Community Development Director Mike Hyde explained that the zoning ordinance amendments found in Ordinance #24-409 are proposed as a result of the rapid expansion of oil and gas drilling and production facilities on private (fee) land in Duchesne County, with the associated impacts on residents and roads in agricultural and rural residential areas. These proposed amendments are summarized below:

  • Amends the definition of “Oil and Gas Drilling Facilities/Production” to “Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Facilities,” which include well pads and their associated equipment;
  • Amends the “Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Facilities” use in the Table of Uses to now require a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. Currently, these facilities are permitted outright in the A-10, A-5, Commercial, and Industrial zones. A majority of the County’s fee lands are zoned A-5, and most oil and gas drilling and production facilities have not required a conditional use permit;
  • Amends the oil and gas drilling and production facilities section to require administrative conditional use permits for wells (not yet spudded) in all zoning districts and;
  • Provides for payment of a transportation mitigation fee formulated by Jones & DeMille Engineering to be incorporated in the amended County Transportation Master Plan. Note: Implementing this fee will require a separate Resolution to amend the Transportation Master Plan. Questions or discussions associated with this fee are best deferred until the Resolution is on the agenda for consideration.

Director Hyde summarized the findings of fact. He provided the audience with a copy of the findings of fact and the updated ordinance. He also mentioned some red-line edits the Utah Petroleum Association submitted.

Public Comments
(2:11 p.m.)
Rikki Hrenko-Browning with UPA expressed her appreciation to the Commission and staff for additional dialogue on the proposed ordinance and the opportunity to comment on the draft language. Her position is based on the industry members for the detailed redlines. The fee should be included in the ordinance, not just a resolution. Vertical wells, water hauling, and compressor stations should be excluded because they have lower road impacts. The fee should only apply to paved roads, not gravel roads. There should be a three-year review requirement for the fee calculation. Once the ordinance is passed, the effective date should be 30 days after publication instead of 15 days. UPA used the Jones & DeMille Engineering formula but changed the repair cost from $876,000 to $350,000 per mile per well. Based on work recently completed by operators and multiple bids and estimates, including new estimates provided this week, they believe this number for the repair cost is more appropriate. Using this amount with the revised Jones & DeMille Engineering formula would result in a cost-per-mile-per-well fee of $14,244. A cap of 3 miles on the fee was also proposed.
(2:20 p.m.)
JD Kesler, with Parsons Behle & Latimer representing UPA, wanted to comment on the submitted redlines. Their members were confused about the process, so they tried to provide clarification with the suggested redline edits for the UPA members. With some surface use agreements, some credit may be given through the CUP process. The industry already complies with the Surface Use Protection Act through DOGM.
(2:22 p.m.)
Jake Woodland with Wasatch Energy Management agreed with Rikki Hrenko-Browning on the proposed per-mile-per-well fee of $14,244. He explained how this amount would be added to the road maintenance budget and double what was used this year.
(2:25 p.m.)
Gordan Moon spoke on behalf of the mineral owners. The industry benefits the county and brings a lot of good. He recommended following the UPA proposed redline edits.
(2:28 p.m.)
Frank Jimenez with Berry Petroleum feels that the definitions aren’t clear. He recommends that the County follow the redline edits that UPA has proposed. He thinks gravel roads, compressor stations, and water hauling facilities should be exempt and not included with the transportation mitigation fee. He also suggested that the fees be imposed for new wells, not existing wells, and a mileage cap be established.
(2:32 p.m.)
Kent Fink with Berry Petroleum suggested that the fee be paid at the time of permitting, not when the well is spudded.