County seeks balance between development and protection

Still a long way from finalizing gas regulations

The Gunnison Board of County Commissioners went back to work on the changes being proposed to the Regulations for Oil and Gas Operation on Tuesday, May 8, taking time to discuss new elements that would give gas developers a chance to put a long-term production plan together and further streamline the county’s review process.

Making that process run smoother has been a concern for the county since District Court Judge Stephen Patrick told the county last September they needed to provide gas developers with a clear path and timeline for permit reviews.
So County Attorney David Baumgarten, Special Counsel Barbara Green and Assistant Planning Director Neal Starkebaum, who have all been fine-tuning a set of recommended revisions from the Planning Commission last June, offered a few ways of doing that.
A comprehensive plan is something other agencies—like the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), Bureau of Land management (BLM), and U.S. Forest Service—allow and encourage if a gas developer can predict what a built-out development will look like in the future.
For the sake of consistency, Green told the commissioners, the revised regulations could require developers to submit a comprehensive plan if one was already being supplied to another agency. Otherwise a long-range look would be purely optional.
“The idea is that it benefits the community, the public, the board and the applicant all the way around to be able to do things comprehensively,” Green said. “Jumping ahead, the idea was that if you go with a comprehensive plan approach, you would get a general approval, similar to what the COGCC does, for the general location of your facilities …
“Then, when [the developers] know better about individual locations, they would submit a more detailed information and that could be reviewed administratively,” Green continued, adding that if an application didn’t mesh with the comprehensive plan it could be bumped up to a higher level of review.
That model, Green said, is still only being conceived locally, but has been successful in similarly situated communities around the state.
Under the proposed revision, the Planning Commission would still be responsible for looking at applications for operations with a potentially significant impact, and the BOCC would have the final word if the Planning Commission’s decision were appealed.
Another sticking point for the county has been impact classifications, which determine the county’s level of review for permit applications. A minor impact permit application is given for work inside the scope of normal operations and gets reviewed by county staff. Potentially significant impact permits mean more paperwork and a more rigorous review.
Former Planning Commissioner Richard Karas pointed out that the already burdensome volume of permit applications being reviewed by staff and Planning Commissioners is likely to grow, which forces both to cope increasingly with untenable timelines set up in the regulations.
“I think it puts staff, and the Planning Commission when it’s involved, in a very tight box,” Karas said. “I understand the intent for expedition. I know this will probably have an effect on the profitability of the wells and the cost to drill them and the application process is one where time is money. I understand all of that. But I really would not like to put the public’s health and welfare in any kind of jeopardy because of the need for haste and I hope you’ll consider that as you rethink the timelines.”
The revised regulations being considered the last time the group met, in early April, gave some people the impression that permit applications would be reviewed administratively if the proposed operation met some criteria on a loose list in the regulations, like staying a certain distance from a house or co-locating gas wells.
“Now we’ve worded it to say, ‘Unless specifically exempt oil and gas operations shall be classified for purposes of review as either limited impact or potentially significant impact,’” Green read. “It now also goes on to say, ‘Oil and gas operations with one or more of the following features are eligible to be reviewed as limited impact, unless the community development department decides the operation should be classified as potentially significant.’”
Offering applicants eligibility for a lighter standard of review, instead of a implying a sure thing, did little to assuage Matt Reed, public lands director for High Country Citizens’ Alliance. He repeated his concern that the latest revision “dilutes the work of the Planning Commission” and “maximizes efficiency at the expense of environmental safeguards.”
Reed said he was also concerned that the way the regulations are being proposed would go too far in removing the public from the process, specifically when a decision on an application is appealed to the county commissioners.
Other changes included in this round of revisions that could have significant implications for producers and could test the county’s authority to regulate industry activities. New requirements would include a list of ingredients in hydraulic fracturing fluid, which until recently have been guarded by the gas producers, as well as more assurance that emergency response plans are available, manned and funded if necessary.
There was also some clarification of the requirements for a water quality monitoring plan, which can be seen, along with the other changes being considered to the Regulations for Oil and Gas Development, available from the county’s Community Development Department upon request.
The commissioners asked staff to return to discuss the changes in more detail, but weren’t sure when. Another work session has been scheduled for June 12.
“I think everybody in the room is ready to go back and take a closer look,” Channell said.