Chair Robbins: This is the Energy and Carbon Management Commission. It is October 22nd, 2025. We are back in session. We’re going to take up docket 2301, an oil and gas development plan, the Washington OGDP. This one has an unusual procedural history. I think it was in September we heard the Washington OGDP and the commission voted at that time to stay further consideration of this matter. That was based upon the uncontroverted fact that there was a bald eagle nest within a distance that precluded the commission from being able to favorably vote on the OGDP.
Chair Robbins: My understanding from the record that I’ve read is that since that time and here in the recent weeks, the tree that contained the bald eagle nest lost not one, not two, but three limbs. And the third limb that was lost, it was blown down, contained the actual eagle’s nest. And my understanding is that if we were to speak with the CPW folks, they would confirm all of that and they would also confirm to us that there is no longer an objection from Colorado Parks and Wildlife relevant to the eagle’s nest and that it is no longer a factor for consideration by the commission in terms of looking at the OGDP in question. So the wildlife concern no longer exists. So with that I think the first order of action, and I’m looking to Attorney Boudreaux to maybe show up as well. Do I need to take any evidence on any of that or can that all just be sort of understood by commission as being true because then I’m going to take up the unopposed motion to vacate the stay.
Attorney Boudreaux: I would say during the unopposed motion to vacate the stay, Extraction could make their arguments and if you wanted to review any evidence or arguments that they have, you could take that into consideration. You know, I think currently in the record there is a letter from CPW indicating what you just described. So, if you wanted to just move on to the stay, I think that’s acceptable.
Chair Robbins: Okay. Mr. Pierzchala, I recognize you. I don’t need a ton of argument here, but if you want to elaborate on any of the points, please do so.
Mr. Pierzchala: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Robbins. I don’t think there’s much elaboration that needs to be made. Our papers, I think, set forth the basis for the change in circumstances and as you noted, the main change is that the tree branches, all three of them have collapsed. The nest has collapsed. Our motion is supported by a memorandum from Extraction documenting the history of that tree, the condition from back in October at the previous hearing and the current condition. It’s also supported by communications from Colorado Parks and Wildlife identifying that there is no longer a concern with respect to this wildlife item, that the nest has been deemed collapsed. It’s no longer an active nest. And there is no objection for this application, the OGDP application from CPW. And there’s also an attachment of US Fish and Wildlife Service also confirming that the nest is no longer an active nest, that it has been collapsed. So I think we’ll stand on our papers and as the order for stay had indicated that the OGDP would be stayed absent the change of circumstances, that change of circumstances has occurred and we ask that you approve the motion and take up, retake up the Washington OGDP today. Thank you.
Chair Robbins: Great. I would also just further note for the record that litigation did ensue following the stay action by the commission. However, that litigation has been dismissed and so that is no longer at the district court and thus we have jurisdiction over this matter today. Unless commissioners have questions, I’m happy to make a motion relevant to the vacation of the stay motion. Does any commissioner have questions at this point? Seeing none, I would move to vacate the stay. Do we have a second?
Commissioner Ackerman: Second.
Chair Robbins: Second from Commissioner Ackerman. Do we have further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Commissioners: Aye.
Chair Robbins: Any opposed? All right. The stay is vacated and we now will turn to discussion on the merits of this application and we’ll first hear from Miss Faber who has some relevant information that came in kind of late. Go ahead.
Laurel Faber: Thank you, Chair Robbins. Good morning, commissioners and members of the public. My name is Laurel Faber and I am the lead location assessment specialist for the Extraction Washington OGDP. Just a quick note for the record, I was contacted by Extraction staff on October 16th letting me know that they would like to update some information prior to the hearing. That information includes updates to the equipment for the proposed location. I let them know that they could provide that information to me prior to the hearing, but because the director recommendation has already been published, it would not be added to the application until after the conclusion of the hearing today. That information was sent to me late yesterday afternoon, October 21st, and includes updates to the proposed equipment, a new layout drawing, a new preliminary process flow diagram, and updated form 2B production air resource emissions. Based on the outcome of the hearing today, this information and data will be updated in the form 2A and the form 2B as a part of staff’s post-hearing process.
Chair Robbins: Thank you, Miss Faber. Does the new information change the director recommendation in any part?
Laurel Faber: It does not. No.
Chair Robbins: All right. And just for the record, that’s a recommendation of approval. Correct?
Laurel Faber: Yeah, that is correct.
Chair Robbins: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Does anyone have questions of Miss Faber? I believe that each of the commissioners individually received the new information this morning, so we’ve had a chance to quickly take a look at it and review it.
Laurel Faber: Yes, that is correct.
Chair Robbins: All right. With that, Mr. Pierzchala, we’ve heard the entirety of this application. You know, I’m happy to recognize you and your clients for further elaboration on the application, but I don’t know that we need kind of a full-on regurgitation of what we heard before. But if things have changed, maybe some of this new information or otherwise, happy to recognize you and your clients, I would note that anybody you’ve elevated, provided they were here at the first time around, they remain sworn in and under oath for purposes of testimony.
Mr. Pierzchala: Thank you, Chair Robbins. We have a presentation that is prepared. It is a summary presentation. So an overview of the development, a kind of re-explaining the history of the eagle nest and a re-summary of best management practices and operational timeline. If it’s something that you all feel like you’d want to hear, we’re happy to present it. If you are ready to approve based on the prior record, we’re happy to go that way as well. I think the substantive record has been made at our prior hearing and my recollection from that hearing was there was at least comment from three commissioners that the application was approvable but for the eagle nest and the rule 1202C matter which as we’ve discussed has been resolved and as confirmed by CPW. So, if the commission is inclined to just take this up and vote on the prior record and that acknowledgement that it was approvable and the director’s recommendation that this is an approvable application, I think we can go that way. But if you’d like, we’re happy to present. We have I think in total at most 20 minutes and it’s like I said, it’s an overview.
Chair Robbins: Okay. I’m comfortable moving forward without an overview, but I’m only one commissioner. What is the inclination of other commissioners? Commissioner Oeth.
Commissioner Oeth: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I would appreciate the summary.
Chair Robbins: Okay. With that, we will take the summary up. Please go ahead.
Mr. Pierzchala: Very good. Bear with me one moment. I’ll share my screen to get this presentation up. And can you all see my screen?
Chair Robbins: Yep.
Mr. Pierzchala: Excellent. All right. Well, good morning. My name is Joe Pierzchala with Welborne Sullivan Meck and Tooley and together with my co-counsel Anna Marie Gutierrez with Marbel Bond Dickinson we represent Extraction Oil and Gas. We’re here today nearly a year to the day in fact for a renewed hearing on the Washington OGDP. Presenting for Extraction are Claude Boiteau, asset development lead engineer, Lilah Huning, natural resource specialist, and Jeff Annable, manager of well and location permitting. We also have several other representatives available for questions. Before turning this presentation over to the team, I’d just like to give a brief procedural history. Washington OGDP was originally scheduled for hearing on December 14th, 2023. The director’s recommendation issued on December 1st, application satisfied commission rules and recommended that the commission approve the application. Important to note is that at the time the application was filed and complete, there were no HPH layers impacting the Washington location. In the weeks leading up to that hearing, Extraction discovered, later confirmed by CPW, that a pair of bald eagles had been observed at an old unoccupied raptor nest in a tree near the location. That discovery prompted Extraction to voluntarily continue the hearing and initiate robust consultations between various government agencies including Fish and Wildlife Service, CPW, and ECMC on how best to manage and balance the Washington proposal in a manner that was protective of the eagles. On October 23rd, 2024, Extraction was prepared to present the Washington OGDP. In the lead up to that hearing and because of the discovery of the eagle nest occupancy, the director requested that Extraction file a rule 502 variance application for relief from the HPH no surface occupancy requirements of rule 1202C for bald eagles. Extraction did so under protest, maintaining at all times that rule 1202C did not apply here because at the time the application was filed and passed completeness, there was no effective HPH and no NSO and any change to HPH could not require a retroactive application of 1202C.
Mr. Pierzchala: On October 11th, 2024, the director issued an addendum to the original recommendation, which provided a summary of the eagle nest issue, including Extraction’s commitment to operate outside the nesting season, and outlined the commission’s options, which were to approve the OGDP and the variance, approve the OGDP and deny the variance, or deny both the OGDP and the variance. At that October 23rd hearing, the commission took evidence from Extraction on the OGDP and evidence from both Extraction and CPW on the variance. The commission determined that although there was no effective HPH layer in existence at the time the application was filed and passed completeness, the existence of the nest was a change that allowed the commission to enforce rule 1202C absent a variance under rule 502. The commission denied the variance and as you know the variance denial was appealed to Denver District Court pursuant to the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act. As to the OGDP, however, and as relevant now, several commissioners stated that but for the eagle nest, the OGDP was approvable and decided that the prudent course of action was to stay the OGDP pending a change in circumstances and that change in circumstances has occurred.
Mr. Pierzchala: In September 2025, the tree branch supporting the nest has fallen and the nest collapsed on the ground as confirmed by CPW and Fish and Wildlife Service. That change precipitated the dismissal of the variance appeal and the hearing before you today. The sequence of events is detailed in the second addendum to the director recommendation issued on October 14th, 2025. Effectively, the change in circumstance resets this matter back to the fall of 2023 as though the nest never existed and the application is to be reviewed under the HPH buffers and rules existing at that time. Similarly, the director’s findings and recommendation from December 1st, 2023 stand. Washington OGDP satisfies commission rules and the director recommends approval without any conditions. The record in support of the Washington OGDP as having satisfied rule 301A has already been made in the prior October 2024 hearing. Several commissioners unequivocally found that the Washington OGDP was approvable. As a brief reminder, this project has buy-in and approval from the surface owner, numerous developers, and critically the city of Thornton, which is the relevant local government and party to an operator agreement with Extraction. This project is pivotal to allowing several legacy wells to be plugged and abandoned, returning land to communities and allowing other city of Thornton approved development projects to proceed.
Mr. Pierzchala: The presentation today is therefore intended as a refresher of the record previously established at the October 23rd, 2024 hearing. And the presentation includes a project overview, a summary of the exhaustive alternative location analysis that was performed over many years, a summary of the change in the ground circumstances, and a summary of the operational commitments that make this project best in class. So before I turn this presentation over to Mr. Boiteau, if there are any questions during deliberations or any information that you feel may be missing please exit deliberations and allow us the opportunity to answer those questions and provide that information. With that I thank you very much for your time this morning and I turn the presentation to Mr. Boiteau.
Chair Robbins: Actually looks like there’s a question Joe.
Attorney Boudreaux: Mr. Chair.
Chair Robbins: Yeah. Attorney Boudreaux, go ahead. I’m not exactly sure who was sworn in at the hearing a couple years ago. Do you mind if I go ahead and swear?
Chair Robbins: Yeah, let’s go ahead and do that. Just in abundance of caution.
Attorney Boudreaux: Thank you. Mr. Boiteau, would you please raise your hand, state your first and last name, and swear to tell the truth?
Claude Boiteau: Yeah, absolutely. My name is Claude Boiteau, and I swear to tell the truth.
Attorney Boudreaux: Thank you.
Claude Boiteau: All right. Thank you, Joe. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Claude Boiteau. As Mr. Pierzchala noted, I’m an asset development engineer representing Extraction Oil and Gas, a wholly owned subsidiary of Civitas Resources. Our testimony today will briefly review the Washington OGDP, the completed alternative location analysis, provide environmental update, and review the best management practices proposed as a component of this application. Testifying in support of the Washington OGDP will be myself, permitting manager Mr. Jeff Annable, natural resource specialist, Mrs. Lilah Huning, and as you’ve heard, outside counsel, Mr. Joe Pierzchala. Additionally, subject matter experts are available at the commission’s pleasure to discuss specific components of the OGDP and best management practices.
Claude Boiteau: Today, our team will be providing testimony in support of the Washington OGDP. This testimony was intended or is intended to supplement information provided during the first Washington hearing. While we won’t be reviewing previously provided material in full, we welcome any questions and are prepared to discuss specific topics as necessary. The proposed Washington surface is planned near the intersection of I-25 and E-470. This location provides for a setback of over 2,000 feet from RBUs to wells and facilities. The relevant local government is the city of Thornton with Adams County and city and county of Broomfield qualifying as approximate municipalities. Extraction and the city of Thornton entered into an operator agreement in November of 2022. The Washington development consists of between two drilling and spacing units, the Washington North and the Washington South DSU.
Claude Boiteau: Three RBUs fall within 2,000 feet of the proposed working pad surface, all of which have signed letters of informed consent. No schools, child care facilities, high occupancy building units, or designated outdoor activity areas fall within one half mile of the proposed location. No RBUs within one mile of the proposed location fall within a disproportionately impacted community. And finally, no public water systems, riparian corridors, or mapped high priority habitats fall within 2,000 feet of the surface location at the time of OGDP submittal.
Claude Boiteau: Extraction has performed a robust alternative location analysis as a component of the Washington OGDP. Alternative surface locations were analyzed before and again after the identification of the eagle nest near the proposed location. Six alternative locations were reviewed as a component of the OGDP submittal. None of these locations offered a comparative protective advantage to health, safety, or the environment over the proposed location. Nine additional surface locations were reviewed following the identification of the nearby eagle nest. These 15 alternative surface locations were further considered for suitability over the intervening months since the OGDP continuation. None of these locations presented significant comparative advantages over the proposed location and none presented a more efficient means to develop the target minerals. As part of this development, I’ll now hand the presentation over to Mrs. Huning to review the updated environmental conditions near the proposed location. Thank you.
Lilah Huning: Thank you, Claude. Attorney Boudreaux, do I need to be sworn in first?
Attorney Boudreaux: Yes, please.
Chair Robbins: Yes, please. Would it be easier to just swear in everyone on their panel?
Attorney Boudreaux: How many other folks you got, Joe? You’re muted, Mr. Pierzchala.
Mr. Pierzchala: I think we can just swear in the presenters and if anyone else needs to answer any specific questions, we can swear them in at that time. So, we want to swear in Lilah Huning and Jeff Annable right now. I think that makes sense.
Chair Robbins: Let’s do that.
Attorney Boudreaux: Thank you. When I call your name, please be visible. Raise your hand. State your first and last name and swear to tell the truth. Lilah Huning.
Lilah Huning: Lilah Huning. I swear to tell the truth.
Attorney Boudreaux: Jeff Annable.
Jeff Annable: Jeffrey Annable. I swear to tell the truth.
Attorney Boudreaux: Thank you.
Chair Robbins: Go ahead.
Lilah Huning: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I’m the natural resource specialist at Civitas and I’m here to provide a brief timeline summary of the changes that occurred to the bald eagle nest and its host tree. I will start with a quick recap of 2023 and 2024 observations. Since the nest was first identified, the tree has been in poor condition. As noted during our previous hearing, no successful nesting occurred in 2023 or 2024. In late summer of 2024, one of the three main branches collapsed. We’ve continued to monitor the status of both the nest and the tree, and the next slides will summarize the changes that have occurred in the last year since our previous hearing.
Lilah Huning: In early 2025, the second main branch collapsed. After that, only one large branch, the branch containing the nest, remained attached to the tree, and a fracture was visible at the base of that branch. As for the nest, 2025 was the third consecutive year of no successful nesting. In September of 2025, the branch supporting the nest broke off the tree, causing the nest to fall and collapse. CPW and US Fish and Wildlife Service were immediately notified the following business day on Monday, September 15th. CPW passed the update along to ECMC staff the same day. The following day on September 16th, CPW, the surface owner, and members of our team all met on location to confirm and document the changes.
Lilah Huning: In the correspondence between our environmental consultant and US Fish and Wildlife Service, the service confirmed that the nest was no longer officially designated as an eagle nest, which confirmed that the collapsed nest materials were no longer protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Following the initial notification and site visit with CPW, we provided a summary of the tree and nest changes to CPW and ECMC staff on September 19th for all parties’ records. CPW responded on September 22nd and confirmed that the nest was destroyed due to natural degradation, the nest will be removed from the HPH data set and that CPW had no further concerns for this OGDP.
Lilah Huning: Lastly, we wanted to take a moment to highlight two voluntary mitigation and stewardship efforts that were inspired by this project. The first is a voluntary donation which we discussed during our previous hearing. In alignment with the concept of compensatory mitigation which is applied to projects in HPH and was discussed this morning as well as other common mitigation programs, Extraction voluntarily contributed to a local nonprofit that rehabilitates raptors including bald eagles. When we met with this organization we were immediately inspired by their small team of passionate individuals who make a significant impact for local raptors and do so with very limited resources. Our team was excited to provide the donation, but we also hope this is just the start of a longer term relationship. We are continuing discussions with their staff to explore additional ways that our company may be able to support their team in their mission.
Lilah Huning: The second effort we’d like to highlight is an artificial nest project. During consultations with agency, municipal, and independent wildlife experts for the Washington Project, we had several discussions about the increasing overlap between wildlife ranges and urban activity. In particular, we talked about how raptors are adapting to urban environments and the importance of identifying suitable nesting areas within these spaces. As a result of these discussions, our team was again inspired to do more. In coordination with our consultant and the city of Thornton, we identified preferred nesting habitats within the city’s protected lands and are currently developing a proposal to construct an artificial nest site. The goals of this project are to support raptor nesting and conservation and to support wildlife education and hopefully inspire others. There is still more work to be done, but the process so far has been positive and collaborative, and we are dedicated to getting this project across the finish line.
Lilah Huning: In addition to these efforts that stem from consultations for the Washington project, Civitas is also engaged in broader stewardship projects. For example, Civitas provided grant funding to the Bird Conservancy of the Rockies to help restore native prairie habitat. Civitas is committed to protecting wildlife not only through responsible operations at its facilities, but also through meaningful projects and partnerships. Last, but certainly not least, we would like to thank CPW, ECMC, US Fish and Wildlife Service, City of Thornton, and all other groups who have consulted on the Washington OGDP and Stewardship Projects. We truly appreciate everyone’s time and input over the last several years and look forward to more collaboration ahead. Thank you. I will now hand the presentation over to Jeff Annable.
Jeff Annable: Thank you, Lilah. And good morning, commissioners. I would now like to provide a brief review of the best-in-class site-specific best management practices that will be implemented as a part of this development. First, I would like to cover our siting and construction approach which starts with avoidance. The proposed Washington pad is sited more than 2,600 feet from schools, child care centers, and other sensitive uses as well as outside of HPH. We then minimized impacts by setting the wells and facilities on the proposed pad more than 2,000 feet from residences. The proposed location siting aligns with local land use plans and is near major transportation corridors which will minimize traffic impacts. Finally, we mitigate construction impacts by controlling dust with fresh water on access roads, conducting avian surveys before construction, and managing topsoil stockpiles with best practices to support future revegetation.
Jeff Annable: During drilling, we minimize impacts by using utility power drilling rig and group three drilling mud, both of which lower emissions and minimize noise and odor. Mitigation best management practices include cleaning the pipe as it is removed, hauling drill cuttings offsite daily, installing a polyethylene liner for spill prevention, and installing a 32-foot sound wall before drilling begins to mitigate noise that originates from the drilling operations. During completions, we reduce traffic emissions and noise by piping fresh water through temporary lay flat lines, utilizing tier 4 equivalent engines or better and routing flowback through emission controlled facilities. For mitigation, gas will be routed to a gas sales line at first production. Completion sand will be stored and transported in sealed containers and the liners will remain in place for spill prevention as well as the 32-foot sound walls.
Jeff Annable: Finally, once in production, our goal is a small, efficient footprint. Facilities run on utility power. Three-phase pipelines will be in place before first production, and the facility design will be tankless, utilize pressurized maintenance vessel for maintenance operation, and include three-phase meters and bulk separators, which is the change that was provided to staff prior to the hearing. This change cuts the number of separators and is aimed at reducing equipment footprint and emissions. No permanent lighting will be installed. The wells will be capable of being shut in remotely. Equipment will be painted to blend with the landscape and the installation of a continuous leak detection system will be operational for the life of the pad.
Jeff Annable: Now I’d like to go over the beneficial impacts. This project will deliver lasting benefits. We will plug five legacy wells which include the decommissioning of 10 tanks, the elimination of hundreds of annual vehicle trips and the reclamation of over 5 acres with a net positive of nearly 1.36 acres reclaimed. Additionally, these reclamations will result in a removal of about 8 tons per year in VOC emissions, which is a net removal of approximately 5.37 tons of emissions. In short, this plan not only minimizes new impacts, but also improves the environment and community conditions long term. I would now like to hand this presentation back over to Joe to close out. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Pierzchala: Thank you very much for your time this morning, commissioners. That concludes our presentation. We just respectfully request that you approve the Washington OGDP and we are now available for questions.
Chair Robbins: All right. Thank you for the summary and the presentation. Commissioners, the panel is open for questions. Commissioner Oeth.
Commissioner Oeth: Thanks Mr. Chair and thank you all very much for providing the summary and kind of some updates that is just really helpful to just go over that again. So, thank you for that. I wanted to just ask a couple things. So with respect to the changes to some of the equipment that was provided in the last day or so and Mr. Annable, I know you talked about this briefly. It sounds, I’m trying to do a quick comparison because we weren’t seeing it side by side from what was anticipated previously to what you’re expecting now with these changes to equipment, but it sounds like you’re anticipating a reduction in emissions. Is that correct?
Jeff Annable: Yes, that is correct. So our original design had a separator per well and now we’re going with bulk separators. I think it’s approximately two bulk separators and all pressurized vessels and then three-phase meters. So yes this cuts emissions if I remember correctly approximately in half from the original design.
Commissioner Oeth: In half for VOC emissions?
Jeff Annable: VOCs. Okay. So yeah, and then that last slide, I think you had like an eight tons per year reduction in VOCs, but I think that was from the plugging and abandoning, not the change to this equipment. Is that right?
Jeff Annable: That’s correct. But factoring in the emissions, long-term emissions annually, it’ll be reduced by I think it was 5.37 tons per year. So we’re ultimately reducing emissions in the area if you factor in the reclamations.
Commissioner Oeth: Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. And then I just wanted to see if there’s any changes or updates around two other items. So it was noted in the CDPHE consultation that at the time you know a year ago when we were reviewing this that you weren’t able to make a commitment to conduct completions activities outside of school hours. So, just given timing changes, wondered if anything has shifted in that regard.
Jeff Annable: I’ll maybe take a stab at this and then hand it over to Claude Boiteau. So with kind of the delay that we’ve experienced, we’re up against a tight timeline. So as far as having the completion operations outside of school hours, would probably be difficult to commit to at this time.
Claude Boiteau: Yeah, thanks Jeff. I appreciate that. I don’t have much to add. Jeff nailed it with the timeline. As we’re currently planning the project, it does align, the majority of the development does align with summertime activities. And so we would be avoiding to the best of our ability, but we do have that end of operations timeline that we have to be cognizant of.
Commissioner Oeth: Okay. Thanks. And I appreciate that much of the activity can occur outside of school hours and note that the school itself is not within 2,000 feet. So I guess I’m just looking for a little bit more information about that. And I guess on that same note, I know the trucking route is going by the school and so want to just confirm that the commitment to have just the light duty vehicle traffic occurring during kind of the school commuting hours is still in play.
Jeff Annable: Yeah, that’s still in place. Per our operator agreement, we have to abide by transportation timeline requirements.
Commissioner Oeth: Great. Okay. All right. I think that is it. Thank you very much.
Chair Robbins: Thank you, Commissioner Oeth. Further questions for the panel? Seeing no further questions, we move into the deliberation stage of these proceedings on this OGDP. Does any commissioner desire to initiate deliberations? Commissioner Ackerman.
Commissioner Ackerman: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks for the recap here today. I just wanted to start by saying that Extraction did the right thing here initially when they reported the nest after they themselves discovered the nest. They immediately began work with CPW. It’s clear that that self-report resulted in significant inconvenience and expense to Extraction through the indefinite stay of this application. And it illustrates a little bit how dynamic raptor nesting is. And I just want to talk a bit about why it’s important to protect nests. As was the case with this pad, there’s always an argument that can be made that removing just one nest won’t significantly impact a species. And on a one-off basis, I would concede that’s likely true. You know, but to be clear, removing a nest will almost certainly result in a reproductive failure of the nesting pair utilizing that nest during that nesting season. And consequently, a policy that cumulatively dismisses nesting habitat on a one-off basis whenever and wherever we want to develop will certainly impact the habitat and well-being of the species in question in Colorado.
Commissioner Ackerman: Habitat loss is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of wildlife, impacting more species than all other major threats combined. It’s widely identified as the primary driver of biodiversity loss and species extinction. And protection of raptor nests is a critically important aspect of wildlife conservation in Colorado. CPW’s position is that the literature demonstrates that the only way to protect nests is through a no surface occupancy buffer zone resulting in this nest and other nests’ inclusion in our rule 1202C1 which does provide for no surface occupancy to otherwise unmitigatable surface habitats. CPW is the state’s management arm for wildlife and the state’s expert on wildlife issues. And I certainly stand by CPW’s efforts to do so even when it’s inconvenient. I want to point out that CPW’s concerns with this application were abated as was stated here with the natural loss of the nesting habitat. And CPW standing strong on a difficult issue that did cause considerable issues for Extraction is something that I think is important to point out. And you know conversely their amenability to this moving forward once the condition changed is a significant indication that CPW is motivated solely by their mission to perpetuate the wildlife resources of the state and in doing so to me makes them a very trusted partner in helping us complete the wildlife portion of our mission. I was one of the commissioners who stated that if not for the eagle’s nest this would be an approvable application. I stand by that position and I’m in favor of its approval. Mr. Chair, thanks.
Chair Robbins: Thanks for leading us off on deliberations. I think that was appropriate from our wildlife commissioner. Other thoughts from folks, Commissioner Cross.
Commissioner Cross: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Ackerman, for leading us off. I’ll be quick. I also was one of the commissioners that said, but for the Eagles Nest, this would be an approvable application. And I think if nothing else, this has been even improved based off of what we heard and the information we received. I appreciate the efforts to one, look at a large number of alternative locations. I appreciate the efforts to make sure that utility power would be used both during the drilling as well as during the production timelines. And I think it’s, you know, it’s interesting, especially after this happened, I’d drive up to see my family in Wyoming at different times. You drive by the area and see the large amount of development that’s already occurring nearby. And so, I do think that it’s important to note that this is a good location. This is a good place for this to happen and I appreciate the hard work being done by the operator here to make sure that not only is it a good location, but they’re taking all the steps necessary to make sure that truck trips are being reduced, that emissions are being reduced, and that they’re trying to get this done in a timeline consistent with what other developers in the region are trying to do as well. So I also continue to believe this is an approvable application and will be voting in favor.
Chair Robbins: Further deliberation. Does anybody desire to make a motion? Commissioner Ackerman.
Commissioner Ackerman: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don’t believe we have any COAs here and I think a simple motion to approve this application as presented originally and amended today would be sufficient. I look to Attorney Boudreaux for any concern.
Chair Robbins: Attorney Boudreaux, do we need to do anything with the new information that was submitted yesterday?
Attorney Boudreaux: I think Commissioner Ackerman’s note about additional information presented today is sufficient in the motion.
Chair Robbins: All right, we have a motion. I will second that motion. Do we have further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Commissioners: Aye.
Chair Robbins: Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much to the applicant, Mr. Pierzchala and thanks to staff for the work here. Want to echo the points made by Commissioner Ackerman that I appreciate the applicant notifying us of the presence of the eagle nest. That’s the right thing to do despite the fact that it caused some delay, but I’m glad that we’ve got to a final resolution here.
Mr. Pierzchala: Thank you all very much today. Appreciate it.