HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff reportGarfield County
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Gale Carmoney, Building and Planning Department
Date: December 30, 2010
RE: Pipeline Development Plan Review for Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline — a 20 -inch
natural gas pipeline and up to a 10 -inch water line — PDPA - 6591
I. Project Overview
The proposed pipeline is located in the Sections 2, 3, 10 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 93
West and Section 35 of Township 6 South, Range 93 West, Garfield County, Colorado. Encana Oil
and Gas (USA) Inc. (Encana) is proposing the installation of two new pipelines; a 20 -inch diameter
gas pipeline and a 10 -inch diameter water line. Both will be constructed of high pressure steel of
similar pressure capabilities and buried a minimum of 48 inches below graded surface. When the
water line are no longer needed to transport water to gas drilling operations this line can be
converted to a gas transmission line. Typical above -ground appurtenances; block valves, meters,
pig launchers and receivers will be installed at both ends of the pipeline.
Over the next two to three years, drilling activity is expected to increase in this area and 3rd party
companies want to take advantage of EnCana's existing infrastructure to deliver their product into
the pipeline system. Current infrastructure is not capable transporting future anticipated volumes;
thus the need for additional infrastructure. Eventually, two more natural gas -driven compressor
units (3616 and 3612) will be installed at the existing Hunter Mesa Compressor Station (HMCS) to
supplement pressure required to move the additional gas supply. The building over the existing
compressors will extend to enclose the new units and a county building permit will be obtained
prior to construction of the building extension.
The path of this pipeline development project will begin at EnCana's HMCS located in the
Southeast corner of Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 93 West, and cross 4 separate property
holdings; NE by NE LLC, Shaeffer, Benzel and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Termination
of the pipeline is near the Pumba Compressor Station located on BLM land in north Y2 of the
northeast '/4 of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 93 West. Total length of the project will be
approximately 21,054 feet (-3.9 miles); 8,460 feet on BLM surface lands and 12,712 feet on fee
surface lands.
1
The new pipelines will be located within an existing right-of-way (ROW) that varies in width from
30 to 75 feet depending on the agreements with the various property owners. As proposed, the
temporary construction ROW will be approximately 65 feet in width and total disturb area will be
approximately 31.4 acres. The majority of the ROW will occur within an existing, previously
disturbed pipeline corridor. Where new pipelines parallel EnCana's existing gas lines and
waterlines, no new disturbance will occur outside the previously disturbed areas. The proposed
natural gas pipeline will be offset 15 feet from edge of existing pipelines. None of the existing.
infrastructure will be removed or replaced. Surface Use/Right-of-Way (SUAJROW) Agreements
have been provided by all property owners.
Access to the pipeline will be by existing roads and SUAIROW easements. No new access points
will be constructed on Garfield County Roads. County Road 319 (Mamm Creek Road) will be
bored.
k27NW'_
nusIER
1611/114
I.34NI1
.1 S
xi_ N......4iff6H
K25
i
L2'
!]27NW
1336)
1336
RO26EM911 JJ!FNW
34NW
Mi•g•E0
35NW -
30
NW
9
RJIA
[-F4219 2
w.
1431
TOS P
T8 J
9EN7lI
11
fj-PUNren MESA
C-AEEAA WATER r1 --
TREATMENT
FACILITY
NIU ' Nl
1.1
A 10.6'
OLM
12
C7r
QllW F12 F Il
6NAEfrR
RIaJAK t 2
-a
If7
C15
1,10
HMV( CM
LEGEND
- . rRoro,ro oAs PIPIIONR ACROSS FE0 LANDS (12_712 rn E7)
. — .. . P0OP2.1619/7 IJA! P{►0'UN1t AVPOIiS 11/M LANW O.4CO3 MAIL
• .. r r c PROr0.11010 13' OR 1.02.1 WATER I.INR ACR112.9RI Ai I.AN2t1 5002 FP FT)
P.1647.091/6 RIGN7.f.1. 10. %VATER1.INR 11EPIACNMk11T
FIT CR
(JPivc Y1Nq
Warralrh Surlray$ag Associates
406 Main.:tmt Uvu1119n, W]^91n1nr 12930
PI4Ang NA. (307) 719-.151 S Fs. 307-7R947a
LnCnnn CIO 8c Gam(USA) hare.
sit N rI_K 3.11.19A
1c3 r(1MI Pi 11Y11;1 11A
SECTIONS 1. 2. 3. !O R 3. T714. R93W
A. 213?CT11)NS 14 & 13. Thy, R93W, 6M. P.M
A14Rr112.1.n 0111 4e. eat .ORAn()
PPOIP-CT PRIAIRTR
104-s1
VICINITYit�lit.
129191 11111010
MDIY_ 1-' 10aa
2
11. Ownership
The proposed natural gas and water pipelines will be located on property within the Rural
Zoning District and owned by:
• NE by NE, LLLP (c/o Harold Shaeffer), Parcel Number. 2403-121-00-084;
• Shaeffer Limited (Harold Shaeffer), Parcel Number 2403-123-00-026;
• John Benzel, Parcel Number 2177-362-00-345;
• Bureau of Land Management (Colorado River Valley Field Office), Parcel Numbers 2177-
262-00-956
Property owners within 200 feet of the proposed pipeline right-of-way are:
• Rebjak, LLP (Ilarold Shaeffer), Parcel # 2403-111-00-025;
• Keith Goodard & Vicky Spaulding, Parcel ft 2403-024-00-071;
• Charles & Nancy Paradise, Parcel # 2403-1 11-00-069;
• Jeanette and James Touchton, Parcel # 2403-024-00-070;
• Michael & Linda Sugar, Parcel # 2177-353-00-530;
• Gary & Patricia Wallace, Parcel # 2177-353-00-487
• Hans Holzer, Parcel ft 2177-343-00375
• K.R.K. Ltd. (Katherine F. Rogers) Parcel # 2401-071-00-127
There are five buildings within 350 feet of the proposed pipelines. These buildings include a
residence, garage and building on parcel # 2177-353-00-487 and an outbuilding and pump
house on parcel ## 2403-024-00-071.
III. Notice to Surface Owners
The proposed pipeline is situated on property owned by property owners identified above and
evidence of surface owner notification and surface agreements has been provided.
IV. Need for Proposed Action
Drilling activities are expected to increase in the Mamm Creek field over the next two to three
years and third party companies want to take advantage of Encana's existing infrastructure
and deliver gas into their system. Presently, Encana's 12 -inch high pressure discharge
pipeline and 4 existing compressors units cannot move the projected volumes. With the
introduction of the 20 -inch gas pipeline and 10 -inch water line will enable Encana to deliver
more natural gas to market.
V. Regulatory Permit Requirements
The following table provides the applicable permit agency name, permit required, and status
of permit for this application. All necessary permits have been obtained for this application.
Permit Agency
Permit Needed
Permit Status
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment - Water
Quality Control Division
Colorado Discharge Permit
System
The CDPS Permit was issued
on 710112007. Permit # COR -
034840.
3
US Army Corp of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 12 for
Utility Activity
Nationwide Permit #12 for
utility line submitted dated
8/2/10
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment - Air
Quality Control Division
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Land Development GPO3
General Permit # 046-0053-
001 was issued 10/19/10
Garfield County - Utility
Installation Permit
Crossing of County roads
and ROW
Road and Bridge Dept. has
reviewed the plans and
requests that applicant apply
for permit 30 days before
construction
VI. Primary Project Participants
The names of project participants are as follows:
Company Name
Contact
Address
Phone
Number/Email
Address
Encana Oil and Gas
(USA) Inc.
Dewey Neely, Field
Construction Leader
2717 CR 215, Ste 100,
Parachute, CO 81635
(970) 285-2632 office,
(970) 250-9462 cell
Encana Oil and Lias
(USA) Inc.
Renata Busch, Permit and
ROW Coordinator
2717 CR 215, Ste 100,
Parachute, CO 81635
(970) 285-2825 office,
(970) 319-8890 cell
Encana Oil and Gas
(USA) Inc.
Bob Anderson, Pipeline
Construction Coordinator
2717 CR 215, Ste 100,
Parachute, CO 81635
(970) 285-2622 office,
(970) 366-0772 cell
Army Corps of
Engineers -
Colorado/Gunnison
Basin Regulatory
Office
Travis Morris, Biologist,
Regulatory Project
Manager
402 Rood Avenue, Room
142, Grand Junction, CO
81501
(970) 243-1199 office
CDPHE WCQD -
Stormwater
Adam Wozniak,
Environmental Engineer
4300 Cherry Creek
South, Denver, CO
80202
(303) 692-3555 office
Garfield County
Building and
Planning
Department
Fred ]Orman, Planning
Director
108 8th Street, Ste 401,
Glenwood Springs, CO
81601
(970) 945-8212 office
VII. Project Facilities
'1'hc proposed gas pipeline will require above ground appurtenances (block valve, meters, pig
launchers and receivers) at both ends of the pipeline. Additional above ground appurtenances
will be required to connect existing gathering lines to the new 20 -inch gas pipeline. After
completion of the reclamation activities, above ground pipeline markers will be installed over
the center line of each pipeline.
4
VIII. Construction Schedule
Construction of the pipeline is scheduled to begin upon receipt of application permits and will
take approximately eight to 10 weeks to complete. Working hours will normally range from
sunrise to sunset Monday through Saturday. Due to stipulations in the BLM right-of-way
grant, pipeline construction activities on BLM land are tentatively scheduled for May 2011
and could continue into July 2011. No construction may Occur on BLM land from December
1 to April 30 to avoid disturbance of big game winter range.
IX. Sensitive Area Survey
Several reports are provided to address areas of concern within and adjacent to the proposed
pipeline including a Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report and Class 1 and 111
Cultural, and Paleontological Resource Inventory, The Biological Resources and Sensitive
Areas Report prepared by WestWater (dated August 2010) indicates that there are no
Threatened and Endangered plant species (TESS) or habitats were found during the survey
and therefore no affects on TESS plants are expected.
Two federally endangered fish species are known to occur in the Colorado River. This report
states that 'It is unlikely that endangered fish in the Colorado River would be affected by this
project since sediments are mostly contained by topography and not likely to reach the river.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Spill Prevention Counter Control (SPCC) measures
should be followed to reduce any potential impacts to aquatic environments."
The West Water Report indicated that there is the potential for five state listed threatened,
endangered, or special concern species to occur within the project area, however, none were
observed during the survey. Although the West Water Report concluded there should be no
significant impacts to a number of animal species analyzed in this study, there are
recommendations for some protective measures; in particular, planning for sensitive time
periods and areas for elk, mule deer, migratory birds and raptors. Among the
recommendations was consultation with the Department of Wildlife (DOW) concerning elk
and deer habitat and a survey to determine if new raptor species nests are in the project area to
avoid interference with breeding, nesting and brood activities. These rnitigation
recommendations are conditions of approval.
The Class 1 and Class III Cultural Resource Inventory by (Grand River Institute (dated
September 9, 2010) indicates that one prehistoric site was recorded but was determined that it
was not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Also, no
paleontological localities have been recorded in or near the area, therefore, a determination of
"no effect" is deemed appropriate for the proposed pipeline and no further work is
recommended.
A letter dated August 31, 2010 prepared by Olsson Associates inventoried the drainage
crossings for the proposed pipeline upgrade. This letter indicates that the pipeline route
extends across the US Army Coips of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional water of Manun
Creek and 11 non jurisdictional drainages. This information has been submitted to the
USACE as a courtesy notification. Since utility activities will cross jurisdictional wetlands, a
Nationwide 404 Permit 412 has been provided by the USACE.
5
X. Revegetation Plan
The Stormwater Management and Weed Management Plans provide adequate reclamation
methods and seed mixes to reclaim the disturbed areas of the pipeline corridor. A
revegetation bond has been provided in the application for the amount of $47,825 for 18.97
acres as specified by the County Vegetation Manager.
XI. Wccd Management Plan
The Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline project's Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed
Management Plan prepared by West Water Engineering dated August 2010 has been
provided with this application and approved by the County's Vegetation Manager. Comments
from the Vegetation Manager are included in the referral section of this report and the
manager's requests are conditions of approval.
XII. Emergency Response Plan
An Emergency Response Plan included with this application has been reviewed by the Rifle
Fire District. Requests from the district are included as conditions of approval.
XIII.Traffic Impact
County Road 319 (West Manun Creek Road) and private roads will provide access to the
project. Construction traffic will consist of approximately 8 pickup trucks, 2 crew trucks, and
2 semi -haul trucks to get the equipment on location. A fuel truck may periodically be on site
to deliver fuel for equipment. The majority of these trucks will he making a single round trip
per day to the project area. It is estimated that the semi -trucks will make three round trips
depending on equipment and pipe needs. Impacts will be temporary and cease when
construction of the pipeline is complete.
Working hours normally will range from sunrise to sunset Monday through Saturday. Garfield
County Road & Bridge Dept. has reviewed the project and requested that EnCana submit a
Utility Permit approximately 30 days prior to construction.
XIV. Staging Areas
The construction staging areas will be within the temporary construction right-of-way and on
well pads MOB, .12W and the HMCS site indicated as 'Temporary Use Areas (TUA) on the
Plan and Profile. Encana's contractors will haul the pipe used for this project from a
wholesale distributor located in Garfield County.
XV. Hydro Test Water
The natural gas pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. The hydro test will require
approximately 320,000 gallons of water. The water for the test will come from water rights
that Encana holds on the Colorado River. Those water rights have been verified by the
applicant's legal consul. After the completion of the hydro test, the water will be discharged
into either the Renzel or Hunter Water Treatment Facility.
XVI. Referral Comments
Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for
their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more
6
comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this report. Comments from
the referral agencies and departments are attached as Exhibits.
A. County Road and Bridge Department: This department has commented on this
application and requests that the applicant apply for a utility permit 30 days prior to
construction of project.
B. County Vegetation Management: This department's comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
The applicant has provided a noxious weed survey and management plan and are
acceptable to staff. Staff requests that the applicant cut and treat the tamarisk indicated
on the west side of the compressor station and that they inform the Vegetation
Management Department when this has been completed.
Revegetation
'fhc reclamation plan is acceptable.
The applicant has quantified the level of disturbance on private lands as 18.97 acres. The
revegetation security rate is $2,500 per acre. The total revegetation security is $47,425.
The applicant has provided a copy of the revegetation security.
Staff does request that the applicant make the seed tags available to Garfield County upon
completion of the reseeding efforts.
As always staff is concerned about yellow sweet clover (Melilotus offcinalis) ending up
in seed mixes used for pipeline revegetation. We request that EnCana closely monitor
reseeding contractors to insure that yellow sweet clover is not used in revegetation efforts.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully
reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon
successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release
consideration.
'l'he Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Sections) 4.06, 4.07
and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution 42002-94).
Erosion Control
Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free.
C. Garfield County Development Engineer (Mountain Cross Engineering, Chris llale):
"The Applicant proposes to use Title 49, CFR part 192 for the pipeline construction
specifications but the pipeline manufacturer's specifications may be more stringent and
the construction shall conform to the more stringent requirements.
7
Since the construction is likely to take place in 2011, the arca will need to be resurveyed
by qualified biologists for raptors. The result of the survey should be provided to Garfield
County."
D. City of Rifle:
"EnCana will fully comply with the City of Rifle Watershed Ordinance as it relates to the
pipeline construction proposed within portions of Sections 2, 3, 10 and 12 of Township 7
South, Range 93 West and Section 35 of Township 6 South, Range 93 West."
E. County Oil and Gas Liaison: This department indicated that they have no comments at
this time.
F. Fire Protection Districts:
(1'lie Rifle Fire District) has reviewed the submittal for the construction of one 24 "gas line and
one 12" water pipeline that would run for approximately 3.9. miles from Hunter Mesa to Pumba.
The following are my comments:
1. All comments from the fire district review recently conducted on the PDPA 6578- East
Dry hollow pipeline Loop- phase 1 addition apply where applicable (attached). Note:
All issues have been adequately addressed and future submittals by EnCana should
reflect these. Documents needed for this project are:
a. Maps- Since this is a specific project, location of assembly points, emergency
response staging areas, water supplies and normal routes of fire department vehicle
access should be preplanned along the 3.9 mile route as much as possible,
b. Narrative -Section 4.7- Explosives- if explosives are used a blasting permit maybe
required from Rifle Fire. More information is needed.
c. Narrative -Section 4.7- Hazardous Materials- if any hazardous materials are used that
are not regulated by COGCC then a review by Rifle Fire may be needed. More
information is needed
2. Pipeline development plan:
a. #16- emergency phone number for Rifle Police is wrong. Rifle Fire's nunnber is
good.
3. Since this project will require an addition to the existing compressor station the
following comments may apply - I listorically, Rifle Fire Protection District has not done
a detailed review on compressor stations in our district. Federal, State, County, COGCC
and industry rules & standards have been relied upon. We believe this has been
appropriate and reasonable. We can assist in the following areas, if appropriate, by
applying the International Fire Code:
a. Water supply requirements for fire protection
h. Fire apparatus access including turn -a rounds
c. Plan review and installation inspections & testing for flammable gas sensors.
EMD's, fire eyes, auto — ventilation, auto -shutdowns and the like.
If these areas are already handled by another Authority Having Jurisdiction then no further
action is needed
4. Narrative- page 10, section 2.10 change Rifle Fire's emergency contact number
Burning Mountain Fire: This agency concurs with the Rifle Fire Protection District's
comments.
8
G. Surface owners: No commcnts were received from property owners that have Surface
Use Agreements with EnCana. There is, however, a property owner within 200 feet of the
pipeline project (Keith Goddard) who has expressed a concern for his water well which is
approximately 60 feet from the proposed pipclinc aligrunent. A letter dated October 18,
2010 from Mr. Goddard is attached as Exhibit I.
Summary of Review
The proposed pipeline project is located in the Sections 2, 3, 10 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range
93 West and Section 35 of Township 6 South, Range 93 West, Garfield County, Colorado. The
applicant, EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc. is proposing the installation of two new pipelines; a 20 -
inch diameter gas pipeline, and a 10 -inch diameter water line. The length of the pipeline is
approximately 21,054 feet (3.9 miles) in length and will be located within an existing pipeline right-
of-way that varies from property owner to property owner; 8,460 feet of that line will be on BLM
land.
Both gas and water lines will be constructed of high pressure steel to similar pressure capabilities
and buried a minimum of 48 inches below graded surface. This pipeline project will also require the
typical above -ground appurtenances (block valves, meters, pig launchers and receivers) at both
ends of the pipeline and eventually the addition of new compressors at the Ilunter Mesa
Compressor Station,
'1'hc proposed 20 -inch gas line will provide additional transportation capacity for EnCana's area
wide system and the 10 inch water line can easily be converted to a gas transmission line at a later
date when it is no longer needed for water transport. The gas pipeline will maintain a 15 feet off set
from any existing pipelines. The construction right-of-way width will be 65 feet and construction of
the proposed pipelines will disturb approximately 31.4 acres. Ilowever, no new disturbance will
occur outside the existing previously disturbed area.
Both pipelines will begin at Encana's Hunter Mesa Compressor Station (SE corner of Section 1,
T7S, R93W) and end near the Pumba Compressor Station (N %z of NE ° of Section 10, T7S, R 93
West).
Upon substantive review of the documents submitted against the required standards and criteria in
Section IX of the Unified Land Use Code Resolution 2008, as amended, Staff recommends the
Building and Planning Director approve EnCana's Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline (PDPA 6591)
with conditions. The final date for the Director's Determination of Approval with Conditions is
December 30, 2010.
This approval will be sent to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to determine if they
wish to call up the matter. Unless it is not practical from a scheduling perspective, the BOCC has
14 calendar days to determine if they need to call up the application. Fourteen days from the date of
the Directors Determination will be January 13, 2011. No Land Use Change Permit can be issued
until all conditions of approval have been met.
The specific conditions include the following:
9
1. Any equipment used in construction or operation of a pipeline shall comply with the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations, Section 802,
Noise Abatement. Additionally, all power sources used in pipeline operations shall have
electric motors or muffled internal combustion engines.
2. Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and
disturbance of the land surface. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non -contrasting,
non -reflective color, to blend with the adjacent landscape. Right-of-way shall be located in
existing disturbed areas unless safety or visual concerns or other adverse surface impacts
clearly dictate otherwise.
3. The Applicant shall provide the County Geographic Information System (GIS) analyst
with a digital alignment of the pipeline as constructed in a format compatible with the
County GIS database within 30 days of completion.
4. In no case shall an operator engage in activities which impact Federal or State listed,
threatened and endangered species.
5. Air contaminant emissions shall be in compliance with the applicable permit and control
provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Resolution 7, C.R.S.
6. All operations shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Public Health and
Environment, Noise, and Air and Water Quality Control standards.
7. Should an abandoned pipeline be removed, it shall be subject to the revegetation and weed
management requirements in the application and as approved Vegetation Management
Department.
8. The Applicant shall provide the Vegetation Management Department with the original
tags from each seed bag. The seed mix in the plan shall match the seed mix used in the
field. A seed mix containing yellow sweet clover (Melilotus offcinalis) or annual yellow
sweet clover (M. indicus) shall not be used. The applicant shall closely monitor reseeding
contractors to insure that yellow sweet clover is not used.
9. The $47,425 security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been
successfully re-established according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County
Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County,
upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release
consideration. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in
Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution
#2002-94).
10. That applicant cut and treat the tamarisk indicated on the west side of the compressor
station and that they inform the County Vegetation Management Department when this
has been completed.
1 l . Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free.
10
12. The Applicant shall adhere to the Best Management Practices listed in Section 3.7 on
pages 7, 8, and 9 of the submitted Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management
Plan as identified in Exhibit G.
13. The Applicant shall adhere to the wildlife mitigation recommendations as identified in
Exhibit II.
14. A new survey of the project area for raptor species nesting is preformed to avoid
interference with breeding, nesting and brood activities if construction should occur
during restrictive seasons identified in the West Water study.
15. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the County
with an approval letter from the City of Rifle regarding it's' watershed activities within
the City's Watershed Protection District.
16. The Applicant shall construct their pipelines to Title 49, CFR part 192 or to the
manufacturer's specifications whichever are more stringent.
17. The Applicant shall show the borings and necessary details of Mamm Creek and Mamm
Creek Road crossings on the plans and shall be approved by the County Road and Bridge
Department prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit.
18. The Applicant shall provide a Utility Permit issued from the County Road and Bridge
Department prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit.
19. The Applicant shall address the Rifle Fire Protection District's concerns and submit
material/revised documents to the County for review and approval.
11
Gale Carm
EXHIBIT
From: Wyatt Keesbery
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Busch, Renata; Gale Carmoney
Cc: Marvin Stephens; Christi Bullock
Subject: RE: EnCana Signed Utility Permits
Gale,
Per our conversation, Road and Bridge has no issue with what Encana has proposed in this permit, but I would like for
Encana to apply for a new permit about 30 days before starting this project so there is not so much gap between the
permit process and the actual start of work.
Thanks again for the help.
WYATT KEESBERY
Garfield County Road & Bridge
Foreman / Rifle and Silt District
0298 CR 333A
Rifle, Co. 81650
wkeesbery «C�garfield-countv.com
Office- 970-625-8601
Fax- 970-625-8627
Cell- 970-309-6073
From: Busch, Renata rmailto:Renata.Buschencana.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:01 PM
To: Christi Bullock
Cc: Wyatt Keesbery
Subject: EnCana Signed Utility Permits
RE: EnCana High Mesa Pipeline Road Bore Utility Permits GRB10-U-59 & GRBIO-U-60
Christy - Attached please find signed permits. `Noted are the start dates; contingent upon County Pipeline Plan
Development approval - construction anticipated January 2011. Will advise as dates draw nearer.
Invoices have been coded and forwarded to our Acctg. for processing.
Thank you for you time on these projects!
—Kenata busdi
Permitting / South Rockies Construction
EnCana oil & Gas (USA) inc.
2717 County Road 215, Suite 100
Parachute, Co 81635
tel: (970) 285-2825
cell: (970) 319-8890
renata.busch{'7a,encaiia. com
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Cale Carmoney
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Comments on the EnCana Hunter Mcsa/Pumba Pipeline PDPA-6591
Date: December 16, 2010
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this permit.
My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
Weed Management -the applicant has provided a noxious weed survey and management plan. They are
acceptable. Staff requests that the applicant cut and treat the tamarisk indicated on the west side of the
compressor station and that they inform the Vegetation Management Department when this has been
completed.
Revegetation
The reclamation plan is acceptable.
The applicant has quantified the level of disturbance an private lands as 18.97 acres. The revegetation
security rate is $2500 per acre. The total revegetation security is $47425. The applicant has provided a
copy of the revegetation security.
Staff does request that the applicant make the seed tags available to Garfield County upon completion of
the reseeding efforts.
As always we are concerned about yellow sweet clover (Melil(3lus ofcinalis) ending up in seed mixes used
for pipeline revegetation. We request that EnCana closely monitor reseeding contractors to insure that
yellow sweet clover is not used in revegetation efforts.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request
an inspection for security release consideration.
The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the
Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution 42002-94).
I).•'ember .;, 1)I0
\lt.
i( ;ale (. atrrnc+nev
Garfield County Planning
1(3f: 8. Street. Suite 41)1
( ilenv\'ot,d Springs CO 81601
L: MOUNTAIN AIN CROSS
glop ENGINEERING, INC.
(III1 1\I, 1 \I IItf)\%i(NIAL ( 111!\I'LiINC, VA) DESIGN
RE: Re%iew of limner. 'Mesa to Piiiiiha i'ipelirie 1)e►clol111icirt I'I:in: Pi)P k-6591
Dear
This nf'iice has perfi+ruied a IV iek% {+I' the docunients provide(' for the l hinter Mesa to I'iiinb,r
Pipeline 1)evelOhnlent Plait r\lililic III T1 1+\ f`.neanil (.hi and (ias. The sce1)1,u11.il \%as Cor ii 1 to 1-,e
Ihnrough and %tell organised.'the following questions. eunecrns, ill couluicrits (y ere .lencr;iied:
The Applicant proposes to use 1 ilk 49. ('1'I( part 1+)! for Ilse 1iipelt,n eonstruclion
speeilieilli+ins hut the Iiilieiinc \1,IrtuIJcldyer's specifications ma \ 1>; mole strinvent ulid the
construction shall confirm to the more siring=,ertl requirements,
. Since the construction is like") to lake place in 2011, the treii will need to be resurveyed by
qualllle(t l+ii+logists lor raptor's. I Ile results ill Ilit• stirs c) sliuuld he piox kkd to Gat Field
( ouiiI.
Feel fiec to cull it l inti have Inv (Iucstiotis or 1:0i)il11eiltw.
4ineerel\'.
!louni.ii 1, Cross Engin era g. Irt,;.
( Iris Hale, P1'.
H2 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH; +170.94';.5544 • FAX: 970.+)45.5 58 + (yvvvv.timtuilaini.rass-en ;.rorn
From: Matt Sturgeon [mailto:msturgeonftrifleco.orgj
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Gale Carmoney; Nathan Lindquist
Cc: Charlie Stevens; Michael Erion
Subject: RE: water shed and EnCana Pipeline app
Rifle folks,
I wasn't present at City Council meeting to learn if they discussed how they want to handle pipeline
projects. It was my understanding from previous emails that this activity was previously permitted by
Encana, and all they need to do is contact City staff and notify them of this pipeline addition.
Therefore, I think we would only ask Garfield County to include a condition that states, "Encana will fully
comply with the City of Rifle Watershed Ordinance as it relates to the pipeline construction proposed
within portions of Sections 2, 3, 10 and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 93 West and Section 35 of
Township 6 South, Range 93 West."
Michael, what say you on this matter. Please include Gale in your reply.
Thanks,
Matt
Gale Carmoney
From: Judith Jordan
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Gale Carmoney
Subject: RE: referrals for EnCana Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline
Hi Gale,
No comments on pipelines.
Thanks,
Judy
From: Gale Carmoney
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Judith Jordan; Kevin Whelan
Subject: referrals for EnCana Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline
Just a reminder that the deadline for referrals on this project is Dec 27.
Kevin I know you have comments and they will be similar to a previous application.
Judy, you had not comment of the last pipeline application, should I just use that sane reply?
Thanks for your time and have a Merry whatever your pleasure is.
Gale D. Carmoney
Code Enforcement Officer
Garfield County
Building and Planning Department
108 Eighth Street
Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601
970-945-8212
1
EXHIBIT
Gale Carmoney
From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan@rifiefiredept.orgj
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 11:56 AM
To: Gale Carmoney
Cc: 'Busch, Renata'; 'Jason Clark'
Subject: PDPA-6591- Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline
Attachments: PDPA-6578- East Dry Hollow pipelinieLoop- Phase 1 addition.htm; Pipeline Development
Plan -File- PDPA-6448- approval 12-16-10.htm
[i F
EXHIBIT
Gale,
I have reviewed the submittal for the construction of one 24 "gas line and one 12" water pipeline that would run for
approximately 3.9. miles from Hunter Mesa to Pumba. The following are my comments:
1. All comments from the fire district review recently conducted on the PDPA 6578- East Dry hollow pipeline Loop -
phase 1 addition apply where applicable ( attached). Note: All issues have been adequately addressed and
future submittals by EnCana should reflect these. Documents needed for this project are:
a. Maps- Since this is a specific project, location of assembly points, emergency response staging areas,
water supplies and normal routes of fire department vehicle access should be preplanned along the 3.9
mile route as much as possible.
b. Narrative -Section 4.7- Explosives- if explosives are used a blasting permit maybe required from Rifle Fire.
More information is needed.
c. Narrative -Section 4.7- Hazardous Materials- if any hazardous materials are used that are not regulated by
COGCC then a review by Rifle Fire may be needed. More information is needed
2. Pipeline development plan:
a. #16- emergency phone number for Rifle Police is wrong. Rifle Fire's number is good.
3. Since this project will require an addition to the existing compressor station the following comments may apply -
Historically, Rifle Fire Protection District has not done a detailed review on compressor stations in our district.
Federal, State, County, COGCC and industry rules & standards have been relied upon. We believe this has been
appropriate and reasonable. We can assist in the following areas, if appropriate, by applying the International Fire
Code:
a. Water supply requirements for fire protection
b. Fire apparatus access including turn -a rounds
c. Plan review and installation inspections & testing for flammable gas sensors. EMD's, fire eyes, auto —
ventilation, auto -shutdowns and the like.
If these areas are already handled by another Authority Having Jurisdiction then no further action is needed
4. Narrative- page 10, section 2.10 change Rifle Fire's emergency contact number
If there are any questions, please let me know
"The Mission of the Rifle Fire Protection District is to Enhance Health and Safety and to Protect the Life , Home and
Property of the People We Serve"
Kevin C. Whelan
Division Chief/ Fire Marshal
Rifle Fire Protection District
1850 Railroad Ave.
Rifle, CO 81650
kewhelan': 7a,riflefiredept.orq
Office- 970-625-1243 ext .12
Fax- 970-625-2963
Cell- 970-618-7388
Page 1 of 2
From: Kevin Whelan [ke whet an@ri fle firedcpt. org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:26 AM
To: 'Molly Orkild-Larson'
Ce: 'orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org'; 'Jason Clark'; mimorgan(c�7,riflefiredept.org; 'Chad W.
Harris'; Chris Bornholdt (cbornholdt@gareosheriff.com)
Subject: PDPA-6578- East Dry Hollow pipelinieLoop- Phase 1 addition
Molly,
I have reviewed the Emergency Response Plan for the East Dry Hollow pipeline loop -file Name PDPA-6578.
The applicant is Encana Oil and Gas and the summary is the construction of one gas pipeline up to 24 " in
diameter and one water pipeline up to 16 " in diameter for approximately 3.29. miles. The following are my
comments:
1. Emergency Response Plan:
a. Activation and notification section does not contain when to call 911. This should be the first step in
any emergency and for all of Encana's emergency classifications/levels.
b. IC should reflect a unified command structure with local emergency responders.
c. Since this is a specific project, location of assembly points, emergency response staging areas,
water supplies and normal routes of fire department vehicle access should be preplanned along the
3.29 mile route as much as possible.
2. South Piceance- Emergency Notification Chart
a. This has Fire /EMS as "third party support". This appears to conflict with federal & state law and
needs to be clarified.
b. As indicated above the structure should be at best a unified command.
3. Spill Plan:
a. Section 4.2 recommend deleting last line that states "EnCana's employees and contractors are
not to contact regulators unless directed to do so by their manager". This could be construed
to also include 911 response which would be inappropriate.
b. Table 1- should have Garfield County agencies listed and not Rio Blanco agencies.
c. Section 5.3 — under both Encana paragraphs change Rio Blanco county references to Garfield
County.
d. Section 7.1- the decision matrix for spill clean-up is not included. Resubmittal is required
e. Section 7.2- it appears that the last sentence should read 3.1 instead of 2.1
4. EDHLI_add narrative dated 9/2010
a. Section 2.10 change out Parachute contacts to Rifle/Silt contacts
b. Section 4.7- Explosives- if explosives are used a blasting permit maybe required from Rifle Fire.
More information is needed.
c. Section 4.7- Hazardous Materials- if nay hazardous materials are used that are not regulated by
COGCC then a review by Rifle Fire may be needed. More information is needed
5. Master Stormwater Management Plan- Mamm Creek Unit- COR -034840 dated June 2009.
a. Section 3.2.2- add fire district for immediate notification of any spills. Section 2703.3 of the 2003
International Fire Code defines this (with exceptions) as well as section 2703.3.1 defines reporting
of unauthorized spills. More information is needed.
b. Section 3.3 refers to Appendix E- Stormwater Manual of Best Management Practices (BMP's). The
cover sheet is the only thing present in this submittal. if a review by the fire district is appropriate
then a re submittal is required.
As submitted, the Rifle Fire Protection District does not accept the above documents. Furthermore the District
recognizes that Burning Mountain Fire Protection District has shared response and review responsibilities. More
information and clarification is needed.
The Rifle Fire Protection District does not believe that construction or approval of this project should be delayed.
A suggestion for resolution is that a meeting be scheduled as part of the approval to adequately address the
above issues with all parties
References: 2003 international Fire Code
file://C:\Documents and Settings\gcarmoney\Local Settingsl'I'emporary Internet Filcs\Co... 12/28/2010
Page 2 of 2
"The Mission of the Rifle Fire Protection District is to Enhance Health and Safety and to Protect the Life , Home
and Property of the People We Serve"
Kevin C. Whelan
Division Chief/ Fire Marshal
Rifle Fire Protection District
1850 Railroad Ave.
Rifle, CO 81650
kewhelan@riflefireclept.org
Office- 970-625-1243 ext .12
Fax- 970-625-2963
Cell- 970-618-7388
file://C:\Documents and Settingslgcarmoney\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Co... 12/28/2010
EXHIBIT
Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Prevent Seed Production
1. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If seeds
develop, cut and bag seed heads.
2. Cut roots with a spade just below soil level.
3. Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage, before flowering.
4. Mow biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering, but
can reduce total seed production.
(Sirota 2004)
Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials
Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production
1. Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system as possible, do not treat when first
emerging in spring, but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop, cut and bag if possible.
2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended after August 15 when natural
precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage.
Herbicides will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of
nutrients to roots rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time,
another season of seed production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system.
Spraying in fall (after middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed
on the roots at this time.
3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway; seed production should
be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the re -growth is not as
effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent; therefore, it is
imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when
biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient.
4. Tillage may or may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only 1/2 in. —1 in.
long. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch.
5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are
seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very
labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly.
(Simla 2004)
Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability
to quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it
imperative to use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration
according to the product label. Most misuse is centered on excessive application, either in
frequency or concentration. This results in mostly top kill and resistant phenotypes.
3.7 Best Management Practices — Noxious Weeds
Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce
the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. The practices include:
■ Top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil
on the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling;
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 11 August 2010
• Wetland vegetation, if encountered, should be live handled like sod, temporarily watered
if necessary, and placed over excavated sub -soil relative to the position from which the
wetland sod was removed;
• Cut-off collars should be placed on all wetland and stream crossings to prevent back
washing or draining of important aquatic resources;
• In all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum;
• Equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and
extent of soil compaction;
• Disturbances should be immediately reseeded with the recommended mix in the re -
vegetation section;
• Topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses, if stored
longer than one growing season;
• Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from
previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds; and
• If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of
potentially seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated
terrain.
In areas with slope greater than three percent, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended.
Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope.
When utilizing hydro -seeding followed by mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding
unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing,
imprinting should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods,
the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed.
Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular
to the direction of slope.
Herbicides: Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre -bud stage after
germination or in the spring of the second year. The species identified in the survey are
susceptible to commercially available herbicides. Selective herbicides are recommended to
minimize damage to desirable grass species.
Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of
the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Most
herbicide failures observed by WWE are related to incomplete control caused by high
concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots
through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant, if
directed on the herbicide label, or other adjuvant as called for on the herbicide label.
Grazing: In the event grazing is allowed in the project arca, it should be deferred in reclaimed
areas until the desired plant species that have been seeded are established.
Alternative Methods: An alternative method, particularly where there is poor or destroyed
topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as
AMF. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all
vegetation. Endo-mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be
helpful when reclaiming this project. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 11 August 2010
capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and
McCaslin 1995).
Over-the-counter commercial products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when re-
seeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder
forth and are available from many different sources. Some also come in granular form to be
spread with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMP products should contain more than
one fungi species.
All Colorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of
AMF. According to District Forester Crystal Tischler, "AMF is worth it" (Tischler 2006). Most,
if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation re-vegetation/reseeding projects now require
use of AMF and HioSol, a certified by-product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed
primarily of mycelium. Compacted soils respond well to fossilized titanic substances and by-
products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin were
formed from pre -historic plant and animal deposits and work especially well on compacted soils
when applied as directed.
3.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations
A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Restricted
herbicides require a Colorado licensed applicator. An applicator has the frill range of knowledge,
skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds. Reclamation
farming services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized related equipment is
available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects.
Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated should be
inspected over time to ensure that control methods arc working to reduce and suppress the
identified infestation. The sites should be monitored until the infestations are eliminated or
reduced to acceptable levels. These inspections can then be used to prioritize f=uture weed
control efforts.
4.0 .REYECETATICN — RECI.ANMA'I'ION
Site specific reclamation plans should be developed with a qualified reclamation contractor.
Successful reclamation of the project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient
and aspect, proper weed control, available water, and rcvcgetation with suitable plant species.
Appendix C is a table that provides the recommended seed mix for Pinyon -Juniper Woodland
and/or Mountain/Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrubland.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 11 August 2010
EXHIBIT
5.1.1.3 Black Bear and Mountain Lion
Due to low population densities and large home ranges of both black bear and mountain
lion, and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no
significant effects from this project for these species are expected.
5.1.1.4 Small Mammals
The amount of available habitat for small mammals, including bats, should not be
affected significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected
to affect small mammal populations.
5.1.1.5 Reptiles
The amount of available habitat for reptiles should not be impacted significantly by the
proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations.
5.1.2 Aquatic Species
5.1.2.1 Amphibians
Downstream individuals would be most susceptible in the event contaminants were
introduced to surface water during pipeline construction. The amount of available habitat
for amphibians would not be affected by the project. The amount of disturbance is not
expected to affect amphibian populations.
5.1.2.2 Endangered Fish
The Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker are both federally -listed fish species
that occur in the Colorado River. Potential impacts from the project include
sedimentation of tributaries to the Colorado River, and spills of chemicals, fuels from
equipment, or other hazardous materials.
It is unlikely that endangered fish in the Colorado River would be affected by this project
since sediments are mostly contained by topography and not likely to reach the river.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Spill Prevention Counter Control (SPCC)
measures should be followed to reduce any potential impacts to aquatic environments.
6.0 EFFECTS TO TESS PLANT SPECIES
No TESS plants or their habitats were found during surveys, and therefore no affects on
TESS plants are expected.
7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and
improvement of wildlife habitat, quality, and prevention of human -caused impacts to
resources.
7.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat
Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore the native vegetation communities
once construction is complete in the project area. The companion report to this
document, the "integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP),
Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline" (W WE 2010) contains a recommended seed mixture for
WestWater Engineering
Page 12 of 19 August 2010
reclamation of the disturbed areas. If properly applied, this seed mixture will benefit all
wildlife populations in the area. The IVNWMP also recommends ongoing control of
noxious weeds which will aid the establishment of desired vegetation in the reclaimed
area.
7.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas
7.2.1 Mule Deer and Elk
Because the proposed project lies within a sensitive area for wintering big game (as
defined by the 2009 COGCC rules), consultation with CDOW is recommended before
project development. Disturbances associated with construction activities will likely
cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from construction.
This disturbance should not result in any long-term impacts to mule deer or elk.
7.2.2 Migratory Birds
In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by showing a good faith effort to
reduce potential impacts on nesting birds, any brushltree clearing at the project site
should take place outside of the nesting season. Nesting season for migratory birds is
generally considered to occur between May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species.
June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place.
If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1, most affected birds will relocate to
alternate nesting sites. After mid-to-late July, most fledging has occurred and brush/tree
clearing impacts would be minimized.
7.2.3 Raptors
Pipeline construction activities within the project area are unlikely to affect raptor
populations. if construction is delayed until 2011 or later, the area should be resurveyed
to ensure no new raptor nests have been built that may be affected by the project. If nests
are then discovered, the potential for possible effects to raptors could be reduced by
scheduling construction activities so there is no interference with breeding, nesting, and
brood rearing activities of the species occupying the new nest sites.
if new nests are discovered during subsequent surveys, WWE recommends temporal and
spatial restriction guidelines for construction activities near active nests based on BLM
stipulations (BLM 1987), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) recommendations
(Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in
the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998). These
recommendations are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests.
Specks
Buffer Zone
Seasonal Restriction
American Kestrel
Bald Eagle
0.50 mile
15 October — 31 July
Cooper's Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April —15 August
Golden Eagle
0.50 mile
15 December —15 July
WestWater Engineering
Page 13 of 19
August 2010
Table 8. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests.
Great Homed Owl
*
Long-eared Owl
0.25 mile
1 March - 15 July
Northern Harrier
0.25 mile
1 April -15 August
Osprey
0.25 mile
1 April — 31 August
Peregrine Falean
0.50 mile
15 March -31 July
Prairie Falcon
0.50 mile
15 March —15 July
Red-tailed Hawk
0.33 mile
15 February - 15 July
Sharp -shinned Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April —15 August
Swainson's Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April - 15 July
* Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity, Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season.
7.3 Other Mitigation Practices
7.3.1 Erosion
Efforts to control and repair soil erosion within the project area should he implemented.
Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion, and downstream water
quality could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. In addition to stormwater
management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock
grazing, other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should he managed and
remedial measures implemented.
WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 19 August 2010
Legend
ACOE
Pumba to Hunter Pipeline
Raptor Buffer 1/4 mi
Raptor Buffer 1/2 mi
Compressor Stations
Figure 1:
EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc,
Hunter Mesa to Purrlba Pipeline
Project Location & ACOE Crossings
August 2010
= '.WestWater Engineering
y_. Emtrunme*#o& Consulting 5c e1tts
C 0,15 0.0 0.0
P�[cs
r.
Source 2:tEnCana 311 P. Gas USA, InctNunler Mesa PL and CompressenGISIWildtfe_FlG1 nlj Aug. 2010
Pumba to Hunter Pipeline
Ccmpresso- Stations
Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
Figure 2:
EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
Hunter Mesa to Punnba Pipeline
Mule Deer Activities
WestWater Engineering
crnkonmental Con*WOnq swam
August 2010
0.125 0.25 0.5
la es
Source. 2:1EnCeno Oil a C3as USA, InclHunter Masa PL and Compres$orlGISVNid0lreTFIG2 nt u@, 01
egend
Pumba to Hunter Pipeline
Compressor Stations
Winter Concentration Area
• ,.1•CM 1.-J, -3 ff....
4,
•
dr.
( • _
Figure 3:
EnCana Oii & Gas (USA) Inc.
Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline
Elk Activities
NestWaiter Engineering
Ermronrrantal Consulting Servo:Ills
August 2010
0125 0.25 0 5
Won
Sourc 2tEnClna 011 & Gas USA. Inc\Hurrier Mesa AL and CompressediSkWildirfe_FIG3 NJ Aug 2C:10
Keith and Vicky Goddard
1075 N. Cedar Springs Ranch Road
Rifle, Colorado 81650
(970) 876-2225
Qo
Garfield County Building and Planning
ATTN: Gale Carmoney
108 8t11 Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Project
(Proposed by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.)
Dear Mr. Carmoney:
OCI 1.8 ?010
6Ar= i'i .z COUNTY
E 1) 0lNra & PLM VG
We are the owners of "Lot B" Cedar Springs Ranch, also known as 1075 North
Cedar Springs Ranch Road, Rifle, Colorado. This letter is in response to a notification
we received from EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., regarding the above referenced
Pipeline Project.
We are very concerned about the location of the proposed pipeline with regard to
our property line. We received a Pipeline Vicinity Map showing the location of the
proposed pipeline. One of the "buildings" located on our property, as shown on the map
submitted to your office by EnCana, is our pump house for our domestic water well.
Our well head is located next to our pump house. Our domestic water well, pump
house, water line, telephone line, and power poles are all located within our "utility
easement". The proposed pipeline location according to EnCana's vicinity map is within
a couple feet of our "utility easement". The proposed pipeline location runs the entire
length of our "utility easement" next to our fence. We have enclosed a copy of the
documents sent to us from EnCana and the plat of our property showing our domestic
water well location and utility easement. Our domestic water well sits at a very low
geographical point as compared to the route of the proposed pipeline. If there is a
leak/break we believe the contents of the pipes would flow downhill.
Our concern is possible contamination of our domestic water well. The proposed
pipeline will be carrying natural gas and EnCana is also proposing a water line in the
same pipeline ditch. (It is not clear if this "water" will be fresh water or "contaminated"
water). We are very concerned over possible soil contamination and/or aquifer
contamination if either of these proposed lines form a leak or a break in the line.
We are also concerned if in the future we need to drill a new domestic water well.
It is our understanding from the current Water Well Construction rules that "a well shall
not be located closer than 100 feet horizontally to the nearest source of contaminants or
50 feet from a septic tank, sewer line or other vessel containing contaminants". Is the
pipeline/waterline considered "other vessel containing contaminants"? Will the pipeline
prevent us from drilling a new water Well in the future if needed?
We would request the proposed pipeline be located a safe distance to, the east of
our property line and domestic water well to prevent contamination if a break or leak
occurs in the pipeline.
Please consider our comments when reviewing the application for the Hunter
Mesa and Rumba Pipeline Project.
Thank you,
Keith Goddard
Encl: Letter from EnCana w/attachments
Copy of Plat of our property (Lot B)
O
� I
4a O'
t] w
..% .i ../�5 't {�i7
F r I s
1 cict CS
r _.--
1
LA
1 ti,I Access and U iluy
1,i:071 -Easement
0
ieinent E
40.0'
✓
✓
✓
✓1
✓
am= and Udlity
Easement
S 02°00'53' E
970.45' 1
PARCEL E
35.015 ACRES
- 0
11
[`
i
l
111
�crr
r{At
1� PA CEL
41 35.317 ACRES
11
k
ri Utility
11Easernent
ti
40.0' Access and Utility fss„
Easement
L2
1�
20.0' '1
!-.. —. 3
NI PDB Marcel C,
\_),..,„` � 343.85' u
`
P S 01 '0744" L'' POB Pczrce! 2
cl
L1
•
PARCEL
35.003 ACRES
ell and. [Maw Easement
1455.99'
cn
Access and Utility t7
Easement
'
4 40.r}
f3, i.7' }
40.0'
1819.18'
848.73'
Access and Utility
Easement
PARCEL
35.002 ASS
Access and Uti1it j
- Easement
1"• '4/0
852.33
2660.17'
East Center ,1/16 Corner Seca