HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Email from Braken 08.10.2009Linda Morcom
From: L Bracken [colobrokerl @earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 6:40 AM
To: Linda Morcom
Subject: RE: EnCana's limited impact review permit (F11 E), Silt, CO
Attachments: EnCana - Drilling - Map.jpg
Lisa Bracken, Emma Eicher
PO Box 30
Silt, CO 81652
Garfield County Commissioners
108 8th Street Suite 213
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
C/O Garfield County Commissioners: John Martin, Tresi Houpt, Mike Samson
Submitted via e -mail
RE: EnCana's limited impact review permit (Fl 1 E), Silt, CO
August 10, 2009
Mr. Martin; Mrs. Houpt; Mr. Samson, please make this letter a part of the official record of the
today's proceedings. Thank you.
The purpose of this letter is to protest EnCana Oil and Gas, USA's (EnCana) application for a
"limited impact review permit for the construction, operation and maintenance of the F 11 E
Storage Yard for `storage: supplies, machinery, equipment or products' on 3.12 acres of a
44.61 -ac. Parcel in the Rural `R' zone district. Pursuant to "Section 30501, 4 -105, 7 -810, 7 -821
of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR)" The quoted
matter of this paragraph is verbatim as it appeared in a notice off County Road 331, with a
posting date of 06- 30 -09.
From my perspective, two aspects of this approval process are at primary issue:
1) EnCana's legal right to utilize existing access for the purposes stated above.
2) Risks to public health and safety as well as the environment from the special proposed use.
A summary of the situation
The subject of EnCana's application, and this letter in protest of it, is an area in Garfield County
situated approximately 6.5 miles from the beginning of County Road 331. It is an area without
an organized homeowners association or even an officially named road which, at this time,
serves nine residences. It is known unofficially among various county agencies including
emergency response agencies by many names, such as "6500 road "; "Chicken Coop Road" or
"Clustercluck Lane ".
A private, 60' (sixty foot) easement "for purposes of ingress, egress utilities and drainage"
[book 521 1 page 765] was put in place to serve five parcels of the Timberline Subdivision in
1978. At that time, the access road bisected what was a ranch of some size. The easement,
therefore, extends from County Road 331 approximately 2.5 miles to the last resident served.
The ranch, over the years, has been increasingly subdivided with the servient residents enjoying
access from this pre- existing easement.
Following a contamination event associated with the Divide Creek Seep of 2004, EnCana
bought two parcels which rely upon access via the easement noted above. The easement was
established to serve five residential parcels in a rurally zoned area of Garfield County.
Historically, since 1978 and up until 2003, the access road has been used for such purposes. In
2003, and prior to their land ownership, EnCana pressed upon residents to allow access to this
easement for purposes of developing minerals. While such use was outside the scope of historic
and intended usage, all nine resident families agreed to such use provided EnCana improve the
road to BLM standards. EnCana initially agreed, but then refused and sought alternate access,
eventually improving only two short portions of the road for such use.
The developed road portion of the easement, as it currently exists and excepting the two short
portions EnCana improved for their use, is very narrow (approximately 12 -15' in most
locations) possessed of shallow road base, shallow drainage and several areas where line of
sight is encumbered. There are no shoulders and there is no alternative access. The road allows
one -way ingress and egress. On the segments which EnCana has improved, the road is
approximately the same shallow density, but is wide enough to allow two large trucks to pass
one another. Even in the areas of EnCana's improvement and use, limited improvements were
made due to the limited impact it would receive by EnCana's use over a relatively short
duration — that is, for the purpose of EnCana's mineral develop only. It is presumed that
EnCana will continue to utilize the same portion of the easement it has been utilizing in order to
continue to access the F1 lE pad. Such use would require improving that portion in road base
and top dressing (which EnCana removed during its `improvement' operations). As a side note:
this portion of the road was damaged by EnCana purportedly driving track vehicles directly on
the road. It is now roughly cobbled and without gravel, contributing to challenging winter
driving conditions. It is therefore the topic of current discussion and potential legal action.
Importantly, the developed portion of the easement enjoys no special district, nor a formalized
maintenance or snow removal program of any kind.
Perhaps for this reason, the easement has been the subject of five significant multi - residential
conflicts over the years. Many serious enough to require legal consultation, two of which were
heard in county and small claims court. Two of which involved EnCana's access and
installation of a pipeline.
•
EnCana now proposes extended and special use of this easement, which we deem inappropriate,
unsafe and potentially unlawful.
2
Such proposed use would require special permitting considerations from Garfield County, and
as such, any future conflict arising from this permitted use will implicate Garfield County.
Certainly, there have been insufficient considerations given to the special circumstances
surrounding access as well as impacts to residences.
EnCana is not a private citizen landowner. EnCana is a multi- national corporation with an
enterprise value of approximately 30 billion dollars. EnCana is not seeking special use for
purposes of mineral development. This use is being sought for purposes of convenient,
potentially hazardous industrial transport and storage in a rurally zoned area. It is therefore a
proposal without need and which is far outside the scope of the intended and historic use of this
deeded easement.
On page 10 of EnCana's recently released "EnCana Corporation 2008 Corporate Responsibility
Highlights" EnCana says: "The majority of our operations are in areas where people live and
work. Ensuring they understand who we are and what they can expect from us is crucial to our
business. We work with stakeholders in a transparent, honest and respectful way by listening to
their concerns and working together to find solutions to meet their needs. Open dialogue with
stakeholders enables good decision making, helps identify and resolve issues, builds strong
communities and supports shared learning before, during and after our operating activities.
Effective stakeholder engagement at EnCana depends on three components: building of trust;
dialogue and consultation; and collaboration. Our approach to engagement is tailored to meet
the needs of our stakeholders and can include one -on -one meetings, open houses, public
meetings, newsletters, and information packages."
Unfortunately, the residents of the "6500" area, who stand to be impacted by EnCana's special -
use proposal, were apprised only of EnCana's intentions through a posted notice off the county
road. A community meeting would certainly have been appropriate in this situation, and, as a
corporate citizen, it appears, from the statement continued below, that EnCana is not adverse to
such a notion:
"Contributing to the well -being of communities is the responsibility of a good corporate citizen.
At EnCana, we embrace the opportunity to contribute to the strength and sustainability of the
communities where we operate."
Unfortunately, in our experience, EnCana has habitually demonstrated a repeated tendency
toward disregard of anyone besides themselves. Damaged property is often either ignored or
repaired in a substandard manner.
Even when EnCana posted signs prohibiting EnCana traffic on other portions of the easement,
we have had two instances of truck traffic trespass on our property. The most recent in 2006,
resulting in approximately $4,000 dollars in personal property damages was settled out of court
with EnCana. We consider ourselves fortunate to have been able to resolve the second issue.
Conflicts with EnCana are rarely resolved without significant expense of both time and money,
3
and often require legal involvement. In the most recent situation, video footage and the
possibility of an impaired driver are believed to have aided in the expediency of resolution.
Regarding transport and storage issues
One cannot consider storage without considering transport and therefore access. Beyond legal
use of access, we are concerned for the transport of hazardous materials across this private
easement. What materials will be transported? Are they hazardous? What kinds of hazards do
they pose? How will materials be transported? Will they be contained in sealed trailers, or
transported on flatbed trucks?
Will heavy equipment be driven across the road surface or tailored in?
Relative to storage on site: Will an inventory of materials as well as Material Safety Data Sheets
be on file with county agencies and emergency responders and be available to the public? How
will stored materials be contained and protected from storm water run -off, winds and fire? How
will EnCana control fugitive dust, flow and emissions from transport use and storage. Has
EnCana developed a plan for accidental spills on site as well as during transport? What level of
public health exposure is possible?
Conclusion
This request is being made in the interest of making more convenient and profitable an
inherently hazardous activity without sufficient concern for the public's health and safety
environmental safeguards or consideration of legal right.
EnCana owns a good deal of land in Garfield County, including numerous lots in Grass Mesa
and significant acreage on the Road Plateau. Surely there are other, more feasible options where
access and public health risk are less of a concern.
There are currently six pads (60 wells) in the 6500 area (Aspen Properties; Brown- EnCana/
Arbaney; Schwartz; Price; Twin Creeks) and at least three more pads (30 wells) are planned
(Thompson; Sherowski - EnCana; Twin Creeks). EnCana has long touted that it is "wrapping up"
operations in this area. In actuality, EnCana's special request for a "storage yard" on the F 11 E
pad appears to be an attempt to circumnavigate new COGCC rules requiring disclosure of
materials stored on pad sites. The Fl 1E is an active pad site which, if this application is
approved, appears likely to enjoy a special waver of disclosure requirements.
Any permit issuance of this nature should consider the impacts to residents. To our knowledge,
no impact analysis has been conducted. EnCana has failed to demonstrate whether the existing
road will bear the weight they are intending to introduce. Damages, in the way of road
destruction and spills are likely to occur. Collisions, particularly from icy or snow - packed
conditions are also possible. Impacted residents are sure to demand repair and/or restitution. If
EnCana offers projected impacts, upon what are these projections based, and are they realistic?
What permitting conditions will be put in place should EnCana's use extend beyond their
projections?
4
The applicant of such a permit should demonstrate a right to exiting access. Such a permit
should be clearly constrained by a well defined, limited and specific scope of use, emergency
plan and maintenance plan. It should be temporary in nature with a set expiration date. Further,
it should be contingent upon an annual review of the applicant's adherence to such established
conditions of use.
Approval of such a facility is inappropriate based on the numerous reasons outlined above, and
it is unlikely that Garfield County will want to intimate itself into such a complex, conflicted
civil situation.
However, if the county proceeds with such an approval, it should be fully appraised of the scope
of rights which EnCana and the county are presuming to exercise.
Thank you for your considerations of this matter.
Sincerely, Lisa Bracken, Emma Eicher
Enclosed: electronic photo file name: "EnCana- Drilling- Map.jpg"
Note on enclosed photo: Enclosed, please find a map for your review. It portrays EnCana's
drilling operations in the "6500 area" it also shows (yellow highlighted area) the 2.5 mile
easement (leaving County Road 331, beginning on left of map) and traveling to last parcel
served. The portion with a green arrow to the left (between intersections) represents the area of
the road EnCana is now using to access the Fl1E pad.
5
•
•4 /•
COQ
ii
r r -
it
•.
r • IjY,J
•