215. The Applicant shall provide verification of approval of the final plans/engineering by the County Engineer and/or Road and Bridge Supervisor including adequate truck turning radius for access into the site. Prior to initiating construction the Applicant shall contact the Road and Bridge Department and shall comply with all County requirements for construction management and traffic control during 826 21Y2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com construction of the facility and upgraded access. AM access improvements shall be completed prior to operation of the facility. Encana Response: Prior to construction Encana will obtain the needed approval from Garfield County Road and Bridge. 11. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide additional information/documentation on pipeline locations and permitting to demonstrate that the overall operation of the facility including transportation of water to the facility is in compliance with the County Regulations. Encana Response: A pipeline detail map is included as an attachment to this letter. 12. Compliance with the Applicant's Stormwater Management Plan and CDPHE Storrnwater Discharge Permits shall be required including erosion control and best management practices. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 13. Implementation of the Applicant's Dust Control Plan shall be required. Any additional CDPHE Air Quality or Construction Permitting as may be required for the operation of the facility shall be provided. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 14. The Applicant shall update existing SPCC Plans as required by the COGCC. The Applicant shall provide the County with copies of said plans as soon as approved. Encana Response: Once construction activities are complete, Encana will provide a copy of the site specific SPCC map to the County for their records. 15. Copies of all COGCC Forms and Permits (including Form 28) applicable to the facility shall be provided to the County upon approval or issuance by the COGCC and prior to operation of the facility. Compliance with all COGCC fencing, lining, leak detection, monitoring well, and high level monitoring/alarms shall be required. Encana Response: Encana will provide the County with COGCC approval documentation prior to the operation of this facility. 16. Lighting shall comply with County standards including down direction of any fixtures and orientation internal to the site. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 17. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide the following additional technical analyses which shall be reviewed by the County's Consulting Engineer and found to acceptable: a. An updated flood plain analysis demonstrating that the site is outside of any significant flood threat, design and implementation of any recommended flood protection, and finding that site is appropriate for the proposed development. Encana Response: A flood plain analysis prepared by River City Engineering is attached to this letter for review. b. A draft SPCC Plan shall be provided for County review demonstrating steps to be taken to avoid any spill affecting Parachute Creek including that which might occur as the result of flooding. Encana Response: A draft SPCC plan is included as an attachment to this letter. c. An updated Geotechnical Investigation regarding pond design and ground water implications including additional ground water measurements, engineering design recommendations to mitigate concerns related to ground water, verification of adequate protection of ground water, and a finding that the site is appropriate for the proposed development. Encana Response: A revised Geotechnical Report is included as an attachment to this letter. d. An updated drainage engineering supplement and plans including drainage calculations and required storm water detention determinations. Encana Response: An updated drainage plan is included as an attachment to this letter. 18. The facility shall be limited to storage of water only from Encana wells. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 19. The site plan shall be updated to show all power line easements across the site, and any relocation if necessary. A legal survey description of the area of the facility shall also be included on the site plan and stormwater improvements encroaching onto adjoining properties relocated onto the site or easement for said improvements obtained. Encana Response: An updated site plan is included as an attachment to this letter. 20. The Application shall be updated to demonstrate that the use of the site for temporary storage of Frac Tanks is consistent with the Application, clarify the purpose and duration of said storage and demonstrate compliance with any requirements for secondary containment and inclusion in SPCC Plans. Encana Response: The temporary frac tanks storage area is demonstrated on the site plan. This area will 'be used for the storage of produced water during the construction phase of the approved facility. Once construction is complete, the temporary tanks will be removed. The temporary storage tanks will be included in Encana's SPCC plan for this site. A copy of the plan that includes the tanks can be provided upon placement of the tanks on-site. Sincerely, Craig Richardson Enclosures Ret 00l 5/3/2013 DAD.33 nu NVld `JNIOV8 SECTION LINE 0 O-0 . -0O m0 0 cn cn Z00 i `\ ./ TIO D T1 O r- 4' 0 4'O W o �� OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINES OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINES r' • 2)3'•• \ cn m m X•' •Od .0 —I .0-Ixl c00 r D �O 0 m On Oz r-� m� —1 O r- •D C n cn i �c c 0m z \ w r A y -n OU1 Zm 02 X l m r 00 =D > Om 07) z� 0 Id1 opm Z -j Zz O m • m K - mD m D0 Z r I-9 Drcw:rgs Mss Comply Aim EoCana CrolCog S'anccras (ECA -A -I. 0 0 CZ) 114 1,145.13 VIOZ/r/S 03 -01 1:0 orr;; -co - n - 9 • 00, it (19 rrl z '5,' 2.0' Opte. 5/3/2013 0:58'14 .4.1 Glenn Hartmann From: Tamra Allen Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:02 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: South Middle Fork Water Impoundment Glenn — It is my understanding that the South Middle Fork Water Impoundment Facility was approved November 5, 2012. As with all Land Use Change Permit approvals, this project has had one year to demonstrate compliance and/or meet the conditions of approval. On November 14, 2013, (one year and 9 days later), information was submitted that attempts to meet the conditions, but formal evaluation of the information by the County still must occur. With this set of facts, and pursuant to Section, 4-101.H.1, of the LUDC, the Applicant had one year from the date of approval to meet all conditions. The Applicant's failure to meet all conditions within this requisite time period has resulted in the expiration of the approval for this project and the Applicant will be required to submit a new application for the desired land use. Should the Applicant believe that the circumstances for their conditions of approval are "extenuating circumstances and that it benefits the public interest" they may request of the BOCC an extension of an otherwise expired approval pursuant to 4-101.1.4 of the LUDC. The BOCC will be required to find both that "the failure to file for an extension was due to extenuating circumstances and that it benefits the public interest to grant the extension." Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this matter. Respectfully, Tamra Allen, Planning Manager Garfield County Community Development Department tallen(c�garfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) 1 • • • / - .'' • I \ V .../„.% /1-.- '5 - 3 / I r ,, I I . ; I I I r I 1 / 1 ) , i 1- i 1 ! 1 1 i , I j I 1 I 1 / , I I / j I / 71 1 r \ tr 1 . ° I )1 1 , 1 I If/ , . \ r --1 -I -I > > I / . •-.,;, 1, ‘1 Q 1 7 I 'I ,I / 1 1 1 1 \ 0 0 •.. > > . 1.J3 ul 4n cn 1 ..-'6 1 ' I 1.-- , ,_-, 1 ; I ...,.., ; o o _ - 1 . 1 II $ LT, ' ‘ s• I. ' j If -7.: n ▪ > > 1/1 m 03 1.-• 103 o -10. •--.1 r.) r xi 03 03 N. / . I I X 1.- I l' I 1 ,i: • M m m 03 ---.10 0. • I I 4 • 1 1 t l'11A i I ! I 1 - Fo' g' 11 2. ' 1-2. 'T , cr) (/) 0, ---... II A 2 I, 1 ! ; \ • 111 M 0 I -n 0 z r . 1 1 i 1 \ MC nC--7'111 C71731 I r c F c rti -4 I- --i rsz ' , ',- / A“ 0 • ' \ '' 1.: •/(I; 4,- rt \ ,1— I \ 1 / > ' / ,// , / / r/ /, / // I1 i ! I / ,. ! / / \.\\\ , , 1/ / III , \i! rrri // • / . / / / 07,1 /SECTION /33 -/ SECTION,' 34 / / / I N 11 A / SNOISIA • •-• •-• •-• .„. •- •- 41 _ Fd , - - t ... - - • .,,-, ----. 27, '33 A SS. 2 9 2 d q1 ,rFai ” / " V 0 0 o 0 .. - ..., ,-',,-,,,r ,,, , , I, ,, i /:I, /i ' 1, --I .1 Z,. •.. 1 1 (1, r ..gi2)i -., _ 0 ' ; 1 / 1, ,/ . 74, ./ ,/ , ,i,, . (/1„ / 1--- / .1”. / , , - - / .., , / i ; / ----1 ..-- . , ,, , / / / ''''' ---- - ' / / / '' // / / // I /I\ ..',/ ' , , ' / / , // ,,' / , / , ---'Il‘l,..1 0 . i .- ' / / I1/1 , / 1 , i 0-• ..; ; " • ' ' , r / ' / -1/ / / / ,,, r )-.." ,' / / / / / / / / / / / ? / \ -7 ' • / • / -, 0 • / ,. / / / / / // , / / /, - - , 1/1 `47/ ;•"' Vi k Glenn Hartmann From: Chris Hale [chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:10 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: South Middle Fork Water Facility Glenn: I have reviewed the additional materials provided. I have the following comments: The Addendum letter from Yeh and Associates still seems to have concerns about the high groundwater at the site when compared to the bottom of the ponds. No materials provided seems to address this. The drainage proposed for the site shows a diversion ditch to the east of the site that is intended to capture offsite water and divert it to the north, around the site. The existing contours to the north show that this water will be forced back onto the site. The ditch should be carried along the north side or the site stormwater system be designed to account for these flows. Feel free to call or email if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 1 O LSSO N ASSOCIATES January 2, 2013 Gafield County Building and Planning Department Glenn Hartmann 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: South Middle Fork Material Handling LIPA-7292 Dear Mr. Hartmann: The following is provided as a response to the COAs as identified in in the resolution of approval adopted by the BOCC at the October 8, 2012 public hearing. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including air quality and water quality provisions. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions of Section 7-810 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended including but not limited to potential nuisance impacts. Compliance with County and State noise restrictions shall be required and future mitigation may be required if noise complaints and compliance issues are noted once the facility is operational. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 4. Revegetation of disturbed areas shall be completed as represented in the Application submittals and County reclamation standards. Security for revegetation shall be provided in accordance with the County Vegetation Manager's Referral Comments dated August 23, 2012 826 211/2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com and prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. Compliance with long term reclamation plans contained in the Application shall be required. Encana Response: Encana has provided revegetation security in the amount of $7,250. A copy of the bond submitted to Garfield County Treasurer's Office is attached to this letter. 5. During the construction phase the Applicant shall provide temporary potable water, portable toilets, storm-water/soil erosion management as needed for site disturbance, and shall provide for secure storage and/or daily removal of any trash or refuse from the site. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 6. The Applicant's waiver request to allow long term water and waste water service by a vault and haul system shall be approved provided the number of employees consistently working on site does not increase from the representations contained in the Application. Said waiver shall also be conditioned on ongoing use of licensed haulers, periodic cleaning and disinfection of tanks. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 7. Compliance with the recommendations of the Applicant's environmental consultant West Water Engineering contained in their Biological and Mitigation Reports dated April 2012 shall be required. Fencing shall meet Colorado Parks and Wildlife standards. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 8. The Applicant shall confirm in writing with Xcel Energy that power is available to the facility or shall update site plans and noise analysis with information on proposed 3 generators. Noise compliance for the pump house shall be required in accordance with County and State noise restrictions and Condition #3. Encana Response: A service letter from Xcel Energy is attached to this letter. 9. Compliance with the Grand Valley Fire Protection Districts comments (dated August 22, 2012) including but not limited to updating the contact information on the Emergency Response Plan and a request for a preplanning site visit once the facility is constructed. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 10. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit and prior to any construction activity, the Applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department for the relocated and expanded access and appropriate permits for the construction of the proposed turning lanes within the County's right-of-way for County Road 215. The Applicant shall provide verification of approval of the final plans/engineering by the County Engineer and/or Road and Bridge Supervisor including adequate truck turning radius for access into the site. Prior to initiating construction the Applicant shall contact the Road and Bridge Department and shall comply with all County requirements for construction management and traffic control during 826 211A Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com construction of the facility and upgraded access. All access improvements shall be completed prior to operation of the facility. Encana Response: Prior to construction Encana will obtain the needed approval from Garfield County Road and Bridge. 11. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide additional information/documentation on pipeline locations and permitting to demonstrate that the overall operation of the facility including transportation of water to the facility is in compliance with the County Regulations. Encana Response: A pipeline detail map is included as an attachment to this letter. 12. Compliance with the Applicant's Stormwater Management Plan and CDPHE Storrnwater Discharge Permits shall be required including erosion control and best management practices. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 13. Implementation of the Applicant's Dust Control Plan shall be required. Any additional CDPHE Air Quality or Construction Permitting as may be required for the operation of the facility shall be provided. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 14. The Applicant shall update existing SPCC Plans as required by the COGCC. The Applicant shall provide the County with copies of said plans as soon as approved. Encana Response: Once construction activities are complete, Encana will provide a copy of the site specific SPCC map to the County for their records. 15. Copies of all COGCC Forms and Permits (including Form 28) applicable to the facility shall be provided to the County upon approval or issuance by the COGCC and prior to operation of the facility. Compliance with all COGCC fencing, lining, leak detection, monitoring well, and high level monitoring/alarms shall be required. Encana Response: Encana will provide the County with COGCC approval documentation prior to the operation of this facility. 16. Lighting shall comply with County standards including down direction of any fixtures and orientation internal to the site. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 17. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide the following additional technical analyses which shall be reviewed by the County's Consulting Engineer and found to acceptable: a. An updated flood plain analysis demonstrating that the site is outside of any significant flood threat, design and implementation of any recommended flood protection, and finding that site is appropriate for the proposed development. Encana Response: A flood plain analysis prepared by River City Engineering is attached to this letter for review. b. A draft SPCC Plan shall be provided for County review demonstrating steps to be taken to avoid any spill affecting Parachute Creek including that which might occur as the result of flooding. Encana Response: A draft SPCC plan is included as an attachment to this letter. c. An updated Geotechnical Investigation regarding pond design and ground water implications including additional ground water measurements, engineering design recommendations to mitigate concerns related to ground water, verification of adequate protection of ground water, and a finding that the site is appropriate for the proposed development. Encana Response: A revised Geotechnical Report is included as an attachment to this letter. d. An updated drainage engineering supplement and plans including drainage calculations and required storm water detention determinations. Encana Response: An updated drainage plan is included as an attachment to this letter. 18. The facility shall be limited to storage of water only from Encana wells. Encana Response: Encana will comply with this condition at all times. 19. The site plan shall be updated to show all power line easements across the site, and any relocation if necessary. A legal survey description of the area of the facility shall also be included on the site plan and stormwater improvements encroaching onto adjoining properties relocated onto the site or easement for said improvements obtained. Encana Response: An updated site plan is included as an attachment to this letter. 20. The Application shall be updated to demonstrate that the use of the site for temporary storage of Frac Tanks is consistent with the Application, clarify the purpose and duration of said storage and demonstrate compliance with any requirements for secondary containment and inclusion in SPCC Plans. Encana Response: The temporary frac tanks storage area is demonstrated on the site plan. This area will be used for the storage of produced water during the construction phase of the approved facility. Once construction is complete, the temporary tanks will be removed. The temporary storage tanks will be included in Encana's SPCC plan for this site. A copy of the plan that includes the tanks can be provided upon placement of the tanks on-site. Sincerely, Craig Richardson Enclosures Xcel Energy® RESPONSIBLE BY NATURE n' 2538BIichmannAvenue Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 10/22/2012 Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Chris Putnam 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Subject: Service Availability Dear Mr. Putnam: In accordance with our tariffs filed with and approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, gas and/or electric facilities can be made available to serve your project at South Middle Fork Water Facility. Upon receipt of an Application for Service and appropriate building plans, the distribution and/or service(s) will be designed. Once the design has been approved, applicable costs have been paid and applicable contract have been signed and returned, the construction work will be scheduled. Due to workload, material availability and design complexity, design and construction lead times may vary. Please contact the Builders Call Line at 800-628-2121 and submit your application at the earliest opportunity to better assure meeting your proposed schedule for receiving service. ❑ Gas costs will be calculated in conformance with our filed SERVICE LATERAL CONNECTION AND DISTRIBUTION MAIN EXTENSION POLICY. ® Electric Costs for the project will be calculated in conformance with our filed SERVICE CONNECTION AND DISTRIBUTION LINE EXTENSION POLICY. If you have any questions or comments, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at the number listed below. My normal work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Sincerely, illmon i cSchooler Xcel Energy 970-244-2695 tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com i Legend Water Line Road N Garfield ParcelCana.. Operating Loci_ t(i,:gaS 1 RIvERCrrY 744 HORIZON COURT SUITE 110 (970) 241-4722 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 (970) 241-8841 (Fax) To: Glenn Hartmann, Garfield County From: Marc Kenney, P.E. Date: October 2, 2012 RE: Flood Hazard Letter for South Middle Fork Water Facility The purpose of this letter is to provide and discuss available information in regards to the potential of flood hazards at Encana's proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility (SMFWF). The proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility is to be constructed on Parcel No. 217133100020, which is owned by Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Access to the site is by Garfield County Road 215. The proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility is located southwest of CR 215, which runs northwest out of the town of Parachute. In legal terms this parcel is located in the eastern half of Section 33 and the western half of Section 34 of Township 6 south, Range 96 west of the 6th Principal Meridian. Parachute Creek runs along the southwest border of the site. Parachute Creek generally flows southeast parallel to CR 215 and ultimately discharges to the Colorado River approximately 4.5 miles downstream of the site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) prepared a Floodplain Management Study for Parachute Creek in 1985. The report is titled: "Floodplain Management Study for Parachute Creek the vicinity of Parachute, CO and Roan Creek in the vicinity of DeBeque, CO" and was prepared in cooperation with the Colorado Water Board, the towns of Parachute and DeBeque, and Garfield and Mesa Counties. The USDA SCS report determined floodplain elevations and peak flows for the 10, 50, 100, and 500 year storm events. The vertical datum of this report is NGVD 29. The SMFWF design was done using the more recent NAVD 88. NGVD 29 elevations cannot be converted to NAVD 88 elevations using an exact conversion factor. The conversion factor differs depending on location and in this area the conversion ranges from over 4 feet in the Carbondale area to approximately 3 feet in the Grand Junction area. Parachute and the SMFWF are roughly half way in between these two areas and applying a linear relationship the conversion factor is around 3.5 feet in Parachute. However, for the purposes of this letter the Carbondale conversion factor (4.44 feet) was used so flood elevations would be conservative when converted to NAVD 88. S:\PROJECTS\1086EnCana\042SMFWF\F1oodHazLetter.doc Page 1 of 3 1 Sheets 1 through 8 of the USDA report show the Parachute Creek channel and the 100 & 500 year floodplain limits. While reviewing these figures and comparing them to current conditions (recent topographic graphic data and Google Earth imagery) it appears that the Parachute Creek channel has changed slightly since the 1985 report. However, this is a normal process (creating new oxbows and filling in old ones) and while the channel that holds normal flows may have changed it is unlikely the changes to the channel have impacted the limits of the 100 or 500 year floodplain. Sheet 7 of 14 shows the 100 and 500 year floodplain limits for the SMFWF site. The SMFWF site has obviously changed since this report (1985), as the USDA report figure shows ponds that are no longer present on the site. This change in site topography may impact the flood limits as shown on Sheet 7 of 14. Accordingly to determine approximate 100 year event floodplain limits with current topography the base flood elevations (BFEs) were used to determine the limits with current topography. A conversion factor of 4.44 feet (conversion for the Carbondale control point taken from NGS data, which is attached to this report) was used to change the reports NGVD 29 elevations to NAVD 88 elevations. The 100 year event floodplain from the 1985 USDA report was brought into the SMFWF drawings by importing a scan of Sheet 7 of 14 and scaling and aligning it with the drawing. Then the BFEs were converted to NAVD 88 and checked/adjusted so they lined up with the appropriate contour from the current topography. Once this was completed an overall picture of the proximity of the floodplain could be determined. The adjusted 100 year event floodplain from the USDA report (Sheet 7 of 14) shows that the limit of the 100 year floodplain is approximately 90 feet horizontally from the toe of slope at the closest point and within one vertical foot of the toe of slope (BFE of 5380, toe of 5381). The vertical relief to the top of the sediment pond berm is 3 feet (top of berm 5383) and is 5 vertical feet to the closest water storage pond (berm elevation of 5385). Based on this approximation the proposed SMFWF is outside of the 100 year event floodplain. No action is required in regards to flood protection or mitigation, as the proposed facility is outside of the influence of the 100 year event. S:\PROJECTS \"1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF \Hood HazLetter.doc Page 2 of 3 Attached to this letter is the following backup information: • A figure showing the SMFWF and 100 year floodplain with converted BFEs. • NGS Data Sheet showing the conversion from NGVD 29 to NAVD 88. • The following pages from the 1985 USDA SCS report on Parachute Creek: Cover Sheet; Sheet 7 of 14; Cross Section 276 figure (this was the only cross section figure available from the project area); and Flood Frequency -Elevation and Discharge Data Table (for cross sections adjacent to project area); Attachments mjk/ S:\ PROJECTS\ 1086 EnCana\ 042 SMFW F\ Flood HazLetter•doc Page 3 of 3 PC .h101.1.0.35 CC Is1011S Ti • .., .. •-. , , r -,-, i 4 p.. , 4 / ./ / - 1 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT STUDY PARACHUTE CREEK IN THE VICINITY OF PARACHUTE, CO. AND ROAN CREEK IN THE VICINITY OF DEBEQUE,CO. Prepared by the U.S. Deportment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Denver, Colorado in cooperation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board Towns of Parachute and DeBegue Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado August 1985 ( wLalw :;-': #§|■! 6(!#):;/ SHEET 7 OF 14 U r RIGHT DANK 0 0 0 M H cn 1334-N0LL A313 �i b err O —O 8 0 TYPICAL VALLEY CROSS-SECTION MANAGEMENT STUDY PARACHUTE CREEK AND ROAN CREEK FLOOD PLAIN 0 If1 M ■ M 1 r FLOOD FREQUENCY --ELEVATION AND DISCHARGE DATA 1/ Crest -Elevation Feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, and Peak Discharge c.f.s. roN v 'C0 >+ 0 3 0 O .-1 O Lu cn CO C o0 N �7 in CT ,.O CO 0 00 M -7 ul CSN ' 1 O` 0 .--10 M -7 cn CT .-1 00 0 -'o cn -7 V1 CT rl C0 0 Ln 0 M Y' to CT CO r-+ 0 '.o0 M 7 to CT N N 0 r-.0 cn -7 1r± CT M • N 0 Coo M -7 to O PooId argA-00I 5286.4 5300 5307.2 5300 -7 r- 0 „- 0 M M Vl In M Ln 0 � O cn M if) Li-) 0 1.r1 0 In o M M to in 5360.2 5300 5371.1 5300 5380.8 5300 34 RI 'O ai 0 >+ 0 3- O i=, C''1 tIl 0 000 N N to t N. C0 0 00 M N t+•1 -.1- N '.0 0 .-i 0 Col N to t -7 0 -7O M N vl d -7 -7 0 cr)0 M N v1 -• r, a. 0 Cn0 co N L Y •0 0 0 1\ 0 M N in 5380.3 4200 10 -Year Flood 5283.2 2200 5305.6 2200 �7 -7 O 4-1 0 M N un c-.1 5343.1 2200 5353.2 2200 5358.8 2200 5369.4 2200 N CT O r- 0 M N tflN Stream Bed Elevation Feet N.G.V.D. M N. 1\ N to to 0' CT N Ul '.0 CO 0 fn u-1 5339.1 5346.0 5353.3 t\ M ,0 M to 1 5374.6 Identification Diversion Dam Stationing 'from 14outh Feet 244 + 15 255 + 25 260 + 75 Ln + h N 280 + 65 294 + 75 313 + 35 330 + 55 G 3 0 0 0 W •-4 bf0 W l.) •r1 •r! 0 u J) u 3•• N al cd C_) co 0 (r G `4 c",-2 C r`- n.1 r -i r- CV Com! I-, ^! ^n ry N -t r-. N to 1- CN '0 r . .�^.1 lateral direction ro constant section may cn cn 0 U CII 4-o O ro 0 a) -1 G >, 0 .-1 •r•1 .-1 ro 1., 0 u : Gi u • a) cu • 3-3 cO O O O .0 • co C u a) ro > .0 C.' •.•1 U •-1 0 • C ro 0 v •,-1 • u u fa CCI 0. > Q a) rn 'L7 b0 O 0 0 •,-1 w 0 3-0 3-t U > TJ a) CU 3 O O 3-i 0 u pertain to the elevations • O CD •r1 C "1:1 r-1 a, -0 'C7 C O 0 C O O c' r '--c Gz t4- 0 Table page 7 1 1 DATA SHEETS The NGS Data Sheet See file E9 a€s :�.t of for more information about the datasheet. 0 Niovpv PROGRAM = datasheet95, VERSION = 7.89.4 1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = OCTOBER 2, 2012 Page 1 of 2 KL0531*********************************************************************** KL0531 DESIGNATION - D 156 KL0531 PID - KL0531 KL0531 STATE/COUNTY- CO/GARFIELD KL0531 COUNTRY - US KL0531 USGS QUAD - CARBONDALE (1987) KL0531 KL0531 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL KL0531 KL0531* NAD 83(1986) POSITION- 39 23 55. (N) 107 11 56. (W) SCALED KL0531* JAV 'r ORTHO HEIGHT - 1888.765 (meters) 6196.72 (feet) ADJUSTED KL0531 KL0531 GEOID HEIGHT - -14.90 (meters) GEOID12A KL0531 DYNAMIC HEIGHT - 1886.684 (meters) 6189.90 (feet) COMP KL0531 MODELED GRAVITY - 979,459.3 (mgal) NAVD 88 KL0531 KL0531 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS 0 KL0531 KL0531.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have KL0531.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. KL0531. KL0531.The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling and KL0531.adjusted by the NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY KL0531.in June 1991. KL0531 KL0531.The dynamic height is computed by dividing the NAVD 88 KL0531.geopotential number by the normal gravity value computed on the KL0531.Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS 80) ellipsoid at 45 KL0531.degrees latitude (g = 980.6199 gals.) KL0531 KL0531.The modeled gravity was interpolated from observed gravity values. KL0531 KL0531; North East Units Estimated Accuracy KL0531;SPC CO C - 479,930. 768,080. MT (+/- 180 meters Scaled) KL0531 KL0531 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL KL0531 KL0531 NGVD 29 (??/??/92) 1887.412 (m) 6192.28 (f) ADJ UNCH 2 0 KL0531 KL0531.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control. KL0531 KL0531.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums. KL0531. to determine how the superseded data were derived. KL0531 KL0531_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 13SCD106633(NAD 83) KL0531 KL0531_MARKER: DB = BENCH MARK DISK KL0531_SETTING: 7 = SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT KL0531_SP_SET: SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT KL0531 STAMPING: D 156 1934 http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_desig.prl 10/2/2012 DATASHEETS Page 2 of 2 KL0531_STABILITY: C = MAY HOLD, BUT OF TYPE COMMONLY SUBJECT TO KL0531+STABILITY: SURFACE MOTION KL0531 KL0531 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By KL0531 HISTORY - 1934 MONUMENTED CGS KL0531 HISTORY - 20030703 MARK NOT FOUND USPSQD KL0531 KL0531 STATION DESCRIPTION KL0531 KL0531'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1934 KL0531'1.0 MI SE FROM CARBONDALE. KL0531'1 MILE SOUTHEAST ALONG THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD FROM KL0531'THE STATION AT CARBONDALE, GARFIELD COUNTY, 435 FEET EAST OF THE EAST KL0531'CARBONDALE YARD LIMIT SIGN, 240 FEET EAST OF A ROCK CULVERT FOR A KL0531'SMALL IRRIGATION DITCH, 125 FEET NORTHWEST OF POLE 3112, 50 FEET SOUTH KL0531'OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, 30 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTERLINE KL0531'OF THE TRACK, AND 5 FEET HIGHER THAN THE HIGHWAY. A STANDARD DISK, KL0531'STAMPED D 156 1934 AND SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST. KL0531 KL0531 STATION RECOVERY (2003) KL0531 KL0531'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2003 (AFA) KL0531'MARK NOT FOUND. *** retrieval complete. Elapsed Time = 00:00:04 http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds__desig.prl 10/2/2012 Final Drainage Report South Middle Fork Water Facility December 12, 2012 Prepared for: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Prepared by: RIVERCITY 744 Horizon Court, Suite 110 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 241-4722 Fax: (970) 241-8841 Job No. 1086-042 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................ I I. Introduction 1 A. Background 1 B. Project Location 1 C. Project Description 1 D. Previous Investigations 2 II. Drainage System Description 2 A. Existing Drainage Conditions 2 B. Offsite Tributary Area 3 C. Proposed Drainage System Description 3 D. Drainage Facility Maintenance 4 III. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 4 A. Regulations 4 B. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria 4 C. Calculation Methodology 4 D. Input and Results 5 IV. CONCLUSIONS 5 FIGURES General Location Map 1 Site Grading Plan 2 APPENDIX Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations (model output) A NRCS Web Soil Survey ... B S:\PROJECTS \]086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design \ Drainage \SMFWF Drainage Report.doc FDR -I I. Introduction A. Background The purpose of this Drainage Report is to identify pre and post development drainage conditions for the South Middle Fork Water Facility. This report identifies the following items with respect to the site: existing drainage, potential drainage issues resulting from this project, solutions to the potential drainage issues, and post construction BMPs. River City Consultants, Inc. prepared this Final Drainage Report for Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. of Parachute Colorado. B. Project Location The project is approximately 3.5 miles north of Parachute Colorado adjacent to County Road 215. The project is west of County Road 215 and east of Parachute Creek. Wheeler Gulch and a private road that goes up Wheeler Gulch are located across County Road 215 from the site . In more legal terms, it is located in the eastern half of Section 33 and the western half of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 96 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado. Primary access to the site is from County Road 215. The proposed project will be on land owned by Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. (Parcel # 217133100020). C. Project Description The primary purpose of the proposed project is to create a multi-level pad for a water treatment facility, associated roads, ponds, and tanks with secondary containment. The project will consist of general site grading, gravel surfaced roads, stormwater conveyance facilities (ponds & ditches), and installation of buildings, equipment, piping, tanks, and other appurtenances associated with the facility. This project will require significant earthwork to complete. There will be approximately 186,825 cubic yards of cut and 167,177 cubic yards of fill as part of this project. There will also be improvements made to County Road 215 as part of this project to improve site access and egress. Proposed finished surfaces will be concrete, roof, asphalt, gravel, compacted soil, or top -soiled and revegetated. Most of the proposed finished surface will be gravel and compacted soil. No lots are being proposed as part of this project. S:\ PROJECTS\ 1086 EnCana\042 SMFW F\ Design\ Drainage\ SMFW F Drainage Report.doc FDR -1 The area has been previously developed and reclaimed. The Garfield County website shows "Unocal Storage Pond #3" and a 1985 USDA SCS Floodplain Study for the area also shows a pond on or adjacent to the site. Neither of these features are currently present on-site. Given the current vegetative cover conditions these features were removed and the site was reclaimed. The current cover conditions at the project site currently primarily consist of small brush (mostly sage) and various grasses. The existing grades on the project site vary from relatively flat to —10%. According to the NRCS web site, the native upper layers of soil present at the project site consist of Arvada loam and Halaquepts. These soil types have hydrologic soil classifications of D. It is possible and likely due to previous disturbances at the site and the possible removal of the upper layers of soil that the current on-site soils are entirely different than those listed by NRCS. D. Previous Investigations No known previously completed drainage reports effect the projected area. Accordingly none were reviewed as part of this project. A Floodplain Study was found for Parachute Creek. This study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The report is titled "Floodplain Management Study Parachute Creek in the Vicinity of Parachute, CO and Roan Creek in the vicinity of DeBeque, CO" and dated August 1985. River City Consultants, Inc. has prepared a separate Flood Hazard Letter for this project analyzing potential flood impacts on the project. In summary, the analysis of the floodplain presented in the USDA SCS report found no significant impacts to the SMFWF site. II. Drainage System Description A. Existing Drainage Conditions The site drains to Parachute Creek, which in turn ultimately drains to the Colorado River. Existing cover conditions with the major basin upstream of the site are primarily undeveloped. The development within the basin consists of sporadically spaced industrial facilities within the valley for approximately 7.5 miles upstream of the site, dirt/ gravel roads, pipeline right-of-way, and well pads. The predominant drainage pattern is characterized by overland flow sloping to the southwest. Grades range from relatively flat on top of the mesas and within the floor of the valleys to vertical and near vertical on some of the canyon walls. Natural channels and other natural features collect and concentrate surface runoff. Occasionally roads cross the slope also S:\PROJECTS\1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design\Drainage\SMFWF Drainage Report.doc FDR -2 concentrating and diverting runoff. Flow from the site and areas up -basin from the site drain to Parachute Creek and ultimately to the Colorado River. The Site currently contains no improvements and has been reclaimed. Vegetation on-site is considered to be in "good condition" for the purposes of SCS curve number determination. B. Offsite Tributary Area The site receives a small amount of off-site flow from culverts along County Road 215. Flows from off-site areas will be diverted/routed around the site. C. Proposed Drainage System Description The proposed final drainage system will consist of earthen ditches, berms, sediment ponds, and other stormwater BMPs. A small percentage of the final cover will be impervious (i.e., concrete, roof, etc.). The water quality from the site under proposed final conditions will be controlled by: revegetation, check dams in the ditches, sediment basins, level spreaders, surface stabilization/hardening (e.g., gravel surfaces and rip -rap), and a vegetative buffer consisting of existing vegetation that will not be disturbed during construction. The sediment ponds were not designed to provide detention or retention. However, just by their nature the ponds will slow runoff and retarding the peak flow from the site. The South Middle Fork Water Facility Pond was modeled as if it was full at the start of the storm to simulate worse case. If the pond were empty at the start of a significant event the majority of runoff would be detained. Due to the site's proximity to the receiving water and the site's relatively "down basin" location direct discharge is recommended in lieu of detention. Direct discharge is recommended because under proposed conditions direct discharge will have less of an impact on the receiving water's peak flow due to the short time of concentration from the site. Under direct discharge conditions the peak flow from the site will be subsided will before the peak for Parachute Creek occurs. If the stormwater was detained and released while the peak release rate would be less, the time of release would be quite long and would overlap with the peak of Parachute Creek, thus increasing the peak flow for the overall basin. Increasing the flow for the overall basin is undesirable and thus direct discharge is recommended. S:\ PROJECTS\7 086 EnCana\042 SMFW F\ Design\ Drainage\SMFWF Drainage Report.doc FDR -3 D. Drainage Facility Maintenance The proposed drainage system will not be maintenance free. Maintenance will be performed by Encana. Sediment ponds will be cleaned when sediment is 12 inches deep or within 6 inches of the outlet, whichever is less. Ditch check dams will be cleaned when sediment build up is one half the height of the dam or 12 inches, whichever is less. Vegetated buffer areas will be protected by signs and/or fencing to keep people and traffic off these areas. It is advisable to inspect drainage facilities following any major storms or at a frequency no less than once a month and that inspections be documented by the person conduction the inspection. Any issues or deficiencies noted during the inspection should be corrected immediately. III. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The policy, design criteria, design constraints, methods of analysis, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report are in conformance with standard engineering practice and Article VII Standards Section 7-207 Stormwater Runoff of Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended 7-19. B. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria No drainage constraints were noted for this project. The hydrologic design criteria presented in this report are in conformance with standard engineering practice. Other manuals and publications were also reviewed to determine conformity with accepted design practices and applicability to the project. These include the National Engineering Handbook, the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, and the Certified Professional in Storm Water Quality (CPSWQ) Study Guide. C. Calculation Methodology Hydrology and hydraulic calculations were performed using Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2013 (formerly BOSS International's StormNET). Some hydraulic calculations were spot checked by hand or using simple flow calculation programs. The following model engines/methods/equations were used: USEPA SWWM (hydrology), SCS Curve Number (infiltration method), hydrodynamic (hydraulic routing/link), and Hazen -Williams (hydraulic link). S:\PROJEC S\1086 En ana\042 SMFWF\Design \ Drainage \SMFWF Drainage Reportdoc FDR -4 D. Input and Results The model input and results are as follows: • A SCS Curve Number was derived based on soil and cover conditions within each basin (see attached model printout for specifics) • The model consists of 5 basins, 7 links (ditches and culverts), 1 storage node (sediment pond), and 1 weir (a level spreader). • The 100 year 24 hour storm was used to size all drainage features (SCS Type II with a total rainfall value of 2.6 inches from NOAA Atlas 2 Volume III - Colorado). • The basins produced between 1.96 and 1.01 inches of runoff. • Basin sizes ranged from 25.3 acres to 1.57 acres. • The average runoff rate was 1.59 cfs per acre. This runoff rate is within the realm of expected values for this area under these conditions. • Model continuity for runoff (hydrology) was 0.000% and 0.010% for routing (hydraulic). These values are fully within the acceptable range. IV. CONCLUSIONS The policy, design criteria, design constraints, methods of analysis, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report are in conformance with standard engineering practice and Article VII Standards Section 7-207 Stormwater Runoff of Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended 7-19. The proposed design, which is based on the model, is shown on the construction plans. The design includes trapezoidal ditches, one new culvert, a sediment basin, and a level spreader. The proposed design will effectively manage stormwater and provide stormwater BMPs for this site. The proposed BMPs are simple, easy to inspect, easy to maintain, and proven to work effectively. S:\PROJECT'S \1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design\Drainage \SMFWF Drainage Report.doc FDR -5 FIGURES Project Site Location _l ,f If-) t,,t i,y i p Y 7 ri` - 4_ r ~ n • / ,,a'9a -,, o S /'' 4. Ao l' t1. if i —moi f'-. r- __.-- C s : ti 6,1 49 > a n 0 i \ 1�-- ',,,,,,---,c._ e: .— ll a=� ti z- y� - County Road 215 °� .\-'44'.144.��''94 c. ,p-''''''. c.r= :, ate. SYE-..� _,p- M J N 1 "7 /y' �1j B �y. A' �'�2.===-49 r9+4a) I y! 4-arasc 416 1 ro., l I�w II Iii' It r r 1/ R � I ,p If +1 ,,=, C 2 II `— - '�C9i1 _ �_ 14‘ ' Y - 4'4a9 Wheeler Gulch Road f.' Lr 0 cr South Middle Fork Water Facility - GENERAL LOCATION MAP DATE ISSUED: 12/12/12 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 RIVER CITY C O N S U L T AN TS APPENDIX A Calculations i 1 �4 Stormwater Modeling Results N Q.) c ra cc Distribution SCS Type II 24 -hr Rainfall 111 IVI ICJJ 2.6 C 30 CC a N •. al O O C Z o V a ,a l7 v Y CO Y H o -D (9 O O U C N Ce C N CU 0 c Rainfall Tvoe Cumulative Y co Q Source 0 Data Source Time Series Element 0 Z V) S:\PROJECTS\1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design \ Drainage \SMFWF Model Resul 11:31 AM 10/3/2012 River City Consultants, Inc. Stormwater Modeling Results C 0 N Total Total Total Peak Runoff Time Evaporation Infiltration Runoff) Runoff per Acre of a 9 8 L 0 L O A V) � r;i o 0 8 o 8 0 0 8 0 no 0 2 0 8 0 4J°r.� L b N b O ^ r .8 T N ., O O y y C O!8 N 8 N O w 8 N N L8 C O O O 8 d O 1,1 ,.-i O 8 ti 0 8 O II SS O 2 O . 8 O 8 O 85 O f C 5 C y 8 G 0L 08 o 8 O Total o` a Et li d8 -5 `. N 8 N 8 8 N 8 Iy4'"I & 6 C 2 �S• 2 8 O 8 gl O 8 O 8 O 8 O O . 6 4 O. L t O C p O O Q N O 8 N O 8 O 8 O "S Ei q N Q S c= N 0 i O O 0 O M 0 O 8 o O 8 0 N o t O is 6 E q C L O Q d d c 6 N G s pppp 0 G 0 Q O 8 O 8 N C 8 O G §U578 u E i 0 a e 8 8 o� 8 E x8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ro 4 Q x ro Av n Q a. 8nV N 3uv rt Q p p X 8 8 S ro p8 �O E Lap 3 g g U N 8 z 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 b ig O o. i0 S ' L J ; = tN G d lun-site 2 - norm or site south of CR215 Off-site 3 - north of site & south of CR215 D ji E I' o 0 0 z .+ ro m v M 9 CTS \1086 En:ana\042 5 1 River City Consultants, Inc. : LL/ a = LL / tOA > 2 \ 2 / k ] E § 3 V \ )/k ! 26666660 f c. }6 \§§§§§2§ ®1g§I8 /�,§!®\ƒƒa2f l;io 88 a8 5 8 !§§ !§ . -H—G"1: Occurrence !.lave 1.1........\ [Mggmmmm 0000/// , k $ ®00000fa t o o A9!!—"aog,0mm 1.'I§ c,£a88 k,k§!GG 888 @,, £l` 8I4 [7]§§!§§ E k�< to'! $!£8888888 ® 5`7¥§2§§§§§ !�£P £ |d;7£|];|q§« ! ! !_ z.v 222§!§ .8 7, �#« — awm;qm �°°--__ �} -\§\!'§ e; /! )� 18888888 l;oq I =q ° 8 $! i!§!§§§! /� A R8E88888 §;m!/@■ }) Ra 888888 §§t)))§ = k§2|72|| 3) £am@q;ra )kkkk§k Fa"! #i! £88 , 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.25 2.00 Ground/Rim (Mal) £ 5425.00 5423.50 5410.00 5416.00 5408.00 5395.00 5390.00 2; 2/ zw222§§| )2!§757 - k „ a 2l a; al 9 1 O 0 u W 0 0 0 r E E z 0 0 d 0 6 0 L L 0 3 O F O N F E 0 A 0 0 74 0 0 O EC G O O ry 0 crg 54 54 C `1 0 E E s 0 a 't 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 tl C O O d E 0 0 2 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 G x Q0 N x O O 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 z River City Consultants, Inc. `!_!!i !a §§// ! / f? !§5! ® !!I 'noon 3 mg/ °-, �k 9888; go oo § 0780 l0,0 P 1=2 ono§ ! I !!! ; ! ,. 4\))j f *5 §!n .2cE 0*- § m �;//2ƒ 2z f2l2] m 2. «0000 § )� §§2\ 2 71 0222 § 'I''� 0000 §§ i , 222. ,,.. 2 2 § mel g| 2222 § \f 000\ t`| �m 2222 § !!/qm! P pA.m q 0 11 ®(\§( § 0. kill ( I- ...- 7 _ 28888 @ 0 g §§!! § - _ £ @ �gt f!#mw §)/ } 7 �)\\) k 5 southeast ditch northwest ditch d(s diversion ditch diversion ditch from CR215 culvert \ 19 8282 200 0 SAPROHOS\1036 lMamWI 1 River City Consultants, Inc. u Y j co O N LL ec 0) 00 p _C L O 2 O ` O N .4 c0n3 C C E )0 U W V) Storage Nodes O OC -a- 3 0 Y 41. O Y9 8 f 9 E 5 O E f E E f x O E Lq O x 0 P 0 a> E E 0 x 0 5 E E 0 x 0 5 J a O 0 g 0 0 To r1 8 b 5 E rc r 8 i E 5 8 4 5 r b 0 C E n 5 a 1 River City Consultants, Inc. 0 R3 LL L a) R▪ 3 s- 0 4J -o2 0 t/1 (t3 c U c W Stormwater Modeling Results Discharge Peak' LL o — up m N Coefficient) LEE Weir Total Height] 1 —. 0.50 Length 0 0 a) L.) Y 0 O $ u. Crest Elevation 5382.50 0. 1° U. a) v ' 0 z a, a a 1- TRAPEZOIDAL v 0 0 0 Node] Invert Elevation $ 5380.25I From (Inlet) Node Invert 0 y_' ra v W 4V 11 LevelSpreaderl Stor-061 Out -141 5380.00 To (Outlet) Node 7-+ a) C E O L LL Node C CI) E a) Lu z vs N 0-i 0 0 2 1-1M ti S:\PROJECTS\1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design \ Drainage \SMFWF Model Res 1 W (B fit! 0 LL TQ� 0 - G 0 03 U c W Stormwater Modeling Results V) 03 4— 0 Maximum HGL Elevation Attained g 5401.98 5404.49 5380.25 Maximum HGL Depth Attained al O C- O 0 O Y cu a Lateral Inflow (cfs) 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 O Y f6 41 0' Inflow (cfs) d- Lo CO i -i 4-i ' in m N Invert Elevation 7.7 4- 5401.00 5404.00 5380.25 c 0 'F+ aO S.. VV1 cu Q c cu U O 0 New 18" 1 Culvert Sediment Pond Element) Q N a O Out -13 cr +, 0 Z V) T—+ ry m m m ti ti S:\PROJECTS\1086 EnCana\042 SMFWF\Design\Drainage\SMFWF Model Results.xlsx IIMI APPENDIX B NRCS Web Soil Survey ..Z4 .9 .901. .S4 .9 .901 co N a M 0094L£4 0094L£1, 0044L£17 00£4L£b 00Z4L£4 00LbL£4 000VL£1, 006ELE4 008ELE4 OOL t`iG� S CO 8 ro 0094LE4 0094L£4 004bL£b 00£bL£b 00ZPLC b 00LPL£4 0004L£b 006£L£b 008EL£b 00L£LEb 8 r8 8 _co ..£4 .9 .80L 8 Z >, - co v io 2 n N 7 �. - 8c0 —� co> n g o C4 Na .0 0 o W io C 8 4 o= as fO z — 8 8 m 8 8 —8 0 CO 0 Map Scale 1:7,240 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet Z O 8 N 0 0 .14 .9 0801 0 o 0 0 y8 0 0 O d «� � m 7 N f0(9 O z0 mai h N C 7 0 0 co1)) 0 0 _N 'U E a) ( u- 0 09 C O Ca) E a o y m `off O . U O a 7 LL da) Q 7,- 6, F coo C9 0 U O O o MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Map Scale: 1:7,240 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. O O 0) (a Co 0 C E o 2 a) a O L F o> C 0 3° y U c) "p O C p` U a7 oc. 0 N O C ( CO w C E C 7 O O _ U a) ..-- i5O y U C9 N O co E U N a O V) O co a)N a) E T (7 i.) N co co C r w L m a) 0D O 7 CO0 7 Z Q d co 0 N V O d E U oZ ro N 0. y CO c L 0 y c U1 N C N N U V a D p ki OtO0 Q'O a) 2 .. .. o NaEU) moa atEono aaN Eo o c a) fo E _ .0 16 N To .0 .k .0 a N> ET2 < 7) N O N M D y 0 N dL7 >3N y... N Jay Z N —i6E C ay rOLO � C NCONO0 «- cc.) •>• dyo) N coce usvN u)aN to N O > 7 O C O () 'O < La C >.E� u) ac 0 O. o() CD 0 0 0)a > L'''0.a) 6 (1) d i a> o as om m .a o y?=: d E o E a E u)3o 1-w u)0cn o 1- U f O 0 Q 4 d y c D Q c O a q do 0 0 0 E< U m¢ a m m 0 0 0 c "6! C❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑ g N 4 (n Not rated or not available Political Features O❑ ❑ Water Features Streams and Canals c o Interstate Highways Local Roads Hydrologic Soil Group–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties South Middle Fork Water Treatment Facility Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (CO683) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes D 78.8 42.1% 4 Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes D 8.9 4.7% 27 Halaquepts, nearly level D 23.6 12.6% 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes B 14.5 7.8% 50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes B 16.2 8.7% 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level D 24.4 13.0% 66 Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep D 7.0 3.7% 71 Villa Grove-Zottay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes B 1.6 0.9% 72 Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes B 12.3 6.5% Totals for Area of Interest 187.3 100.0% isim Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/15/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa South Middle Fork Water Treatment Facility Counties Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or day layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey ANN Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/15/2012 Page 4 of 4 217 ,9 0901 N N C 0 O U co ur m 2 C f0 = U l0 � C7 c O N r � CO N a1— v °1 al co 03 0 00 lo' dd v o 1� 0 co co0 u Lo ..94 ,9 0901 N O) § § ) k= d_ 37 of 0/ 0 v co \) kk .& § o $ k L MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND Map Scale: 1:7,240 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Waming: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. fcc0 03 //{2 c co as 7 j CO BCOa co Eo. E ,ao » 22E .s as— • !!M f 0.c > -0 CO £)'0/ &§ [> EE2 / y±-0 • ft§ §E§a W• E S 3 # 3«# 015. k $J f g 2 2 0 • $ 1 / / 1- Local Roads \ tg k15 $ 0 §n< &qq{ RA @§ k« CO 4t \ j .1,001:1000000000110 3 k Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 0) S_) k26 k0{ \ j/( CO ff/ 20 gyco m¥ §#« Ee0$ 0. E #E 2©» keƒE &._2 tt0$ k/ak t§f- oC 3 '=L0. 0 g sE2E &8{» Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Not rated or not available Political Features Water Features Streams and Canals K Factor, Whole Soil–Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties South Middle Fork Water Treatment Facility K Factor, Whole Soil K Factor, Whole Soil— Summary by Map Unit — Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AO1 Percent of AOI 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes .37 78.8 42.1% 4 Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes .37 8.9 4.7% 27 Halaquepts, nearly level .24 23.6 12.6% 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes .20 14.5 7.8% 50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes .28 16.2 8.7% 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level .37 24.4 13.0% 66 Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep 7.0 3.7% 71 Villa Grove-Zoltay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes .24 1.6 0.9% 72 Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes .20 12.3 6.5% Totals for Area of Interest 187.3 100.0% Description Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. "Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Layer Options: Surface Layer > - \ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/15/2012 Page 3 of 3 Project Location Section Line (TYP.) Wheeler Gulch Road County Road 215 1 0% of Largest Tank Volume for Tank Secondary Containment Parahute Creek „/— 2FT Freeboard in Ponds for Secondary Containment Parcel Line (TYP.) THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A 88.7 ACRE PARCEL, # 217133100020, WHICH IS OWNED BY ENCANA OIL AND GAS (USA). IN MORE LEGAL TERMS, IT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AND THE SOUTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 96 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. SOUTH MIDDLE FORK WATER FACILITY DRAFT SPCC PLAN SECONDARY CONTAINMENT OVERVIEW DATE ISSUED: 11/28/2012 NOT TO SCALE MFWF\f —syn\Iil86 FIGURE 1 RIVER CITY CONSULT ANTS Yeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists October 9, 2012 Project No. 212-019 Mr. Chris Putnam Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215, Suite 100 Parachute, Colorado 81635 Subject: Addendum Letter, Site Suitability, South Middle Fork Water Facility, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Putnam, Yeh and Associates had previously conducted a Geotechnical Investigation at the proposed South Middle Fork Water Facility in Garfield County, Colorado. Our report, under our project number 212-019, dated March 23, 2012 and revised April 30, 2012, was reviewed prior to the issuance of this letter. The major geotechnical considerations for this site are as follows. Based on results from laboratory testing, both collapsible and expansive soils are present at this site. We believe there is a low risk of settlement due to collapsible soils and a low risk of heave related damage due to expansive soils. Therefore, overall, we believe there is a low risk of foundation movement. If the amount of anticipated movement is unacceptable, alternatives presented in our previous report may be considered for design and construction of the Sludge and Fresh Water Tanks as well as the DAF Treatment Building. Based on existing groundwater elevations and proposed pond bottom elevations, groundwater could impact the proposed ponds. Proposed bottom of pond levels are planned 3 to 7 feet below measured groundwater elevations. Due to measured groundwater levels, pond liners will be susceptible to floating/uplift when the ponds are empty. Dewatering and/or subgrade stabilization will be required for the construction of the ponds in order to provide a stable platform. We believe that there are no geotechnical constraints that would preclude construction at this site. If our geotechnical recommendations are considered in the design and construction, we believe the site is suitable for the proposed facility. If you have questions or need additional information, please call us at 970-384-1500. Sincerely, YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Reviewed By: Keith E. Asay Staff Engineer Richard D. Johnson, P.E. Project Manager 5700 East Lvans Avenue, Denver, CO 80222, (303) 781-9590, Fax (303) 781-9583 1525 Blake Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 384-1500, Fax (970) 384-1501 570 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303, (970) 382-9590, Fax (970) 382-9583 Glenn Hartmann From: Putnam, Christopher A. [Christopher.Putnam@encana.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 2:56 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Busch, Renata; 'Mike Markus' Subject: RE: South Middle Fork Glenn, Encana respectfully requests a continuation of our Public Hearing regarding the South Middle Fork Water Facility Limited Impact Review scheduled for Monday, September 10, 2012. Encana understands that all timelines associated with this date are; thereby, null and void. A representative of Encana will be present at the hearing to testify that appropriate public notice was posted. We would request a continuation on October 8th if possible. Thank you. Chris Putnam Contract Permitting Technician SRBU Regulatory Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Suite 100 Parachute, CO 81635 Direct: 970.285.2757 Fax: 970.285.2763 Cell: 970.208.3409 Christopher. putnam[aencana.com Please note Encana offices are closed the first and third Friday of each month. Permit BOND Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (License or Permit - Continuous) One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183 Bond No. 105818381 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT WE, Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., as Principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut and authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Garfield County, Board of County Commissioners, as Obligee, in the penal sum of Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty and no/100 ($7,250.00) Dollars, for the payment of which we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has obtained or is about to obtain a license or permit for Revegatation Permit covering 2.9 acres for the South Middle Fork Water Facility located in the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 33 and the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 96 West of the 6th PM; Garfield County, CO NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH, that if the Principal shall faithfully perform all duties and protect said Obligee from any damage caused by the Principal's non-compliance with or breach of any laws, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations, pertaining to the license or permit issued, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. This bond shall become effective on the 24th, day of October, 2012. PROVIDED, that regardless of the number of years this bond is in force, the Surety shall not be liable hereunder for a larger amount, in the aggregate, than the penal sum listed above. PROVIDED FURTHER, that the Surety may terminate its liability hereunder as to future acts of the Principal at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such termination to the Obligee. SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED this 24th, day of October, 2012. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Bv: cn,es R. ,Principal A- nor n r- t - in - Fc-ct Travelers Casualty and S ty Company of Bv• S -2151A (02-00) andace D. Bosheers, Attorney -in -Fac TRAVELERS J WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER POWER OF ATTORNEY Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Attorney -In Fact No. 219916 St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Certificate No. 00439 432 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, that Farmington Casualty Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland, that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa, and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (herein collectively called the "Companies"), and that the Companies do hereby make, constitute and appoint Teresa D. Kelly, Dan W. Burton, Benjamin D. Wilcox, and Candace D. Bosheers of the City of Houston , State of Texas , their true and lawful Attorney(s)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to sign, execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, recognizances, conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons, guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in arty actions or proceedings allowed by law. 1st LN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Companies have caused this instrument to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed, this of July 2011 State of Connecticut City of Hartford ss. Farmington Casualty Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company 'w,RTFORD, cosu. J e By: Thompson, ice President On this the 1St day of July 2011 before me personally appeared George W. Thompson, who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and that he, as such, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission expires the 30th day of June, 2016. 58440-6-11 Printed in U.S.A. Marie C. Tetreault, Notary Public WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER This Power of Attorney is granted under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Boards of Directors of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, which resolutions are now in full force and effect, reading as follows: RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Second Vis/ President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary may appoint Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents to act for and on behd. of the Company and may give such appointee such authority as his or her certificate of authority may prescribe to sign with the Company's name and seal with the Company's seal bonds, recognizances, contracts of indemnity, and other writings obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking, and any of said officers or the Board of Directors at any time may remove any such appointee and revoke the power given him or her; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President may delegate all or any part of the foregoing authority to one or more officers or employees of this Company, provided that each such delegation is in writing and a copy thereof is filed in the office of the Secretary; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that any bond, recognizance, contract of indemnity, or writing obligatory in the nature of a bond, recognizance, or conditional undertaking shall be valid and binding upon the Company when (a) signed by the President, any Vice Chairman, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President or any Vice President, any Second Vice President, the Treasurer, any Assistant Treasurer, the Corporate Secretary or any Assistant Secretary and duly attested and sealed with the Company's seal by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (b) duly executed (under seal, if required) by one or more Attorneys -in -Fact and Agents pursuant to the power prescribed in his or her certificate or their certificates of authority or by one or more Company officers pursuant to a written delegation of authority; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the signature of each of the following officers: President, any Executive Vice President, any Senior Vice President, any Vice President, any Assistant Vice President, any Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any Power of Attorney or to any certificate relating thereto appointing Resident Vice Presidents, Resident Assistant Secretaries or Attorneys -in -Fact for purposes only of executing and attesting bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof, and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or facsimile seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed and certified by such facsimile signature and facsimile seal shall be valid and binding on the Company in the future with respect to any bond or understanding to which it is attached. I, Kevin E. Hughes, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary, of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Power of Attorney executed by said Companies, which iS in full force and effect and has not been revoked. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seas of said Companies this day of , ?0 /.• Kevin E. Hughes, Assistant Sec tary HARTFORD, o, r To verify the authenticity of this Power of Attorney, call 1-800-421-3880 or contact us at www.travelersbond.com. Please refer to the Attomey-In-Fact number, the above-named individuals and the details of the bond to which the power is attached. WARNING: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER