Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.01 Land, Impact, StandardsLand Suitability Analysis Grand River Gathering LLC High Mesa Compressor Station OA Project No. 012-0732 826 21 ½ Road | Grand Junction, CO 81505 | TEL 970.263.7800 | FAX 970.263.7456 1 Grand River Gathering, LLC. High Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) Land Suitability Analysis Narrative Article IV, 4-502 D.1. Public Access Access to the subject property is from Garfield County Road (CR) 304 (Richardson Road). No new accesses or auxiliary lanes onto a County or State roadway will be required as indicated in the Traffic Study. There are no historic access points to public lands within the property boundaries. A drawing, ALTA/ACMS Land Title Survey, related to access for the proposed facility and information related to legal access for the proposed facility are provided in an attachment accompanying the application submittal (see site plan section of submittal.) Article IV, 4-502 D.2. Access to Adjoining Roadways Access to the subject property is from a private road accessed from County Road 304 (Richardson Road). The ALTA/ACMS Land Title Survey included in the site plan section of this submittal illustrates access to the HMCS from County Road 304. County Road 304 intersects with the private road that accesses the High Compressor Station (HMCS) Site. The HMCS will not adversely impact adjoining roadways due to the anticipated low operational traffic volumes. Because the site will be accessed via a private roadway, there will be no site distance or intersection constraints associated with use of the facility. See Traffic Analysis (included as part of this submittal) for further information. Article IV, 4-502 D.3. Easements There do not appear to be any easements located within the project area for the HMCS as illustrated on the Site Plan. and Additionally, the deed, included as part of the submittal does not indicate that there are any easements within the confines of the project area. The ALTA/ACMS Land Title Survey, located within the site plan section of the submittal, illustrates access easements from CR 304 to the HMCS site. The HMCS will not impact existing easements located on the subject property There is a pipeline right of way located to the south of the site, this right of way will not be adversely impacted by the HMCS. Article IV, 4-502 D.4. Topography and Slope The HMCS has little relief with elevations ranging from 5,925 feet to 5,975 feet. There are minimal topography issues in the surrounding area. As detailed in the Geologic and Soil Hazards Report accompanying this submittal, there are minimal slope/topography issues in the area. The facility has been designed and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been utilized to manage storm water runoff and prevent potential impacts created by the surrounding topography. Although the soils report refers to slopes as great as 50%, these 2 reports are based on very general data and are not site specific. The aforementioned actual site elevations are far more accurate than the generalized soil descriptions provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. See the Site Plan for further information concerning the site’s topography and slope. Article IV, 4-502 D.5. Natural Features Natural features including soils, vegetation, and terrain are detailed in various reports included in the supplemental section of this submittal. The project site was graded and vegetation was removed prior to WestWater Engineering (WWE) performing their analysis as detailed in the March 2012 Impact Analysis (located in the supplemental section of the submittal). Figure 1 HMCS Project Site There are several areas of bare ground on the site as well, and the access road and adjoining land uses have gravel cover (Figure 1.) Terrain is mostly flat with very little relief. As noted previously, there is approximately 50 feet of relief across the entire evaluated area. The submitted site plan illustrates an elevation range from 5,925 feet to 5,975 feet. . 3 WWE biologists determined that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) are located on the site. Based on a review of the USGS Quadrangle Map there are two intermittent streams located offsite named Pete and Bill Creek and Dry Creek. Pete and Bill Creek is located off site and to the west and south of the project site. Dry Creek is located north and east of the project site. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) have been utilized to prevent potential impacts from run- off activity that could impact surface water resources. Article IV, 4-502 D.6. Drainage Features According to the USGS Quadrangle, existing offsite drainage features include intermittent streams. WWE also studied the drainage features of the project site and concluded “that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) were located on the site.” Due to the limited footprint of the facility, no natural drainage features are being impacted by the operation of the facility. Disturbance associated with the facility’s operations have been addressed by the area-wide Stormwater Management Plan (included in the Supplemental section of this submittal). No new construction is anticipated in the foreseeable future; therefore no impact to the existing drainage features is anticipated. Article IV, 4-502 D.7. Water The proposed facility will not use domestic water. Therefore, no demand will be placed on local water resources. The project will produce water in the process of gas compression. Dehydrator units will evaporate some water as water vapor. Excess water will be removed by truck as needed, in accordance with federal and state regulations. Article IV, 4-502 D.8. Floodplain According to Garfield County GIS data, the project site is not located within a floodplain. A floodplain map, Figure F-1, is included with this submittal that illustrates a floodplain to the north and west with the closest portion being located almost 1 mile away from the project area. Article IV, 4-502 D.9. Soils According to the information prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS), the soils in the area of the proposed compressor station expansion include Ildefonso stony loam, (34), Potts loam, (56), and the Potts-Ildefonso complex, (58). Ildefonso stony loam (34), soils are developed on 25 percent to 45 percent slopes. Consist of well drained soils in land setting of alluvial fans, and valley sides. Elevations range from 5,000 to 6,500 feet above mean sea level. The parent material of this soil is mixed alluvium derived from basalt. 4 The Potts loam, (56) is developed on 6 percent to 12 percent slopes, at elevations of 5,000 to 7,000 feet. Found in landform setting of valley sides, benches, and mesas. The parent material of this soil is alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The Potts-Ildefonso complex, (58) soils are developed on 12 to 25 percent slopes, and consist of well drained soils on mountainsides and ridges at elevations of 5,000 to 6,500 feet. These soils are found in landform setting of valley sides, alluvial fans, and mesas. The parent material of this soil is alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. A copy of a Custom Soil Resource Report and the Geologic and Soils Hazard Report is included under the supplemental materials tab. Article IV, 4-502 D.10. Hazards According the Garfield County GIS date, there are no geologic hazards mapped in this area and no faults or other hazards are evident on the USGS Geologic Map of Colorado. No other hazards have been observed by GRG. Article IV, 4-502 D.11. Natural Habitat In March of 2012, WestWater Engineering (WWE) conducted an assessment of the flora, fauna and associated habitats within and surrounding the project area. Details of the WWE assessment are provided below: Flora Approximately 1.84 acres of native vegetation has been affected for the development of the overall site. It appears that the current noxious weed management strategy has been effective although non-native invasive species have become well established and affect revegetation and reclamation efforts. Vegetation or flora types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on-the-ground assessments of plant abundance. Unaltered native vegetation near the site consists of pinyon-juniper woodlands, mountain shrub, and sagebrush communities consistent with similar communities found throughout the region. A review of the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et. al. 1997) indicated that no threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species would be expected near the site. The following types of fauna were noted in WWE’s assessment: Astragalus spp., Bitterbrush, Gambel oak, Indian ricegrass, Mountain mahogany, Needlegrass spp., Penstemon spp., Bluegrass spp, Sagebrush, Serviceberry, Smooth brome, Snowberry, Wheatgrass intermediate, Wild rose, Yarrow and Yellow rabbitbrush. Fauna The findings of this study included: 5 • No threatened, endangered, or candidate species of wildlife or suitable habitat for these species exists within the survey area or would be affected by this project. • At a minimum, eleven raptor species have potential to inhabit the area surrounding the site including American Kestrel, Cooper’s Hawk, Great Horned Owl, Golden Eagle, Flammulated Owl, Long-eared Owl, Northern Goshawk, Northern Harrier, Northern Saw- whet Owl, Red-tailed Hawk and the Sharp-shinned Hawk. However, no raptor nests were detected within 0.25-mile of the site. The vegetation within the raptor survey area is composed of pinyon-juniper woodlands, sagebrush, and mountain shrub communities. Raptor nesting habitat in the pinyon-juniper woodlands is mostly poor quality due to low tree height and an open canopy, although some pockets of more suitable raptor nesting habitat exist. There is a low possibility for effects related to the increased human presence and activity associated with operation and maintenance of the compressor in the midst of other activities in the area including agriculture and natural resource production. • Migratory, non-migratory, and birds (excluding raptors) that could potentially be affected by this project include Brewer’s Sparrow, Cassin’s Finch, Juniper Titmouse and the Pinyon Jay. The area immediately surrounding the HMCS is composed of sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands which provide valuable foraging habitat and nesting habitat for a multitude of bird species. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution or have temporal effects on habitat use. The effects of 1.84 acres of vegetation removal include loss of nesting habitat for birds and loss of foraging habitat for all species. • The compressor site is within CPW -NDIS mapped mule deer and American elk winter ranges. The site is located within a mule deer winter concentration area and is approximately 0.34 miles from mule deer severe winter range. The compressor site is within an elk winter concentration area. The area provides valuable winter habitat for migrating and resident big game year-round. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution or have temporal effects on habitat use. The direct loss of approximately 1.84 acres of mixed shrubland/woodland in this area likely has little if any affect on big game given the amount of undisturbed rangeland and agricultural pastures nearby. • The site to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion, but not within a human conflict area with either species. Potential encounters of black bear with personnel could occur if garbage or food is available to bears and incidences of human- black bear interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending bears by the CPW. Mountain lion would not be affected. • Common small mammal species in the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), least chipmunk (Tamias minimus), and a multitude of additional rodent species. • Western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans) would be the most common snakes expected in the vicinity (Hammerson 1999). Midget faded rattlesnake (BLM Sensitive – Crotalus viridis concolor) may inhabit the area but have not been observed. Several lizard species could inhabit the area. 6 Potential issues that could affect wildlife habitat include the following: • Loss of nesting habitat for migratory birds, forage for big game and other wildlife: Construction of the compressor station has removed approximately 1.84 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds, including BCC species. The vegetation removal has also resulted in a reduction in forage availability for big game and other wildlife. • Indirect construction effects: In addition to direct removal of vegetation, operation of the facility and increased human presence and noise creates an avoidance area surrounding the site resulting in an indirect loss of habitat. Since the site exists amid significant human presence related to other activities in the area, the additional disturbance from this project is low but does contribute to cumulative effects. • Big Game winter range and migration corridors: The compressor site is situated within deer and elk winter ranges including a deer winter concentration area and elk winter concentration area. No specific deer or elk migration corridors are affected, though migration occurs in and around the site. Potential affects could result from vehicle collisions, direct loss of forage, and indirect habitat loss due to avoidance areas. Additional findings of the WWE report concluded: The Compressor Station has minimal impact, if any, to the surrounding flora and fauna; the Reclamation Plan has addressed the restoration of the site to pre-facility conditions by re- contouring and re-vegetating. To mitigate impacts to the natural habitat associated with the proposed project, GRG will adhere to the recommendations included in the Wildlife and Vegetative Impact Analysis Report. See the Wildlife and Vegetative Impact Analysis Report for additional details. Wetlands WWE biologists determined that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) are located on the site. Article IV, 4-502 D.12. Resource Areas Olsson Associates contracted with Flattops Archaeological Consultants (FAC) to perform a Class I Cultural Resources Study for the HMCS project (included in the supplemental section of submittal.) The report produced by FAC meets the requirements of Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution, Article IV Section 4-502E part 8b: A determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. The summary findings of the report stated: “Based on an examination of the site forms for 5GF392, 5GF447, 5GF2649, and 5GF4141, it was determined that these sites are located outside the proposed project area and will be avoided. Therefore, based on the results of this Class I inventory, FAC recommends a finding of no historic properties affected.” Impact Analysis Grand River Gathering LLC High Mesa Compressor Station OA Project No. 012-0732 826 21 ½ Road | Grand Junction, CO 81505 | TEL 970.263.7800 | FAX 970.263.7456 1 Grand River Gathering, LLC. High Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) Impact Analysis Narrative Article IV, 4-502 E.1. Adjacent Property Garfield County Assessor’s GIS data was used to create adjacent parcels map identifying parcels located within 200’ of the subject parcel boundary. This map has been provided to Garfield County and has been identified as Figure 1 – Adjacent Parcel Map AP-1. Below are the tax parcel numbers in bold and the corresponding land owners and mailing addresses. Parcel Number 2409-361-00-048 Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. 2717 County Road 215, Suite 100 Parachute, Colorado 81635 Parcel Number 2409-364-00-955 Bureau of Land Management 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 Parcel Number 2409-351-00-136 Larry A. & Karen K Klebold PO Box 67 Parachute, CO 81635 Parcel Number 2407-193-00-162 Day Break Realty, LLC. 400 Panamint Road Reno, NV 89521 Parcel Number 2407-251-00-954 Bureau of Land Management 2300 River Frontage Rd. Silt, CO 81652 2 Parcel Number 2407-214-00-954 Bureau of Land Management 2300 River Valley Field Office Silt CO 81652 Mineral rights owners have been identified in the following list: Mineral Rights Owners Salvation Army c/o Bank of America Agent PO Box 840738 Dallas, TX 75284-0738 JRMD, LLC PO Box 1926 Rifle, CO 81650 Office of Natural Resources Revenue PO Box 25627 Denver , CO 80225-0627 Greg Bendetti 1509 Arabian Ave Rifle, CO 81650 Paul Randolph Bendetti & Raelana B Wittmeier 1601 H 38 Rd Delta, CO 81416 Karen S Brown 13419 Hwy 392 Greeley, CO 80631 Terry Lynn Bendetti 233 County Road 265 Rifle, CO 81650 WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC Attn: Director Infrastructure Services One Williams Center Mail Drop 36 6 Tulsa, OK 74172 3 ExxonMobil Corporation Accounts Receivable PO Box 951027 Dallas, TX 75395-1027 Judith R Hayward 180 S 2 Ct Parachute, CO 81635 Cristy Ann Hayward Koeneke 8065 Marshall Ct Arvada, CO 80003 Craig L Hayward 582 Manorwood Ln Louisville, CO 80027 Article IV, 4-502 E.2. Adjacent Uses The adjacent uses within 1,500’ radius primarily consist of agricultural (grazing and rangeland) and natural gas extraction. The land immediately around the project site is primarily utilized for industrial activities (e.g., oil & gas type operations) and a water treatment facility is located on the North Side of the Station. The closest residences (i.e., “residential/agricultural/rural” zoned properties) are located west, northwest and southwest of the Station at a distance of between 4,200 feet to 5,500 feet from the site. The surrounding properties have not been adversely impacted by construction and operation of the existing compressor. The use of a compressor station is similar to the existing surrounding land uses. Article IV, 4-502 E.3. Site Features Descriptions of the various site features including soils, vegetation and terrain are discussed in various reports located within the supplemental section of the submittal and other project narratives. The project area is located in Section 36, T7S, R96W, 6th Principal Meridian. The site elevation ranges between 5,925 to 5,975 feet above mean sea level. The site is accessed via Garfield County Road 304 and private roads in the vicinity of Pete and Bill Creek. Approximately 1.84 acres of native vegetation has been affected for the development of the 4.5 acres of property that the High Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) site occupies. Pete and Bill Creek is located near the southwest corner of the project site. According to the USGS Quadrangle, existing drainage features include intermittent streams. WestWater Engineering (WWE) also studied the drainage features of the project site and concluded “that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) were located on the site.” There are no lakes within the project site. There are no anticipated impacts to groundwater associated with the compressor station. No major geologic hazards appear to be in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility. There are only minor slope hazards and soil hazards 4 are low. A Geologic and Soils Hazards report is included in the supplemental section of this submittal. Article IV, 4-502 E.4. Soil Characteristics According to the information prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS), the soils in the area of the proposed compressor station expansion in clude Ildefonso stony loam, (34), Potts loam, (56), and the Potts-Ildefonso complex, (58). Ildefonso stony loam (34), soils are developed on 25 percent to 45 percent slopes, and consist of well drained soils in land setting of alluvial fans, and valley sides. Elevations range from 5,000 to 6,500 feet above mean sea level. The parent material of this soil is mixed alluvium derived from basalt. The potential to corrode concrete and steel are low. The Potts loam, (56) is developed on 6 percent to 12 percent slopes, at elevations of 5,000 to 7,000 feet, and is found in landform setting of valley sides, benches, and mesas. The parent material of this soil is alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The potential to corrode concrete and steel are high, however, proper engineering will address any concern associated with corrosion potential. The Potts-Ildefonso complex, (58) soils are developed on 12 to 25 percent slopes, and consist of well drained soils on mountainsides and ridges at elevations of 5,000 to 6,500 feet. These soils are found in landform setting of valley sides, alluvial fans, and mesas. The parent material of this soil is alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The potential to corrode concrete and steel are high, however, proper engineering will address any concern associated with corrosion potential. A copy of a Custom Soil Resource Report and Geologic and Soil Hazard Report is included under the supplemental materials section of this submittal. Article IV, 4-502 E.5. Geology and Hazard A Geologic and Soil Hazards Report details any issues that would be associated with Geology and Hazards. The summary of the findings contained in this report are as follows: Geology The proposed project is located near the eastern margin of the Piceance Basin; an irregularly- shaped elongated basin formed by tectonic forces that downwarped the earth’s crust as a result of the uplift of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Areas on all sides of the Piceance Basin have been uplifted by these same tectonic forces. Structural Geology The Piceance Basin is the major structural geologic feature in the region. It is bound to the east by the Grand Hogback monocline, the White River Uplift to the northeast, the Gunnison Uplift to the south, the Uncompahgre Uplift to the southwest, the Douglas Creek Arch to the west - northwest, and the axial basin uplift to the north (Grout and Verbeek, 1992). 5 The Grand Hogback monocline is a sinuous feature comprised of Upper Cretaceous age bedrock of the Mesaverde Group, which includes the Williams Fork Formation and the underlying Mancos Shale. The Grand Hogback forms part of the boundary between two major physiographic provinces, the Colorado Plateau and the Rocky Mountain foreland. The Grand Hogback bends abruptly to the north of the Gibson Gulch Quadrangle and strata along the west- to southwest-facing, steep limb of the monocline typically dip basinward at an angle of 45° or are even overturned in some areas (Grout and Verbeek, 1992). A series of west-northwest trending, broad, gentle anticlines and synclines, are present within the Piceance Basin to the west of the Grand Hogback. The Wolf Creek Anticline and the Divide Creek Anticline are the two closest of these structures. The axis of the Divide Creek anticline crosses the southwestern part of the Gibson Gulch Quadrangle. There are a total of eight joint sets, or fracture -pattern trends, that have been mapped in the Wasatch and Mesaverde Group bedrock units in the area (Grout and Verbeek, 1992). These joint sets are the result of structural deformation of these sedimentary rock units through geologic time. Surficial Geology The location of the proposed facility is underlain by bedrock of the Tertiary age Wasatch Formation, including the lower Fort Union Equivalent at the base and the Ohio Creek Formation. The Wasatch Formation is divided into an upper section that ranges from 400 feet to 1,600 feet thick, a middle section that ranges from 0 to 400 feet thick, and a lower section that ranges from 400 feet to 900 feet thick. The upper section consists of variegated shale and clay and some lenticular sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone beds. The middle section consists of massive fine-to coarse-grained sandstone that is gray to brown in color, in part conglomeratic, and forms conspicuous ledges where exposed in outcrop. The lower section is composed of variegated shale and clay and some lenticular beds of sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone. Olsson personnel have reviewed the relevant county maps prepared by Garfield County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) Department that pertain to this study. Conclusion and Summary According to the information provided by Garfield County, Colorado - GIS Department pertaining to the location of the HMCS, the overall geologic and soil hazards appear to be, minor slope hazard, and low for soil hazards. No additional building or construction will be taking place so any geological constraints associated with the site are not applicable. Article IV, 4-502 E.6. Effects on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply Construction for the compressor site has already taken place so no demand on the existing water supply is expected. Operation of the compressor station will not require access to water supplies in the area. As a result, the proposed compressor station will not adversely impact existing water supplies in the area. Additionally, there are no anticipated future impacts to either domestic or agricultural water supplies. Article IV, 4-502 E.7. Effects on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas 6 The existing compressor station involved minimal surface disturbance and has not and will not adversely impact groundwater supplies or aquifer recharge areas. The design of the facility has been done in a manner that will eliminate the potential for produced water, fuels, and other chemicals used at the compressor station to spill and impact groundwater. Secondary containment will be used in the form of liners and steel containment. All secondary containment will be sized to accommodate the appropriate volumes of vessels storing hydrocarbon based fluids where required. Please see the attached site plan for additional details. There are no documented floodplains, there will be no waste disposal for the site so addressing the impact of the HMCS on the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal does not apply, there are only minor slope hazards none of which will be impacted by the HMCS, and there will be no sewage effluents. Grand River Gathering (GRG) has a Stormwater Management Plan which addresses any potential impact to surface runoff and streamflow and this report is included as part of this submittal. Article IV, 4-502 E.8. Environmental Effects Environmental Effects were investigated in the March 2012 WestWater Engineering (WWE) Impact Analysis. WWE biologists determined that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) were located on the site. In addition Flattops Archaeological Consultants conducted a Class I Cultural Resources Study for the GRG Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., HMCS. GRG has drafted a 2005 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan to address how spills will be prevented and what will be done in the unlikely event that a spill does occur. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8.a. Determination of the long term and short term effects on flora and fauna FAUNA Raptors Approximately 1.84 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands was removed for construction of the compressor station. Judging from woodland characteristics surrounding the site, the trees removed likely provided poor raptor nesting habitat. There is a low possibility for effects related to the increased human presence and activity associated with operation and maintenance of the compressor in the midst of other activities in the area including agriculture and natural resource production. American Elk and Mule Deer Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution or have temporal affects on habitat use. The direct loss of approximately 1.84 acres of mixed shrubland/woodland in this area likely has little if any affect on big game given the amount of undisturbed rangeland and agricultural pastures nearby. Black Bear and Mountain Lion 7 Potential encounters of black bear with personnel could occur if garbage or food is available to bears and incidences of human-black bear interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending bears by the CPW. Mountain lion would not be affected. Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution or have temporal affects on habitat use. The affects of 1.84 acres of vegetation removal include loss of nest ing habitat for birds and loss of foraging habitat for all species. FLORA Approximately 1.84 acres of native vegetation has been affected for the development of the HMCS site. No TESS plants have been affected. It appears that the current noxious weed management strategy has been effective although non-native invasive species have become well established and affect revegetation and reclamation efforts. Article IV, 4-502 E.8.b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, and historic resources Flattops Archaeological Consultants conducted a Class I Cultural Resources Study for the GRG HMCS. There were 12 twelve cultural resources that were determined to have relevancy to this application for this Limited Impact Review associated with the compressor station.. Four (5GF1539, 5GF2648, 5GF2653, and 5GF3636) of the cultural resources are prehistoric isolated finds. The isolated finds have been field evaluated not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); no further work is recommended. One site (5GF2649) is a prehistoric open camp, and two (5GF2651 and 5GF4141) are prehistoric open lithic sites. 5GF2651 is field evaluated not eligible; no further work is recommended. 5GF2649 is field evaluated needs data, and SGF4141 is officially determined needs data; avoidance and protection are recommended for these two sites. The remaining five sites are historic-three of these sites (SGF447, SGF2650, and SGF2652) are habitation sites, another is a trail (SGF392), and one is a ditch (SGF4149.1). SGF2650, SGF2652, and SGF4149.1 are officially determined not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP; no further work is recommended. SGF392 and SGF447 are officially determined needs data; avoidance and protection are recommended for these sites. Conclusion Based on an examination of the site forms for SGF392, SGF447, SGF2649, and SGF4141, it was determined that these sites are located outside the proposed project area and will be 8 avoided. Therefore, based on the results of this Class I inventory, Flattops Archaeological Consultants recommends a finding of no historic properties affected. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8.c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources including critical wildlife habitat. There do not appear to be any designated environmental resources that will be affected by the HMCS. Discussion of impacts to wildlife habitat are listed in the next section. Article IV, 4-502 E. 8.c.1. Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attraction, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockage of migration routes, use patterns, or other disruptions WWE conducted an analysis on the effect of the compressor station on critical wildlife Habitat which is included in the supplemental section of this submittal. The project site is located in an area that has been previously disturbed so any additional critical habitat will not be disturbed. The potential issues discussed in the WWE report include:  Loss of nesting habitat for migratory birds, forage for big game and other wildlife: Construction of the compressor station has removed approximately 1.84 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds, including BCC species. The vegetation removal has also resulted in a reduction in forage availability for big game and other wildlife.  Indirect construction effects: In addition to direct removal of vegetation, operation of the facility and increased human presence and noise creates an avoidance area surrounding the site resulting in an indirect loss of habitat. Since the site exists amid significant human presence related to other activities in the area, the additional disturbance from this project is low but does contribute to cumulative effects. No additional construction is being proposed so the indirect construction effects will not be expanded.  Big Game winter range and migration corridors: The compressor site is situated within deer and elk winter ranges including a deer winter concentration area and elk winter concentration area. No specific deer or elk migration corridors are affected, though migration occurs in and around the site. Potential affects could result from vehicle collisions, direct loss of forage, and indirect habitat loss due to avoidance areas. Article IV, 4-502 E.8.d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State of County Health Departments No potential radiation hazards have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. GRG will address and mitigate any radiation hazard when and if they are identif ied by the State or County Health Departments. Article IV, 4-502 E.8.e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable 9 The 2012 Grand River Gathering Spill Prevention and Countermeasures Plan is provided in the supplemental material section of this submittal. Article IV, 4-502 E. 9. Traffic There will be no increase in traffic during the construction phase due to the facility already being built and appurtenant equipment is installed. During the operational phase, there will be an average of 7 light vehicles accessing the site to maintain/monitor the facility on a weekly basis. Due to the limited impacts of traffic generated by the proposed use, improvements to the County Road will not be required. The proposed use will not increase traffic by 20% on any County or State roadway or intersection. See Traffic Study included with this submittal within the supplemental materials section of the submittal for further information. Article IV, 4-502 E.10. Nuisance A sound survey was performed on Feb. 22, 2012 at the HMCS by Hoover & Keith, Inc. The findings of the sound survey are detailed in the report dated March 20, 2012. The summary findings of this study stated: “In summary, the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound levels are slightly above or below the sound level limits specified in the COGCC “Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations” for “light industrial” zoned property (i.e., daytime level of 70 dBA and nighttime level of 65 dBA at 350 feet from the Station). This conclusion assumes that the Station is considered to be in a remote location (i.e., there are no reasonably proximate occupied structures).” “Regarding the Colorado State Statute (Colorado State Statute 25-12-102/103), the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound level is equal to or below the sound level limits specified in the Colorado State Statute for an adjacent industrial use area (i.e., nighttime A-wt. sound level or Leq of 65 dBA) and at surrounding residences (i.e., 50 dBA at 25 feet from the residential property line).” “At the residences located west/NW of the Station, noise associated with the Station was not really audible during the sound survey, and the noise of distant vehicle traffic along Interstate 70 was the primary noise contributor to the measured A-wt. sound levels along with the noise associated with another oil/gas facility located relatively close to these residences. At the residences located southwest of the Station (i.e., along Spring Creek Road), which are in line- of-sight of the Station, the noise generated by the Station was audible but not the dominant noise source. The A-wt. sound levels at these residences SW of the Station were primarily a results of the noise of distant traffic along Interstate 70. At the sound measurement positions around the fence line and property of the Station (i.e., Meas. Pos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7), the noise of the Station was the most dominant noise source, which would be expected since the primary equipment at the Station, consist of unenclosed skid-mounted engine-driven compressor units.” 10 “This concludes the results of the sound survey at the High Mesa Station. The measured sound levels around the Station (e.g., sound levels at 350 feet from the Station equipment/units) would be slightly higher than the measured levels if all compressor units were operating although we understand that the operating conditions that occurred during this recent sound survey is typical for this facility.” No vapor or smoke issues are anticipated to occur in relation to the compressor station d ue to the units being powered by overhead electrical lines. No vibration will be generated beyond the immediate location of the compressor station. All equipment will be painted to match the natural surroundings so there will be no glare issues associated with the use. GRG will address all dust issue as detailed in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan included in the supplemental section of this submittal. No other potential nuisance issues associated with the compressor station are anticipated. Article IV, 4-502 E.11. Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan GRG estimates that the proposed Compressor Station will be in operation for an anticipated period of approximately thirty (30) years during development and production of GRGs Garfield County operations. Upon termination of the development and production activities, the disturbed site will be reclaimed, as outlined below:  All equipment and structures will be removed.  GRG will remove all safety and storm water BMPs, and other surface objects from the premises.  GRG will restore the site to pre-facility conditions by re-contouring and re-vegetating the site. Top soil will be redistributed across the site and will be reseeded with an approved seed mix (see attached seed mix recommendation).  GRG will monitor the site to ensure that 70 percent of the pre-existing vegetation is achieved. Seedbed Preparation and Slope Reconstruction: Cut and fill slopes will be backfilled and re-contoured to a slope of 3:1 – 2.5:1 or less in instances where necessary to match the existing natural contours. Following final contouring, all backfilled or ripped surfaces will be covered evenly with topsoil. Re-contouring should form a complex slope with heavy pocking. In areas with slope greater than 3 percent, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Final seedbed prep will consist of scarifying/imprinting the topsoil prior to seeding. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When hydro-seeding or mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding, unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting will be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. 11 Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope. All compacted areas will be ripped to depth of 18” with max furrow spacing of 2’. Where practicable, ripping will be conducted in two passes at perpendicular direction. Topsoil: Following final contouring, all backfilled or ripped surfaces will be covered evenly with topsoil. The topsoil in the cut slope on the back of the pad will be heavily pocked using the excavator bucket to form an uneven soil surface complex which will aid in revegetation and help with slope stabilization. The fill slope, and remaining disturbed, and reclaimed areas will be track walked to aid in revegetation and slope stabilization. In areas that may not have been disturbed during the reclamation process or areas of suspected compaction that will be reseeded, measures will be taken to loosen and spread the topsoil. These measures may include scarifying the soil by racking or harrowing the soil. Seed Mix: Seed mix used for reclamation will be taken from the approved seed mixtures identified below: Low-Elevation Salt-Desert Scrub/Basin Big Sagebrush Common Name Scientific Names Form PLS lbs/acre* Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Shrub 1.9 Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia Shrub 1.5 Galleta Pleuraphis [Hilaria] jamesii Bunch 2.5 Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides Bunch 0.2 Streambank Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. Psammophilus, Agropyron riparium Sod- forming 2.5 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum Bunch 1.8 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii, Poa secunda Bunch 0.3 *Based on 45 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (90 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded. Spruce-Fir Forest, Including Mountain Meadows Common Name Scientific Names Form PLS lbs/acre* Mountain Brome Bromopsis [Bromus] marginatus Bunch 5.8 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum Bunch 3.3 Letterman Needlegrass Achnatherum [Stipa] lettermanii Bunch 3.5 Blue Wildrye Elymus glaucus Bunch 4.8 Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Agropyron dasystachyum Sod- forming 3.4 Idaho Fescue Festuca, idahoensis Bunch 1.2 Wheeler Bluegrass Poa nervosa Sod- forming 0.6 *Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded. 12 Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, Mountain/Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrubland Common Name Scientific Name Form PLS lbs/acre* Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum [Oryzopsis] hymenoides Bunch 1.9 Galleta Pleuraphis [Hilaria] jamesii Bunch 2.5 Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum Bunch 2.8 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum Bunch 3.3 Mutton grass Poa fendleriana Bunch 0.6 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii, Poa secunda Bunch 0.6 *Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded. Mixed Mountain Shrubland, Including Oakbrush Common Name Scientific Names Form PLS lbs/acre* Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Agropyron dasystachyum Sod- forming 3.4 Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum Bunch 3.7 Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix Bunch 2.7 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum Bunch 3.3 Canby Bluegrass Poa canbyi. P. secunda Bunch 0.6 Mutton grass Poa fendleriana Bunch 0.6 Letterman Needlegrass Achnatherum [Stipa] lettermanii Bunch 1.7 Columbia Needlegrass Achnatherum [Stipa] nelsonii, Stipa columbiana Bunch 1.7 Indian Ricegrass Achnaterum [Oryzopsis] hymenoides Bunch 1.9 Junegrass Koeleria macrantha, K. cristata Bunch 0.1 *Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded. Seeding Procedures: For best results and success, the recommended grass mixture reseeding should be done in late autumn in order to take advantage of natural precipitation for the region. The reseeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application. Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill with no soil preparation other than simple grading to slope and imprinting and waterbars, where applicable. Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to:  harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and reharrow, preferably at a 90 degree angle to the first harrow;  hydro-seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost); and  hand raking and broadcast followed by re-raking at a 90 degree angle to the first raking.  These are not the only means of replanting the site. However, these methods have been observed to be effective in similar landscapes. 13 The prepared soils will be seeded (weather permitting) no more than 24 hours following completion of final seedbed preparation. The seeding will be conducted by means of drilling the prescribed seed at prescribed seeding rate. The seed will be drilled with a common range drill at a depth of 0.25 – 0.5” beneath the soil surface. The seed will be drilled horizontally across the pad faces and perpendicular to the track walking when possible. When slope gradient less than 2.5:1 exists and drilling is not possible from a mechanical and safety standpoint the soils will be broadcast seeded at twice the prescribed amount. The reseeding will be monitored and reseeded as appropriate until the reclamation standards detailed above are met. Mulch: With 24 hours of reseeding (weather permitting) hydromulch will be applied to all reclaimed and reseeded surfaces. Areas where the erosion potential is such that biodegradable blankets will be used will not be hydromulched. Standards Grand River Gathering LLC High Mesa Compressor Station OA Project No. 012-0732 826 21 ½ Road | Grand Junction, CO 81505 | TEL 970.263.7800 | FAX 970.263.7456 1 Grand River Gathering, LLC. High Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) Standards Narrative Division 1 General Approval Standards for Land Use Change Permits Article VII, § 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions The project site is located within the Rural (R) zone district. Section 3-501 Table: Rural, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Zone District lists Compressor/Pipeline Pump Station not subject to Article IX review as a use permitted in the R district that requires a Limited Impac t Review. The aforementioned information was obtained from the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, updated December 28, 2010. Article VII, § 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements The High Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) generally conforms to the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map from the Comprehensive Plan illustrates the subject property as Residential High (RH). The existing use is not within an area governed by an intergovernmental agreement. The following sections of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan apply to the HMCS and further substantiate that Compressor Stations located in appropriate areas of Garfield County are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: Vision - Mineral Extraction Resource extraction, including oil and gas development, has been encouraged to remain in the county due to their contribution they make to the county’s overall goal of having a diverse and stable economy. While resource industries are welcomed in the county, they have been expected to fairly mitigate negative impacts that might have resulted due to their operations. Issue Garfield County has significant mineral resources that have, and will continue to have, a considerable benefit to the economic health of the county. Goal 1. Ensure that mineral extraction is regulated appropriately to promote responsible development and provide benefit to the general public. Policy 4. The following Facilities that are appurtenances to oil/ gas development activities (compressors, etc.) are considered appropriate in all land uses so long as they meet the 2 respective mitigation requirements of the ULUR to maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses. This submittal goes into great detail in the various reports and narratives as to how the use of this compressor station will operate in an environmentally responsible fashion. The importance of the oil and gas industry to the economic health of the Garfield County economy is noted in the aforementioned Vision, Issue, Goal and Policy statements taken from the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Compressor Station is needed by Grand River Gathering (GRG) to assure that natural gas can be moved from source to consumer. The economic benefits provided by GRG and other oil and gas operators are clear from the many investments made in communities and other community benefits derived from the industry. Article VII, § 7-103 Compatibility The existing HMCS is compatible with the agricultural and industrial (e.g. natural gas operations) uses on the subject parcel and adjacent properties. The compressor station does not and will not interfere with existing land uses in the surrounding area. The operator is not aware of any complaints from local residents related to operation of the existing compressors. GRG will implement needed mitigation measures if compatibility issues arise in the future. Article VII, § 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water The compressor facility does not and will not require a source of water during the operation of the facility. This is an unmanned facility so there will not be a need for potable water. Therefore, no demand will be placed on local water resources. Article VII, § 7-105 Adequate Water Supply The compressor facility does not and will not require a source of water during the operation of the facility. This is an unmanned facility so there will not be a need for potable water. Therefore, no demand will be placed on local water resources. Article VII, § 7-106 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater This facility does not and will not require potable water and wastewater will not be generated by the facility. This is an unmanned facility so there will not be a need for potable water. However, a portable toilet is proposed to be located on-site for regular maintenance inspectors. Article VII, § 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Supply The existing compressor station is powered by electricity provided by existing overhead power lines, which is illustrated on the site plan. No other public utilities will be utilized. Article VII, § 7-108 Access and Roadways No new roads are proposed to accommodate the existing compressor facility. Access to the subject property and the HMCS is from County Road 304, a public right-of-way, and a private roadway. The existing roadway and access are adequate for the anticipated low traffic volumes 3 (see Basic Traffic Analysis in the supplemental materials section). A Road Access Map (R-1) and details related to the roadway access for this facility accompany this submittal in in the Access Documents section of this submittal. Additionally, the ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, located in the site plan section of this submittal, further illustrates and provides legal descriptions of the access easement to the HMCS. Dust from the private roadways will be mitigated as appropriate in accordance with the attached Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan, included in the supplemental materials section. Article VII, § 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards The existing facility is situated on High Mesa at elevations ranging from 5,925 to 5,975 feet above sea level and its located approximately 3 miles south of Parachute, Colorado. According to the information provided by Garfield County, Colorado - GIS Department pertaining to the location of the Compressor Station Facility, the overall geologic and soil hazards appear to be, minor slope hazard, and low for soil hazards. However, the topography in the actual area where the Compressor Station is located is relatively flat. Additionally, there are no risks from such natural hazards as falling rock, landslides, snow slides, mud flows, radiation, flooding or high water tables. We have been in contact with the Garfield, County GIS department trying to obtain more detailed slope information. Olsson Associates has obtained a copy of the information utilized in drafting the Garfield County slope hazards map but there are no percent slopes delineating the various degrees of slope hazards listed in these data. A review of the site plan clearly indicates that the slopes within the project area do not present a hazard to the existing HMCS. According to the information provided by Garfield County, Colorado - GIS Department on slope hazards the proposed facility lies outside the boundary of the geologic study. As depicted on the attached Slope Hazards Map (SH-1), the location for the proposed facility is not within any identified slope hazard areas. According to the Garfield County GIS data, the nearest slope hazard area exists approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the HMCS. Division 2 General Resource Protection Standards for Land Use Change Permits Article VII, § 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands A. No Adverse Affect to Agricultural Operations The facility has not and will not adversely impact agricultural operations that are conducted on the subject property or adjacent lands. The opportunity for surrounding property to be utilized for agricultural production will be maintained. B. Domestic Animal Controls No domestic animals will be kept onsite so therefore this section of code does not apply. C. Fences The facility has not and will not generate a potential hazard to domestic livestock or wildlife. No open storage of hazardous material will occur onsite. The HMCS site is 4 fenced in order to reduce impacts to agricultural operations within the area and protect the facility from possible livestock damage. All fencing and gates shall be maintained by GRG. D. Roads An existing private access road is being utilized; additional roads will not be required (see ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey located in the site plan section of this submittal). The existing access road is located a sufficient distance back from the property boundaries so that normal maintenance on roads, including snow removal, will not damage any boundary fences. Dust control will be continued to be managed through GRGs Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan which is designed to minimize any adverse impacts to livestock and crops. E. Irrigation Ditches The HMCS site is already developed so no change will occur that will impact irrigation ditches. All rights-of-way and maintenance easements will be preserved. There are no irrigation ditches on or immediately adjacent to the subject property; therefore, there will be no impact caused by the continued operation of this existing facility. Article VII, § 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas The Wildlife Assessment has been prepared by professional biologists working for WestWater Engineering and has concluded that the facility will not create a significant hazardous attraction to avian or mammalian wildlife species, vegetation, block migration routes, or cause a change in habitat use. No impacts to federally listed or locally significant plant or animals are anticipated. Noxious weeds will be removed as applicable on site. During the reclamation phase, the property will be re-seeded and re-graded to pre-disturbance levels. A. Buffers – The subject property is located in a rural part of Garfield County. All machinery and equipment has been painted to match the surrounding environment. There is an existing fence which encloses the area and keeps most fauna out of the site. B. Locational Controls of Land Disturbance – The HMCS site is already developed so wildlife will not be forced to use new wildlife migration corridors as a result of the compressor station. Posted speed limits are low ranging from 15 to 20 mph and maintaining these low speed limits should prevent vehicle collisions with wildlife. This is an unmanned facility so there will not be continuous human activity which could disturb the wildlife in the area. C. Preservation of Native Vegetation 1. Vegetation Utilized by Wildlife – There will be no change or expansion of this existing land use so vegetation utilized by wildlife will not be further impacted. 2. Removal and Replacement of Native Vegetation – This is an existing compressor station so no further removal of native vegetation will take place. Revegetation of disturbed areas surrounding the compressor consists of a combination of native 5 and non-native grasses, and some shrub species have become established. Biologist with WestWater Engineering noted that the current revegetation efforts and current weed management strategies appear to be adequate. 3. Removal of Noxious Weeds – As noted in the WWE report the current weed management strategies appear to be adequate. D. Habitat Compensation – The HMCS occupies a very small footprint of 4.5 acres with approximately 1.84 acres of flora being removed from the site for the compressor station (as noted in the WWE report). No expansion or additional impact to the surrounding habitat is anticipated. Therefore the need to acquire and permanently protect existing habitat to compensate for habitat lost to development is not warranted. E. Domestic Animal Control – There will be no domestic animals kept onsite and the property is fenced to keep animals off of the compressor site so additional domestic animal controls are not warranted. Article VII, § 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Water bodies 1. Minimum Setback – There are no wetlands or waterbodies located near the site so the minimum setback of thirty-five (35) from a waterbody is not applicable. 2. Structures Permitted In Setback – The HMCS site has already been built. All needed water diversion facilities and flood control structures are illustrated on the site plan that is submitted with this Limited Impact Review application. 3. Structures and Activity Prohibited in Buffer Zone – Due to no waterbodies or westlands being located within or immediately adjacent to the HMCS site, sections a, b, c, d, e and f of the Garfield Code are not applicable. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be utilized to ensure the continued protection of water bodies from stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the facility. Specific BMPs that could be employed to control stormwater runoff include one or more of the following: straw wattles, straw bales, silt fencing or check dams. Article VII, § 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants The operator will continue to operate the facility and associated activities according to industry best management practices and GRGs standard operating procedures in order to maintain the required buffer between the disturbed area and the natural vegetation and waterways. Additionally the proposed project is covered by the enclosed Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC). GRG’s SPCC was prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 112.7 and 112.9 (included in the supplemental section of this submittal). All hazardous materials will be stored and used in compliance with state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials. Secondary containment will be utilized where it is required. Additionally, there are no waterbodies in or near the project area. GRG is committed to the prevention of discharges of oil to the environment, including navigable waters and groundwater, 6 and maintains the highest standards for spill prevention control through regular review, updating and implementation of this SPCC plan. Article VII, § 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation The existing facility has been included in the area wide or Master Stormwater Management Plan. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are being utilized to ensure the continued protection of water bodies from stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the facility. Article VII, § 7-206 Drainage: A. Site Design to Facilitate Positive Drainage Lots are not proposed as part of this land use application for the existing HMCS. Because of the small size of the existing project footprint, the site will not create any impacts to existing drainage patterns. Drainage calculations were utilized for the construction of this existing compressor station site. The site plan illustrates positive sheet flow from the northeast corner to the southwest corner as illustrated on the site plan. Positive drainage flow has also been achieved for the onsite existing buildings. There are culverts in place running underneath the access drives and a stormwater retention pond is located in the southwestern corner of the site. This site is covered by GRG’s Master Storm Water Management Plan for the South Parachute unit. HMCS is covered by a stormwater discharge permit that will expire in June of 2012. However, a new permit can be provided to Garfield County as soon as it is issued. A copy of the Master Stormwater Management Plan for the South Parachute Unit is included in the supplemental section of this submittal. B. Coordination with Area Storm Drainage Pattern (subsection 1, 2 &3) The existing HMCS will not impact natural drainage patterns. No changes to the existing facility are being proposed. When the facility was constructed both onsite and offsite drainage was assessed, proper engineering controls and Stormwater Best Management Practices have been implemented in the development and operation of the existing HMCS facility. No evidence of erosion or sediment damage is evident at the facility. Article VII, § 7-207 Stormwater Run-Off (subsection A, B and C) The Master Stormwater Management Plan for the South Parachute Unit is included with this application and covers all applicable activities associated with the facility’s disturbance. The existing HMCS is not within 100 feet of a waterbody and the development creates less than 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface area so Article 7-207 does not apply to this application. The total impervious surface is approximately 5,995 square feet including 2,600 square feet (buildings) and 3,390 square feet (compressor skids). Article VII, § 7-208 Air Quality The facility will maintain air quality above acceptable levels, established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. The HMCS is already serviced by overhead electrical lines so 7 therefore a CDPHE Air Construction and Operating Permit is not required for power generation. A copy of the CDPHE air permits for equipment requiring permits are included in the supplemental materials section of this submittal. Article VII, § 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards A. Location Restrictions - A review of the Garfield County GIS maps have been conducted. The pdf copies of both the Garfield County Wildfire and the Colorado Wildfire Assessment Maps available on the Garfield County website have been reviewed. From the available data, it appears that the existing compressor station is located within an area designated as low to low moderate wildfire hazard. The existing compressor station does not appear to be located in an area of severe wildfire hazard and onsite slopes are less than 30%. B. Development Does Not Increase Potential Hazard – This is an existing compressor station so no new development is taking place. There is little vegetation onsite that could provide fuel for a wildfire but the chance of a grassland fire does exist as it does for most development within Garfield County. C. Fuel Modification – The site has already been cleared of vegetation when the existing compressor station was constructed. Defensible space has been created around the existing facility and all structure and equipment located onsite. Additional removal of vegetation surrounding the site may cause additional stress on the wildlife habitat in the area. D. Roof Materials and Design – All roofs and materials used to construct roofs of the onsite existing structures have been reviewed and approved by the Garfield County Building Department. E. Safety Areas in Residential Development – The HMCS is not a residential development so this section of code does not apply. F. Cul-de-Sac – The HMCS is not a residential development and there is no Cul-de-Sac associated with this existing facility. G. Hammerhead – The HMCS is not a residential development and there is no hammerhead turnaround associated with this existing facility. H. Road Grade – The HMCS is accessed from County Road 304 and private roads are utilized for direct access to the facility. No road dedications are part of this application so this section does not apply. Article VII, § 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards (subsections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K) The best available data and maps provided by Garfield County have been reviewed and assessed for this application. The data and maps have been produced as a result of the 1978 Lincoln-Devore Geologic Hazards Identification Study. No geologic hazards have been mapped by Garfield County in this area and no faults or other hazards are evident on the Geologic Map of Colorado. No other hazards have been observed by GRG. 8 Article VII, § 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Olsson Associates contracted with Flattops Archaeological Consultants (FAC) to perform a Class I Cultural Resources Study for the HMCS project. The report produced by FAC meets the requirements of Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution, Article IV Section 4-502E part 8b: A determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological, historic resources. The summary findings of the report stated: “Based on an examination of the site forms for 5GF392, 5GF447, 5GF2649, and 5GF4141, it was determined that these sites are located outside the proposed project area and will be avoided. Therefore, based on the results of this Class I inventory, FAC recommends a finding of no historic properties affected.” The existing HMCS has been designed and built to avoid all impacts to identified archeological, paleontological and historical resources within the area affected by the facility. Article VII, § 7-212 Reclamation (subsections A and B) GRG estimates that the existing HMCS will be in operation for an anticipated period of approximately thirty (30) years during development and production of GRG’s Garfield County operations. During the reclamation phase, the property will be re-seeded and re-graded to pre- disturbance levels. Upon termination of the development and production activities, the disturbed site will be reclaimed, as outlined in the Reclamation Plan provided as a component of the Impact Analysis narrative. Division 3 Site Planning & Development Standards Article VII, § 7-301 Compatible Design The design of the existing HMCS and all appurtenant equipment and structures are compatible with the surrounding land uses, most of which are oil and gas industry related. A. Site Organization – The existing HMCS site has been organized in a way that considers the relationship of the private access roads, parking areas and movement associated with operational employees within the site. Additionally, there will not be a high amount of vehicular or pedestrian traffic associated with this site unmanned facility. B. (subsections 1, 2, 3 & 4) Operational Characteristics – The HMCS is located in a very rural part of the County far away from residential uses. Many controls and mitigation steps have been taken to further lessen any unlikely nuisance issues to the adjacent land uses. The majority of the adjacent land uses are also oil and gas industry related. 1. Objectionable Emissions - All potentially objectionable emissions such as dust, odors, gas, fumes and glare have been addressed when this facility was originally constructed. Additionally, CDPHE air permits have been obtained are included in the supplemental materials section of the submittal. 2. Noise - A sound survey was performed on Feb. 22, 2012 at the HMCS by Hoover & Keith, Inc. The findings of the sound survey are detailed in the report dated March 9 20, 2012 (included in the supplemental section of this submittal.) The summary findings of this study stated: “In summary, the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound levels are slightly above or below the sound level limits specified in the COGCC “Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations” for “light industrial” zoned property (i.e., daytime level of 70 dBA and nighttime level of 65 dBA at 350 feet from the Station). This conclusion assumes that the Station is considered to be in a remote location (i.e., there are no reasonably proximate occupied structures). Regarding the Colorado State Statute, the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound level is equal to or below the sound level limits specified in the Colorado State Statute for an adjacent industrial use area (i.e., nighttime A-wt. sound level or Leq of 65 dBA) and at surrounding residences (i.e., 50 dBA at 25 feet from the residential property line).” “At the residences located west/NW of the Station, noise associated with the Station was not really audible during the sound survey, and the noise of distant vehicle traffic along Interstate 70 was the primary noise contributor to the measured A-wt. sound levels along with the noise associated with another oil/gas facility located relatively close to these residences. At the residences located southwest of the Station (i.e., along Spring Creek Road), which are in line-of-sight of the Station, the noise generated by the Station was audible but not the dominant noise source. The A-wt. sound levels at these residences SW of the Station were primarily a results of the noise of distant traffic along Interstate 70. At the sound measurement positions around the fenceline and property of the Station (i.e., Meas. Pos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7), the noise of the Station was the most dominant noise source, which would be expected since the primary equipment at the Station consist of unenclosed skid- mounted engine-driven compressor units.” “This concludes the results of the sound survey at the High Mesa Station. The measured sound levels around the Station (e.g., sound levels at 350 feet from the Station equipment/units) would be slightly higher than the measured levels if all compressor units were operating although we understand that the operating conditions that occurred during this recent sound survey is typical for this facility.” The compressor units utilize technology that mitigates noise to the fullest extent possible. These mitigation steps combined with the remote location of the HMCS makes the possibility of noise causing a nuisance for the surrounding uses unlikely. 3. Hours of Operation – The facility is located in an isolated rural part of Garfield County, therefore the likelihood that of this use having a negative impact on surrounding land use does not exist or is very low. The facility will be operated 24 hours per day. 4. Roadway System Impacts – The HMCS is an existing facility, no new roads are being proposed due to access to the site and internal site circulation already existing. 10 The HMCS is already constructed so there are no impacts ant icipated to occur to the county roadway system. C. Lighting – All existing exterior lighting has been designed and installed in compliance with Section 7-305 of the Garfield Land Use Code in place at the time the HMCS was originally developed. D. Buffering – The adjacent properties and uses are all located in the Rural (R) zone district which is the same zone district that the HMCS is located so therefore this section does not apply. E. Materials – All appurtenant equipment and buildings have been painted to blend with the surrounding natural environment. F. Building Scale – All structures are no greater than 1 story in height and occupy a small footprint compared to the overall size of the property. No large scale buildings have been built and no new construction is being proposed. Article VII, § 7-302 Building Design (subsections 1, 2 & 3) The compressor and tanks have been constructed to minimize visibility and placed on the site to maximize their use for the HMCS. Additionally, all buildings have been constructed in compliance with the Garfield County Building Department requirements. Article VII, § 7-303 Design and Scale of Development A. Excessive Site Disturbance – As noted in the WestWater Engineering Impact Analysis, the HMCS facility only required about 1.8 acres of disturbance to the site in terms of vegetation removal. Only the land area needed to construct the existing facility was disturbed. No additional land will be disturbed because no additional construction is being proposed. B. Minimize Adverse Influences by Airport Operations – There are no residential lots being proposed and there is no concern that Airport Operations will impact the existing HMCS. C. Efficiency in Provision of Services and Access to Facilities – The HMCS was designed and built to maximize the efficiency of the facility. There is no residential development being proposed as part of this application. Article VII, § 7-304 Off-street Parking and Loading Standards (subsections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O & P) After reviewing Table 7-304(A) Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards By Use, it has been determined that Compressor Stations are not listed so therefore this section of Article VII of the Land Use Code does not apply. Article VII, § 7-305 Landscaping and Lighting Standards No landscaping is proposed for the existing HMCS. Lighting has been installed which meets the requirements set forth in Section 7-305(B) of the Garfield Land Use code for downcast, shielding, flashing, hazardous and height limitations lighting. 11 Article VII, § 7-306 Snow Storage Standards (A, B, C & D) If appropriate, snow accumulations will be stored in a vacant section of the existing disturbed area. The site has been graded to accommodate snowmelt ensure and sufficiently drain as the snow melts. There is not a great deal of impervious surface or a need to park a large number of vehicles associated with the site. There is sufficient vacant land within the site to meet the 2.5% of the total site area required to meet the snow storage requirement. This is not a manned site so there is no formal off-street parking areas developed for the existing HMCS. Article VII, § 7-307 Roadway Standards (subsection A) No new accesses or auxiliary lanes onto a County or State roadway will be requir ed as indicated in the Traffic Study. The existing private roadway has been constructed to limit erosion and dust. The roadway to the HMCS will be utilized by no more than one (1) light vehicles per day or seven (7) light vehicles per week for maintenance/monitoring purposes and the operation of the facility. It has been determined that full review of Section 7-307 is not warranted due to the HMCS being an existing facility. Article VII, § 7-308 Trail and Walkway Standards (subsections A, B, C, D, E & F) The HMCS is associated with natural gas production so this section is not applicable. Article VII, § 7-309 Utility Standards All wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment have been installed in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all FCC, FAA, state and local regulations, and in such a manner that will not interfere with radio communications, electronic transmissions or all other electromagnetic communications or otherwise cause a safety hazard. No new utility installations are being proposed for this existing facility. Division VII Standards for Overlay Districts – This section of the Garfield County Land Use Code was not addressed due to the HMCS not being located within any overlay district. Section 7-810 Additional Standards Applicable to Industrial Use A. Enclosed Building There is one CAT Model 3616 engine-driven reciprocating compressor unit that is enclosed within a sound-attenuated structure. The compressor has been installed with appropriate sound mitigation equipment. The site is also fenced. There are three other buildings located onsite including a control room building, electrical building and an instrument air building. None of the buildings will be used for fabrication, service and repair operations within any of the enclosed buildings. B. Loading and Unloading The property does not include public road right-of-way on the subject site. All operations will be conducted on site (private property). 12 C. Outdoor Storage Facilities The Compressor Station property is fenced so all fuel, raw materials and products are therefore not easily accessed. The site itself is located in a remote area with the closest residences being located approximately 4,200 and 5,000 feet from the Compressor Station. D. Industrial Waste Industrial waste will be disposed according to Federal, State, and Local regulations. E. Sound A sound survey was performed on Feb. 22, 2012 at the HMCS High Mesa Station by Hoover & Keith, Inc. The findings of the sound survey are detailed in the report dated March 20, 2012. The summary findings of this study stated: “In summary, the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound levels are slightly above or below the sound level limits specified in the COGCC “Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations” for “light industrial” zoned property (i.e., daytime level of 70 dBA and nighttime level of 65 dBA at 350 feet from the Station). This conclusion assumes that the Station is considered to be in a remote location (i.e., there are no reasonably proximate occupied structures).” “Regarding the Colorado State Statute (Colorado State Statute 25-12-102/103), the results of the sound survey indicate that the Station sound level is equal to or below the sound level limits specified in the Colorado State Statute for an adjacent industrial use area (i.e., nighttime A-wt. sound level or Leq of 65 dBA) and at surrounding residences (i.e., 50 dBA at 25 feet from the residential property line).” “At the residences located west/NW of the Station, noise associated with the Station was not really audible during the sound survey, and the noise of distant vehicle traffic along Interstate 70 was the primary noise contributor to the measured A-wt. sound levels along with the noise associated with another oil/gas facility located relatively close to these residences. At the residences located southwest of the Station (i.e., along Spring Creek Road), which are in line-of-sight of the Station, the noise generated by the Station was audible but not the dominant noise source. The A-wt. sound levels at these residences SW of the Station were primarily a results of the noise of distant traffic along Interstate 70. At the sound measurement positions around the fenceline and property of the Station (i.e., Meas. Pos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7), the noise of the Station was t he most dominant noise source, which would be expected since the primary equipment at the Station consist of unenclosed skid-mounted engine-driven compressor units.” “This concludes the results of the sound survey at the High Mesa Station. The measured sound levels around the Station (e.g., sound levels at 350 feet from the Station equipment/units) would be slightly higher than the measured levels if all compressor 13 units were operating although we understand that the operating conditions that occurred during this recent sound survey is typical for this facility.” If necessary, GRG is prepared to institute further sound mitigation measures. F. Ground Vibration Ground vibration will not be measurable at any point along the property boundary lines. G. Interference, Nuisance, or Hazard Via the implementation of engineering controls and operational maintenance, the facility will not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which would substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or constitute a public hazard. The facility will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local regulations.