Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oil And Gas Setbacks Environmental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County proposes administrative waiver for oil and gas setbacks near environmentally sensitive areas
Summary
County oil and gas staff proposed an administrative waiver to the county's existing 2,000‑foot setback from environmentally sensitive areas for new oil and gas facilities for sites located between 1,000 and 2,000 feet, requiring additional best management practices and third‑party environmental assessments for waivers.
Greg Dean, Adams County oil and gas administrator, told the board the county currently requires a 2,000‑foot setback from wetlands, rivers, lakes and streams for new oil and gas facilities and that any proposal inside 2,000 feet must now seek a waiver from the Board of County Commissioners. Dean proposed creating an administrative waiver for facilities located between 1,000 and 2,000 feet from environmentally sensitive areas so staff could require specific mitigation measures without a full board hearing.
Dean said the administrative waiver would be modeled on existing residential setback waiver processes and would require site‑specific best management practices. As part of a waiver request, operators would be required to submit a third‑party environmental site assessment approved by Adams County and to obtain a letter of concurrence or similar input from state agencies such as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) or Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) as appropriate to the resource.
"This would allow us to leverage state agencies that have more expertise to [address] specific environmentally sensitive items," Dean said. He added the county would be able to require mitigation measures for administrative waivers—stormwater controls, spill prevention, secondary containment for tanks, siting equipment away from sensitive areas, and preferring pipeline connections over trucked deliveries—rather than merely encouraging those measures.
Dean described the waiver as an incentive for operators to site facilities farther from sensitive resources; under the current process, a site 50 feet from a wetland follows the same hearing process as a site 1,999 feet from a wetland. The proposed tiered approach would keep the county's standards more protective than state practice: Dean said the county's 2,000‑foot setback is already more protective than state guidance, and an administrative waiver at 1,000 feet would still be more restrictive than state benchmarks discussed in the presentation.
Board members asked that staff ensure future hearing packets clearly summarize what operators did not do (for example, why an administrative waiver was not pursued) so commissioners have information about alternative mitigation that could have been required. Dean and staff said they would incorporate that summary into staff reports and suggested the administrative waiver rules would make mitigation requirements enforceable under county regulations rather than relying solely on state enforcement.
No formal adoption or vote was recorded in the presentation; Dean described the proposal and solicited feedback about the waiver structure, required third‑party review and coordination with state agencies. Staff said they would bring more detailed draft waiver language and related staff‑report templates back to the board for consideration.
