J$$&b\

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD,

Plaintiff,

JORDAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C.,a limited liability company, andWORD OF FAITH CHRISTIAN CENTER CHURCH,a non-profit corporation,

Defendants.

-and-

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY, an agency of the State of Michigan,

Defendant-Appellee.

CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.By: RONALD G. ACHO (P-23913)

ELIZABETH RAE-O'DONNELL (P 41529)GREGORY A. ROBERTS (P-33984)

33900 Schoolcraft Road

Livonia, MI 48150-1392(734) 261-2400

racho @ cmda-law.com

erae@ cmda-law.com

groberts@cmda-law.comAttorneys for Plaintiff

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD

By: SUSAN P. WARD-WITOWSKI (P-31057)City Attorney26000 Evergreen RoadP.O. Box 2055

Southfield Michigan, 48037-2055(248) 796-5775sward@cityofsouthfield.comAttorneys for Plaintiff

Case No. 2016- AA

Hon.

i!SS8\.48B|k

AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER P. GROBBEL

STATE OF MICHIGAN )) SS

COUNTY OF )

I, Christopher P. Grobbel of Grobbel Environmental & Planning Associates stateunder oath as follows:

1. I make this Affidavit based upon personal knowledge.

2. I am the president of Grobbel Environmental & Planning Associates of Lake

Leelanau, Michigan.

3. I hold a Ph.D. from Michigan State University (MSU), Resource Development

Department in the field of Environmental Policy and Law. I also obtained a Master of

Science degree from Michigan State University with an emphasis in the study of natural

resources management, hydrology, soils, fluvial geomorphology, watershed

management and hydrogeology. I have had ongoing formal training in hydrologic and

wetland science, including many courses at the University of Wisconsin, Wetland

Training Institute. My curriculum vita is attached to this affidavit, Ex. 1.

4. I have worked for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (now the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - MDEQ), Gaylord district office and

Lansing headquarters, in the Water Resources and Remediation and Redevelopment

Divisions (known as the Land and Water Management and Environmental

Response/Groundwater Quality Divisions, respectively, during my tenure), including

providing litigation support and expert testimony for the Michigan Department of the

Attorney General, specializing in environmental and water quality assessment, risk

^s®s

assessment and management, and the study and characterization of groundwater

contamination and its movement, among other things.

5. For 25 years I have worked as an environmental consultant, which has included

cumulative environmental impact assessment, environmental quality analysis, ecological

assessment, hydrology/hydrogeology, soils investigation, wetland science,

environmental restoration, property assessment and redevelopment, and surface and

groundwater contamination, movement, fate and transport.

6. I am also a full-time faculty member within the Department of Community

Sustamability (CSUS) MSU, and since 1992 I have developed and taught undergraduate

courses at MSU including environmental impact assessment; watershed management;

water law; hydrology/hydrogeology; wetland science, management, construction and

restoration; land use law and policy; environmental and natural resources law and

policy; environmental planning and management; and community sustamability. During

the 2015-2016 academic year I am teaching CSUS 320 Environmental Planning and

Management; CSUS 465 Environmental and Natural Resources Law; CSUS 425

Environmental Impact Assessment; and CSUS 200 Introduction to Sustamability at

MSU, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

7. I have recently served or currently serve as the professional planner for

Michigan townships including but not limited to the City of Southfield, Oakland

County; City of White Cloud, Newaygo County; Shelby Township, Macomb County;

Norman Township, Manistee County; Village of Onekama, Benzie County; Bay and

Norwood Townships, Charlevoix County; Elmwood Township, Leelanau County;

Torch Lake Township, Antrim County; Edwards Township, Ogemaw County; Acme

f /8S|jk

and Mayfield Townships, Grand Traverse County; Redmond and Friendship

Townships, Emmet County; and Ogemaw County.

8. I have been previously qualified as an expert by numerous Michigan circuit

courts and federal district court in Michigan in cumulative environmental impact,

environmental quality assessment, wetland science, geomorphology, and hydrogeology

in Michigan courts. I have been qualified as an expert in hydrogeology,

geomorphology, hydrology, and wetland characterization and delineation by MDEQ

administrative law judges and stipulated as such by MDEQ, Water Resources Division

wetland program staff.

9. Demographics of City of Southfield. According to the U.S. Census, the

permanent population of City of Southfield was estimated at 73,002 on July 1,2015. This

represents a 1.8% growth rate from 2010 U.S. Census (i.e., 71,739 residents). By

comparison the population growth rate for Oakland County as a whole from 2000

(1,194,156 residents) to 2010 (1,202,362 residents) was merely 0.7%. The City of

Southfield has a population density of2,731 persons per square mile and a housing unit

density of 1,370 homes per square mile - roughly analogous in population density to the

cities of Farmington Hills and Lathrup Village, and the housing density of the cities of

Pontiac and South Lyon in Oakland, County. Importantly, a large number ofhomes in the

City of Southfield rely solely upon groundwater supplies for private residential drinking

water systems.

10. Hydrology/Hydrogeology of the City of Southfield. Surface waters drain

generally north to south through the City of Southfield to the confluence of the Rogue

River. Specifically, Rummell Drain, Wagner Drain, and Tamarack Creek drain the

/P$p\

eastern portion of the City, and the drainage in the western portion of the City is typified

byPeeble Creek, Pernick Creek, Jilbert Drain, Farmbrook Branch and the Rogue River.1

Soils types at the proposed Word of Faith #16-27 well site consist of 84.3% Tedrow

loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes; 19.1% Granby loamy sand; and 5.0% Urban land-

Thetford complex, 0 to3 percent slopes.2 Loamy sands are permeable soils vulnerable to

aquifer contamination from surface spills, and the Granby loamy sand consists of

saturated wetland surface soils (Michigan hydric soil number MI0478). A review of

available residential well logs (i.e., 16 total) for Section 27 of the City of Southfield

(TIN, R10E) suggest the presence of thin sand and gravel, and/or fractured shale

groundwater aquifer providing drinking water to Southfield residents. Water well records

available within Section 27 indicate an average well depth of 117 feet below ground

surface (bgs), well depth range of 80 to 134 feet bgs, and an average static water level of

33.9 feet bgs. Seventy-five percent (75%) ofwater wells recorded are screened in a black,

fractured shale and as such are bedrock wells. Notably, two (2) of these residential well

logs in Section 27 report "natural gas" migrating upward ad depths of 80 feet, 90 feet and

117 feet bgs. On March 8,2016 in this matter, the MDEQ proffered a state department of

public health report that documents the presence of thermogenic methane (CH4) gas

accompanied by toxic hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in some private water well systems in

Oakland County, including the City ofSouthfield.3 Such documented conditions indicate

the fractured nature of subsurface capstone above the Antrim shale, i.e., a known oil and

gas reservoirin this area, and suggests the existing and potentialupwardmigrationof

1Comprehensive Master Plan, City of Southfield, April 13, 2009, p. 76.2Natural ResourceConservation Service,Web Soil Survey, February 10,2016,http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov.3Michigan's Occupational Health: Problems Associated with Natural Gas inMichigan, MichiganDepartment ofPublic Health, Volume 11, No. 1, Fall 1965.

natural gas in the vicinity of the proposed Word of Faith exploratory well. Near surface

groundwater in clay-rich subsurface strata at and in the vicinity of this location is

interpreted to flow generally west-southwest toward and within the Tamarack

Creek/Rouge River drainage basin. A review ofMDEQ water well retrieval system data

confirms the presence ofresidential water wells utilized as the sole source of drinking

water for homes on Russell Street (i.e., 1,600 feet (+/-) to the West-Northwest from the

proposed Word of Faith #16-27 well); on North and South Norwood St. (i.e., 2,400 feet

(+/-) to the North of the well); and on Lois Lane (i.e., 4,400 feet (+/-) to the Northwest of

the well).

11. Jordan Development Company's Oil Exploration Plans in the City of

Southfield. Jordan Development Company LLC of Traverse City, Michigan has

proposed and on March 8, 2016 obtained a permit from the MDEQ, Office of Oil Gas

and Minerals (OOGM) to drill an exploratory oil well northwest of the intersection of 9

Mile and Evergreen Roads (i.e., within the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of

the southeast quarter of Section 27, Southfield Township, TIN, R10E) on property

owned by the Word of Faith International Christian Center, Inc., i.e., the "Word of

Faith #16-27" well.4 This exploratory oil well5 is intended to drill vertically to a depth

of approximately 2,900 feet into the Gray Niagaran formation - a Silurian aged (i.e.,

443 to 416 million years before present) pinnacle reef formation bearing hydrocarbon

reservoirs.6

4MDEQ Permit No. 61170, issued March 8, 2016, Word ofFaith #16-27.5Applicant Jordan Development proposes anexploratory well within an areapreviously consideredunproductive for hydrocarbons.6Niagaran reefoil and gasproduction began in 1969 in lower Michigan. Considerable amounts of oilandgas were sealed in the Niagaran Reefs, which formed along the edges of a salt sea that covered Michigan

12. Importantly, according to MDEQ, OOGM records and other online databases, the

City of Southfield currently possesses andhistorically has not possessed any producing

oil or gas wells, production facilities or deep injection wells for oil and gas waste

disposal.7

13. Oil and Gas Industry in Michigan and Environmental Risk.8 Over56,000 oil

and gas wells have been drilled in Michigan, with little publicly available information

regarding known orpotential associated environmental contamination.9 About 18,000 oil

during the Silurian period. The pinnacle reefs were coral formations that long ago changed into porous,carbonate rock. They are isolated from one another and average from 100 to 200 acres in size: thus thesearch for them has resulted in a number of dry holes. The success rate has improved in recent years withbetter exploration and seismic testing methods and improved pipe technology. Source:http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/Oil&gas.html.7www.deq.state.mi.us/dataminer and respectmyplanet.org.

R324.504(8) states "if discharges to the air, surface waters, or groundwater of the state are likely to occurat a surface facility, then a permittee shall apply and obtain all necessary state and federal discharge permitsbefore operating the surface facility." Additionally, it is our experience that if contamination occurs, theMDEQ, OGS will oversee investigation and cleanup pursuant to the Supervisor of Wells Act, and not theMichigan Environmental Response Act, Part 201 ofNREPA, P.A. 451 of 1994, as amended. However, theMDEQ, OGS will default to Part 201 standards for hydrocarbons and brines constituents to define"contamination" and when cleanup is adequately achieved. R324.1008 requires permittees to report spillsor any other losses of 42 gallons or more or which may result in a nuisance odor or unnecessaryendangerment to the public within 8 hours of knowledge. R324.401 requires "a person who drills a well orwells ... shall use every reasonable precaution to prevent waste." R324.504 states in part "a person shalluse every reasonable precaution to stop and prevent waste. All wells, surface facilities, gathering lines, andflow lines shall be constructed and operated so that the materials contained at a location do not cause waste.An oil and gas operation shall not be commenced or continued at a location where it is likely that asubstance may escape in a quantity sufficient to pollute the air, soil, surface waters or groundwater, or tocause unnecessaryendangerment to public health, safety, or welfare until the permittee has complied withthe methods and means to prevent pollution or eliminate the unnecessary endangerment ofpublic health,safety or welfare as specified by the supervisor (i.e., MDEQ, OOGM)."9Drilling Our Conservation Heritage: The Future of Oil & Gas Drilling on Michigan's Public Lands,Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center, December 2007, p. 13, and The Lake MichiganFederation, The CaseAgainst New Great Lakes Oil & Gas Drilling: Michigan Fails to Clean Up Oil andGas Pollution, September 2001, p. 8. In 2001, 187 of the 2,842 known Michigan contamination sites ornearly 7% of all Michigan environmental contaminationsites were due to oil and gas extraction or drilling.The Supervisor of WellsAct, Part 615 of Michigan'sNaturalResources and Environmental Protection Act,(NREPA), P.A. 451 of 1994 as amended, regulates oil and gas operations in Michigan. Administrative ruleMCL R324.301 requires that oil and gas drilling "units" be comprised of at least 40 contiguous acres, andthat drilling site setbacks of at least 330 feet from any property boundary. R324.61513(2) empowers theMDEQ, OOGM to determine "a uniform well spacing pattern" (i.e., the number and location ofexploration/ production wells)within"drillingunits" abovean oil and gas formation or "drilling pool," andthat any well be placed within the center of the drilling unit. With this limitation, mineral rights holdershave the right to access surface locations to exercise their mineral rights where they believe oil and/or gasformations and resources may exist. Nonetheless, directional drilling is employed when topographicalfeatures or "an imminent threat to waters or other natural resources" prohibit or complicate uniform well

J$$l$\

and gas wells are currently operating inMichigan.10 The MDEQ, OOGM discontinued

maintaining a publicly available list of oil and gas contamination sites in 1995. Currently,

there is no comprehensive publicly available list ofoil and gas contamination sites in

Michigan, and information on oil and gas contamination sites can only be gleaned

through the exhaustive review individual well files pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA).1l

14. Jordan Development's Environmental Record in Oil and Gas Contamination

Sites in Michigan. A list ofoil and gas contaminated sites was received by myself

through FOIA from the MDEQ. That list documents that as ofMay 7, 2014 Jordan

Development is responsible for five (5) hazardous materials spills reported to the MDEQ

district in Montmorency, Alpena and Antrim Counties. As of May 7, 2014, the MDEQ,

OOGM statewide was overseeing compliance at 482 total spills sites, 302 active cleanups

and had recorded 200 completed cleanups at oil and gas exploration/development sites.

15. Michigan Oil and Gas Contamination Sites.

No on-line or readily available list of oil and gas-related environmental contamination

sites exists in Michigan, and empirical study of such sites is minimal. A 2007 study

reported that the OOGM maintains an internal list of approximately 700 oil and gas

contamination sites, representing "most of the sites of environmental contamination that

spacings. MDEQ, OOGM policy requires a minimum of 640 acres for unconventional, horizontallyfractured natural gas well drilling units. Supervisor of Wells Act's R324.301 and R324.504 require oil andgas site and flow line minimum setbacks of 300 feet from any other oil and gas drilling site, residentialwells (may be closer with landowner consent), public recreation areas, state highways, or existing structureused for human occupation. Additionally, it is MDEQ, OOGM policy that drilling operations be setback atleast 450 feet from streams and other water ways, and not be placed within wetlands. Therefore, theplacement of an oil and gas exploration well could affect or even preclude the future placement of waterwells, ponds and/or structures for human occupation while the exploration and/or mineral development isactive.

10 Drilling Our Conservation Heritage: The Future ofOil &Gas Drilling on Michigan's Public Lands,Environment Michigan Research & Policy Center, December 2007.11 Michigan Public Act553 of 1996, as amended.

have been identified by OOGM since approximately 1986."12 A 2001 Alliance for the

Great Lakes study ofknown Michigan oil and gas contamination sites found that: a) 25%

of sites have resulted in the contamination ofdrinking water supplies, while 61% had not

studied the potential for groundwater impact from hazardous materials releases from oil

and gas sites; b) 21% percent ofknown oil and gas contamination sites had fallen into a

"no action" status; c) 2% had been cleaned-up (i.e., most with minor soil contamination

only); d) oil and gas contamination sites averaged 13 years before interim responses, such

as plugging leaking wells, took place; and e) no (0%) sites with groundwater

contamination, some known for as much as 35 years, had been fully remediated. These

data show that MDEQ, OOGM oversight of the investigation and remediation of oil and

gas contamination sites in Michigan has been poor.

16. MDEQ Diligence in Oil and Gas Exploration/Development Oversight.

MDEQ, OOGM is the regulatory agency responsible for overseeing oil and gas

operationspursuant to Part 615 of MichiganNatural Resources and Environmental

Protection Act (NREPA), P.A. 451 of 1994, as amended. The MDEQ, Remediation and

Redevelopment Division(RRD) is responsible for overseeing the investigation and

cleanup of most othersources of environmental contamination pursuant to Part 201 of

NREPA, P.A. 451 of 1994, as amended. Unjustifiably and unlike all other divisions of

the MDEQ, the OOGM does not utilizePart 201 or its detailed administrative rules to

guideand provide deadlines andperformance standards for the reporting, interim

response, remedial investigations at oil and gas sites of environmental contamination.

Perhaps more astonishing, oil and gas relatedremedial investigation and cleanup

12 Environment Michigan Research &Policy Center, December 2007, p. 11.13 Ibid., pp. 1-2,4,6, and7.

activities overseen by OOGM are generally guided by visual and olfactory evidence of

contamination, versus the customary regulatory approach and standard engineering

practice ofrelying upon discrete soil and/or groundwater samples collected in accordance

with approved MDEQ/U.S. EPA methods, transported under chain of custody and

analyzed by a MDEQ-licensed laboratory. As concluded by the Great Lakes Alliance in

its 2001 study of oil and gas drilling in Michigan, "one of the most disturbing findings is

that information on the extent ofpollution at most of the sites has been limited to visual

examinations or limited sampling of soil and groundwater. There have been few

comprehensive studies ofpollution at the sites to completelydefine the extent of soil,

groundwater, and potential surface water contamination. Subsequently, there is very little

information for the majority of sites on the risks to habitat, fish and wildlife, and public

health." In sum, substantial disparity exists between the OOGM and RRD regarding

environmental assessment methods and clean-up requirements, as implemented

simultaneously by each MDEQ Division.

17. Michigan Auditor General's Assessment of MDEQ Oil and Gas Industry

Oversight.

ASeptember 2013 Michigan Auditor Generals audit report14 assessed MDEQ, OOGM

compliance and enforcement at oil and gas sites and found, in part, that: a) the MDEQ did

not inspect at properfrequency 13.3% of wells beingdrilled (e.g., at least every3 days

during drilling, & completion); b) did not inspect 6.1% of plugged wells during plugging

operations; c) didnot inspect 68.5% ofproducing wells at proper frequency (i.e., oil wells

at least twice/year & gas wells once/year); d) averaged 563 days to issue stipulation &

consent agreements (SCAs) - ranging from 123 to 1,157days from violation to

14 Michigan Auditor General inspected records for 187 selected wells, from 10/1/09 - 12/31/12.

agreement; e) did not enforce regulations, and then routinely extended compliance and

enforcement deadlines; f) assessed only $19,275 of $357,500 of fines & penalties owed

from documented violations; g) did not document why it modified terms of agreement; h)

it to from 10 to 48 days to contact parties deemed responsible for violations; i) did not

document contact of responsible and/or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for at least

10 days after MDEQ identified a violation in 11.9% of cases; j) in 9.5% of cases no

documentation existed that the MDEQ ever contacted PRPs; k) did not follow-up or did

not document follow-up violation inspections within specified dates at 14.3% of

violations; 1) did not conduct timely follow-up inspections at 7.1% ofviolation sites (i.e.,

it took 13 to 23 months); m) did not consistently record inspection ofviolation

information in the MDEQ, OOGM on-line oil and gas database for public disclosure; n)

did not maintain all electronic or hard-copy records associated with violations; o) 18.2%

ofpermittees had not provided updated emergency response/contingency plans to the

MDEQ; and p) 36.4% ofpermittees had not submittedcomplete updated contingency

plans. The Auditor General reportconcluded that the MDEQ's compliance/enforcement

track record resulted in "increased risk that waste could occur..."

18. Wildlife habitat impairment and destruction.

The proposed Word of Faith #16-27 well site is within forested uplands and

immediately adjacent to forested wetlands - both are fundamental habitat for protected

species, including but not limited to the federally and stated endangered Indiana bat

(Myotis sodalis) and federally threatened Northern long eared bat (Myotis

15 As required by R324.504(l) "waste" must be prevented in exploration, development, production, use orhandlingof any oil & gas productaccording the MDEQ oil and gas regulations. "Waste" is usedsimultaneously to meana) the efficient, effective development or beneficial use of oil & gas resources, andb) theprevention of spills, releases, fire/explosion, i.e., environmental protection andtheprotection ofpublic health and safety.

10

j0$fay

septentrionalis).16 Wetlands and portions of the Tamarack Creek also exist immediately

downstream on adjacent City of Southfield park property, i.e., Bauervic Woods Park to

the south on 9 Mile Road, approximately 350 feet from the proposed Word of Faith

#16-27 wellhead. Oakland County supports 19 Michigan-listed endangered species,

including wetland dependent species such as the smallmouth salamander, Henslow's

sparrow, and the Catinellaprotracta (snail); 38 Michigan-threatened species including

wetland dependent Blanchard's cricket frog, red shouldered hawk, spotted turtle, least

shrew, and Cerulean warbler; and 46 Michigan-listed species of concern including

wetland dependent marsh wren, Blanding's turtle, bald eagle, woodland vole, Eastern

massasauga, Eastern box turtle, and the hooded warbler, swamp metalmark,

Campeloma spire snail, angular spittlebug, red-legged spittlebug, kidney shell, and

Tamarack tree cricket.17 The state and federally endangered Indianabat and federally

threatened Northern long-eared bat rely upon habitat like that at and adjacent to the

proposed Word of Faith #16-27 well. Based on information and belief, the presence or

potential presence of these species and/or their habitat has not been determined and/or

disclosed by Word of Faith #16-27 well permit applicants or their agents. If either

species are seasonally present or habitat their is present at or adjacent to the proposed

oil well, habitat conservation plans pursuant to Michigan's Part 365: Threatened and

Endangered Species Act and Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973,

mustbe prepared and approved prior to site exploration and development resulting in a

16 National Wetland Inventory, Oakland County, MSUE Natural Features Inventory, June20,2014, andComprehensive MasterPlan: City of Southfield, Map 7-1:NaturalFeatures, adoptedApril 13,2009.17 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, County Elements List, Oakland County, updated December 14,2015, mnfi.am.msu.edu/data/cntyjlat.cfm?county=Oakland.

11

"take".18 Importantly, such biological survey(s) of this location need to occur during the

spring and summer months for these protected bat species.19

19. Oil & Gas Well Pads in the City Southfield. Importantly, conventional oil and

gas drilling pads, i.e., the area cleared, graded/filled around a wellhead have been 2

acres in size (i.e., 300 feet x 300 feet or 90,000 square feet) in Michigan. Such oil well

pads, associated road construction/improvement, associated infrastructure,

pipelines/ipipeline corridors, traffic, noise, lighting, increased traffic, etc. within the

City of Southfield will significantly disrupt and impair wildlife, and destroy and could

unacceptably fragment important wildlife habitat. The Bauervic Woods Park, a public

park exists adjacent to and is hydrologically connectedto the proposed Word of Faith

#16-27 well site. Negative impacts from the proposed oil and gas exploration and/or

development near the boundaries of the park will likely spill over, and unreasonably

impair and degrade wildlife habitat established and maintained at public expense within

this protected area. Based on information andbelief, impact to this public park and its

18 A"take" is defined by the federal ESA as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, traps,capture orcollect orattempt toengage inany such conduct.. .such anactmay include significant habitatmodification ordegradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essentialbehavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, orsheltering." Michigan's Part365: Endangered andThreatened Species Act, P.A. 451 of 1994, asamended (MCLA 324.36501-07) and federal EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), asamended, Public Law 93-205, approvedDecember 28,1973 16USC 1531. Section 324.36505 ofPart365of NREPA, Endangered SpeciesProtection, states that "a person shall nottake.. .anyspecies of fish, plants, or wildlife" state or federally-listed asendangered or threatened. A"take" isdefined byPart 365 tomean, "in reference to fish andwildlife, to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in anysuch conduct; andin reference toplants, tocollect, pick, cut, digup,or destroy inanymanner." Accordingto Michigan Department ofNatural Resources, if any oilandgaslease contains lease stipulationsmentioning threatened and endangered (T&E) species, then it is likely that proposed drilling and productionactivities may impact those species.

19 U.S. Fish& Wildlife, Midwest Region, Endangered Species in Michigan, states that the Indiana bat"summer habitat includes small to medium river and stream corridors with well developed riparian woods,woodlots.. .andupland forests." Northern long-eared bathabitat includes "roost(ing) andforag(ing) inupland forests during the spring and summer." www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/michigan-spp.html.

12

/p^^f^siptv

ecosystem/wildlife or their habitat has not been determined and/or disclosed by Word

of Faith #16-27 well permit applicants or their agents.

20. Wildlife Impacts from Oil and Gas Development. Little empirical data exists

regarding wildlife impacts from oil development in Michigan. However, studies of

wildlife impacts from hydrocarbon development, including natural gas across the

nation, indicate that significant impacts routinely occur due to exploration and other

regular and on-going associated oil and gas activities. For example, a 2006 study found

that deer tend to move away from areas of gas development,20 and in a 2010 study the

deer population dropped by 45% in a single year after oil and gas development.21 A

2011 Kent State University study finds that a single unconventional horizontally

fractured shale gas well pad can disturb approximately 7 acres of land with

approximately 900 tanker truck trips per pad - resulting in significant habitat

degradation and fragmentation.22 The northeast Ohio-based study concludes that "there

is significant risk of air, water, soil, noise, and light pollution from the hydrocarbon

acquisition process...and will result in the significant loss of wildlife...within the

area."23 A 2012 study of wildlife, household pets, livestock and humanhealth impacts

from oil and gas operations (about 1/3 conventional, vertical wells and 2/3rds

unconventional, horizontally fracked natural gas well sites) in Colorado, Louisiana,

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas examined 24 cases of reported exposure to

20 Sawyer, H.R. etal.,"Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer before and During Development of aNatural Gas Field," Journal ofWildlife Management, 70(2), 2006, pp. 396-403.21 Sawyer, H.R. & R.Nielson, "Mule Deer Monitoring in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area: 2010 AnnualReport, September14,2010 (preparedfor the PinedaleAnticline PlanningOffice, Pinedale,Wyoming).22 Higgins, Tonya R., "Ecological Effects ofUnconventional Shale Drilling, With Special Consideration tothe Marcellus Shale Basin & Chesapeake Energy Methodologies," Kent State University at Stark,December 2011.

73 Ibid., p.2.

13

hazardous substances from natural gas development. This study found that "wastewater

dumping and leakage, failure of a blowout preventer, and affected well water involving

conventional gas wells were associated with both animal and human health

consequences."24 The most common source of exposure was reported from

contaminated groundwater/drinking water, followed by exposure to contaminated water

within creeks and ponds.25

21. Risks to Groundwater/Drinking Water.

Based on my professional experience, oil and gas well drilling and development can and

do contaminate groundwater resources, often such groundwater is the sole source of

water for domestic water wells, springs, seeps, wetlands, lakes and streams in Michigan -

such as inportions ofthe City ofSouthfield.26 For example, a single well can produce

hundreds of thousands of gallons ofwaste fluids during drilling and during years of oil

and natural gas production.27 Pollution ofprivate water supplies from oil and gas well

activity has been documented from poorly cemented and/or corroded well casings on

older or abandoned wells and ruptured pipelines. Groundwater pollution has also

24 Bramberger, M.& Oswald, R. E.,"Impacts of Gas Drilling onHuman and Animal Health," NewSolutions, Vol. 22(1), pp. 51-77,2012, p. 55.25 Ibid., p. 59.26 Gas Well Drilling andYour Private Water Supply, Penn State, College of Agricultural Sciences,CooperativeExtension, School of Forest Resources,Water Fact Sheet #28,2008.27 Liquid wastes generated from natural gas development can becategorized as: a)"tophole fluids" or thefresh water groundwaterthat is encountered usuallywithin the first few hundred feet of the drilling process;b)"bottom holefluids" which areancient saltwater deposits encountered deep underground during drillingcommonly referred to as "brine"; c) "stimulation and/or frack fluids" usedto improve gasrecovery fromthe rock and are returnedto the groundsurface; andd) "production fluids" which are typicallysimilar inchemistry to bottomhole fluids and are generated during naturalgasproduction and processing, such asdehydration. The volume of fluids producedduringconventional gas well drilling and operationcan varyconsiderably depending on the depth of the well and nature of the formationbeing developed, but averagevolumesof waste liquidsproduced during shallow/conventional gas developmentare 25,000 gallons duringdrilling,50,000 gallonsduringstimulationand 150gallonsper day duringproduction.Newerunconventional well technologies that rely on the trackingof deep oil/gas reserves may use more than eightmilliongallonsof waterper well, resulting in theproduction of morethan 2.5 milliongallonsof frack flow-back waste alone during well stimulation.

14

occurred from flooded or leaking brine holding pits and the direct discharge ofbrines to

the land surface. A December 2011 U.S. EPA report for the first time linked

groundwater/drinking water pollution in central Wyoming (i.e., Pavillion, Fremont

County) tonatural gas drilling operations.28 U.S. EPA collected samples from water wells

in 2008 and 2010 finding hydrocarbons, elevated heavy metals and trace concentrations

ofchemical used in well completion (2-butyoxyethanoln phosphate or "2-BEp"). The

subsequent installation of two (2) 1,000 feet groundwater monitoring wells confirmed the

presence ofhigh levels ofphenols, acetone, toluene, naphthalene - traces of diesel fuel.

Industry vociferously protested the U.S. EPA's methods and findings. The Obama

administration has reportedly backed away from these EPA findings and then turned

further investigation over to Wyoming officials during July of 2013. A2011 Duke

University study analyzed 68 private water wells in northeast Pennsylvania and upstate

New York.30 The report found methane in 51 of60 drinking water wells across the region

regardlessofproximity to natural gas development operations, but found methane

concentrations 17 times higher on average in wells in active drilling areas (i.e., one or

more gas wells within 1 kilometer of the drinking water well). Importantly, impacted

water wells near active well sites were determined to be contaminated with thermogenic

(i.e., from deep shale deposits) rather than biogenic methane(i.e., frombacteria

respiration in shallow, often swampy areas). A follow-up 2012 Duke University led study

analyzed 141 drinking waterwells in six (6) counties in Pennsylvania in combination

28 U.S. EPA"DRAFT: Investigation of Groundwater Contamination nearPavillion, Wyoming," D.C.DiGiulo, R.T. Wilkin, C. Miller & G. Oberley, EPA 600/R-00/000, December 2011;http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf.29 Lustgarten, A."EPA'sAbandoned Wyoming Fracking Study Oneretreat of Many," ProPublica, July3,2013.

30 Osborne, S.G., Vengosh, A.,Warner, N.R. andJackson, R.B., "Methane Contamination of DrinkingWaterAccompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing," DukeUniversity, Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Early Edition, January 13, 2011, pp. 1 -5.

15

with the previous 2011 Duke study findings.31 This study found: a)methane in 82% of

drinking water samples, with average concentrations six (6) times higher for homes less

than 1 kilometer from active unconventional shale gas wells sites; b) ethane was twenty-

three (23) times higher on average for homes less than 1 kilometer from active

unconventional shale gas wells sites; and c) propane was detected in 10 drinking water

wells within 1 kilometer from active unconventional shale gas wells sites. These findings

were determined to be statistically significant for affected homes distance to gas wells

using multiple regression and other statistical methods. Table 1 below lists some common

pollutants parameters that occur at high levels in oil and gas well wastes (i.e., brine) and

can impact drinking water quality (i.e., either taste/odor and/or health effects).32 Brines

are highly mineralized and contain levels of some pollutants that are far above levels

considered safe for drinking water supplies. As a result, even small amounts ofbrine

pollution can result in significant impacts to drinking water supplies, and lake, stream or

wetland ecology. Potential oil and gas development in this area significantly threatens

groundwaterresources, the primary sourceofpotable water for some residents in the City

of Southfield in the vicinity of the Word of Faith #16-27 well.

23. Oil and Gas Exploration/Development Threatens Surface Waters.

Groundwater resources provide often base flow for high quality rivers/creeks/streams,

lakes, and wetlandresources In Michigan, and numerous spills resultingin soil and

groundwater contamination are known to haveresulted from natural gas and oil

31 Jackson, R.B., Vengosh, A.,Darrah, T.H, Warner, N.R., Down, A.,Poreda, R.J., Osborne, S.G., Zhao,K., and Karr, J. D., "IncreasedStrayGas Abundance in a Subsetof DrinkingWaterWellsNear MarcellusShaleGas Extraction," Duke University/University of Rochester & California StatePolytechnic University,Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Early Edition, December 17,2012, pp. 1-6.32 In addition to thepollutants listed in Table 1,otherwater quality parameters thatmaybe increased duetoreleasesfrom naturalgas well drillinginclude BTEX,specific conductance, alkalinity, total suspendedsolids (turbidity), hardness,calcium,magnesium, boron, surfactants/detergents and oil/grease.

16

/"tff^

development in the state. Such spills have often been attributed to system component

corrosion and/or failed cement jobs, pipeline ruptures, leakage from reserve pits, careless

operations, chemical use and storage, lack of secondary containment ofhazardous

materials, vehicle on/off-loading and transport, and/or human error. Brine, in effect

ancient salt water, is a waste product from natural gas development, and consists ofhigh

levels of inorganic hazardous substances including, but not limited to, chloride, bromide,

sodium, potassium, sulfate, barium, arsenic, boron, iron, manganese, magnesium, nickel,

lithium, selenium, lead, strontium, vanadium, radium-226 and radium-228, etc. Chloride

concentrations are typically used as an indicator of overall brine contamination. Chloride

and other brine constituents are known to be toxic to aquatic organisms and plant life,

including wetland and aquatic plants.

Table 1: Michigan GasBrineContaminant Concentrations34

Water

QualityParameters

Brine

Concentration

Drinking WaterStandard

Description

pH 6.21 6.5 to 8.5* Low pH water may cause corrosion of metal plumbingresulting in poor tasting water and high levels of copperand/or lead from plumbing components.

Total Diss.

Solids (mg/L)189,810 Less than 500* Measures all of the dissolved materials in water. High total

dissolved solids causes poor-tasting water.

Chloride

(mg/L)

117,500 Less than 250* Can cause a salty taste to the water along with corrosion andblackening of metals.

Arsenic

(mg/L)0.86 Less than 0.01 May cause cancer and other serious health effects. Causesno

obvious tastes, odors or stains in water.

Barium (mg/L) 57 Less than 2.0** May cause hypertensionand other serioushealth effects. Hasno obvious tastes, odors or stains in water.

Sodium

(mg/L)48,000 Less than 120 High concentrations may be causerhypertension and

problematic for individuals on low sodiumdiets. No obvioustastes, odors or stains in water.

Iron (mg/L) 100 Less than

0.30*/less than

2.0**

May cause orange or brown stains and metallic-tasting water.

Manganese(mg/L)

1.92 Less than

0.05*/less than

Causes black stains or flecks along with a metallic taste.Causes impairment of neurobehavioral function.

33 Ibid., pp. 59-60.34 Wilcox Engineers, Quicksilver Resources, Inc. 06/21/06 Diamond-Coliseum Line Loss, Section 20,T29N, R.4W, S. Hayes Township,OtsegoCounty, MI; FormationWater CompositeSample Summary.

17

M&W>fi\

/€^s

0.86**

Lead (mg/L) 4.77 Less than 0.004** Causes many serious mental health effects, especially inchildren. Causes no obvious tastes, odors or stains in water.

Lithium

(mg/L)10 Less than 0.17 May cause serious health effects. Causes no obvious tastes,

odors or stains in water.

Arsenic

(mg/L)2.10 Less than 0.01** May cause cancer and other serious health effects. Causes no

obvious tastes, odors or stains in water.

Radium-226 &

Radium 228

(pCi/g)

0.95 to 24

pCi/g.Background at 5PCi/g

10 mrem/yrexposure*

May cause cancer and other serious health effects. Causes noobvious tastes, odors or stains in water.

Strontium

(mg/L)250 Less than 4.6 May cause serious health effects. Causes no obvious tastes,

odors or stains in water.

Selenium

(mg/L)0.33 Less than 0.05 May cause serious health effects. Causes no obvious tastes,

odors or stains in water.

Sulfate (mg/L) 850 Less than 250* . Causes taste, odor or staining problems in water.(*) indicates pollutants that cause aesthetic problems (taste, odors, staining, etc.)(**) causes human health problems

22. Air Pollution Change Impacts from Oil and Gas Operations.

Oil and gas development in Michigan is now moving into close proximity with existing

residential land uses and private properties, such as now proposed in the City of

Southfield. Conventional oil and gas well operations (including emissions during

production, well completion/recompletions, waste natural gas flaring, equipment leaks,

storage tank off-gassing, vehicles and equipment emissions, etc.) are a source of

significant release of regulated Hazardous Air Pollutants (i.e., HAPs) in close

proximity to residences, businesses and institutions including volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen oxides

(NOxs), sulfur dioxide (SOz), methane, ethane, propane, butane, octane, heptane, rare

gases (Ar, He, Ne, Xe), particulate matter (PM), etc.351 have personally spoken with

Air Quality Division, MDEQ staff who have stated that oil and gas

35A juryonApril 22,2014 awarded $3million damages judgment to a north Texas family suffering healtheffects (i.e., dizziness, nosebleeds, rashes, stomachproblems, difficultybreathing, swollen lymph glands,etc.) from hydrocarbondevelopmentoperations adjoining and proximal to their home. See"Texas Family'sNuisance Complaint Seen As Win Against Fracking," NPR, May 2, 2014

18

j0$$K

development/exploration sites and associated facilities are subject to Part 55: Air

Quality Protection of Michigan's Part 451 of 1994, as amended and the federal Clean

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970, as amended, but due to current MDEQ policy

are generally not required by the MDEQ to apply for or comply with air quality permit

regulations.36

23. Human Health Impacts from Oil and Gas Operations. A recent study of

human health risk associated with exposure to air emissions from hydrocarbon

development in Garfield County, Colorado by the School of Public Health at the

University ofColorado37 analyzed three (3) years ofair quality monitoring data, and

showed an increased risk of difficulty breathing, headaches, eye irritation, sore throats,

etc. for residents within Vi mile ofnatural gas well sites. These health effects were

attributed to exposure through inhalation of trimethylbenzenes, xylene isomers and

aliphatic38 hydrocarbons from well completion activities.39 "Subchronic" orslightly less

than continuous exposures to air pollutants during well completion, were found by

University of Colorado researchers to pose the greatest potential for deleterious health

effects. Health effects from human exposure to air pollutants from oil and gas operations,

36 Rule201 of theMichigan AirPollution Control Rules requires a person to obtain an approved Permit toInstall for anypotential source of airpollution unless thesource is exempt from thepermitting process. Seealso "Petition to the U.S. EPA: EPA Must List Oil and Gas Wells and Associated Equipment as an AreaSource Categoryand SetNationalAir ToxicStandards to ProtectPublicHealth,Earth Justice, May 13,2014.

""Human HealthRisk Assessment of Air Emissions fromthe Development of Unconventional NaturalGasResources," L.M.McKenzie, R.Z. Witter,L.S.Newman and J.L. Adgate, Colorado Schoolof PublicHealth,University of Colorado, AnshutzMedical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, Science Total Environment,May 1,2012, Vol. 424, pp. 79-87.38 Compounds composed of carbon andhydrogen aredivided into two classes: aromatic compoundscontaining benzene, and aliphatic compounds whichdo not containbenzenerings. Aliphatic compoundscan be saturated as in hexane, or unsaturated as hexene.

Increased cancer risk thresholds found in this study were 10 cancers/1 million persons risk within one-half mile ofunconventionally fracked natural gas well sites, and an additional 6 cancers/1 million personsfor county population residing more than one-half mile from such sites.

19

have also been alleged by residents in Wyoming, Texas, and New Mexico. A 2013 Utah

State University study ofwinter ozone and airquality within the Uintah Basin ofUtah40

found that nearly 10,000 oil and gas wells produced ozone levels in eastern Utah in 2011

that exceeded New York City for the same year.41 Specifically, the study found that oil

and gas operations in Wyoming's Green River Basin and Utah's Piceance Basin are a

major source of ozone precursor pollutants, i.e., 98-99% ofVolatile Organic

Hydrocarbons (VOCs) and 57-61% ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) in that region.42 A 2012

NOAA report of the air quality of the Denver-Julesburg Basin in northeastern Colorado

found elevated levels ofmethane coming from natural gas well sites (based on "a distinct

chemical signature") and high concentrations ofozone (up to 159 ppb in winter of 2010)

butane, methane and propane in Erie, Colorado east ofBoulder where hundreds of natural

gas wells are inoperation.43 The report estimated that 40% oftotal VOCs inthe region

were due to air emissions at area oil and gas operations. Ozone (O3) is an air pollutant at

the ground level causing health effects including the exacerbation of asthma, damage to

mucus membranes, respiratory tissues, and also plant tissue damage in concentrations

above 100 parts per billion (ppb). The developmentof oil and gas, including well

completion activities and typicalproduction operations, releaseVOCs to the atmosphere.

Estimates range that between 1.5% (industry estimate) to 8% (Cornell University

40 Final Report: 2012 Uintah Basin Winter Ozone &Air Quality Study, T. Stoeckenius, D.McNally, S.Lyman & H. Shorthill, Utah State University, CRD 13-320.32, February 1, 2013.41 In 2010 and2011 ozone levels in theUintah Basin peaked at 139 ppb,85%higher thantheU.S. EPAhealth standardof 75 ppb. The peak for the New YorkMetropolitan area 2011 was 99 ppb. See also "LikeWyoming, Utah findshigh wintertime ozonepollution nearoil, gas wells,M. Jaffe,DenverPost, February26,2012.42 Ibid.43 "Evidence of Emissions from Oil and GasDrilling Operations in NE Colorado," G. Petronet al., NOAAGMD; G. Frost, M. Trainer NOAA CSD; and D. Welsh and D. Wolfe NOAA PSD, NOAA power pointpresentation, 2011,http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/annualconference/previous/201 l/slides/44-110414-A.pdf.

20

/ps^fci/R$$$\

estimate) ofnatural gas produced from each deep shale wells is released to the

atmosphere (this compares to the estimated 4% loss from conventional gas operations).

Methane is estimated to be 30 to more than 100 times more potent a greenhouse gas than

carbon dioxide (CO2), depending onthe time period over which it is emitted.44

24. Nuisances posed by Oil and Gas Development.

Significant nuisance risk is posed to landowners adjacent to or residing in the vicinity of

conventional oil and gas operations. I have personally observed significant noise, silica

and road dust, odor and traffic comprising the unreasonable interference with the

comfortable use and enjoyment of landowners' homes and properties during oil and gas

exploration. Such operations run 24 hours per day for up to several weeks, causing

significant localized traffic, light, noise45, and air pollution. It is notuncommon tohave

as many as 1,500 truck trips over a 3 to 4 week period over rural gravel roads for

conventional oil and natural gas exploration well operations. Such operations are likely to

pollute, impair and destroy air quality and quiet at and in the vicinity of such oil well

operations.

25. Conclusions.

Based on the inherent nature of oil and gas exploration and production activities, Jordan

Development's development of oil wells and associated infrastructure within the City of

Southfield, the MDEQ's current regulatory approach, it is my professional opinion that

future hydrocarbon resource exploration/development within the City of Southfield

would be fundamentally incompatible with existing residential land uses and represents

44 Dr.Anthony Ingraffea, Cornell University asquoted byK.Zees endM.Flowers, Truthout, March 6,2013.

R324.1015(2) limits noise from drilling operations to less than 45 decibels on the A-weighted scalemeasured at 1,320 feet from a facility.

21

the likelihood ofpollution, impairment and degradation of the air, water and other natural

resources of the City. Specifically, it is very likely that pollution, impairment and

irreparable harm to the environment and the public trust therein; public recreational

resources, especially hunting and wildlife observation; wildlife disruption and habitat

fragmentation; likelihood of spills and releases resulting in soil, groundwater, wetland

and/or surface water impacts; air and light pollution; the unreasonable interference with

the comfortable use and enjoyment of private property from noise, dust, traffic, lights,

etc. generated from hydrocarbon exploration/development; and likelihood of unlawful

environmental and natural resource degradation violating Michigan's Part 17: Michigan

Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), P.A. 451 of 1994, as amended. As detailed

above, such impacts have been experienced and documented from oil and gas operations

(i.e., well sites, pipelines, access roads, processing facilities, etc.) in Michigan.

Specifically, soil, groundwater, wetland and surface water pollution, wildlife habitat

degradation and species disruption, aquatic habitat degradation, air pollution,

incompatibility with existing residential and recreational uses, interference with scenic

and aesthetic values, and unwanted and unreasonable noise, dust and light pollution in

violation of Part 17 of NREPA have all been experienced and documented from such

Michigan oil and gas operations.

22

['" : S$mt\

26. If sworn as a witness. I can testify competently to the matters slated.

The above is true to the best of mv knowledge- information and belief.

Subscribed and sworn to before methis // day of Kebpyapr. 2016.

NotarvPubuc

:t^ {& iviUwCounrv. MichiganActing irr^-y jr n^ounrv. MichiganMy Commission Expires: c L/CSJ^C^r.

("Pi stfaChristopher P. Grobbel