"Dear Lisa,

I am in receipt of your e-mail dated October 9, 07 to Ron Velarde and Brian Macke of the COGCC.  I will attempt to address your issues and concerns regarding gas development in the Divide Creek area.

I would like to point out that the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has no regulatory authority over oil and gas development in the state.  Therefore CDOW can only recommend to other agencies such as COGCC and BLM.  This being said we are and will continue to be concerned about development within the state. 

You are correct in your assessment that the general area of concern is covered by Winter Range.  This information was confirmed through our NDIS web site.  NDIS does not show any reference to Migration Corridors, however that does not mean that elk do not move through the area and certainly do.  We find that the area is also not mapped as Production Areas but again elk undoubtedly do calve in the area.

Unfortunately the general area from Debeque to Glenwood has been and continues to be highly impacted by gas development.  The Colorado Division of Wildlife continues to try to work with industry, COGCC, BLM and Forest Service to minimize impacts to wildlife from development. 

As you are aware areas such as the one you have described see development at a level that no one could have dreamed of a few years ago.  The result is that animals (deer and elk primarily) are being forced to share a dwindling amount of habitat.  As a result it is the belief of CDOW that impacts to all species will be on a large scale and will be wide spread.  CDOW has been attempting to get other organizations and individuals to look at this phenomenon on a geographic area basis.  While impacts area happening in localized areas (such as Divide Creek), the bigger picture is what is going on at the herd level.  As the state agency that is tasked with Protecting, Preserving, Enhancing and Managing wildlife within the state we continue to be more disturbed by each permit and lease sale that happens.  The cumulative affects of this scale of development are what will be of greatest importance to populations.  Rest assured that my staff and I will continue to monitor this population and will make adjustments to maintain the viability of the herd within the Game Management Unit (GMU) and associated Data Analysis Unit (DAU).

With regards to your concept of feeding elk, I would offer these thoughts.  The CDOW has not condoned nor encouraged the feeding of big game wildlife within the state.  Only under the most extreme conditions and as a very last option have we ever fed elk.  These conditions are typically associated with extreme severe winters, extreme temperatures and snow depths that are out of the ordinary.  Time has told us that feeding animals such as elk is often more problematic for them than helpful.  Attempting to duplicate diets of wild animals in such a way as to be beneficial has proven to be an issue.  So, often times when man is trying to help we are actually hurting the animals because we have difficulty duplicating the natural nutritional regime.

My staff has attempted to look at situations such as this one and recommend alternatives to full field development.  Such is the case with our recommendations on the Roan Plateau.  The general thought there was to cluster development, make industry prove up on reclamation and other performance criteria before moving forward with additional development.  As you have recommended in your letter, it would be beneficial for industry to leave some areas alone while concentrating development in others (how this would look on the landscape is anybodies guess, given the number of companies, lease differences and a whole list of other problems).  If this were the case across the area as I mentioned above, perhaps wildlife would begin to have some areas of relative seclusion.  As development continues at the current pace impacts will be felt across the range for both deer and elk.

Your recommendation of directing resources elsewhere to alleviate pressure on this particular sub-population is worthy of note and should be considered by the company.  If this is not an option I would recommend that the company begin working with my staff to outline a drilling plan that could help to minimize impacts while drilling continues on the designated pads.

I would encourage you to contact the District Wildlife Manager (Will Spence, 970-255-6155) or myself (Dean Riggs, 970-255-6178) to explore other options of assisting with preservation of this sub-population.

Thank you for your concern regarding wildlife in light of the drilling activity that is occurring.  Having concerned citizens like you get involved in wildlife management is paramount to our charge.

Dean Riggs
Area Wildlife Manager- Area 7
Grand Junction, CO"

Well Progress Update

No new updates on the Schwartz well, but I am trying to figure out what other types of activity may be present in the nearby area - from EnCana as well as other operators. A neighbor reported what appeared to be a switch from one type of rig to another on Schwartz, which may suggest a technical glitch of one kind or another. Also, an alarm went off on the pad this week, which tends to give me pause - given the various emergencies that can arise on a pad, such as deadly gas, etc. Uncovering such details, however, is a tall order as these operations are often divided among various contractors and employees. So real knowledge may or may not materialize. Though I'm probably right at the top of some lists, I'm not exactly at the top of the "notify in the event of changes" list. But I'll see what I can figure out.
 

Present were myself and another family member who helped shuttle folks into and orient them to the area; two members of EnCana's landowner relations team, two members of EnCana's environmental team including their environmental manager; a field technician from Cordilleran who conducted the sampling effort; a reporter from the Grand Junction Sentinel; and, for a time, a neighbor who had been directly involved in seep activities from 2004.

We first visited Turkey Point where two large and several smaller samples were taken. I was quite impressed with the sampling effort that took place. It was in no way cursory, and in fact, great effort was made by the technician - nearly chest deep in cold pond waters and juggling equipment mid-stream to orient all of us to the process and demonstrate, step-by-step, the collection technique. Moreover, I was greatly relieved to see a concerted effort put forward to pin-point the area which seemed specifically active and sample as close to that point as possible. The activity in this area is still extremely minimal.

We all then went to the old Eicher/Bracken beaver pond and examined its surface. It was quite still on the surface today as it has been since remediation efforts on the Schwartz well took place in 2004.

We then looked at the newly enlarged area of the pond. It demonstrated surface disturbance activity and continued bubbling. Interestingly, I found that one area (the long, narrower area which abuts the old pond had diminished in activity so that I could see no activity in the time in which I observed it (intermittently and relatively fleetingly) and even  the area which was located about middle of the newly enlarged area had diminished in activity. However, this area seemed to have constricted and now reflects a tighter, more localized zone of activity which has dramatically increased in bubbling since I last observed it on 10-27-07.

There were several areas which demonstrated frequent venting and one spot in particular which vented so frequently it was nearly continuous. This was the spot which was sampled.

Though it appeared that most everyone saw the activity, the environmental manager said he felt that the activity we saw might not even be bubbles, but a frog or a fish (of which I have seen both present in the pond), and explained that area vegetation, sticks and so forth generate natural gaseous activity associated with  decomposition and could account for the activity seen in the pond - that it is,  in fact, quite common. He said he personally felt the activity we were seeing was a natural result of this and "nothing to worry about".  But, he also said the samples would let us know if the case were otherwise, and that EnCana would be happy to share those results.

Again, when the field technician waded into the waters - taking pains to cross the pond and capture a sample from the area of nearly continuous venting, he did so quite carefully and in a manner in which 1) a collection bottle was inverted in the water, filling it with the water and expelling it of its atmospheric contents; 2) the bottle was then inverted and a broad funnel was placed beneath it in a way which could capture the escaping bubbles when he disturbed the silty bottom; and 3) he disturbed the bottom soils, releasing the gas and capturing them with the funnel, guiding them into the bottle where the migrating gas displaced the water inside - creating a "headspace" of gas sourced as directly as possible from the silty bottom, and which could then be tested. He also kindly fetched out of the water some kind of old aerosol can which had floated in from upstream.

Again, I was quite impressed with the careful effort, time and attention given to sampling these waters.

This type of sampling is useful in determining the constituency of gases present in the pond, and should take about two weeks to yield results.

Though the sampling method and the specific techniques employed to achieve it are very useful, the conclusions drawn from such efforts are, like all scientific inquiry, relative to the limitations of the conditions present which affect the outcome.

In-stream venting is not subjected to the same conditions as a pond environment; and, in the absence of "vigorous" activity, present a whole different set of considerations.

In a pond environment, gas [either that which is naturally occurring as a result of decomposition of organic materials (biogenic) or that which is sourced from natural gas reservoirs (thermogenic)] amasses and is held, for a time, within the containment of the light, nutrient-rich, silty bottom soils. This environment can not only disperse what would otherwise present a single exit point, it also provides a greater opportunity for methane-consuming bacteria to move in and consume some of the gases, particularly since the amount of time in which the gases collect and linger in the silt is fairly indeterminable. These organisms produce their own methane gas as a bi-product of that metabolism. While it is easy to "type" gas from a source such as a well-head, the introduction of the same gas into the environment creates alterations to the gas itself as well as a commingling dynamic, compounding the difficulty in accurately determining a source.

There are methods, however, of detecting various compounds which are useful in determining whether a gas is strictly thermogenic; strictly biogenic; or a blend of both.

For all its beneficial design and contributions, given the limitations of this type of collection effort, it is an insufficient method in and of itself in drawing an accurate conclusion - encouraging quite the opposite in fact -  the bane of scientific inquiry - an assumption based on insufficient data.

I am no scientist, but I think common sense would suggest that more than one aspect of information gathering should be brought to bear in a situation such as this. That is, hydrological as well as geological data should be carefully examined relative to recent nearby drilling activities. Indeed, as demonstrated in 2004, this industry has shown that detrimental effects can occur a significant distance from a surface pad location, irrespective, even, of bottom-hole locations.

In 2004, there were a number of areas which demonstrated unusual activity, not the least of which was the emergence of dead patches of grass in the meadow areas of three different properties - ours included. Methane, while not considered toxic, has the capacity to displace oxygen and, in sufficient quantity, can starve roots, killing vegetation and other life forms. This is a 'subtle' but no less real and compelling aspect of seep activity. Soil samples were purportedly taken of this area, but again, no gas was found. Perhaps gas quickly dissipated from these exit points. If these were connected to the seep, it should be acknowledged as such, even after lingering evidence of its presence has diminished - for the simple reason that this contributes to the bigger picture of actual geologic conditions.

In March of 2004, just prior to the seep discovered on April 01, 2004, the Arbaney well took a "kick" which caused a huge underground disturbance - sufficient to knock one neighbor's home askew of its foundation. The effect traveled underground all the way to our property and nearly knocked my mother to the floor as she stood at the kitchen sink - approximately a mile away.  The photo on the homepage of this website shows the flaring activity that followed the kick on that day. A kick happened in New Mexico that same week and caused the evacuation of 700 people. We weren't evacuated. In fact, there was reluctance of the part of the state of even acknowledge this event. We theorize that this event either caused new faulting or exacerbated old faults, which could account for the failure of EnCana to anticipate the loss of cement down the Schwartz well that was faulted by the COGCC for causing the seep in 2004. A failure to account for these potentially correlative events has led, we believe, to the state permitting wells on a basis determined by insufficient data. And we believe that, as a permitting body, the state and the BLM has a great responsibility to determine the safety of continued drilling within this region where these events have occurred.

Today, the environmental manager assured me that if another seep were going on, it would look like it did in 2004. We'd see vigorous activity. An indicator. As if what the nine of use were standing around observing were not. As if its increased presence in the glaring absence of activity elsewhere were not. I was told the pressures of the wellheads is checked and there have been no problems. 'No problems' suggests some set of criteria which alone or collectively demonstrate a call to caution.  I asked, then, about a variation of the situation in 2004. Even within areas officially recognized as the "main seep area", there were clear instances of seep activity demonstrating varying degrees of vigor. It seems that an assumption that all seep activity will demonstrate the same observable symptoms under what may be varying degrees of causation as well as geologic and hydrologic circumstances is, in the least, presumptuous. We know that ponds themselves introduce a set of circumstances quite different from a roiling stream bed. So, to impose a set of criteria established by the specific characteristics of a previous event upon a potentially new and unique event seems highly unscientific and even cavalier. But, again, he felt that the activity was biological and nothing more. And indeed, as we know, the sampling, due to its inherently complicated limitations, may reveal exactly that. Which is why, given observable surface conditions that suggest the contrary, further investigation should occur.

If it were merely biological activity, I asked why the breaking down of organic matter sufficient to produce this type of activity should occur to such an observable degree in one relatively localized area, yet is absent in other areas which share the same source waters and surrounding green and withering, submerged vegetation. Didn't know. Couldn't explain it. Why is there an increase in biological activity now, as the temperatures decrease, verses in the summertime when temperatures were more conducive to active biological conditions? Didn't know. Couldn't explain it. Again, all the more reason why further and more integrated investigation should occur.

I asked, why is it that if it were, as he suggested, a frog or fish causing the bubbling activity before the field technician entered the waters, the same bubbling commenced within minutes of the technician leaving the area? Wouldn't you think that frogs and fishes would have vacated the area along with the released gas? No answer.

This surface activity looks remarkably the same as that which we observed in the Eicher/Bracken beaver pond (the old portion) back in 2004. Certainly, I concede that given the observable phenomenon in 2004, some of the parameters of any similar event are likely to recur reliably, if only in different measure - but when taken together, may differ widely, causing, ultimately a very different picture of activity to emerge. But this takes serious inquiry - not a cursory application of methodology which is, in and of itself sound, but limited in its capacity to reveal. The results of this pond sampling effort may be quite precise and accurate - and still not yield sufficient insight into cause. The whole point of observing and notifying officials is so that a potentially worsening situation can be averted. Certainly, gauging by recent observations, the situation in the pond is changing. None of us want to repeat what we went through in 2004. It took two years out of our lives and who knows how much more from the stress it caused.

Before serious inquiry, there must be serious regard. The environmental manager's comments, regardless of the pro-active act of sampling, suggest the absence of such an attitude - as he seems to truly believe that it is simply biogenic in nature. Nothing to worry about. Serious regard is the engine that fuels serious inquiry. As much as I had hoped to the contrary, particularly after the events in 2004, some positions are already entrenching. If this situation has been caused by drilling activities, regardless of what is officially presumed, I am very sad to say that fracing operations may make it worse. Regardless of the positions others assume, I encourage, within myself and others, an objective examination of all the facts with paramount and sincere interest in truth.

I don't think EnCana is suggesting that I am lying. Observations demonstrate otherwise. The environmental manager, however seems to believe, that I am falsely attributing my observations.

Still though, this surface activity mirrors what we observed in 2004, yet is now absent in the old beaver pond, and has newly emerged in only a specific area of the new pond addition. Observations in 2004 were attributed, by the COGCC and EnCana, to biologic activity. Yet, it requires a tremendous amount of decompositional activity to generate the kind of bubbling we have seen before and are seeing again. What these new observations represent remains to be learned. However, I do not believe that it is biologically initiated. Though it may be biologically complicated. Nor do I believe that the environmental manager is lying. In fact, he may truly believe that the observable surface activity is strictly biologic, which I personally think is a narrow presumption on his part. If it is a seep, the sooner it is recognized and corrected (if possible) potential implications can possibly be averted. And of course, I worry that fracing operations may worsen it. But then again, they may not - hopefully not!

Prior to 2004 we literally begged the COGCC to slow the development of these operations citing detrimental event after event. They were heedless. Weeks later, the seep occurred, and continues. A moratorium was imposed. New drilling requirements took effect. Three and a half years later, EnCana is back and drilling the same pad. We are trying to, yet again, inform the very same participants of unusual occurrences - an indication - if you will, that vested parties need to be paying attention.

On our part, at least, there is a great sense of urgency. A great sense of mystery. Trepidation. And even anxiety that such disregard could once again, produce worse effects.

I have faith, however, that truth will eventually emerge. Fortunately, the truth is larger than any will to contain it.

We are very grateful for EnCana's efforts to collect a sample regarding these observations, the results of which should be available in approximately two weeks, and which EnCana has offered to share.
 

In The News
Note: The summary below each headline and corresponding date is my own account of the referenced article (strong editorial license included). Each article is, of course, recommended reading... if you're coming to this posting late, the Post Independent has an archive search feature.

In the Post Independent...
www.postindependent.com

New study tracks local proximity of residential land to gas wells
November 1, 2007

According to this article, a new report called "Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Production" (available from the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)) indicates that "nearly 10 percent of residential properties in Garfield County are within 500 meters of an oil and gas well". Read this article for all sorts of exciting projections and purported proximity-related potential symptoms - from cancer to death. Take heart though, less than half a million tons of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) were purportedly released into the atmosphere back in 2002, long before this new boom. Whew, bet that makes you breath easier.

In the Post Independent and the Citizen Telegram...
www.postindependent.com  / www.citizentelegram.com

Drilling health concerns debated: Testimony in Washington suggests harmful effects
11-01-007 / 11-01-07, 2007

Three people who have lived near natural gas development testify before congress regarding detrimental health effects they suffered and which they felt were related to the natural gas drilling activities near their homes. Rashes blisters and tumors, oh my! Also get Daniel Teitelbaum's take on the whole affair. He's a medical toxicologist and adjunct professor of environmental science at the Colorado School of Mines. He's also the latest addition to this site's "Beacon" page. Hopefully, this testimony will move congress forward in reexamining it's inequitable energy policies which have allowed, even encouraged egregious actions of an industry run amok among provisions, exemptions and incentives. Kudos to these people for standing tall.

In the Post Independent...
www.postindependent.com

Presentations to address air quality concerns
November 1, 2007

Nov 15 & 29, Garfield County Energy Advisory Board, Garfield County Environmental Health and Colorado Mountain College are offering free "Smart Citizen" presentations which discuss "air pollution basics, associated risks and how pollution is managed".

In the Grand Junction Sentinel...
www.gjsentinel.com

New wells near gas seep concern nearby residents
November 04, 2007

This article discusses some of the issues surrounding the 40 proposed wells EnCana plans to develop over the coming months.

Update on Mining Act

You may recall last week I spoke about the Mining Reform Act, which generally involved hardrock mining and a requirement to clean up after themselves. Well, guess what? According to reports by the National Wildlife Federation, "...the house of Representatives voted to pass the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 on Thursday by a margin of 244 to 166." More than 8,000 people flooded senator's offices in support of the proposal this past week, demonstrating that while lobbyists on either side of an issue may have their day, the power of grassroots activism does not go unnoticed.

This is the first federal affront to the energy industry in a while. While it's true it is the most powerful, organized, world-wide industrial interest in existence - and intimately engaged to everything we do from pharmaceuticals to food production, communications and transportation - it is not without vulnerability. And like any old run-of-the-mill bully, when a group of kids in the school yard take a collective interest and stand up for their milk money, great things can happen. As they say, 'the bigger they are'... Good job Congress, keep up the good work - those of you with kahonies, that is. The rest of you, respectfully move aside - there is a great deal more serious work to be done.

I heard the shot around dawn, this morning, and then got a call shortly after. The call was from a neighbor asking if hunters hunting on his property could track a buck they had shot there, but which had traveled to ours - and whose whereabouts was unknown. I agreed that it was important to track the buck and recover the animal as there was no point in abetting its suffering. This is the type of hunting situation which I dread and which we've fortunately experienced only once before with a couple of hunters from California back maybe six or seven years ago. 

Apparently, the buck was shot and wounded, but tried to flee. The blood trail that originated on the neighbor's property led across our upper meadow. Unfortunately, as the neighbor attested to, a wounded animal startled and attempting to run can sometimes go for miles on the produced adrenaline before it succumbs to blood loss and/or exhaustion. Private property trespass issues as well as, sometimes, plain old laziness or inexperienced tracking, can lead to a situation in which the animal goes un-recovered.

I support hunting as a means of herd management as well as a way for folks to provide meat for their families and themselves, particularly in the absence of other natural predators, such as wolves - since a lack of predation can encourage overpopulation and starvation. However, as with most things, there is a right and a wrong way to conduct a hunt and oneself while hunting; and I abhor the suffering and waste which accompany bad hunting decisions. A good hunter will possess good aim and control his or her emotions, foregoing a shot which is unsure. This was, according to the neighbor, not the first attempt.

Sadly, based on the description from the hunter I spoke to, this is the same buck I saw days before and mentioned on last week's post. At four or five points, he was one of the largest, most robust animals I'd seen in several years, and I fear his loss will cost his herd. I detest trophy hunting, yet have found that many hunters will pursue only the largest, finest bucks of the season, which, over time, can contribute to genetic decline.

At around noon several does wandered in below the house and gave away the hunter's position by catching a scent on the wind, sniffing it and looking south - the kind of behavior demonstrated under unusual or potentially dangerous conditions. A raven, arose from the cedars and pinions, sounding an alarm to its flock and confirming the man's location two hundred or so yards away.

At around 2:30 in the afternoon I saw the hunter again just down from our home. He was tracking the deer and said he had trailed it up to the neighbor's property and back again across property lines. He showed me a piece of bloodied fat which he crumbled in his fingers. I asked how far apart the blood sign was. We walked back into a draw and he pointed to a log which showed newly disturbed soil where the buck had leapt over it. Not two feet away I discovered more bits of bloodied flesh. He showed me an eroded sandstone outcrop with a drop of blood on it. It was fresh. The buck had been there only minutes before. And the sign was only ten or fifteen feet apart. He said the shot fired by his companion was just below the vitals and likely skinned the animal. 

This land and its wild inhabitants, like other areas of the west - both private and public - endures a number of pressures upon it. Not only is there the pressure and impact of ourselves who live upon it, but other activities and their consequences are also brought upon it - even those which are unintended; such as by the oil and gas industry, the cattle industry and today, hunters.

I called around 6:00 pm this evening to get a tracking update. The hunter tracked the buck to another neighbor's property to the North, and even gained a visual where they said the buck was standing and grazing. But, the buck's location was outside of permissive access, so they called it day with plans to try and take him down again tomorrow.

Of course, throughout the day I prayed for this animal's survival - so long as he would be able to live his life strong, healthy and without the lingering pain of the gun-shot wound (which in the wild, can be a death sentence, due to infection, impaired mobility, continual blood-loss, and the attraction of predators to he and his herd). If he were mortally wounded from this hunter's attempt, I asked the spirit world to be merciful and deliver him a rapid and painless dispatch.

After the phone call I looked for the buck to confirm for myself, whether it remained as mobile as suggested.

I saw him, and captured the photo to share below.

We don't allow hunting on our property, but if he and his does choose to graze on the neighbor's property tomorrow morning, he may have already seen his last sunrise.

In this unfolding drama of hunter vs. the hunted, I'm pulling for the buck.
 

I walked up to a place where I thought the buck might be at round 6 pm Sunday evening. He was, indeed there. And this is the same buck I thought it was. Unfortunately, I startled him and he fled across our upper meadow, where I was able to capture this footage.  It's hard to see it in this photo, but his enormous rack is nearly as long as his neck - and wider. He is magnificent, and I hope he makes it through this challenging time to sire new generations of tough, smart deer just like him. [11-04-07]

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true were really true, there would be little hope of advance."

-- Orville Wright

Updates      Stand Tall       Beacons and Triumphs       Image Gallery      Home

All contents of this site, unless otherwise noted are copyrighted by Lisa Bracken, 2007. All rights are reserved.
Visit links outside the scope of this website at your own risk. All information is subject to change without notice.