HomeMy WebLinkAbout20150044.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JANUARY 12, 2015
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full
conformity with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County
Administration Building, Greeley, Colorado, January 12, 2015, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
El ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following
members were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Mike Freeman, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Julie A. Cozad
Commissioner Steve Moreno
Also present:
County Attorney, Robert T. Frick
Clerk to the Board, Esther E. Gesick
Controller, Barbara Connolly
El MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of January 7, 2015, as printed. Commissioner Moreno seconded the motion,
and it carried unanimously.
IE CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Freeman moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on January 7, 2015, as follows: 1) USR14-0070 - Grassland Water Solutions,
LLC; and 2) USR14-0043 - Kay Collins and Ryan Gallatin. Commissioner Cozad seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: In response to Commissioner Cozad, Chair Kirkmeyer verified
Commissioner Freeman is the chair of the Federal Mineral Lease Board. Commissioner Cozad moved
to approve the Consent Agenda as printed. Commissioner Moreno seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
12) PUBLIC INPUT: Jeffrey Hare, Greeley resident, read a letter for the record concerning risk to the
County regarding insider fraud and theft of secure data. He shared his expertise and experiences
promoting his class and book, to include references. Mr. Hare offered training and audit services to the
County, free of charge, to mitigate risk at a value of $30,000, requesting the Board make a decision to
retain his services no later than January 23, 2015. He submitted copies of his letter for the record,
marked Exhibit A.
3Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
��I Page 1 BC0016
IR Amanda Harper, County resident, submitted a copy of a letter representing 15 residents, which
she read for the record, concerning a proposed Encana oil and gas Use by Right facility in their rural
neighborhood, attached to these Minutes as Exhibit B. Her comments expressed concern with the
potential traffic, health hazards, dust, etc. and requested the Commissioners consider imposing
additional review and oversight. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Harper stated they would
be interested in a community meeting with the Commissioners and Encana representatives present to
have a round table discussion.
BIDS:
e 1) PRESENT BID #61500023, CISCO SWITCH EQUIPMENT - DEPARTMENT OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Ryan Rose, Director of the Department of Information Technology,
presented the three bids received and stated this project is a part of the annual capital improvement
project that was approved in the 2015 budget cycle. Staff will make a recommendation to the Board on
January 26, 2015.
El 2) PRESENT BID #61400218, TRAFFIC SIGNAL CR 60.5/47 PROJECT - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS: Trevor Jiricek, Director of General Services, presented the three bids received and
stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
El 3) PRESENT BID #61500001, TANDEM AXLE BELLY DUMP TRAILERS (QTY. 2) -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / TRUCKING DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the five bids
received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 4) PRESENT BID #61500002, MOTORGRADERS (QTY. 2) - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS / GRADER DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three bids received and stated staff will make
a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
5) PRESENT BID #61500003, TANDEM TANK TRAILERS WITH WATER SPRAY SYSTEM
(QTY. 2) - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / GRADER DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three
bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 6) PRESENT BID #B1500004, ROAD STABILIZER/RECLAIMER (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS / GRADER DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three bids received and stated staff
will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 7) PRESENT BID #B1500005, MULTIPURPOSE TANDEM AXLE TRUCK (QTY. 1) -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / BRIDGE DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the eight bids
received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
▪ 8) PRESENT BID #61500006, DOUBLE AXLE TRAILERS (QTY. 3) - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS / BRIDGE DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the five bids received and stated staff will
make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
El 9) PRESENT BID #61500007, WELDING GENERATOR (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS / BRIDGE DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the four bids received and stated staff will make a
recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
Page 2 BC0016
E 10) PRESENT BID #B1500008, HYDRO/VAC EXCAVATOR (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS / BRIDGE DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three bids received and stated staff
will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
'�---- 11) PRESENT BID #61500009, PORTABLE CAMERA (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS / BRIDGE DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the four bids received and stated staff will make a
recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 12) PRESENT BID #61500011, FRONT END LOADER WITH ATTACHMENTS (QTY. 1) -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / MAINTENANCE SUPPORT DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented
the five bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 13) PRESENT BID #B1500012, TANDEM AXLE TRANSPORT TANK TRAILER (QTY. 1) -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented
the three bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
El 14) PRESENT BID #B1500013, BROOM SWEEPER (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS / PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three bids received and
stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
El 15) PRESENT BID#B15000014, ATTACHMENT FOR SKID LOADER (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS / PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the five bids
received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
e 16) PRESENT BID #61500015, AGRICULTURAL TRACTOR (QTY. 1) - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS /WEED DIVISION: Mr. Jiricek presented the three bids received and stated staff will
make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
E 17) PRESENT BID #B1500016, INMATE TRANSPORT VEHICLE (QTY. 1) - SHERIFF'S
OFFICE: Mr.Jiricek presented the sole bid received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the
Board on January 26, 2015. Commissioner Conway requested staff search for a vehicle able to
adequately maneuver in the downtown parking garage location.
e 18) PRESENT BID #61500017, ONE-HALF TON 4X4 EXTENDED CAB PICKUPS (QTY. 2) -
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES / BUILDING INSPECTION: Mr. Jiricek presented the six
bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to the Board on January 26, 2015.
E 19) PRESENT BID #61500019, PATROL VEHICLES - FULL SIZED (QTY. 14) - SHERIFF'S
OFFICE: Mr. Jiricek presented the four bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to
the Board on January 26, 2015.
E 20) PRESENT BID #B1500020, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS: Mr. Jiricek presented the eight bids received and stated staff will make a recommendation to
the Board on January 26, 2015.
Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
Page 3 BC0016
NEW BUSINESS:
1) CONSIDER LEASE AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE (822 7TH STREET,
SUITE 9, GREELEY) AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE KEN
BUCK: Toby Taylor, Director of the Department of Buildings and Grounds, reviewed the terms of the
lease. Mr. Taylor confirmed that Weld County was contacted by the staff of Representative Buck, the
property is being leased at market value, and it is a temporary lease for six months while trying to
acquire a larger space. Commissioner Moreno moved to approve said lease agreement and authorize
the Chair to sign. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway and it carried unanimously.
ID 2) CONSIDER RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN - LONESTAR, LLC, DBA VAQUERAS NIGHT CLUB: Bob Choate, Assistant County
Attorney, gave a brief overview of the application and referral responses. The applicant was not
present. Commissioner Freeman moved to approve said renewal application and authorize the Chair
to sign. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Cozad, carried unanimously.
II 3) CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR COUNTY DANCE HALL LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN - LONESTAR, LLC, DBA VAQUERAS NIGHT CLUB: Mr. Choate explained this
license is being requested in conjunction with the license which was just renewed and will run for
calendar year 2015. Commissioner Freeman moved to approve said application and authorize the
Chair. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Ei 4) FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2014-13, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC WORKS, OF THE WELD COUNTY
CODE: Commissioner Conway moved to read Code Ordinance #2014-13 by title only. Seconded by
Commissioner Moreno, the motion carried unanimously. Robert Frick, County Attorney, read said title
for the record. IlEi Elizabeth Relford, Department of Public Works, stated the purpose of the updates
of the Functional Classification Map and reviewed the proposed changes for the record. She also
noted the Road Impact fees must be used on Collectors and Arterials, which is a supplemental reason
for ensuring adequate classifications and enhanced safety reasons. She confirmed notices were
mailed to adjacent property owners. El Chair Kirkmeyer clarified this map is not a precursor to the
County's construction schedule and adjacent landowners are not required to dedicate right-of-way at
this time; it is simply a planning tool. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Relford addressed the
comments of the letter from Robert Lewis, County resident, marked Exhibit A to the Ordinance backup,
and confirmed the County is taking a conservative approach and attempting to plan so structures do not
need to be relocated in the future. Commissioner Cozad commented some of the traffic counts are
temporary in nature which futher lends to this serving as a planning tool only. Ms. Relford noted many
of these roads are currently being impacted and improved; however, they are not slated for immediate
widening. She also addressed the downgrading of particular roadways.
El Chair Kirkmeyer opened the public testimony invitation. Ron McNutt, County Road 50 resident,
stated CR 50 is proposed to be upgraded to a Collector road which takes an additional 10 feet of
right-of-way from his use and impacts adjoining irrigated farmland and other oil and gas
encumberances and access easements. He referenced a good recommendation, that he agrees with,
in comments made by Planning Commissioner, Jason Maxey, to not include CR 50, between HWY 34
and CR 53, as a collector roadway at this time to be reassessed at a later date, however make a
collector road between CR 53 and CR 49 where the gas plant is located.
E Larry Connell, CR 53 resident, commented he does own farmland adjacent to some of the
proposed reclassifications and did not receive notice. He also farms several other properties on CR 50
Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
Page 4 BC0016
and CR 53 in the area and stated it is challenging to move farm equipment in the area, increased traffic
proposes a hazard with increased traffic trying to pass him, and road deterioration is problematic. He
also expressed his concerns with the Sheriff's Office, but was informed of limited resources. He
addressed Commissioner Conway concerning an estimate of 25-30 farms in the area, primarily
agriculture, as well as tank batteries, pipelines, etc. and reitreated concern with an upgrade resulting in
an additional increase of traffic.
e There being no further comments, Chair Kirkmeyer closed public testimony. a In response to
Commissioner Cozad, Ms. Relford clarified the County will utilize HARP funds for improvements but
can only use Impact fees if classified as a collector or arterial. E Chair Kirkmeyer stated although
she clearly understands the challenges of increased traffic in an agricultural area of the county, the
classification will not automatically mandate widening or an increase of traffic; that will happen naturally.
Rather, this is intended to serve as a planning tool to assist in proper placement of improvements and
avoid relocations in the future. II In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Relford stated CR 50
was chipsealed as a result of traffic bypassing Kersey and everyone concurred this is specific to
classifications, not construction. El The motion to approve said Ordinance on Final Reading was
made by Commissioner Cozad, and seconded by Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Cozad
stated she agreed with Chair Kirkmeyer's comments and thanked the members of the public for taking
the time to attend and make comments. Commissioner Conway referenced the letter from Mr. Lewis
concerning the future re-evaluation of CR 68, and although he fully appreciates the comments of the
members of the public, agrees it is important to establish a planning tool to address long term
transportation needs. Commissioner Freeman agreed and reiterated there are no current plans to
expand or widen; increased traffic is related to growth, not just oil and gas. Commissioner Moreno
thanked the members of the public for attending and he will support the motion. Chair Kirkmeyer stated
the comments are very valid when considering the Capital Improvement Plan, such as ensuring
adequate shoulders, etc., for improved safety throughout the County. There being no further
discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
1) CONSIDER ZONING PERMIT FOR A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ZPSD14-
0015 -WILLIAM AND SHARON MCKAY: Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, gave a brief
summary of the application request, described the location of the 30-acre site, and confirmed staff
received 40% surrounding property owner opposition. In response to Commissioner Cozad, Ms. Inloes
clarified the property is not eligible for further split.
El Robert Kreps, represented the applicant, William "Bill" McKay, who was also present. Mr. Krepps
stated the application is in full compliance with the Code criteria to place a complimentary residence for
grandparents, it is compatible with the neighborhood, domestic water is addressed, and a new septic
will be installed at time of building permit.
El Charles Tucker, surrounding property owner to the north and east (family dairy and farmground),
stated no specific concern with the request; however, he noted denial of his similar requests unless
placed temporarily and commented it creates further potential for future property split. El In response
to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Tucker stated he made his two applications four and six years ago.
Responding to Commissioner Moreno, Ms. Inloes confirmed the Code concerning Zoning Permits has
been modified in the past three years. Mr. Tucker further commented there is a difference between 30
acres and 160 acres regarding placement of a home and splitting of property.
Fl Mike Jim, stated he previously owned the subject property and made a very similar request in
2013 and was instructed it would require a Recorded Exemption (RE) application. Chair Kirkmeyer
Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
Page 5 BC0016
also advised Mr. Jim to contact the Planning staff, clarifying this application is not to split the property,
just add a residence. El Mr. Krepps stated a temporary structure on blocks would not be suitable and
it should be done properly on a proper foundation. El Commissioner Conway moved to approve said
application, with the Conditions of Approval as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Freeman. Commissioner Conway thanked the public for their comments, encouraged them to meet
with the Planning department, and expressed his support for this current application. Commissioners
Freeman and Moreno agreed and it carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Code Ordinance#2014-13 was approved on Final Reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, C LORADO
ATTEST: Ca( Cd ; f. 141f./.Ait— /L���
CC// GG' K //BBarbara Kirkmeye , Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
c a:i.:..----�
•
l n Mi ek Freeman, Pro-Tern
BY: (1 P �- - -
De u Clerk to the oard ��..�
L�`S can P. Conway
.4 .
/O �
1861 N�.. - ozad
Steve Moreno
Minutes, January 12, 2015 2015-0044
Page 6 BC0016
- -
\ J
Nt i
J ZD v
a
5
W
c%, CS
-� 0
V r�
:31)Q s``
ti V
r.\ 2 * 0 ,,,,,, e __5 \. 0 N\-)
s.e\.) 4 cic, .. (5, cs., .\?-0
I
ici, vc__. c.....
�� -g o J
L , c, c et , kti , ,
-
t
1/4
-n H . \ R
w U - v
. _ :: cm .-_-_-; ‘1/41g \7
a tcs '0 DZQ- N. . -. Nj
Z
I w
I— W
'Co - c Apt U ;
en
t7o ' 3 `�
o N ,-,
J v co \\ -- {� obi._ o ,,,, PC 1/4r-ta
ID �,
a
' C
m C
W --8 .N,,-
i- It i. � ci
z
in Z ,3' -:
� - -
a �J
_
J ,C -j
a � v
SCHIENJeffrey T. Hare,CPA CISA CIA j '14,s
209 N 52nd Ave
Greeley,CO 80634
January 12, 2015
Commissioner Barb Kirkmeyer
Commissioner Julie Cozad
Commissioner Mike Freeman
Commissioner Steve Moreno
Commissioner Sean Conway
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
1150 O Street
Greeley,CO 80632
Dear Weld County Board of County Commissioners,
I appreciate your service to the constituents of Weld County. I know your job is often a thankless job and I
appreciate your willingness to serve as a Commissioner.
Our world has changed. Cyber security is now a weapon of war. Identity theft is rampant. Systems are being
hacked left and right. The most recent include Target, Home Depot,Chick-Fil-A,and Sony. Weld County had a
data breach about 10 years ago. Most of these data breeches are caused by insiders, not outside hackers.
My expertise is to design internal controls to prevent and detect data theft and fraud from insiders. I have
performed training or conducted an assessment on the following organizations:
Los Alamos National Laboratory(2014),Sui Southern Gas Co(Pakistan),Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe(OSCE-Austria),Con-way, First Data, Gates, US Steel,Stryker, Diamond Resorts, Panama Canal,and
King County(WA). I teach the only class of its kind throughout the world and have written the definitive book on
application security for our industry.
I know a few things about data security and fraud. I know that ALL organizations have vulnerabilities and room for
improvement. This is true for even our nation's most secure laboratory—Los Alamos National Lab who referred
me to their sister lab Lawrence Livermore National Lab where I will perform an assessment this summer.
I can hardly imagine that Weld County is more mature in its internal controls and security than Los Alamos
National Lab. Therefore, I am volunteering to help Weld County identify and mitigate risks throughout your
systems. I am offering up to three weeks of my time in the next year to help the County by performing an
assessment and help identify ways to mitigate risks. This has a value of$30,000. Simply put, knowing what I
know, I cannot sit back and do nothing. Doing nothing would be similar to asking a fireman stand on the curb and
do nothing while a house was burning. This offer is available to you until January 23,2015.
Regards,
gda
Jeffrey T Hare,CPA CISA CIA
as-COW
EXHIBIT
t0t4IS-
List of Items in addition to letter to Weld County Commissioners being presented on
January, 12, 2015 f'?tbtec YPI4'
Submitted by Amanda Harper
Pleasant View Rural Community member and Landowner, Farmer
1: 5 pages of letters I have sent to Weld County
2: A Copy of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment Letter from Ken Kuster to Matt
Lepore on behalf of Larimer County Pace Well Pad.
3:A Packet of 6 documents: Front page of Petition being signed, statement about legal rights,A 3 page
letter from neighbor Terry Krafft,a statement from neighbor M.Schneider,2 circulating posters
4: Boulder County Commissioner Notes resented at a Commissioners meeting/List of mitigations
Boulder County requires
5: The first section of'The Public Health Review on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas
Development'from the state of New York
6: Inside Climate News a Legal Suit from 2014
7: Map of Area of Concern
Good Morning Ms. Kirkmeyer and Mr. Moreno and the other Weld County Commissioners.
My name is Amanda Harper, I live at 517 Road 18, Longmont CO 80504. I am here representing 14
families who are asking you to recommend to Tom Parko the LGD from Weld County, Bob Frick the
County Attorney,Jay Mc Donald and Janet Lindquist from Public Works, Encana and Matt Lepore
director of the COGCC to remove all 12 Form 2's for the 12 well-bores and the associated 2 Form A's for
the Rasmussen 2N 68W SWSW and SWSE from the COGCC Website. We are asking Tom Parko to
disapprove the wells and location assessment on January 14,2015 when the Public Comment period
ends for these wells on the COGCC website. It is the communities best determination that further study,
evaluations, modifications and reconsiderations need to be in the pre-approval process for the
proposals to be proven as 100%safe for residents and the environment.
We believe that the above referenced sites represent severe threats to public health safety and welfare
and environment. What is being proposed by Encana in our neighborhood, is not the same Oil and Gas
extraction that has been happening in Weld County for 60 years. The current rules regulating the
application process do not include a public process and do not address the scale of the proposed
operations. There are 2, 12 well sites being proposed in Section 19. The way they are proposed,
represent severe violations of our rights to health safety welfare and to a clean, poison free
environment. Excessive emissions, nuisances which include light and noise trespassing,the visual blight
of both the operations and the infrastructure of the facility site all point to that Permitting High Volume
Hydrofracturing Industrial Facilities in Section 19 or Section 30 is a poorly considered change from
Agricultural Zoning to Industrial Zoning. Agricultural zoning has served and protected the land and
citizens in this historically significant community from development of all kinds for over 100 years.
The area along East County Road 1, is an historical, rural neighborhood that sits on the border of
Boulder and Weld Counties,and a densely populated thriving agricultural use community with
numerous historical markers.
There is growing body of evidence that any oil and gas extraction and production facilities
accommodating 4 or more wells represents a significant Land Use change.Accordingly these large sites
of 4 or more wells are industrial scale and thus inappropriate within 2 miles of the intersection of East
County Line Road 1 and Rd. 18. It is evident to all of the property owners that I am representing that
the scale of these proposals go outside of'Use by Right' and should be considered for'Use by Special
Review'. There needs to be a public process in the pre-application part of the process so that our input
and concerns are included and clearly addressed in the proposal by Encana before consideration of the
12 wells,36, 25 foot high Tanks, 12 separators, 12+burn-off towers, 1 VRU unit 40 feet high and other
parts to the facility site(a total of 5 acres).
Additionally,the Encana site assessment has failed to take into account the viability for the%a mile long
one lane dirt road as the proposed access to the well sites(both Rasmussen and Regneir(another 12
well site and facility being proposed in February 2015)). This lane, maintained by residents is on private
property and has been used with either necessary and/or prescriptive easements since the 1800's. This
the lane is the only access and egress to 7 families who are landlocked to the east. The road which now
services about 20 vehicles a day and about 8-10 tanker trucks a week cannot support the anticipated
increase in use. The Encana proposal would send the equivalent of 300 tractor trailer and other truck
traffic a day for 9 months to 1 year down this private road. This excessive use would block the access
and egress and present pronounced safety hazard. Further the excessive traffic would continue after
drilling has ceased to accommodate servicing. This will add thousands more inappropriate and excessive
truck trips to this residential lane causing extreme burden to the residents who live landlocked.
We are asking for a Traffic study, coordinated with Boulder County to be completed with results
available to our community. Tom Parko has decided this is not a necessary assessment. We disagree
wholeheartedly. We think the information that would be gained from this study is a necessary body of
information to make an informed, intelligent and prudent decision for our landscape and our
community's safety.
We live in a unique setting that was until 1955 Pleasant View Ridge with a Post Office, historical
cemetery,a school house(that is now a Landmark), a connection to the railroad and thus numerous
houses grew around Pleasant View Ridge and District 45, a Township that preceded Longmont.
Many of the Property Owners who live in this agricultural neighborhood are long time residents, have
been living with Oil and Gas operations for most of their lives here and yet,are extremely concerned
about the 2 proposed large scale high volume hydro-fracturing operations for Section 19. We are
concerned about the emissions,the infrastructure and the truck traffic, noise violations and light
violations. The increased nuisances are a credible threat that threaten our health welfare and safety
and environment. There have already been numerous documented large nuisances from the Oil and
Gas industry in the broader area around our home,and in our local vicinity,and our rights have already
been violated numerous times,though Encana denies these or does not claim them.
We understand that Encana is operating and making their applications within the rules and regulations
set out by the state of Colorado. We are proposing that they are not breaking rules,they are breaking
the law. Mineral Rights owners and Leasees have rights but all property owners in this situation have
property and human rights,the mineral owners do not exist in a vacuum.
Let it be known and on record that our group, Pleasant View Rural Community, is asking for the rules in
this situation to be adapted to our requests. Remove the current applications and then in the pre-
application process, incorporate our views,concerns and recommendations and mitigations into any
proposal that Encana brings to Weld County for review. For instance, we are requesting that Tom Parko
asks for a CDPHE Assessment,a Traffic Study,an Access Permit required for any access Encana proposes
to use for developing their sites, numerous mitigation measures,a reduction in well numbers and we
also want the site moved to the farthest point away from all residents which would be in the far north
field away from Rd. 18. Both Boulder and Weld citizens are severely impacted by these proposals and
thus should work closely with both the Boulder and Weld County LGD's and Encana to evaluate and
determine best use practices for all Section 19 proposals.
As well,the burden of proof for 100%safety should be put on Encana, but since they are both unable
and unwilling to do this,we must take matters into our own hands,this includes base level evaluations
of a variety of conditions. If the Encana proposals continue as is,without our input,without looking into
10 different mitigations that are possible but not being considered,without a neighborhood
conversation or mediation;when violations happen,and they will happen,either nuisance level or
violation level, our only recourse as property owners will be to file suit for retroactive culpability in order
to compensate us for our damages.
Currently most HVHF sites are in areas where there are still sweeping open agricultural landscapes,ours
area is a rural neighborhood,enclosed and surrounding the y..mile X X mile field where all of these
operations are being proposed. This site is completely inappropriate for the Industrial scale proposals
Encana has'pplied for.
Vtie are askingyiwto look into our lives,our health,our landscape choice,and ask; how will this impact
theit tees. What is this community saying to us?We all chose to live a quiet, pristine, agricultural life we
deliberate)those to live away from traffic, construction, noise, lighting, industrial waste and emissions,
we are coWt*t y people, not Industrial people.
We ask yoUU rlbw can it be okay with you all, as stewards of Weld County people and land to let Encana
fimethese egregious conditions into our lives. Please stop these proposals,and create a well -
rounabtl thin tank so that all parties who are affected by Encana and the mineral owners requests to
drill have equal voice and all are required to negotiate and compromise.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice these concerns to you. Thank you in advance for your time
spend on these important issues and I and my neighbors look forward to working collaboratively with
you and the County on resolving these glaringly apparent problems with the Encana proposals.
Please tome to our area and see it for yourselves.
-"We have a petition to share with you with over 155 signatures from people who share our fears and
concerns and do not think it is appropriate for these 24 additional wells to be drilled on Section 19.
Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=1772&x=-97...
Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests
From: AAH <harperdeltufo@earthlink.net>
To: Tom Parko , Matt Lapore
Cc: john cogcc<john.noto@state.co.us>, "Harv@treeclimbingco.com"
<Harv@treeclimbingco.com>, oil and gas task force <ogtaskforce@state.co.us>, greg Cogcc
<greg.deranleau@state.co.us>, dave cogcc<dave.kulmann@state.co.us>, "harperdeltufo@earthlink.net"
<harperdeltufo@earthl ink.net>
Subject: Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests
Date: Dec 30, 2014 11:39 AM
Hello Tom, Matt, Mike, O &G Task Force,
Tom, thank you for spending the time to speak with me this morning. It was a distressing call partially because
there are some discrepencies between what Matt Lapore says your role as the LGD for Weld County is, and what
you told me this morning.
Please read carefully this response (below this e-mail)from Matt Lapore about your role as Weld County LGD.
I now understand that the Oil and Gas Industry has a total 'Use by Right' in Colorado. They can put any size well
site anywhere they want within the bare minimum rules according to some minimal mitigation rules that the state/
the COGCC have in place. One rather large problem I see with this is: The game has changed dramatically with
the concentrated well sites and urban and rural neighborhoods, and the current rules. The rules do not fit, it's like
this: we are now going to play a hunting game where the stakes are your home and your way of life, health and
welfare, but lets'still play with a game of Tag rules.
Additionally, I did not appreciate that at the end of our conversation you tried to imply that others have enjoyed the
Oil and Gas operations that they didn't originally want, insinuating that I might enjoy this process eventually. To
set the record straight, you are not hearing me or the community Tom. What Encana is proposing in our historical
rural neighborhood, the 24 wells and 2 facility sites are egregious, not prudent for our lives here, and will
desecrate our lives here, we will never enjoy it, in fact we are going to have to move away from our home as our
health safety and welfare and the safety of our environment are severely threatened and will be irreparably and
permanently damaged - IF these negligent, incomplete applications go through the way they are being proposed
by Encana.
There is documented, peer reviewed evidence that there are threats of chemical trespass with operations of this
size, so increasing the current site size to a High Volume Hydrogracturing site increases our risks for this kind of
poisoning exponentially. Increasing the size of these operations also exponentially increases the risk for
environmental destruction here with spills, fires, explosions and other dangers. There have already been a
number of incidences with Oil and Gas operators here in our area just with the smaller operations the risks for
more incidences will be vastly larger with such large operations here in our area. As well, the noise levels of
these operations will be louder than allowed by the state and the Sports Stadium Lighting will ruin the rural way of
life for numerous Weld and Boulder County citizens for over 1 year. This is light trespass, we don't live in a city.
For the record, here are 7 new requests and considerations:
1. Per Matt Lapore, an LGD may request a CDPHE assessment, would you please do this.
2. Per Matt Lapore, an LGD may comment on the public comment part of the COGCC website,just like the
public, will you please enter our list of concerns for us. I am happy to type one up for you or you can write one
according to all of the documents I have sent you in the last month. Please do this for us before the January 14
deadline for the Public Comment Period ends. Thank you.
3. Per Matt Lapore, an LGD may request a hearing if these wells are approved. Please do this if the wells are
approved.
4. The LGD can influence the operator and the COGCC trying to find best management practices for site, I know
1 of 4 1/11/2015 5:29 PM
Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests http://webmaiLearthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=1772&x=-97...
you have been doing some of this but I would like you to increase pressure on them about the road challenges
and our easements. A meeting with Miracle Pfeiffer would need to have numerous representatives from all stake
holders in this situation.
5. Jay McDonald in Public works has stated that I have used up my ORA time with my ORA request(that had
the result that there are no records on file for Rd. 18, because it isn't a road), conversations I had with Richard
Hastings in his department. Jay is overstepping his reach in power. Also Amy Joseph, Janet Lundquist and Jay
McDonald are all out of the office until January 6. He has told employees to charge me for phone calls inquiring
about this road and permit applications. As a tax paying citizen of Weld County II should be able to speak with
them as much as I want to without being charged, or ignored. I shouldn't have to take this the County
Commissioners to override his decision.
6. We need you, Tom to assert yourself with Public Works and bring up the numerous concerns about he 1992
document, the easements that 8 landowners have on Rd. 18 and the logrithmic increase in semi-truck traffic being
proposed for that tiny and fragile intersection, that is our only access and egress.
7. Robert Frick, the new County Attorney, the ex Hearings Manager from the COGCC has told me that I need a
lawyer to speak with him about Rd. 18. This seems illegal. I am a Weld County citizen. I want full access to
speak to all in Public Works and the attorney's office about what is about to ruin our lives. Our community has a
right to be a part of the process of access permiting for Encana onto Rd 18, so I and other members of our
community need to be able to discuss our situation with Public Works employees. The document that is being
presented as the 'Official Document' was not found in the ORA search, and contradicts the findings in the ORA
search as the'final say'on the road. In other words much more time needs to be spent going through legal
processes to evaluate Rd. 18 and come to a determination. That would involve'Leon's Team' surveys and other
entities who are looking into this matter already, and they need time and information from Public Works. Again
this points towards an incomplete and negligent application from Encana.
For now, those are my requests and comments. Matt and Tom, please address all 7 points in an email. Thanks.
Please see Matt Lapores letter below.
Respectfully,
Amanda Harper
----Forwarded Message----
From:Matt Lepore- DNR
Sent Dec 23, 2014 11:56 PM
To: AAH , Dave Kulmann
Cc: Tom Parko , Harv@treeclimbingco.com, Mike King - DNR
Subject: RE: Clarification-10 day comment period/Application Request
Ms. Harper:
I know that Mr. Kulmann responded to you regarding the comment period dates. To add to
his response, there appears to be some confusion about the role of an LGD (Mr. Parko, for
Weld County in this case) in the COGCC permitting process.
An LGD may comment on a permit application just like the public; an LGD may request that
the CDPHE conduct an assessment of a proposed location; an LGD may request an
extension of the comment period, as Mr. Parko did at your request; and an LGD may request
a hearing on a permit after it has been approved under certain circumstances. The LGD
does not participate directly in deciding whether or not a permit is approved. Thus, Mr.
Parko will not be approving or disapproving the pending Encana permits on December 31 or
any other date.
2 of4 1/11/2015 5:29 PM
Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=1772&x=-97...
Local governments have their own processes related to proposed oil and gas locations, and in
some cases require their own permits, separate and apart from the COGCC permits. In
addition, local governments have jurisdiction over some aspects of oil and gas development
that COGCC does not regulate. For example, Weld County has jurisdiction over access to oil
and gas locations via county roads.
COGCC will consider the concerns you and others express through the public comment
process. Public comments, as well as input from the LGD, and COGCC's own evaluation of
site-specific conditions may lead to additional mitigation measures or"best management
practices" being included as a condition of the location or drilling permit. As Mr. Kulmann
stated, the concerns you have expressed are not a basis upon which COGCC can withdraw
Encana's permits from consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matthew J. Lepore
Director
co_dnr_div_ogcc_300_rgb_Itrhd_v3
From: AAH [mailto:haroerdeltufo@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:23 PM
To: dave cogcc
Cc: Tom Parko; Matt Lapore; Harv@treeclimbinqco.com; Mike Kiing COGCC
Subject: Clarification-10 day comment period/Application Request
December 22, 2014
Hello Dave, Tom, Matt, Mike and Harv,
Thank you for the 10 day Public Comment extension on the COGCC website, the decision was made
on December 16 I believe.
1. I am unclear about the dates associated with each of the applications. Each of the 14 applications
were turned in on different dates which makes the 20 comment period end on different dates. As of
Friday 12/19/2014 none of the 14 permit applications comment period deadlines had been changed on
the COGCC website to accommodate the 10 day extension.
Are all of the Comment Dates set for January 14, 2015? If so, it would be important for the website to
reflect that as soon as possible so there isn't any confusion. about the end of the comment periods.
2. It came to may attention that Tom Parko, the LGD, for the Encana Permits has his approval date set
at December 31, 2014. In other words, he will not be reading the Public Comments before he approves
or disapproves the permit applications from Encana. This seems very negligent and it sends a strong
message to our group and the public, from the COGCC, that the Public Comments are of no value to
the LGD. This is very concerning as we are bringing up some very important Road and Location
assessment issues, that Encana neglected to address in their applications, it means that the LGD will
not be taking into consideration the health, safety and welfare of the community members who have
3 of 4 1/11/2015 5:29 PM
Lapore/Parko Rule Discrepencies and new requests http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=1772&x>97...
many valid concerns about the Industrial Sites health safety and welfare and the negative impacts
here in. Which include but are not limited to: 44,000 trucks+ on our one way road which is our only
access and egress, 2-4 sports stadium lights on for 1 year all night long and the sleep issues
associated with that, the Low Frequency Noise impact of 80 decibals when 60 is the limit which
impacts all within 1500 feet of this operation and the loss of sleep from that, the proven health risks
from the VOC emmissions during and after well production and the emmissions from the 5 acre Facility
site, which amounts to chemical trespass. The wells themselves have 5 waivers/exceptions attached
to them,including moving the site of the wells to more than 50'away from the already existing wells.
Encana insists that they need to get all the Oil and Gas out as fast as possible as soon as possible.
Well, I have seen how it is possible to 'star' out from wells rather than doing the back and forth
concentrated well site pattern of the fracking that Encana is proposing, they are in this to get the most
out as fast as possible, no matter who's lives and homes will be desecrated in the mean time. We have
numerous very concerned neighbors about the basic approach Encana is taking to putting these High
Volume Hydrofracturing sites in our neighborhood.
3. Numerous times I have made a very clear request to Encana and the COGCC. Remove the
applications from your website. This is an inappropriate site for 12 well bores and the facility site, it is
unreasonable to expect that any humans who have made the choice to live in this small rural
neighborhood enclave should have to endure any of these conditions for any amount of time.
Rassmussen is already accessing his minerals with 5 wells. These fit into the neighborhood, to a
degree. The proposals Encana has sited for this area are egregious and outrageous for the degree of
concentration, and being placed in the middle of our lives and homes- in the middle of an established
historic, rural, agricultural neighborhood. We are not Urban, nevertheless we are a neighborhood, but
not according to Encana. They have shown utter disregard for any of our negotiating ideas. their
hubris and disregard for our unique situation is pathetic.
4. We are on a path to stop this egregious event from happening. One more time. Please withdraw
the 14 applications until further study can take place with the CDPHE, the road situation is serious and
is being resolved but needs more time, numerous studies are coming our about the negative health
impacts of HVHF in areas that are populated, these need serious consideration. Encana has not
offered a single mitigation to us and they have made some big mistakes along the way. They do not
operate on a level playing field and do not negotiate with citizens.
Dave, Matt, Tom and Mike and Harv, I look forward to your responses.
Respectfully,
Amanda Harper, MA
4 of4 1/11/2015 5:29 PM
CDPHE Assessment http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=1831&x=15...
CDPHE Assessment
From: AAH <harperdeltufo@earthlink.net>
To: "tparko@co.weld.co.us"
Cc: Matt Lepore <matt.lepore@state.co.us>, oil and gas task force
<ogtaskforce@state.co.us>, john cogcc <john.noto@state.co.us>, greg Cogcc
<greg.deranleau@state.co.us>, Dale Case boulder County <dcase@bouldercounty.org>, s
moreno Blue <smoreno@weldgov.com>
Subject: CDPHE Assessment
Date: Jan 8, 2015 7:41 AM
Hello Tom,
I wanted to let you know that I have a letter from the CDPHE
regarding the Pace Pad in Larimer County. If you are interested
in seeing a copy of this letter I would be happy to forward it
to you.
Since you are the LGD for Weld County I know it is in your
capability to request an assessment from the CDPHE regarding a
site .
Our community, as you know is a concerned group of citizens
living in a small rural agricultural landscape and we are
requesting from you, a site evaluation from the CDPHE.
Encana is proposing 24 wells, and the two Industrial sized
Facility sites in addition to the wells that are already on
Section 19, which amount to up to between 13-15 wells, 6 of
which are already on the Rasmussen Property.
Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter . I look
forward to hearing from you soon .
Respectfully,
Amanda Harper
1 of 2 1/11/2015 5:23 PM
CQE ' COLORADO
CO Department of Public
Health b Environment
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado
November 14, 2014
Mr. Matthew Lepore, Director COGCC
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(Department)Consultation
Recommendations for the Great Western Pace FD well pad in Larimer County
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This letter describes the Department's recommendations to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC)on a list of conditions of approval to minimize adverse impacts for the Great
Western Pace FD well pad located in the SENE of Section 25,Township 6N Range 68W. These
recommendations are based on an analysis of the potential impacts from this well site as depicted in the
Form 2A submittal, comments from local residents and an onsite visit to the area.
Department staff is concerned about the potential impacts from this oil and gas well site for the residents
near this location and crafted recommended conditions of approval to minimize those community
impacts. The community impacts are likely to include
• Noise and vibration complaints;
• Odor and air quality complaints; and
• Safety concerns for the residents.
Noise and vibration complaints
Noise and vibration complaints are the number one complaint received by the COGCC. For a facility of
this size located near residential housing, noise and vibration complaints may become a daily
occurrence. According to a sound/noise expert with the Colorado State University sounds walls do not
fully address noise; however, specially designed buildings and equipment supports have been used to
mitigate both high and low frequency noise. The Department is recommending the following conditions
of approval to minimize the impacts from noise and vibration for this well site:
• Require electric or natural gas powered drilling rigs;
• Employ noise suppression practices for engines e.g. enclosures, sound blankets and hospital
grade mufflers;
• Prohibit vehicle backup alarms from 7 pm to 7 am; and
• Require electric compressor engines and install compressors in a specially designed building to
mitigate noise and vibration issues.
Odor and air quality complaints
Mitigation measures to reduce odor and air quality complaints will serve the community as well as the
state agencies responding to these complaints. The Department recommends the following conditions of
approval for odor and air quality complaints:
nF co,
`
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver,CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.co(orado.gov/cdphe �
John W. Hickenlooper,Governor I Larry Wolk,MD,MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
' /Ni6 a
• Require Tier 4 engines for equipment on this well site to reduce emissions;
• Eliminate open tanks for any fluids other than fresh water and during drill out operations(2-3
days maximum);
• Require green completion practices and ensure production facilities and pipelines are in place to
ensure green completions practices are used;
• Require natural gas sales line installation prior to completion activities to minimize flaring;
• Require dust suppression practices using a vacuum system or comparable process to control dust
from completion activities;
• Require automated system to determine tank levels and methods to minimize emissions from
tank unloading activities; and
• Require signage with operator contact information for residents with complaints and concerns
available 24 hours per day seven days per week.
Safety concerns for residents
Safety is a concern that must be addressed with an oil and gas facility of this size located near residential
homes. Larimer County Road 13 is the primary access road to this well site and in the event of an
emergency e.g. fire or explosion access to residential homes may not be possible. Investigation of a fire
suppression system for this site would reduce the risk to residents living near this location. In addition,
construction and maintenance at this well site will require countless trucks trips for this facility adding
to the potential for automobile accidents. The Department is recommending the following conditions of
approval as a starting point to address potential safety concerns:
• Require pipelines or water recycling to minimize truck trips;
• Require telemetry system to notify the operator of upset conditions with remote well shut-in
capability;
• Investigate a fire suppression system for the well site; and
• Require outreach and training with local emergency response agencies.
Conclusion
An oil and gas facility of this size near residential housing will impact the residents living nearby and
affect their quality of life. The Department would encourage Great Western Operating Company and the
COGCC to evaluate the potential for moving this well site to another location as far as possible from
residential housing.
The Department is confident that all of the recommended conditions of approval in this consultation
letter have been used in other industrial situations and a facility of this size and scope must utilize all
possible means to minimize safety concerns and the impacts to the residents living nearby.
Sincerely,
Kent Kuster out=
Kent Kuster
Oil and Gas Liaison
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
O1 COLr.
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver,CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe
John W. Hickentooper, Governor I Larry Wolk,MD,MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
IRV6 a
To be delivered to The Colorado State House,The Colorado State Senate, and Governor John
. Hickenlooper
Say NO to big oil and gas industrialized site in the midst of small rural historic community.
There are currently 140 signatures. NEW goal -We need 200 signatures!
Petition Background
Big oil and gas development is threatening our health and welfare, compromising our air and water,
dislocating wildlife(many which will not survive) and adversely impacting all quality of life and our
property values. Historic landmarks, including a cemetery,are in the path of the destructive oil and gas
operators that request permits for numerous wells and mega industrial storage and transfer facilities
that will overshadow a small rural community with doom.
Current petition signers
The proposed project is in violation of their natural, essential and inalienable rights to:enjoy their lives;
•
protect their property; and seek and obtain their safety and happiness--as enumerated in Article 2
Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution. Due to the inherent health risks associated with fracking and it's
deleterious effects on our Climate, we also find this project to be inconsistent with the public interest as
defined by the CO Oil and Gas Conservation Act§ 34-60-102. Legislative declaration (1) (a) It is declared
to be in the public interest to:(I) Foster the responsible, balanced development, production,and
utilization of the natural resources of oil and gas in the state of Colorado *in a manner consistent with
protection of public health,safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife
resources. *Please, see the 2nd edition of the Concerned Health Professionals of New York's
"Compendium of Scientific, Medical and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of
Fracking"http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-
Compendium.pdf
Dear Mr. Lepore, 1/10/15
My name is Terry Krafft and I live in southwest Weld County, directly east of the proposed ENCANA
Rasmussen oil and gas operations (Rasmussen 2N 68W SESW&SWSW Section 19). I understand you
met with my neighbors Carl and Amanda this past week. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I am
writing to express my own concerns about this development.
I have lived at 547 County Road 18 for seventeen years. My deceased wife and I chose this property
after looking at rural property extensively for several years.The primary reasons we bought this home
were: it is on a dead end dirt road, has a spectacular view of the mountains, is surrounded by irrigated
crop land and has mature trees and wildlife. I have real concerns that the proposed development will
permanently alter the character of this unique area. Boulder County officials recognized that this
farmland is a heritage agricultural area.That is what prompted them to buy development rights on
hundreds of acres to the north and west of my property. Many of the properties here were
homesteaded in the 1800's and formed the community of Pleasantview Ridge.The church and general
store that once stood at the intersection of WCR1 and Road 18 no longer exist, but a school house
dating from 1899 still stands and is listed on the National Register of Historic buildings.There is not
another place quite like this anywhere along the Front Range.
I am a Ph.D. chemist who has worked in the chemical manufacturing industry for 30 years so I am
somewhat sympathetic to the oil and gas industry. My concerns relate not to whether oil and gas
development should occur but rather how it should occur. In my industry we adhere to strict EH&S
standards, are heavily regulated and are held accountable for spills, emissions or any adverse effect on
public health and safety. I believe the oil and gas industry should be held to similar standards. I know the
COGCC has recently voted to tighten standards and I applaud you and the rest of the commission for
doing so.
Even with these new rules in place I am still concerned about my family's health and safety during the
proposed drilling operations. Although the jury may be out on the exact long term effects of High
Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, many recent studies show that there is ample reason for concern.As I am
sure you know,the New York State Department of Health released a 184 page study on December 17th
which documents these concerns in some detail. Among the concerns raised are the health effects of air
emissions, particulate levels and noise, and the environmental effects from methane which is a very
powerful greenhouse gas.Groundwater and surface contamination is also of great concern. Many
people in this vicinity use wells and Boulder Creek lies barely half a mile from the proposed drilling site.
Since no environmental impact study is required,who then protects the citizens and the environment if
not the COGCC? If you have not yet read the New York State study, I encourage you to do so.
Aside from health and safety issues, I have other concerns. My home is my single biggest investment
and I know home prices are adversely affected by these massive new fracking operations. My own past
personal experience at this location has shown that excessive noise and high intensity lighting rob
people of sleep night after night and make it difficult for them to function in their own jobs and family
responsibilities. I am concerned about loss of wildlife habitat. Past drilling operations have been of
.
relatively short duration.A twelve well pad will disrupt wildlife for long enough to drive out some
populations that live here or migrate through. We have seen fox, white tailed deer and have even had
two bears in the area. I photographed a bald eagle in a tree in front of my house just last week. We have
owls that nest and hunt on our property every year as they migrate through and pheasants that mate
and raise their young on our property. I fear we will never see these birds again after this drilling begins.
I have coexisted with oil and gas operations the whole time I have lived here but not without incident. In
the Fall of 2006 an ENCANA drilling crew drove down my driveway and damaged scores of trees and
spilled an undetermined amount of oil along a 500 ft. section of the road (case#2006-1102). I had no
prior notification by ENCANA that they planned to bring a drilling rig down this road, and I was not
informed after the accident happened. I came home at dusk and discovered the mayhem with no one on
site. I had to drive to the well head and demand to speak with someone in authority.This same crew
used chain saws to cut back large established trees near the cemetery at the corner of WCR1 and Road
18.They had no permission to do so.
My neighbor's property was so severely contaminated with asbestos that Anadarko ended up buying
part of his property from him.The trucks that service wells on the Regnier property continually cut a 90
degree corner on my property even after I placed fence posts to keep them from driving over my water
meter. In the end they drove the frost down far enough to freeze the meter which then had to be
replace and moved by Left Hand Water.The same trucks continue to cut the corner at WCR 1 and Road
18 and consequently have ruined the culvert there multiple times. Road 18 is on private property and is
not a county road. It is not designed to handle the existing truck traffic, let alone an exponential increase
that would come from the current proposal.
I assume most of the people in oil and gas development are good and conscientious people but
accidents happen and a massive scale-up of drilling operations will inevitably raise the risks for all of the
residents in this area. I am not confident that all incidents are reported or properly investigated, nor am
I confident that ENCANA is able to adequately protect the property rights of homeowners or the
environment near the drilling site.
Road 18 is the only access to six homes in our neighborhood. It is also the only access for fire,
ambulance and law enforcement vehicles.Years ago I left home in the evening to pick up my small
children from a school event.The road was blocked by a tractor trailer stopped in the road to put chains
on his rig. I had to sit there for quite some time while my children wondered what had happened.What
if that been an emergency situation?Also,the amount of truck traffic required for this activity will
significantly impede traffic at the intersection of WCR1 and Road 18. I have seen no other large well
pads that access public roads at a small intersection as this application proposes.WCR1 is heavily
traveled between Hwy 52 and Hwy 66 by commuters of all types and has significant bicycle use on
narrow shoulders.This seems to me to be a real safety concern.Also,there is a historic cemetery at that
intersection which needs to be preserved in its current state.
Mr. Lepore,only you and your colleagues on the COGCC are in a position to influence what happens
with this application. I respectfully ask that that ENCANA be required to make significant changes to
their proposal. I am requesting that the drilling be done from existing well locations or at least from a
location(s)that is not so close to the many homes near the intersection of WCR1 and Road 18.
Regardless of the final location of the drilling site(s), access should be directly from WCR1 and not Road
18.The impact of increased traffic on WCR1 should be discussed with Boulder County since that entity is
responsible for maintenance between Hwy 119 and Hwy 52. If Road 18 is used for drilling these wells, a
credible plan should be developed before drilling begins which will ensure that the cemetery and
vegetation around it are preserved and that the road is returned to its current condition after drilling as
completed.
Electric or natural gas powered drilling rigs and all other possible noise suppression measures should be
used. All possible dust mitigation measures should be taken including the use of fresh water on dirt
roads. ENCANA should be required to mitigate light pollution by the use of carefully placed, low intensity
directional lighting.Tank batteries should be lined and surface casings on each well should extend a
minimum of 200 ft.to protect shallow wells and surface water.A vapor recovery unit should be required
and all open tanks should be eliminated to minimize VOC emissions. Baseline testing of air and water
should be done before,during and after drilling operations.
The best way to mitigate many of these issues would be completion of a pipeline to the Erie collector
site before drilling begins on the Rasmussen and Regnier properties. If drilling is done before completion
of the pipeline, low profile condensate tanks should be used and the collector pad should be shielded by
walls and vegetation.
Mr. Lepore, I am for energy independence and for developing natural resources, but unless companies
like ENCANA are progressive and proactive in addressing concerns about high volume hydraulic
fracturing,they may win battles now but they will lose the war in the long run. Only the COGCC can push
these companies in a direction so that the conversation in Colorado is about how to frack, and not
whether to frack. I will be posting these comments in the application public comment section.Thank
you again for your visit to our neighborhood and for your consideration of these requests.
Best Regards,
Terry Krafft, Ph.D.
547 County Rd 18
Longmont, CO 80504
720-936-1899
Marge Schneider
More tracking in our rural community will GREATLY affect our property values and our way of life.There
is more evendince that tracking also has negative impact on water, air quality and our health! I support
energy independence, but it needs to be done without impacting our quality of life and our property
values! Please stop this mass production at our expense!!!
HELP keep big Oil & Gas out of our backyards.
ENCANA is planning a MEGA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
in this tranquil agricultural zone and rural community.
1 1 X11
."-P-.4% 014-.
�•• 1. lq r�� - �{'if 1 '1' - - I a. ..
'1 ->u`
P7 LE_+
-
nt_ .
SAY NO to
A • 40,000+ truck trips overloading our road
• stadium lights and 12+ burn off towers flooding the sky
• 36+' condensate tanks destroying the rural landscape
• noise pollution 24/ 7
• poor air quality & dust and airborne particles that will
prohibit safe outdoor activity in your own yard
• water tables disturbed and well waters contaminated
COLORADO OIL AND GAS
CONSERVATION • burned off gasses that can make you very sick
COMMISSION - 1120 Lincoln • wildlife being menaced and dislocated, many not to survive
Street, Denver, CO 80203
303-894-2100 • your home value dropping & resale hindered
COGCC website: SAY NO to Big Oil & Gas threatening your health, welfare
http://cogcc.state.co.us/ and quality of life. Call or write the COGCC today.
protectpleasantview@gmail.com
r
` ;
•
J xp 1 *
I s G+ •y r r.A v. {r« r `. - , 1 � 1,1 .•.r1� . !A r_, y
R s. r1, r. is , � - tzit"R y r - mot: !r=}
ii.
1
i
•-An. - .
r
la
_ ' 'iliviii t • • • 1 ! 1 ti-- telt NA+.
.04; prinsta Mr" , i t - _ _
Sississ a ...
''A __ firri: il' �. . _
, .. ., :
lk• 4 i _..
0 forrt e
4 fir-."``E N� AlA is
ilt-
•
threatens a
small rural
-
. _
•
community I
with industrial . . . _
_ . _
facility
We need your help to stop the ruin of the rural landscape of a historic township and neighboring
agricultural zoned community, quality of life for it's residents, domestic animals and wildlife.
Fracking makes people, plants and animals sick and pollutes the earth.
Speak out and Say NO to the negative affects on your health, welfare and property
value on the comment section of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee's
website: http://cogcc.state.co.us/
SAY " FRACK NO! "
Please sign this petition requesting a moratorium on the Section z9 oil and gas invasion.
•
0
Boulder County Commissioner Notes
Rasmussen Wells: Section 19 2N 68W SWSW Encana Operator/ Comment Deadline on COGCC
Website Ending: January 13, 2015. Another set of 12 wells and another facility site being proposed in
early 1st quarter of 2015. The 36 25 foot high ... Facility Production Site for the Regnier Property is also
proposed for access off of CR1. In a 3 year period it is estimated that over 96,000 truck trips(both ways)
will turn onto Rd 18 from CR1.
Boulder County maintains this section of CR1,from Highway 52 south,to Highway 119 north.
Encana is proposing 12-well-bores and 36 25" High Condensate Tanks, 12+ Burn-off towers. The well
site is''/. mile east of Boulder County and the facility site is 700 feet east of CR1. It is likely they will
increase this amount of wells in time.
Encana has not applied for access permits for use of CR1 onto Rd. 18. Rd 18 is the egress and ingress for
8 Weld County families, 6 of which are very concerned about the size of the proposed operations. Rd.
18 is on private land and is a one lane dirt road.
I am here as Landowner and representative of Protect Pleasant View Rural community, representing 14
families who are very concerned about the proposed 24 well-bores and facility sites. These sites are
Industrial. I have spent over 300 hours since November 22 working to protect the community's rights,
our rights as citizens of Colorado and property owners to health and safety and welfare and a clean
environment. I have been doing my due diligence for the people who live in our agricultural residential
area. We have all been working to preserve the historical heritage of this area.With the creation of
these sites our neighborhood will change from an established historical rural agricultural neighborhood
to an Industrial zone (without the zoning)desecrated area.
On the record we, Pleasant View Rural Community would like to request that the applications for the
Rasmussen wells and their location assessment be withdrawn from the COGCC website before they are
approved by Matt Lepore. We are asking for a moratorium on Sections 19 and 30.
We are asking for Boulder County to pressure Weld County in the following ways: Asking for Traffic
Assessments, Community Studies, requesting the Green technology for all of the wells that is proposed
in Boulder County's moratorium, asking for an extension of time for Public Comment or a withdrawal of
the 12 wells and facility site from the COGCC website,asking for a health study from the CDPHE for an
area 2 square miles around the proposed well and facility sites.
The entire rural, pristine length of CR1 is threatened by High Volume Hydrofracturing. It has already
happened on the Boulder border north of Highway 66 on CR1,across from 2 Boulder County homes. It
is particularly high density agricultural living from Highway 66 south to about Erie Parkway.
Nuisances: Noise pollution of 80 decibels during fracking, 168 days minimum,the Light pollution for 1
year with several Sports Stadium lights,the 96,000 truck trips (over 3 year period) with dust and diesel
fuel, during drilling huge amounts of VOC's and methane released, after drilling 2 tons/year of
Hydrocarbons released from each of the 72 Condensate tanks,with increased production likelihood of
spills, fires, explosions, and toxic releases exponential,a permanent scar on the land that borders
Boulder County,truck traffic nuisance and violations will be exponential, egress and ingress of 8 families,
and the Boulder County families who live at the intersection of CR1 and Rd. 18.
. r
At intersection is a Landmark Schoolhouse,we live in the township from the late 1800's on a beautiful
pastoral ridge.
Do you have the ability to exert pressure on Encna and Weld County to stop these proposals?
Do you have jurisdiction over the west half of County Road 1?
What does your statement about 'adjacent' mean?
r w a ty artl productive integrity
• Ger g:-nerds
e -e~t gallon
`) S. wa:e'.drainage and erosion controls
%c a-c tiauid wastes management
':-se. g' ng and odor controls
^c res:c-ation and reclamation
Aa•c .: ra land preservation
itj rt.:gation oitcnes,drain tiles,laterals,ponds and other water resource systems associated with
agricultural operations
I) Fencing,both temporary and replacement
m) Noxious weed control
n) Floodplain and floodways
o) Visual impacts and preservation of scenic views
p) Access roads/facilities removal upon well closures/abandonment
c) Historic/archeological/cultural protection
:) Emergency response planning and capabilities
s) Adjacent landowner concerns
t) Other areas of public hearth,safety and welfare as they may be identified
Policy GE 4.03:Measures the county will look for in assessing whether an application for oil and gas
exploration and development is adhering to most effective performance technologies and practices will
include,but not be limited to,the following:
• use of closed loop systems for the containment and/or recycling of drilling and completion ) J�'- `r ' j!
fluids; ! ' , tt V `r !�
`1
• use of emissions controls,prevention capture/co-benefits producing systems,and other green �,'
completion or reduced emissions systems to minimize or eliminate the release of volatile • I t , ut
organic compounds,hazardous air pollutants,and greenhouse gases;
• use of electric mctors or muffled internal combustion engines in pumping and production
operations; 1 I ` (t L {'
• extensions of setbacks from adjacent land uses,water bodies,water courses,riparian areas and
other important environmental resources as determined on a case-by-case and site-by-site l • C•
basis; i
• air quality baseline testing and monitoring at wellheads,condensate tanks,pipelines, f 5 /
compressor stations and other potential gaseous emissions sources;
• soil structure and condition baseline testing and documentation within and adjacent to the drill j ,,
pad area prior to commencing pad preparation and construction; i` J ` !J,•
• surface,groundwater,and well water quality and level baseline testing and monitoring within '�
and adjacent to the drill pad area prior to commencing pad preparation and construction;
• extensions of setbacks to achieve public health.safety and welfare objectives as determined on J
a case-by-case and site-by-site basis; •
• • submittal of comprehensive drilling and phasing plans for oil and gas holdings within and
--- _adrre nt to Boulder County;
• preparation of plugged and abandoned hydrocarbon well integrity surveys within an adequate
distance along the full length of the bore hole and production casing for proposed new wells
C3
•
•
rf-YO K Department
SATE of Health
A Public Health Review of
High Volume
Hydraulic
Fracturing
for Shale Gas
Development
NEW YORK
state deportment of
Howard A.Zucker, M.D.,J.D. HEALTH Sally Dreslin, M.S., R.N.
Acting Commissioner of Health Executive Deputy Commissioner
December 17, 2014
Hon. Joseph Martens
Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207
Dear Commissioner Martens:
In September 2012, you asked Dr. Shah,then Commissioner of Health, to initiate a Public Health
Review of the Department of Environmental Conservation's draft Supplemental Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF). I assumed responsibility for this
review when Dr. Shah left. It became clear during this assessment that DOH's Public Health Review
needed to extend beyond the scope of the initial request to consider, more broadly,the current state of
science regarding HVHF and public health risks. This required an evaluation of the emerging scientific
information on environmental public health and community health effects. This also required an
analysis of whether such information was sufficient to determine the extent of potential public health
impacts of HVHF activities in New York State(NYS)and whether existing mitigation measures
implemented in other states are effectively reducing the risk for adverse public health impacts.
As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty
regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts of HVHF on public health is
unlikely to ever be attained. In this instance, however, the overall weight of the evidence from the
cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are
significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF,
the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the
mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect
public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public
health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH
recommends that HVHF should not proceed in NYS.
I appreciate the opportunity to conduct this Public Health Review. It furthers the long history of
close collaboration between the two Departments carrying out our shared responsibility to protect
human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
ROW4/414- AA,b.
Howard A. Zucker, M.D.,J.D.
Acting Commissoner of Health
HEALTH.NY.GOV
farebook.com/NYSDOH
twiner com/HealthNYGov
Table of Contents
I Executive Summary 1
Scope of the Public Health Review 2
Public Health Review Process 3
Major Findings 4
Air Impacts 5
Water-quality Impacts 5
Seismic Impacts 6
Community Impacts 6
Health Outcomes near HVHF Activity 7
Substantial Gaps Remain 8
Conclusions 11
I Background 13
Scope of the Review 15
Public Health Review Process 15
I Results Evaluation of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Objectives
of the Public Health Review 17
HVHF Health Outcome Studies 18
Birth Outcomes 19
Case Series and Symptom Reports 22
Local Community Impacts 24
Cancer Incidence 25
Non-peer-reviewed Information 26
Fart( Department
l STATE of Health
HVHF Environmental Studies 26
Air Quality Impacts 26
Water Quality Impacts 35
Induced Earthquakes 39
Conclusions— Health and Environmental Literature 41
I Results Information Gathered from Outside Authoritative Organizations,
Public Health Experts, and Formal Health Impact Assessments 42
Health Impact Assessments 42
Meetings with Other State Agencies 49
California 50
Texas 51
Illinois 53
Public Health Expert Consultation 55
I Overall Conclusions 85
Endnotes 89
I References 92
I Appendix 1
Supplemental Literature Considered for the Public Health Review 109
I Appendix 2
Radon Screening Analysis 172
Radon from Natural Gas 173
1 aRK Department
STATE of Health
I Executive Summary
The New York State Department of Health (DOH) is charged with protecting the public
health of New Yorkers. In assessing whether public health would be adequately
protected from a complex activity such as high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), a
guarantee of absolute safety is not required. However, at a minimum, there must be
sufficient information to understand what the likely public health risks will be. Currently,
that information is insufficient.
In 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
requested that DOH review and assess DEC's analysis of potential health impacts
contained in DEC's draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement
(SGEIS) for HVHF. In response to the original request from DEC, DOH initiated an
HVHF Public Health Review process. In conducting this public health review DOH: (i)
reviewed and evaluated scientific literature to determine whether the current scientific
research is sufficient to inform questions regarding public health impacts of HVHF; (ii)
sought input from three outside public health expert consultants; (iii) engaged in field
visits and discussions with health and environmental authorities in states with HVHF
activity; and (iv) communicated with multiple local, state, federal, international,
academic, environmental, and public health stakeholders. The evaluation considered
the available information on potential pathways that connect HVHF activities and
environmental impacts to human exposure and the risk for adverse public health
impacts.
Based on this review, it is apparent that the science surrounding HVHF activity is
limited, only just beginning to emerge, and largely suggests only hypotheses about
potential public health impacts that need further evaluation. That is, many of the
vo K Department
, STATE of Health
Y� 1
•
published reports investigating both environmental impacts that could result in human
exposures and health implications of HVHF activities are preliminary or exploratory in
nature. However, the existing studies also raise substantial questions about whether the
risks of HVHF activities are sufficiently understood so that they can be adequately
managed. Furthermore, the public health impacts from HVHF activities could be
significantly broader than just those geographic locations where the activity actually
occurs, thus expanding the potential risk to a large population of New Yorkers.
As with most complex human activities in modern societies, absolute scientific certainty
regarding the relative contributions of positive and negative impacts of HVHF on public
health is unlikely to ever be attained. In this instance, however, the overall weight of the
evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health
Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse
health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF, the likelihood of the occurrence of
adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in
reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public
health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to
public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately
managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in New York State.
Scope of the Public Health Review
DOH evaluated whether the available scientific and technical information provides an
adequate basis to understand the likelihood and magnitude of risks for adverse public
health impacts from HVHF activities in New York State. DOH reviewed how HVHF
activities could result in human exposure to: (i) contaminants in air or water; (H) naturally
occurring radiological materials that result from HVHF activities; and (iii) the effects of
f^J YORK Department
STATE of Health
2
HVHF operations such as truck traffic, noise, and social changes on communities. DOH
also reviewed whether those exposures may result in adverse public health outcomes.
Public Health Review Process
The initial component of the Public Health Review focused on understanding how public
health concerns were addressed in the draft SGEIS. Three nationally recognized
experts participated as consultants to the initial phase of the review process. The expert
consultants reviewed elements of the draft SGEIS and documentation developed by
DOH, and provided extensive input through multiple rounds of communication.
As a result of this input, as well as broader consideration, it became clear that DOH's
Public Health Review needed to extend beyond this initial assessment to consider,
more broadly, the current state of science regarding HVHF and public health risks. This
required an evaluation of the emerging scientific information on environmental public
health and community health effects. This also required an analysis of whether such
information was sufficient to determine the extent of potential public health impact of
HVHF activities in NYS and whether existing mitigation measures implemented in other
states are effectively reducing the risk for adverse public health impacts.
In addition to evaluating published scientific literature, former Commissioner Shah,
Acting Commissioner Zucker, and DOH staff consulted with state public health and
environmental authorities to understand their experience with HVHF. Former
Commissioner Shah, Acting Commissioner Zucker, and DOH staff also engaged in a
number of discussions and meetings with researchers from academic institutions and
government agencies to learn more about planned and ongoing studies and
assessments of the public health implications of HVHF. In total, more than 20 DOH
YORK Department
STATE of Health
3
senior Research Scientists, Public Health Specialists, and Radiological Health
Specialists spent approximately 4500 hours on this Review.
Major Findings
Summarized below are some of the environmental impacts and health outcomes
potentially associated with HVHF activities:
• Air impacts that could affect respiratory health due to increased levels of
particulate matter, diesel exhaust, or volatile organic chemicals.
• Climate change impacts due to methane and other volatile organic chemical
releases to the atmosphere.
• Drinking water impacts from underground migration of methane and/or fracking
chemicals associated with faulty well construction.
• Surface spills potentially resulting in soil and water contamination.
• Surface-water contamination resulting from inadequate wastewater treatment.
• Earthquakes induced during fracturing.
• Community impacts associated with boom-town economic effects such as
increased vehicle traffic, road damage, noise, odor complaints, increased
demand for housing and medical care, and stress.
Additionally, an evaluation of the studies reveals critical information gaps. These need
to be filled to more fully understand the connections between risk factors, such as air
and water pollution, and public health outcomes among populations living in proximity to
HVHF shale gas operations (Penning, 2014; Shonkoff, 2014; Werner, 2015).
YORK Department
TATE of Health
4
Some of the most significant environmental and health-outcome studies are briefly
summarized here.
Air Impacts
Studies provide evidence of uncontrolled methane leakage, emissions of other volatile
organic chemicals, and particulate matter from well pads and natural-gas infrastructure.
State authorities in both Texas and Pennsylvania have documented methane leakage
from natural gas infrastructure by the use of infrared cameras. A recent West Virginia
study also determined that heavy vehicle traffic and trucks idling at well pads were the
likely sources of intermittently high dust and benzene concentrations, sometimes
observed at distances of at least 625 feet from the center of the well pad (McCawley,
2012, 2013; WVDEP, 2013). These emissions have the potential to contribute to
community odor problems, respiratory health impacts such as asthma exacerbations,
and longer-term climate change impacts from methane accumulation in the atmosphere
(Allen, 2013; Bunch, 2014; CDPHE, 2010; Macey, 2014; Miller, 2013; Petron, 2012;
Weisel, 2010).
Water-quality Impacts
Studies have found evidence for underground migration of methane associated with
faulty well construction (Darrah, 2014; EPA, 2011). For example, a recent study
identified groundwater contamination clusters that the authors determined were due to
gas leakage from intermediate-depth strata through failures of annulus cement, faulty
production casings, and underground gas well failure (Darrah, 2014). Shallow methane-
migration has the potential to impact private drinking water wells, creating safety
concerns due to explosions.
rriooR Department
STATE of Health
5
Other studies suggest additional sources of potential water contamination, including
surface spills and inadequate treatment and disposal of radioactive wastes (Warner,
2013). A recent review paper presented published data revealing evidence for stray gas
contamination, surface water impacts, and the accumulation of radium isotopes in some
disposal and spill sites (Vengosh, 2014). One recent study also suggests that chemical
signals of brine from deep shale formations can potentially be detected in overlying
groundwater aquifers (Warner, 2012). These contaminants have the potential to affect
drinking water quality.
Seismic Impacts
Recent evidence from studies in Ohio and Oklahoma suggest that HVHF can contribute
to the induction of earthquakes during fracturing (Holland, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Although the potential public health consequence of these relatively mild earthquakes is
unknown, this evidence raises new concerns about this potential HVHF impact.
Community Impacts
There are numerous historical examples of the negative impact of rapid and
concentrated increases in extractive resource development (e.g., energy, precious
metals) resulting in indirect community impacts such as interference with quality-of-life
(e.g., noise, odors), overburdened transportation and health infrastructure, and
disproportionate increases in social problems, particularly in small isolated rural
communities where local governments and infrastructure tend to be unprepared for
rapid changes (Headwaters, 2013). Similar concerns have been raised in some
communities where HVHF activity has increased rapidly (Stedman, 2012; Texas DSHS,
2010; Witter, 2010; WVDEP, 2013).
,y-ftO K Department
STATE of Health
6
A recent study from Pennsylvania also reports that automobile and truck accident rates
in 2010-2012 from counties with heavy HVHF activity were between 15% and 65%
higher than accident rates in counties without HVHF. Rates of traffic fatalities and major
injuries were higher in 2012 in heavy drilling counties in southwestern Pennsylvania
compared to non-drilling counties (Graham, 2015).
Health Outcomes near HVHF Activity
Although well-designed, long-term health studies assessing the effect of HVHF activity
on health outcomes have not been completed, there is published health literature that
examines health outcomes in relation to residential proximity to HVHF well pads. One
peer-reviewed study and one university report have presented data indicating statistical
associations between some birth outcomes (low birth weight and some congenital
defects) and residential proximity of the mother to well pads during pregnancy (Hill,
2012; McKenzie, 2014). Proximity to higher-density HVHF well pad development was
associated with increased incidence of congenital heart defects and neural-tube defects
in one of the studies (McKenzie, 2014).
Several published reports present data from surveys of health complaints among
residents living near HVHF activities. Commonly reported symptoms include skin rash
or irritation, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties or cough,
nosebleeds, anxiety/stress, headache, dizziness, eye irritation, and throat irritation in
people and farm animals within proximity to HVHF natural gas development
(Bamberger, 2012; Finkel, 2013; Steinzor, 2012). Federal investigators have also
reported that sub-standard work practices and deficient operational controls at well pads
contributed to elevated crystalline silica exposures among workers during HVHF
operations (USDOL, 2012). While this report focused on worker exposures, it highlights
rrtiar, Department
STATE of Health
Y7 7
InsideClimate News
Published on InsideClimate News(http://insideclimatenews.org)
Home >Articles>David Hasemyer's articles > Damage Award in Texas Fracking Case Raises Stakes in Air
Quality Debate
Damage Award in Texas Fracking Case Raises Stakes in Air Quality Debate
By David Hasemyer, InsideClimate News [1]
May 28, 2014
Family's$2.9 million legal victory to be challenged. Aruba Petroleum says its emissions didn't harm
family.
By David Hasemyer
OShare0
Between February 2010 and July 2011, Lisa and Bob Parr filed 13 complaints about air pollution from gas
and oil operations near their ranch in Wise County,Texas.Sometimes they had trouble breathing,they
told the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ).They also experienced nausea, nosebleeds,
ringing ears and rashes.
Other families were also alarmed. Between 2008 and 2011,the TCEQ received 77 complaints from Wise
County, in the Barnett Shale drilling area in North Texas. One said the odor was so powerful that the
complainant"couldn't go outside," according to the TCEQ report [3].
Frustrated and angry,the Parrs decided to sue.Their attorney warned them that lawsuits against the oil
and gas industry rarely, if ever, succeed. But the Parrs persisted and last month won what appears to be
the first successful U.S. lawsuit alleging that toxic air emissions from oil and gas production sickened
people living nearby.A Dallas County jury found [4] that Aruba Petroleum [5],a privately owned
company based in Plano,Texas, "intentionally created a private nuisance" that affected the family's
health and awarded the Parrs almost$3 million in damages.
"When you don't have a strong regulatory system, a system to prevent what happened to this family,
the only place left to turn for help is the courts," said Robert Percival [6),director of the University of
Maryland's Environmental Law Program.
There are no assurances the verdict against Aruba will survive an appeal or lead to regulatory changes in
Texas or any of the other states where people complain their health is jeopardized by gas and oil drilling.
The issues are so complex that the industry,the public and policymakers may be sorting through them
for years.
[7]Aruba has asked Judge Mark Greenberg,who presided over the Parrs'case,to reverse the jury's
verdict. Greenberg is expected to hear arguments over the verdict in June.
"This case will be looked at very,very closely because it has set the stage in a way that has never been
set before," said attorney Tomas Ramirez [8]. He represents two families in similar lawsuits in the
booming Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas, where emissions are raising the same alarms that have been
sounding in the heavily developed Barnett Shale region the Parrs call home.
Aruba used two long-standing industry arguments in its defense:That the emissions could have come
from one of its competitors'wells,and that it was in compliance with Texas environmental rules.
The fact that those arguments failed in this case "exposes every company to more possible litigation,"
said Thomas McGarity[9],a University of Texas law school professor who specializes in environmental
and administrative law.
"Losing this case was not good for the industry," McGarity said. "My guess is the industry will coalesce
around this case.The industry will want to stop the dam from breaking wide open...This is where they
will take a stand."
Aruba officials declined requests for interviews but released a statement though a public relations firm
that said: "We contended the plaintiffs were neither harmed by the presence of our drilling operations
nor was the value of their property diminished because of our natural gas development."
In a motion to overturn the verdict [10], company lawyers argued "there is no evidence that Aruba
engaged in any conduct intended to cause harm...Aruba's operations complied with best industry
practices and met the standard for a reasonable and prudent oil and gas operator."
•
More than 100 wells have been drilled within two miles of the Parrs' ranch,Aruba pointed out, and only
22 of them are owned by Aruba.On its website, Aruba says it is the fifth-largest of the 117 companies
operating in Wise County.
[11]
The Parrs' attorney, Brad Gilde [12], said TCEQ documents show Aruba repeatedly violated state
regulations and in some cases was fined for its offenses.
There was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that "Aruba either(1) knew an [emissions]
invasion was resulting from its conduct, or(2) knew an invasion was substantially certain to result from
its conduct," Gilde said in his response [13]to Aruba's motion to overturn the verdict.
William Anaya [14],a Chicago attorney who often represents the oil and gas industry,said the Parrs'
victory is an anomaly and won't set a precedent that the industry can be held responsible for dangerous
emissions.
Oil and gas development is safe and heavily regulated, he said,which is why cases against the industry
rarely even make it to court, much less succeed.
"I'm incredulous of the whole thing," Anaya said.
The Parrs, meanwhile, are trying to sell their 40-acre ranch, which the jury concluded had lost$275,000
in value because of the Aruba facilities. It has been on the market for two years, but so far they've had
no offers.Their neighbors, Christine and Tim Ruggiero, also sued Aruba, but agreed to an out-of-court
settlement.The Ruggieros' settlement prohibited them from talking publicly about their case, and they
declined to be interviewed for this article.
Lisa Parr said she's constantly stopped at the supermarket,the gas station and her daughter's school by
people who offer their congratulations and thanks. She said she even gets calls from strangers who start
out by saying"You don't know me but..."
"They want to tell me how happy they are for us," she said. "And they thank us for fighting...lt's like they
are feeling it too, like our win is their win."
That the case was won in Texas makes the Parrs'victory especially unusual.A recent investigation by
InsideClimate News,the Center for Public Integrity and The Weather Channel [15] found that Texas
politicians often work hand-in-hand with the industry, regulations are lax and little is known about the
risks from the toxic soup of emissions the industry releases.
Thousands of oil and gas facilities, including at least one Aruba facility near the Parrs' house,self-audit
their emissions without reporting them to the state.The TCEQ,which regulates most air emissions,
doesn't even know some of these facilities exist.
TCEQ chairman Bryan Shaw said the agency doesn't plan to take any concrete action as a result of the
lawsuit. Instead, it will continue to enforce existing regulations, he said during a brief interview earlier
this month at the TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and Conference in Austin.
The agency's business-as-usual attitude doesn't surprise former TCEQ Commissioner Larry Soward,
whose contentious, four-year term ended in 2009.
"TCEQ is so strongly set in their belief that emissions from oil and gas have little or no effect on air
quality or human health that they will simply ignore this case," Soward said. "They are very pro-industry
and they will not change their position because of some jury award."
It Smelled Like 'Burning Plastic'
The Parrs' story began in 2008, after Bob Parr married Lisa and brought her and her daughter Emma to
live on his ranch near Decatur, 60 miles northwest of Dallas. Parr bought the land in 2001 and built a
2,500-square-foot house in a gentle valley that he hoped would protect it from the tornadoes that often
rip across the plains.There were a couple of old oil wells nearby but little else except rolling prairie and
clear skies stretching from horizon to horizon.
Bob and Lisa Parr at their wedding in 2008,with Lisa's daughter, Emma. [16]Bob and Lisa Parr at their
wedding in 2008,with Lisa's daughter, Emma.Like many people in Texas and other parts of the United
States, Parr doesn't own the mineral rights to his land. When he bought the ranch that didn't seem to be
a problem.The drilling boom in the Barnett Shale hadn't begun yet. He had no idea his new house was
sitting atop one of the nation's largest gas and oil reserves.
•
By the time Lisa and Emma moved to the ranch,gas wells had begun encircling the property.A little less
than a year later, Lisa Parr said she started coughing and wheezing and noticing a chemical odor"like
burning plastic."She began noting the dates and details of her ailments in a journal.
She filed her first complaint with the TCEQ on Feb.20, 2010.
The agency assigned the complaint case number 138794. It succinctly summed up Lisa Parr's grievance:
"The complainant alleged that odors from a natural gas facility were creating a nuisance," according to a
synopsis of the complaint on the TCEQ's website.
The matter was investigated the same day and closed with an equally succinct note [17]: "No violations
were found."
Inspector Saw 'Heavy Plumes' of Emissions
The Parrs didn't know it at the time, but their neighbors on Star Shell Road,the Ruggieros, also had
complained about Aruba.
On two occasions the TCEQ dispatched inspectors to two Aruba facilities near the Ruggieros and the
Parrs because of odor complaints it received over an 11-day span in January and February 2010.The
TCEQ concluded that Aruba had failed to prevent the discharge of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
[18] onto neighboring properties. Many VOCs—including benzene,toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene—
are known to cause the ailments the Parrs had complained about.
The TCEQ fined Aruba$32,500.
In July,the Parrs complained about a third Aruba facility.They said foul odors coming from a wellhead
caused "dizziness and caused their nose to burn," according to the complaint [19].The Parrs were also
worried because three of their chickens had mysteriously died.
A TCEQ investigator arrived about two and a half hours later and began collecting air samples,according
to an agency report [19]. Using an infrared camera, he identified "heavy plumes" of emissions wafting
from the Aruba facility and toward the Parr house, 280 feet away.
The investigator walked into the plume to obtain a canister sample.Thirty seconds later he "felt the
physical effects of dizziness and a sore throat,"the report said. He left immediately.
Infrared video shot by TCEQ investigator who got sick while investigating the Parr's complaint:
The TCEQ uses a three-point rating system—major, moderate and minor—to classify the harm caused
by a release.The agency classified the Aruba release [20] as "moderate" but decided the incident
warranted a vigorous response.
"Due to the seriousness of the alleged violations and the deterrent effect of a district court order"the
case was referred to the Texas attorney general's office, according to a letter the TCEQ sent [21]to
Christine Ruggiero.
Aruba paid$108,000 to settle the court case,the third-highest penalty collected in 99 cases that the
attorney general's office prosecuted on behalf of the TCEQ that year.
Evidence key to the attorney general's case included an analysis of the air samples the TCEQ investigator
had taken. It showed concentrations of five VOCs high enough to cause short-term health effects and 20
compounds in amounts high enough to cause long-term health effects,according to the attorney
general's complaint.
The TCEQ's report on the incident revealed something else:Aruba had been operating the facility
without obtaining a TCEQ air emissions permit.
'Our Life Turned into a Nightmare'
In April 2011,the TCEQ discovered that a separate Aruba facility less than a mile from the Parrs' ranch
had spewed 5,383 pounds of VOCs into the air over a five-and-a-half-hour period, according to TCEQ
records.The emissions accounted for more than 10 percent of the total amount of VOCs the facility was
authorized to emit in an entire year.
The accident was caused by a broken valve.The TCEQ fined Aruba nearly$3,000 for failing to operate its
equipment properly and for failing to report the incident within 24 hours, as regulations required.At the
time,the TCEQ considered Aruba an "average performer"for compliance.
Meanwhile, Lisa Parr's symptoms were worsening. She saw six doctors,who were baffled by her
illnesses. She had oozing welts on her scalp and lumps the size of walnuts on her neck. Bob Parr and
Emma suffered from nosebleeds and irritated throats.
"Our life turned into a nightmare," Lisa Parr said in an interview. "We were deathly sick, scared and
didn't know what to do."
The Ruggieros continued to complain. But their situation was different.They had reluctantly allowed
Aruba on their land after learning that the property's original owner had retained the surface and
mineral rights. But they were shocked when the company erected a drilling rig the length of a football
field away from their front window.
"Based upon their actions,Aruba Petroleum appears not to be concerned with our environment or
health at all," Christine Ruggiero wrote to the TCEQ in August 2010. "They chose to place their
operations 300 feet from our children, but they refuse to take proactive measures to protect them."
As the dispute deepened between the Ruggieros and Aruba, Christine began keeping a log of emissions
and spills on and near their property. She shared the log with Lisa Parr,who was stunned when she
compared the dates of her health crises with the events Christine had documented. Many of the dates
matched.
In October 2010,the Ruggerios sued Aruba, complaining that toxic fumes were drifting from a natural
gas well the company had drilled near their home.Aruba denied the allegations [22],saying it had paid
the Ruggieros$30,000 to drill two wells on their land and had been a "reasonable and prudent"
operator.
Lisa Parr, meanwhile,told one of her doctors what she had learned from Christine Ruggiero's logbook.
He sent her to a specialist who focuses on illnesses triggered by environmental factors,such as polluted
air and water.Tests revealed that chemicals in her blood matched chemicals found in the air samples
the TCEQ investigator had taken when he responded to her July complaint.
In March 2011,the Parrs filed a lawsuit against Aruba and 10 other companies [23], claiming the family
was"under constant, perpetual, and inescapable assault of Defendants' releases,spills, emissions, and
discharges of hazardous gases, chemicals, and industrial/hazardous wastes."They sought up to$66
million in damages.
In November,the Ruggieros settled their case with Aruba.They sold their 10-acre property,which they
said had been devalued from $257,330 to$75,240,and moved with their 10-year-old daughter to Pilot
Point,Texas, about 45 miles away.
"Leaving Gasland is not winning, it's merely an end to losing,"Tim Ruggiero wrote in a blog post for
Earthworks [24],an environmental organization that opposes hydraulic fracturing,the process that has
made it profitable to tap deeply buried shale deposits, like the Barnett and Eagle Ford.
A Narrow Win
The trial of the Parrs' lawsuit began on April 7 and lasted two weeks. Both sides called expert witnesses,
who offered contradictory opinions on the effects of gas and oil emissions.According to scientists
interviewed by InsideClimate News and the Center for Public Integrity, air monitoring in Texas,and
across the nation, is so flawed that scientists don't fully understand how the industry's emissions affect
public health.
One of the experts the Parrs relied on was Paul Rosenfeld,a California-based environmental chemist. He
testified that Aruba's wells contained VOCs capable of causing headaches, nosebleeds, rashes,
dizziness—the very symptoms the Parrs had complained about.
An expert witness for Aruba countered by saying that the amounts of VOCs on the Parrs' property were
so small that they couldn't have affected the family's health, according to the company's motion to
reverse the verdict[10].
The deliberations lasted two days. At one point the jurors were deadlocked and told the judge a verdict
might not be possible, said David Davis,the jury foreman.The judge ordered them to keep trying.
In an interview with InsideClimate News, Davis said a couple of factors tipped the balance in the Parrs'
favor.
•
The medical evidence, including Lisa Parr's blood tests, bolstered the family's case, said Davis,who was
speaking as an individual juror.While that evidence alone wouldn't have won the case for the Parrs, it
gave the jury"something to evaluate that was documented evidence of what the plaintiffs were
claiming," he said.
Testimony by Aruba officials that they had few formal written plans or policies in place to address
emissions weighed against the company, Davis said.
"There was a perception if you are engaged in this activity you would have written guidelines that would
provide consistency and insure you were following the rules and operating within the confines of state
regulations," he said.
In the end, Davis said,jurors applied the letter of the law as laid out in the judge's instructions.The
equation would have been the same if someone were claiming that smoke from a barbecue restaurant
was causing a nuisance, he said.
"It was a matter of did A, B and C meet the definition of a nuisance," Davis said. "I don't think anybody
realized this was a case of significance outside of what it meant to the plaintiffs and defendant...Nobody
was defending the industry or backing an environmental cause. It was simply, did the defendant cause
the harm alleged by the plaintiff?"
After the evidence and testimony was added up—a process Davis likened to placing grains of sand on a
scale until the balance tipped—the Parrs had proven their case.
On April 22,the jury delivered a 5-1 verdict in the Parrs'favor. Instead of getting the $66 million they
had asked for,they got$3 million. Still, it was a victory.
Gilde,their attorney, hopes the verdict will ripple throughout Texas and across the country. He has
already been contacted by other families who want to fight the industry's air pollution.
"The issues in this case are important," Gilde said. "It means the consequences of toxic emissions cannot
be summarily dismissed. The industry will now be made to be more responsible."
•
A Wake-Up Call for Regulatory Change?
In addition to beating Aruba,the Parrs also highlighted weaknesses in Texas' regulatory system.
That may not sit well in a state smitten by an industry that pumped$7 billion in taxes into the state's
coffers in the last two years.
"Texas has a long reputation of being extremely pro-business," said Percival,with the University of
Maryland's Environmental Law Program. "The message from all parts of the state, including the
regulatory agencies, is one of full speed ahead without being sensitive to the concerns of the public."
Ilan Levin [25], an Austin-based lawyer with the Environmental Integrity Project,a research and
advocacy organization,worries that instead of being a wake-up call for regulatory change, the Parrs'
case could lead state officials and lawmakers to find ways to block citizens from winning similar lawsuits.
Since 2000,the industry has poured nearly$58 million into the campaign coffers of state candidates in
Texas,according to an analysis of data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics [26].
"What we have is a system that is heavily tilted in favor of those who can play the money game,"said
Meredith McGehee [27], policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based
nonprofit that tracks money in politics and monitors government ethics.
"The oil companies see the contributions as a good business investment," she said. "They are making an
investment with an expectation of access when they need it."
Texas legislators have listened to the industry in the past.
In January 2011,with air quality worsening and the federal government beginning to take notice,the
TCEQ adopted rules to reduce emissions in the Barnett Shale [26].
A few months later, however,the legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill that effectively prevented
those regulations from being applied statewide. It later weakened the rule again, by narrowing the law
to include only 15 of the 24 counties in the Barnett region.
Ramirez,the attorney who represents two families in the Eagle Ford Shale, is studying the Parrs' case for
strategies that could give his clients an extra edge. He's sure industry lawyers are doing the same thing,
to find ways to defeat future lawsuits.
"Each case has its own set of facts that are subject to intense examination during a trial," Ramirez said.
"While one case may look like another,there are so many subtle and distinguishing differences that you
can never be sure how it will play out."
Jim Morris,a managing editor with the Center for Public Integrity,and Lisa Song,a reporter with
InsideClimate News contributed to this report, which is part of an ongoing project by the two
organizations.
Comment space is provided for respectful discourse. Please consult our comment policies [30]for more
information. We welcome your participation in civil and constructive discussions.
Links:
[1] http://insideclimatenews.org/author/david-hasemyer
[2] http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/TexasWellsParrHouseHOMEPAGE2.jpg
[3] http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/waci/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.complaint&incid=132723
[4] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1164862-parr-verdict.html
[5] http://www.arubapetroleum.com/
[6] http://www.law.umaryland.edu/faculty/profiles/faculty.html?facultynum=091
[7] http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/images/TexasOilFields400pxFINALFINAL_0.png
[8] http://www.tramirezlaw.com/contact/
[9] http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/tom56/
[10] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1164860-aruba-motion-to-disregard-verdict.html
[11] http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/images/TexasWellsParrHouse800px.jpg
[12] http://gildelawfirm.com/
[13] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173375-parr-response-to-motion-to-disregard.html
[14] http://www.arnstein.com/?t=3&A=6184&format=xml
[15] http://insideclimatenews.org/fracking-eagle-ford-shale-big-oil-bad-air-texas-prairie
[16] http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/images/parrphoto.JPG
[17] http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/oce/waci/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.complaint
[18] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173666-janfeb-2010-32-500-tceq.html
[19] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173667-tceq-investigator-gets-sick-280-feet-30-
seconds.html
[20] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173668-tceq-proposed-settlement-average-
performer.html
[21] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173660-tceq-letter-to-the-ruggieros.html
[22] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1165379-ruggerio-complaint.html
[23] http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1165485-parr-llthamendedpetition.html
[24] http://www.earthworksaction.org/earthblog/detail/leaving gasland#.U4NaSXazwlk
[25] http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/abouteip/abouteip_staff.php
[26] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140218/texas-officials-turn-blind-eye-fracking-industrys-
toxic-air-emissions
[27]
http://www.ca m paign lega lcenter.org/i ndex.php?option=co m_content&am paid=957&a m p;Item id=64
[28] http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140218/fracking-boom-spews-toxic-air-emissions-texas-
residents
[29] http://insideclimatenews.org/topics/natural-gas-and-fracking
[30] http://insideclimatenews.org/about/comment-policies
[31]
http://i nsidecl imatenews.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2 Finsideclimatenews.org%2 Fnews%2 F201405
28%2 Fda mage-award-texas-fra c ki ng-case-raises-stakes-air-quality-debate
N. S r NIIIIMMISIMaiiiiniiir
w �� `�"howt ( c)--A
• PLEASANT l �
• RINN VALLEY FARMS LLC
PLEASANT VIEW FARM LLC REGNIER FARMS INC RIINN VALLEY FARMS LLC
. . ' 20 20
HANSEIS-Pk{ IP J45)
.r 1,'.;,',."7
�� " MARINO MARK J I .,.., 1.}? . ' i RIINN VALLEY FARMS LLC
i i ..
ilimmor ilk ;
SCHLAGEL KEITH
REGNIER FARMS INC scHLAgEL PAL
.. ,. .
•.;i -4 •
-
REGNIER FARMS INC REGNIER FARMS INC
REGNIER FARMS INC
•
REGNIER FARMS INC RIINN VALLEY FARMS LL
. :. .
1, ,k\x y
I • ♦ J
` J
t REGNIER FARMS INC
'>i � te
. ` WILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LL
AWILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LL
_ •,' #*VI LLIAMS FAMILY rARM LL
,iiiiti _ _ , .. . .. .. . .,
RASMUSSE FAMILYAYMS LLP W -[JAMS FAMILY FARM LLC
kib , SANDSTEAD DEAN
x . FREDERICK
�,44 P
, KRAFrT TERRY E. FOST RIGHAF�D WILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LL
' . illialla : 1-1 ' i `-.-
.. ; ' E, -~ ' S • •3/4.1
KRWITT CINDY Ate
v HARP A A A A. E Q .S , c
le
. - - Ite-B ♦ �r' RICHAIRD GN.' � r} _ R
-- — c�, SCHNEIDER DALLAS L
j SCHNEIDER DALLAS L
• KIERR MCGS OIL & GAS ONSHORE LP
BALLANTINEf ARMS LLC WILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LLI
'�' -= • - WILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LLC
SMITH CONLEY A FREDERICK
- ---...-ale'' - SA , I I'1±Y''DO R I S I _
• r SMITH CONLi( -' i t!t
1 . licia.....ore
•
KERB MCGEE OIL & GflONSHORE LI ILLIAMS FAMILY FARM LLC
- .4�F .$AWDEY DORIS I LINDENWO FARM LLC
.. , AW F M'JL -.hLL
t
- ali •••-• - _ '' .. 8 / -... 44r0Pri:: "-?;' - - '
. 16.5
II,I. Ms .
`
Y " SLORIR j SMOLJAN DAVIDJ se ? 5 •
AUSTIN GREGORY RILEY �':
FISCHER BART A44
EVANS JENNIFER '" ° _ !
HELMBOBBIE G _. � 3RY� ►T �ENL J MIAH
MU .. - . .
- 11-440.E DAVID ABFAL TER CHAFE 1 - "
' cq., t 1 IIFR D C
_ .
� . 1 ' ►�
-- . E W & SANDRA L TRUSTEES OF , .t. r HARK J I ) SF '. Ll t
WE.SBER I Hi 1C�• raw_w_ , (N .
' .y , .� � 1DI�;kAI� DA L, •. GI NI JOHN �
,_ >L. NfkL K GEORGE J �'HEFNER TIC : ,r,-.,.� y2 y L
- B HELEN L
T.PELTZ BRYAN .' '
NALEK-MILAN '" REFLECTION B WNER SN
NEUENS FAMILY TRUST '.
HEFNER 7, 4, .•f , TRLEO A DE
le. ..:611 HALEK MILAN ' �, ,r
r. F�URZ ALEX r . „� A SAV! B
V4�``r : _, _ ALDRICH TRAVIS M • - DANIEL`PAMELA CERISE N)
16D F'ONGWAYNE rt
-n •.rr
HggWT B ' RS PROPERTIES INC •-:r ii: "�' r
,- EYSTER R lALD G RIE } �:. USA USA b .
s' '°JOHNSON #E ERIE i
UNT BROTHERS PROPERTIES�iNC � FARFRUl1AWO KIN LLLI
Hello