The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/20/2023 - Planning and Zoning Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Commission Page 1 July 20, 2023 Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. Regular Hearing July 20, 2023 6:00 PM David Katz, Chair City Council Chambers - City Hall West Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michelle Haefele Fort Collins, Colorado Adam Sass Ted Shepard Virtual (Zoom or Telephone) Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Agenda Participation for this hybrid Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be available online, by phone, or in person. Public Participation (In Person): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission in person may attend the meeting located in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/93523623150. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:45 p.m. on July 20, 2023. Participants should try to sign in prior to 6:00 p.m. if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 July 20, 2023 • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows: • Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium if they are in person • The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker. • Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time. • Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes. • In person participates will hear a timer beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remains and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. • CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to quickly resolve items that are non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda generally consists of Commission Minutes for approval, items with no perceived controversy, and routine administrative actions. Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the hearing via phone. Please dial: 253-215-8782 or 346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 935 2362 3150. The meeting will be available beginning at 5:45 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the hearing, please email smanno@fcgov.com. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, City Staff needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Please email any documents to smanno@fcgov.com. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to smanno@fcgov.com . Staff will ensure the Commission receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. As adopted by City Council Ordinance 143, 2022, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 July 20, 2023 1. Draft Minutes for the P&Z May Regular Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes of the May 18, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. Land Use Code: Oil & Gas Reverse Setback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council amending the Land Use Code to update reverse setback standards from new development near existing oil and gas wells. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF ASSIGNED: Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 20, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF Shar Manno, Customer and Administrative Manager SUBJECT MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 2023 P&Z HEARING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the May 18, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft May 18, 2023 P&Z Minutes Packet pg. 4 David Katz, Chair Virtual Hearing Julie Stackhouse, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Michelle Haefele 300 Laporte Avenue Adam Sass Fort Collins, Colorado Ted Shepard Samantha Stegner Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & York Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 18, 2023 Chair Katz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Katz, Sass, Shepard, Stackhouse, Stegner, York Absent: None Staff Present: Frickey, Sizemore, Claypool, Guin, Myler, Puga, Mapes, Gilchrest, Gerwel, and Manno Chair Katz provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the role of the Commission, noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. He noted that this is a legal hearing, and that he will moderate for civility and fairness. Agenda Review CDNS Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1.Draft Minutes from March 23, 2023, P&Z Hearing 2.The Landings at Lemay Two – Rezone & Structure Plan Map Amendment Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DRAFTPacket pg. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Public Input for items not on the Agenda: None noted. Chair Katz did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Stackhouse made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Consent agenda for the May 18, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as originally advertised. Member Sass seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Prospect Sports Standalone Modification Requests (3) Project Description: The first request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that states a limit on the height of a story in a commercial building. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the building can be approved with its necessary height for indoor volleyball, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. The second request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires a new commercial building to be placed within 25’ of an abutting arterial street and 15’ from other streets. The third request is a request is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a Standard that requires parking based on land use. The applicants intend to submit a development plan for a gym facility, but they want to resolve the question of whether the development can be approved with the proposed parking number, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Manno reported that no additional community member emails or letters had been received. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Clark Mapes gave a brief overview of this project. Amanda Hansen, RB+B Architects and Angie Milewski, BHA Design, Landscape Architects, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation of this project. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response Planner Mapes reviewed additional items after the applicant presentation. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying questions Modification request #1 – Building Story Height DRAFTPacket pg. 6 Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Member Sass asked if building height was measured from the nearest grade and if this is this consistent around the building. Planner Mapes responded it is the average around all sides. The highest point is used, with the exception of elevator towers, stair towers, etc. Member Sass asked what the process is for this project moving forward, and if these modifications would trigger a Type II review, if approved. Planner Mapes responded that it will be a P&Z review. The PDP will have to include an addition of permitted uses APU process which will trigger the P&Z review. Modification request #2 – Building Orientation None noted. Modification #3 – Parking standards Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if there will be standard operating hours for the facility. Mrs. Hansen responded yes, which are assumed at this point. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked what types of issues might arise from the parking? Mrs. Hansen responded that the owner is well aware of the concerns of the neighbors. The owners have provided contact information to the neighbors. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if there will be indoor spectator seating. Mrs. Hansen responded that there is seating for the center court and some moveable bleachers. The owners have observed in similar facilities that there are usually many more empty seats than there are filled. If the seats were fully filled, there would be roughly 100 seats. Vice Chair Stackhouse asked if there will be a minimum age using the facility. Mrs. Hansen responded that older elementary and middle school aged individuals will be the primary demographic. There may also be adult leagues that will practice in the facility. She is currently not aware of a target audience of less than third grade. Chair Katz asked who conducted the parking analysis. Mrs. Hansen responded that it was a combination of her office and BHA Design and traffic and civil engineers. Chair Katz asked if a parking structure had been considered. Mrs. Hansen responded that early on they had thought about it and that it was complicated being in the floodplain and trying to work it into the plan. They focused on the building operations and worked to get by with service parking. Other options were not explored. Chair Katz asked if the team had considered adding signage that encouraged carpooling. Mrs. Hansen responded that it would be useful and convenient and a way to encourage it. They could potentially provide signage to the neighbors if it becomes an issue. Chair Katz asked Planner Mapes why he decided to use bowling alley as opposed to limited recreation for the project type. Planner Mapes responded that the limited indoor recreation is for smaller, 5,000 square foot limit. The difference is “does not include gymnasiums”. Member York asked if there would be dedicated employee parking. Mrs. Hansen responded that there is no designated employee parking. Member York asked how many bike parking spaces were planned. Mrs. Hansen responded that it would be 18 spaces, the minimum required by the land use code. Member Sass asked what the total number of occupants is for the building. Mrs. Hanses responded that the life safety code allows 600 occupants. This is not being used for parking considerations. Deliberation Modification #1 DRAFTPacket pg. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Member Sass commented that they did a good job and meeting the intent of the code. Chair Katz commented that it is compatible with the surroundings and that it is as good or better and meets the criteria for the modification of standard. Member York commented he does not feel it is outside the character of the area. Member York made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.8.17(A)(2)(c) regarding Building Height Measured in Stories, to allow a maximum height of 40 feet at the highest point of the building. The Commission finds that the modification of standard, in consideration of the conditions imposed: • Would not be detrimental to the public good; • The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.8.17(A)(2)(c) for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with this standard, as Employment zoning allows four-story buildings, which would correspond up to 100 feet as ultimate height, and the proposed building design and up to 40’ height for building modules is compatible with the context, which includes buildings of larger and similar scale; and • The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by Division 2.8 to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Stackhouse seconded. Chair Katz feels the applicant used restraint in the design and did a good job with blending. Vote: 7:0. Modification #2 Member Haefele commented that this modification makes perfect sense. Vice Chair Stackhouse made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(C)(2) regarding Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings, to allow the commercial streetfront building to be built to existing pedestrian streetscape easement lines on the property and not within 25’ of an abutting arterial street and 15’ from other streets. The Commission finds that the modification of standard in consideration of the conditions imposed: • Would not be detrimental to the public good; • The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.5.3(C)(2) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with this standard, as the proposed building fits within the location established by existing development and it would be disruptive to the point of infeasibility to demolish the existing landscaped setbacks for building placement, which would interrupt the established pattern of the larger East Prospect streetscape in this location; and • by reason of the existing pedestrian easements unique to this property, and not caused by any act or omission of the applicant, the strict application of Section 3.5.3(C)(2) would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner. DRAFTPacket pg. 8 Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2023 Page 5 of 6 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Sass seconded. Vote 7:0 Modification #3 Member York commented that as this project moves forward, the Commission is trying to encourage more alternative use than just the single occupancy vehicle transport. He likes the idea of having more of the property being used for the business rather than a place to store motor vehicles. Member Sass agreed; however, it is middle school aged kids that will be visiting. He has a hard time with the thought that with the age demographic there is not only going to be a single vehicle per athlete but more on a game day, grandparents will come too. Also, there is adequate space for hundreds of kids in the building, what stops the need for more parking? Where is the protection as a city with not putting the onus on the streets? Vice Chair Stackhouse felt that the information on the age range was helpful. She agreed that there is some risk on game days, but that based on the business model this would be an exception. She has a little concern about the neighbors and would like to hear more during the final proposal. Chair Katz agrees that this is a community need and that the onus will fall on someone or something. Member Haefele feels that if minimum parking requirements are going to be diminished, this should be for business’ rather than residential properties. Member York commented that Liberty Commons is down the street and that events are hosted with more limited parking than this project. He has not heard any complaints; he is less concerned. Member Shepard commented that you do not design a facility for a state meet and that industrial parks are mostly closed on the weekends. He is comfortable with what is being proposed. Member Haefele made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the requested modification of standard to Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(2) regarding Nonresidential Parking Requirements to allow only 63 parking spaces for 35,500 square feet building, when this land Use Code Section would require 89 parking spaces. The Commission finds that the modification of standard: • Would not be detrimental to the public good; • The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.2.2(K)(2) equally well or better than would a plan which complies with this standard, as the plans proposed parking lot combined with the available on street parking is adequate based on analysis of the specific facilities intended use and demand scenarios for different times of day and days of the week, and; • The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized in Division 2.8 to be modified accept in a nominal and inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this modification of standard contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Member Shepard seconded. Vote 6:1 DRAFTPacket pg. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2023 Page 6 of 6 For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING Other Business Public Rules of Procedures will be added to the agenda for next month. The Commission will be providing framework for the public to reference. Vice Chair Stackhouse commented that she would like to add the use of pronouns brought fourth by Commissioner Haefele during the work session. Member York would like to be consistent with other commissions. Attorney Guin commented that commissions are able to create their own procedures. It is beneficial to get this information from the Clerk’s office. Member Shepard asked staff if they could give a status report on the Quiet Zone during a work session. Director Sizemore responded yes. Adjournment Chair Katz moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: July 20, 2023. Paul Sizemore, CDNS Director David Katz, Chair DRAFTPacket pg. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report Agenda Item 2 Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing: July 20, 2023 Land Use Code Amendment – Setbacks from Existing Oil and Gas Facilities Summary of Request This is a request for a recommendation to City Council amending the Land Use Code to update reverse setback standards from new development near existing oil and gas wells. First adopted in 2018 and currently organized under section 3.8.26 of the Land Use Code, reverse setbacks are development standards that limit where new development can occur in proximity to existing oil and gas facilities. The City of Fort Collins currently requires new residential lots be a minimum of 2,000 feet from all oil and gas facilities. Staff seek to update the reverse setback development standards to reflect recent changes in state regulations and lessons learned over the past 4 years. Next Steps The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for their consideration of adoption of the proposed Land Use Code changes. Staff Recommendation Approval of the proposed Land Use Code changes. Applicant City of Fort Collins Staff Kirk Longstein, Senior Environmental Planner 970-416-2865 | klongstein@fcgov.com Kristie Raymond, Environmental Planner (970) 221-6627 | kraymond@fcgov.com Contents 1. Project Introduction .................................... 1 2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment .......................................................... 2 3. Summary of Proposed LUC Changes ....... 3 4. Public Outreach ......................................... 5 5. Recommendation ....................................... 4 6. Attachments ............................................... 4 Packet pg. 11 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 2 of 9 Back to Top 1. Project Introduction BACKGROUND In the Fort Collins field, the vast majority of the oil is produced from an underground formation called the Muddy formation. These wells require high pressure water injection lines which pressurize the formation and bring a mixture of water (~97%), oil (~3%) and gas (minimal) to the surface for separation and distribution. Types of wells (and count) in Fort Collins include: • Producing Wells (4): Wells where produced oil and/or gas is collected from underground reservoirs. • Injecting Wells (6): Wells used for the exclusive purpose of injecting fluids for enhanced oil recovery. • Drilled and Abandoned (6) A well that is dry and abandoned, and never produced. • Plugged and Abandoned (14): A well that has been plugged by means the cementing of a well, with removal of associated production facilities, abandonment of its flowline(s), and the remediation and reclamation of the wellsite. Prospect Energy has expressed interest in developing the Codell formation within the Fort Collins field, which is shallower than the Muddy formation and would require no new drilling. Full development would allow for the Muddy zones to be permanently abandoned, which would eliminate the need for high pressure water injection and water treatment. This would also introduce increased gas volumes, which could potentially be used to generate electricity on site. In 2019, Prospect Energy shared their intention to further develop existing oil and gas wells. Based on Council direction during the October 25, 2022 work session, updates to the Land Use Code (LUC) will be considered during the September 5, 2023 council hearing, related to reverse setbacks from new development near existing oil and gas wells. Reverse setbacks are land use development standards that limit where new development can occur in proximity to existing oil and gas facilities. The City of Fort Collins currently requires new residential lots be a minimum of 2,000 feet (consistent COGCC rule 604) from all active and inactive oil and gas facilities and the code provides an alternative compliance buffer (150’) for wells fully reclaimed per COGCC standards with 5-years of ongoing monitoring. LUC Section 3.8.26 - Residential Buffering Adopted in 2018, the purpose of the current Land Use Code Section 3.8.26 is to, “provide standards to separate residential land uses from existing industrial uses, in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor or danger from fires or explosions.” More specifically, Buffer Yard D is designated for the highest intensity land use categories, and is applicable only to oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells. Oil and Gas Buffers Updated in 2021, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates setbacks, or buffers, for new oil and gas wells near existing buildings, but does not regulate the reverse situation: new development near existing oil and gas infrastructure. COGCC setbacks refer to any oil and gas location upon which any well or production facility is or will be situated within, a buffer zone setback (1,000 feet), or an exception zone setback (500 feet), or within one thousand (1,000) feet of a high occupancy building unit or a designated outside activity area, as referenced in Rule 604. Packet pg. 12 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 3 of 9 Back to Top The Fort Collins LUC currently requires a minimum buffer between a dwelling and any oil and gas location shall be five hundred (500) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. For wells that are fully reclaimed to the COGCC standards, the Code allows an alternative compliance pathway to reduce the buffer to 150 feet. Alternative compliance requires the applicant to submit an alternative compliance buffering plan which includes 5 years of soil gas and ground water monitoring. The previously adopted (2018) buffer requirements were specifically intended to align with the COGCC setback requirements for new wells prior to the passage of SB-181; however, staff did not intend to apply the variance criteria set forth by the COGCC rules. Since then, COGCC has updated its setbacks for new oil and gas wells to 2000 feet, and the code is silent on whether city staff would accept a variance request from the setbacks as outlined by COGCC rule 604b. Updating the City’s buffer requirements to 2,000 feet from all occupiable structures would be consistent with state- level regulation and City Council’s previous discussions when adopting regulations related to new oil and gas siting. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION During the October 25, 2022 Council Work Session staff heard general support for the following: Updating reverse setback code to reflect recent changes in COGCC regulations and lessons learned over the past 4 years, including: • Apply reverse setbacks to all occupiable buildings, not just residential uses. • Explicitly, rather than refer generally to COGCC regulations • Create a more predictable pathway for abandoned well types. • Eliminate the buffer exemption for crossings of arterial roadways. As Adopted by the City Council, April 2023, the Land Use Code establishes a presumptive setback by restricting new oil and gas development to only the Industrial Zone District and 2,000-foot setback from existing “Occupiable Space,” as defined in the City’s Building Code, City parks and natural areas, trails and trailheads, and other outdoor gathering areas. This will ensure that people are protected from potential health impacts while at home, work, school or play. 2. Comprehensive Plan & City Policy Alignment CITY PLAN The proposed code amendments directly align to Principle ENV-4 and Strategy ENV-4d in City Plan (2019). • Principle ENV 4: Protect human health and the environment by continually improving air quality. • Strategy ENV-4d. Support reductions in oil and gas production and development related emissions, update the local Operator’s Agreement, and collaborate regionally on strategies to reduce emissions. Adopted Ordinances Ordinance no. 151, 2022 - AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO REGULATE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES AND PIPELINES Packet pg. 13 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 4 of 9 Back to Top OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES The proposed code amendments further support the air quality objectives in the adopted 2022 City Strategic Plan and 2022 City Council Priorities. 3. Summary of Proposed Code Changes Since the adoption of SB-181, Staff initiated a review of the current oil and gas buffers with a goal of ensuring that LUC regulations will continue to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents and provide predictability for developers into the future. The most recent version of the Code adopted in 2018 was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning commission. Notes from the 2018 Planning and Zoning commission recommendation is attached. The intent of the currently proposed changes is to match COGCC requirements as well as Ordinance no. 151, 2022 - AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO REGULATE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES AND PIPELINES. Alignment with these standards will ensure the safest possible condition for current and future residents, incentivize the plugging and abandonment of active wells, and support additional investigation of plugged and abandoned wells. The following goals guided staff’s analysis: 1. Increase the required buffers for new development around existing oil and gas operations to provide greater protection to residents and improve consistency with state regulations; 2. Allow consideration of reduced buffers around plugged and abandoned wells if the surrounding area has been deemed safe for development; 3. Facilitate site investigation and sampling around plugged wells at a developer’s expense, and 4. Encourage developers to permanently plug and abandon active wells, rather than keeping wells in operation near residential development. Summary of Proposed Changes The current staff recommendation includes the following code updates: 1. Increase buffer for developments near existing oil and gas operations from 500’ to 2000’ to match COGCC and Fort Collins new code setbacks 2. Allow modification of standards for active well buffers, no less than 500’ 3. Decrease soil-gas and ground water monitoring requirements for plugged and abandoned wells from 5 years to 1 year. 4. No change to buffer for developments near existing abandoned wells (not fully reclaimed) at 500’ 5. No change to buffer near plugged and abandoned wells (fully reclaimed) at 150’ 6. No change to disclosure requirements for future property owners via a property covenant 7. Add requirements for point-of-sale disclosure notice. 8. Add prohibition on detached occupiable buildings from existing buildings located within the oil and gas buffer. 9. Setbacks include all occupiable buildings rather than residential only. Additional considerations: Enhanced Recovery Injection Wells Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) involves the injection of fluids and/or gases underground to improve the flow of oil and gas to the surface. Fluids consisting of brine, freshwater, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide are Packet pg. 14 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 5 of 9 Back to Top injected into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil through a Production Well. There are currently six EOR injecting wells within the City limits. Although an enhanced recovery injection well within the Fort Collins field operates on a closed loop system, the main community concern for these types of wells relates to the potential impacts from leaks, spill or loss of integrity of the well. A key question during community engagement - should injection wells receive a reduced setback, and if so what is an appropriate setback, especially if the well changes status from injection to a producing? The Water Edge Subdivision’s development team has submitted a report and recommendations regarding appropriate reverse setbacks – ATTACHED. The report suggests a 75’ reverse setback from Enhanced Recovery Injection Wells. Staff recommend using similar discretion with EOR injection wells as producing wells. This is due to the uncertainty of those active wells changing status. The scenario is not hypothetical as Prospect Energy has shared future plans to explore the Codell formation through existing well locations within Fort Collins jurisdiction and has tested the Hearthfire site and has demonstrated feasibility. Secondary structures and allowed uses within the Buffer Staff recommended updates to the code that provide prescriptive language for site plan features allowed within the established buffer, and cross reference the City’s adopted building code. As such the policy intent is to limit new occupancies and permanent structures that encourage areas where groups of people may congregate for extended periods of time. For the purposes of reverse setbacks, it is important to note that occupiable space does not always mean habitable space. Almost all structures that are given an occupancy classification would be considered occupiable space and are issued a Certificate of Occupancy to support that. One exception would be a cell tower, which technically qualifies as an occupancy group U (International Building Code). However, it is not a structure that can be ‘occupied’, unless it was a unique cell tower that had some sort of room/space at the bottom to be occupied. These permits are issued a letter of completion rather than a Certificate of Occupancy. As an example, sheds and greenhouses not being considered occupiable space may be a situation where additional discretion is needed. However, including structures/occupancies with specific egress, light or ventilation facility components would meet the definition for occupiable space. In 2018, P&Z recommended that existing homes located within the oil and gas buffer be exempted from setbacks. staff recommend that existing homes located within the buffer be allowed to add secondary uses like greenhouses, sheds and home additions; however, be prohibited from adding additional occupancy (e.g., ADU, duplex, etc) to an area deemed to have additional health risk. Soil-gas and Groundwater Monitoring Staff recommended updates includes prescriptive language that requires a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) traditionally conducted for sites observing industrial containments. The standards of practices are maintained by ASTM International as a globally recognized leader in the development and delivery of voluntary consensus standards. As outlined in the staff recommendation, monitoring must occur within a ¼ mile of the well. In practice, an environmental professional will develop a sampling plan to evaluate the potential presence of contamination from hazardous substances on the property and determines the sources and exposures. This process involves: planning and site characterization, sample collection and analysis, and data evaluation. The report will be reviewed by the city planner ahead of the development construction permit and the planner will determine if additional remediation is conditioned with the permit. As an example, a Phase II ESA was conducted at the Country Club Reserve well site and found that sampled contaminants were within acceptable limits per federal and state standards. (ATTACHMENT) 4. Public Outreach Packet pg. 15 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 6 of 9 Back to Top COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community outreach on this project started in May 2023. Staff seek to compile feedback from public engagement methods and peer reviewed research to inform policy recommendations presented to the commission and the Council. Staff worked during the months of May, June, and July to inform the council of materials ahead of the September 5 first reading of an ordinance updating the LUC. Staff may seek additional feedback from stakeholders following the July 20 Planning and Zoning hearing if additional recommendations from the commission leads to changes discussed during initial outreach efforts. The following staff policy questions were asked during public engagement: 1. Should inactive wells receive a 150 feet setback from all new occupiable buildings? 2. Should all producing wells receive a 2000 feet setback from all new occupiable buildings? 3. Should injection wells receive 150 feet, 500 feet, or 2000 feet setback? 4. Should the code require on-going groundwater & soil-gas monitoring after a new development application has been accepted? And for how long – 5 years or 1 year of monitoring? 5. Should certain uses be allowed within the buffer? 6. What are other questions should Council consider related to reverse setbacks from existing oil and gas facilities? Focus group meetings were held to gather general community input on regulating reverse setbacks from existing oil and gas wells. The following group engagement is planned to inform code updates: Date Group 5/31/2023 Larimer Alliance 6/1/2023 Sonders 6/6/2023 Sonders 6/7/2023 Montava 6/9/2023 Larimer Alliance/Earthworks/Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 6/13/2023 Sonders/Tami McMullin, PhD Toxicologist 6/21/2023 City of Fort Collins Parks Planning 6/22/2023 Larimer Alliance/Fort Collins Sustainability Group/Sierra Club 7/7/2023 Home Builders Association 7/26/2023 Sierra Club 7/17/2023 Air Quality Advisory Board 7/19/2023 Natural Resources Advisory Board 8/8/2023 Board of Realtors 8/9/2023 Land Conservation Stewardship Board 9/12/2023 Urban Land Institute Emerging Public Feedback Themes • In 2018 as well as feedback heard in 2023, community members wish to increase the groundwater/soil gas monitoring requirements adjacent fully reclaimed wells (plugged and abandoned). Staff recommend decreasing the monitoring requirements adjacent fully reclaimed wells due to the fact that there is no evidence to support the additional requirement. Packet pg. 16 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 7 of 9 Back to Top • Development wishes to see additional allowed used within the buffer, while environmental groups would like to decrease the list of allowed uses within the buffer. • Environmental Groups have expressed that setback distances should be increased for fully reclaimed/plugged and abandoned wells. • Development is suggesting that EOR injection wells receive a reduced buffer due to the fact that there is decreased air quality risk from these wells as compared to EOR injection wells with onsite storage or use for waste disposal. Planning and Zoning Commission Questions during the July 14, 2023 work session discussion • If a project comes to the development review team within a buffer of a proposed well and the well is in process of being plugged and abandoned, what are the considerations of staff for approval? When a project comes to city staff for review, it is reviewed under current standards and current code. The well would be considered active at that time and would require buffer standards under current Land Use Code language. • What is the risk for DA wells? Is there less of a risk than a well that is producing or had been in production at some point? Drilled and abandoned wells can serve as conduits for contaminants to migrate. If the wells are not properly plugged or sealed, these substances can leak into surrounding soil, groundwater, or surface water, leading to environmental contamination. This contamination can harm ecosystems, affect drinking water sources, and impact the health of plants, animals, and humans. Dealing with the legacy of abandoned wells can place a financial burden on governments and the community. Properly decommissioning and plugging these wells can be costly, and the responsibility often falls on the public when the original operators are no longer present or financially able to address the issue. To mitigate these risks, proper well abandonment procedures, including effective well plugging and sealing, are advised. There is less of a risk for a DA well that has never been in production. If a well was producing at some point, and then was abandoned greater risks need to be considered, such as: o These past producing DA wells can become pathways for the migration of oil, or other fluids to the surface and these substances can leak into surrounding soil, groundwater, or surface water. o Over time, abandoned wells can lead to land subsidence or sinking due to the changes in underground pressure and stability caused by the extraction and absence of fluids. • Are the contaminants we have monitored for (and are proposing to monitor for) impacted by time of season or soil conditions? Yes, the contaminants monitored in an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) can be impacted by the time of the season. Seasonal variations can influence the distribution, concentration, and mobility of contaminants in the environment. Some factors that can contribute to seasonal variations in contaminant levels include: Packet pg. 17 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 8 of 9 Back to Top o Precipitation: Seasonal changes in precipitation can affect the movement and transport of contaminants. Heavy rainfall can cause runoff, potentially carrying contaminants from the site into nearby surface water bodies or infiltrating the soil, leading to groundwater contamination. Conversely, dry periods may result in reduced water flow and groundwater recharge, which could limit the movement of contaminants. o Temperature: Temperature changes can influence chemical reactions in the environment. For example, warmer temperatures can accelerate the degradation of certain contaminants, while colder temperatures may slow down or halt degradation processes. Additionally, temperature variations can affect the solubility and volatility of contaminants, potentially impacting their behavior and distribution. Given these seasonal variations, it is important for Environmental Site Assessments to consider the time of the year when conducting sampling and monitoring activities. Yes, soil conditions do play a significant role in an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the monitoring of contaminants. Soil acts as a medium for the retention, transport, and transformation of contaminants, so understanding the soil conditions is crucial for evaluating the potential impact on the environment and human health. Here's how soil conditions can influence an ESA: o Soil Composition: Different soil types have varying characteristics that can affect the behavior of contaminants. For example, sandy soils typically have high permeability, allowing contaminants to move more freely, while clay soils have low permeability, which can slow down the movement of contaminants. The composition of the soil can influence the extent of contaminant migration and the potential for environmental exposure. o Soil pH and Organic Matter Content: Soil pH and organic matter content can impact the fate and transport of contaminants. Certain contaminants may undergo chemical reactions or transformations in soils with specific pH levels. Similarly, organic matter can bind to certain contaminants, reducing their mobility and potential for migration. o Soil Moisture and Saturation: Soil moisture content and saturation levels can affect the movement and behavior of contaminants. Higher moisture levels can enhance the transport of contaminants, particularly in soils with higher permeability. Saturation conditions may also influence the availability of oxygen, which can affect the biodegradation of contaminants. o Soil Depth and Stratigraphy: The depth and stratigraphy of soil layers are essential considerations in an ESA. Different contaminants can have varying vertical distribution patterns, and the presence of multiple soil horizons or geological layers can affect the migration and accumulation of contaminants. Understanding the soil profile and stratigraphy helps assess the potential for contaminant leaching, lateral movement, or confinement. • How do we get good baseline data for monitoring to see what may cause contaminations? Are there environmental conditions to consider? The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) developed Rule 609 to set a chemical baseline for groundwater quality prior to the drilling of an oil and gas well. The State requires that a site select four nearby groundwater sources (groundwater wells) within a 1/2 mile of your planned hole location and analyze the water for quality. Assessments can be impacted by environmental conditions. Seasonal variations can influence the distribution, concentration, and mobility of contaminants in the environment. • There were concerns about allowable uses within the buffer. What happens if someone says they are building a chicken coop, but uses it as an ADU? Are gardens landscaping gardens or producing Packet pg. 18 P&Z Agenda Item 2 LUC Amendment – Reverse Setbacks from existing Oil and Gas facilities Thursday, July 20, 2023, | Page 9 of 9 Back to Top gardens? There are some concerns with contaminant concentrations. What is a potential shed being used for? Uses are all evaluated in the development process when approving a site. If a site is out of compliance, it will be enforced via inspections. Gardens have not been defined to exclude a particular type of garden. • What risk is associated with agriculture/food production adjacent Oil and gas facilities? o Soil fertility decrease o No observed risk of hydrocarbon contaminants entering the food chain o https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120318091 5. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed Land Use Code amendments for setbacks from oil and gas facilities with the following change: 1. Allow any applicant that submits a completed Basic Development Review, Project Development Plan (PDP), planned unit development, or building permit application prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance to continue development review under standards adopted by Ordinance 114-2018. 6. Attachments 1. Phase 1 Public Engagement – June 2023 2. October 25, 2022, City Council Work Session Summary 3. Prospect Energy Letter – 7.17.2019 4. Phase II ESA Country Club Reserve 5. Water Edge Subdivision Report and Recommendation for appropriate reverse setbacks 6. April 2018 P&Z recommendations 7. Draft LUC Buffer Between Buildings 8. Revised LUC 3.8.26 Buffering 9. Staff Presentation Packet pg. 19 Oil and Gas Reverse setbacks City Staff: Kirk Longstein The following feedback themes were provided to city staff during focused conversations throughout June 2023 prior to the public release of the draft Code. Staff has several ongoing conversations scheduled with community groups in July and August ahead of Council’s first reading, scheduled September 5. Environmental Group: Fort Collins Sustainability Group & Larimer Alliance Item Environmental Group Feedback/Concern General Comment Was concern about plugged and abandoned wells releasing toxins. Would like a 2500 foot reverse setback from wells. Monitoring Would like monitoring greater than five years. Potentially the closer you are to the well, the more monitoring there is. Suggested financial assurances possibly in the form of a bond or tying to securities after the five year period of monitoring. Would like PA wells monitored longer. Inactive Well Reverse Setback If monitoring does not occur longer than five years, then would like to see greater than 500 feet reverse setback. Would like a greater reverse setback than 500 feet for drilled and abandoned wells. Disclosure Like the disclosure piece that is recommended. Plugged and Abandoned Wells Would want to consider greater than 150 feet reverse setback. Would like to see PA wells monitored longer. Concern with older wells not being plugged and abandoned according to current standards. Some would like PA wells to have the same reverse setback distance as producing wells. Need to have good documentation on PA wells. Need to make sure lines aren’t severed in construction. Allowable Uses Define “open space” Would consider allowable uses, but pollutants would impact wildlife as much as people. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 20 Would be alright with parking, roads, and utilities in buffers for PA wells. Disclosure should be posted for allowable uses. Larimer Alliance Item Larimer Alliance Stakeholder/Feedback Concern General Comment It doesn’t matter who gets there first, oil and gas or residential; 2000 feet should be the setback for any type of well. Larimer Alliance will still push for reverse setbacks of 3200 feet for all wells. Monitoring Consider doing monitoring in perpetuity with financial obligation on the developer or oil and gas operator. This includes PA wells. Support of Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. Inactive Well Reverse Setback PA wells and DA wells leak benzene (reference to Colorado Sun article). Older wells have more problems. Disclosure Disclosure of nearby oil and gas wells to homeowners is very important Plugged and Abandoned Wells There should be some sort of certification that wells have been plugged and abandoned according to standards with COGCC. There is concern with these wells not being plugged appropriately. City of Fort Collins Parks Planning Item Parks Feedback/Concern General Comment Monitoring Parks would like something in writing about what is required for their park already planned and conducting monitoring. Inactive Well Reverse Setback Disclosure Plugged and Abandoned Wells Allowable Uses Be specific about what “open spaces” means. Consider “naturalized open spaces”. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 21 Don’t like multi use fields as an allowable use. Instead possibly passive use fields. Would like to consider parking as an allowable use. Montava Item Montava Stakeholder/Feedback Concern General Comment Monitoring 5 years of monitoring doesn’t necessarily make sense. Suggestion of random monitoring every five years for PA wells with the City potentially funding this. Inactive Well Reverse Setback Past producing and non-producing wells should have their own category for inactive wells. Disclosure Plugged and Abandoned Wells Montava is planning on plugging and abandoning and do a monitoring program to bring the setback to 150’. They want a safe community. Feels encouragement to plug and abandon inactive wells is a good thing. There could be limits on excavation to prevent disturbance of PA wells. Would like to question the industry standard of 150’ for maintenance distance. Allowable Uses Would want to allow room for maintenance, but would like allowable uses within PA well buffer. Potential allowable uses mentioned: park, open space, playground, multi-purpose fields, skate park (capped with concrete). Would like area of congregation defined. Possibly nothing within 100’ of PA wells, but the area from 100’150’ allow uses. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet pg. 22 1 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/planning MEMORANDUM DATE: October 28, 2022 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers THRU: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Caryn Champine, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director Paul Sizemore, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Rebecca Everette, Planning Manager FROM: Cassie Archuleta, Air Quality Program Manager SUBJECT: October 25, 2022 Work Session Summary Attendees Caryn Champine, Cassie Archuleta and Rebecca Everette presented a summary of draft regulations for oil and gas development. All City Councilmembers except Councilmember Pignataro were present. Discussion Summary Staff presented an overview regarding (1) an adoption schedule for zoning and setback restrictions for new or modified oil and gas facilities in the Land Use Code, (2) updates regarding recent regional oil and gas regulations and compliance issues for existing oil and gas facilities, and (3) recommendations for refinements to reverse setback regulations for new land development near oil and gas facilities. Staff heard support for: 1. Proceeding with proposed adoption schedule for new code related to zoning and setback restrictions for new oil and gas facilities. 2. Continuing to leverage State and County regulations and resources to ensure regulatory compliance for existing facilities. 3. Updating reverse setback code to reflect recent changes in COGCC regulations and lessons learned over the past 4 years, including: o Apply reverse setbacks to all occupiable buildings, not just residential uses o Explicitly , rather than refer generally to COGCC regulations o Create a more predictable pathway for abandoned well types o Eliminate the buffer exemption for crossings of arterial roadways Next Steps Draft code updates for zoning and setback restrictions will be published in November 2022 and considered for adoption on December 6, 2022. Larimer County will use City funds to purchase an Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) camera to support leak detections and subsequent compliance actions at existing oil and gas facilities. Staff will submit a request to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission COGCC) asking that low and non-producing wells within City limits be plugged and abandoned. Staff will inform Council of any COGCC decisions on this item via memo anticipated Q1 of 2023). Staff will develop draft code updates for reverse setbacks, and schedule for consideration in Q1 of 2023. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet pg. 23 _________________________________________________________________________ Prospect Energy, LLC 1036 Country Club Estates Dr. Castle Rock, CO 80108 August 29, 2019 Dear City Council Members, I’m Ward Giltner, the owner and Operator of the Fort Collins Field. I understand that there is a September Work Session that will address SB181 and other Oil and Gas issues. I wanted to introduce myself and our company to those of you that don’t already know us. I’m a Colorado native and was born and raised in Fort Collins, my high school years were spent living very close to the field. After graduating from Poudre H.S., I went to school in Greeley at UNC and started my career with Texaco in Denver in 1983. After a successful career with Texaco, I elected early retirement and started out on my own. I’ve been involved in managing the Fort Collins field since 2009, and am most proud of being selected from a field of hundreds of operators in Colorado as the COGCC’s Environmental and Protection Operator of the Year. In addition, we have developed a great relationship with the Hearthfire neighborhood and are developing healthy relationships with the Waters Edge and Country Club Reserves developments, as well as with the City’s LGD (Cassie Archuleta). To give you some background on the Fort Collins field’s history, it was discovered in 1924 and is one of the oldest discoveries in Colorado’s long history of oil and gas development. As the city of Fort Collins continues to grow and expand, housing developments have encroached on the farmland that was once home to the field and appears likely to continue. Although it is more difficult to operate in a more urban environment, we have made it a priority to be good neighbors to those that have moved into the field. We plan to continue to do so and feel that this mutual cooperation that currently exists with the various neighborhoods, but can be a model for success in dealing with the City of Fort Collins as the changes related to SB181 unfold. As an example of our commitment, we just went through a major repair and maintenance program that included replacing all of our water tanks for the injection system as well as doing significant well repairs in preparation of our upcoming Codell development program. You might not be aware, but we are in the process of developing the Codell formation within the Fort Collins field. Currently, the vast majority of the oil produced in the field is coming from the Muddy formation. However, we feel that there are many mutual benefits to developing the Codell, which will allow for the Muddy zones to be permanently abandoned. Upon abandonment, we will eliminate the need for the Water Treatment plant in the Fort Collins yard as well as all of the high pressure water injection lines located throughout the field, including existing neighborhoods. In addition, the Codell doesn’t contain any H2S in the oil, gas and water; so from an environmental standpoint this is great news for the field. Lastly, due the insignificant amount of gas that is produced from the field currently, we are burning all excess gas through Thermal Oxidizers that destroy 99% of the methane emissions. This is a great option to flaring, however, with the increased gas volumes produced from the Codell formation, we will have a 3rd Party company contracted on site to convert this gas to electricity. Initially, this electricity will be used to power Super Computers, for cloud based storage and other uses and eventually will be sold back into the grid. I understand that there have been some discussions around imposing Moratoriums, etc., that could limit or ban development within the city. However, I would strongly encourage the City not to embark on this path. As mentioned, the environmental benefits associated with future Codell development justifies that these minerals be developed. In addition, City Council should be cognizant that these wells were here long before the City annexed them and then allowed development to encroach on the field. The mineral rights owned by our company and the many mineral owners that rely on the royalty payments derived from their ownership in the field must be preserved, especially given the unusual circumstances that have arisen to get us to this point. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 24 _________________________________________________________________________ Prospect Energy, LLC 1036 Country Club Estates Dr. Castle Rock, CO 80108 We feel that the best step forward is to continue pursuing a cooperative approach that encompasses Best Management Practices and meaningful dialogue to ensure that the minerals are developed in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources. We’re excited to working with the City, with a goal of obtaining your trust and confidence as we have done with our current neighbors. If you have any questions, or want any additional information, please let me know. Please see my contact information below. Sincerely yours, Ward Giltner Ward Giltner Owner Prospect Energy, LLC 1036 Country Club Estates Drive Castle Rock, CO 80108 prospectenergy@icloud.com Phone: (303) 489-8773 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet pg. 25 Country Club Reserve Phase II Environmental Site Assessment October 22, 2018 Rebecca Everette Development Review Manager City of Fort Collins, Colorado Reference: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Summary Report City of Fort Collins Brownfield Country Club Reserve, 1949 East Douglas Road, Fort Collins, Colorado (Site) TRC Project No. 241300.0001.0000 Dear Ms. Everette: This report summarizes the findings of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) conducted by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) at the request of the City of Fort Collins at the Country Club Reserve, at 1949 East Douglas Road, Fort Collins, Colorado (Site) for a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfields Assessment grant. A Site Location map is shown on Figure 1. 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Phase II ESA included advancing four monitoring wells, installing five soil vapor points, and the collection and laboratory analyses of soil and groundwater samples to evaluate potential subsurface impacts at the Site. Analytical results document that the constituents of concern (COC) were either not detected above laboratory detection limits or were detected at concentrations close to or below applicable regulatory screening levels, with the exception of arsenic in all four soil samples. However, the concentrations of arsenic in all four locations are below USEPA’s background arsenic concentration in Colorado, so arsenic is not considered a COC at the Site. The investigation results demonstrate that there is no risk to human health or the environment. 2.BACKGROUND The approximate 77.12-acre Site is owned by Crystal Cove Development LLC. The Site is currently vacant. One plugged and abandoned oil and gas wellhead is present on the west-central portion of the Site. TRC conducted a Phase I ESA at the Site on behalf of the City of Fort Collins. The results of the ESA were summarized in a corresponding report dated June 6, 2018. The Phase I ESA identified the presence of a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) at the Site. Specifically, the Phase I ESA indicates that the plugged and abandoned well head located on the west-central portion of the Site represents an HREC. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 26 City of Fort Collins Brownfield Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 2 3. OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE II ESA The objective of the Phase II ESA is to: • Confirm that the plugged and abandoned wellhead located on the west-central portion of the Site has not impacted the groundwater or soil at the target area. 4. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE PHASE II ESA 4.1 Introduction The Phase II ESA consisted of: • Advancing four soil borings for soil screening and soil sampling with a track mounted Geoprobe®; • Collection and laboratory analysis of four soil samples collected from each of the four borings; • Installation of four permanent ground water monitoring wells at the boring locations; • Collection and laboratory analysis of four ground water samples from each of the four monitoring wells; and • Installation and sampling of five soil vapor monitoring points. TRC conducted a site inspection prior to initiating the field work to inspect the Site and locate the borings. 4.2 Soil Investigation On July 5 and July 6, 2018, TRC and its subcontractor Remington Technologies, LLC installed four soil borings SB-1 through SB-4 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Prior to installing the soil borings, utility clearance was conducted and a hand auger was used to remove soil from each borehole to an approximate depth of four feet to verify that no utilities were present at the boring locations. The soil borings were advanced using a Geoprobe® with direct push capabilities. All four soil borings were advanced to a depth ranging from 23 - 30 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) to evaluate soil conditions at each boring location. Soil was collected continuously via five-foot direct push intervals, utilizing a new sample liner each flight. A TRC scientist visually screened and logged the descriptions of the soil encountered in each boring. Photo-ionization detector (PID) readings were also recorded for each two-foot soil interval. Boring logs with soil descriptions, visual observations, and PID readings are presented in Appendix A. The soil at boring locations consisted of fine to medium sand with some silt. No free or residual product was detected at any of the borings. One unsaturated soil sample was collected from each original soil boring location. Soil from each boring did not exhibit any apparent impacts; therefore, a soil sample was collected directly above the water table or from the interval of highest PID reading. The samples were transferred directly into pre-preserved laboratory-supplied sample containers. Each sample container was labeled with a unique identification number specifying the sample location, the time and date of sample collection, the analytical parameters required, the Site name, and the sampler’s initials. The samples were preserved, as appropriate, and chilled to approximately 4P o PC under chain-of-custody until shipped to the laboratory. Each of the soil samples was analyzed for: • DRO by Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC) by Gas Chromatograph (GC) Method 8015 • Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) by VOC by GC Method 8015D/GRO ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 27 City of Fort Collins Brownfield Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 3 • Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes (BTEX) by GC/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) Method 8260C • RCRA 8 Metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) - Optical Emission Spectrometer (OES) Method 6010B 4.3 Ground Water Investigation SB-3 and SB-4 had 1-inch diameter permanent wells installed to a depth of approximately 30 ft bgs and constructed with 10 feet of 0.10-slot poly vinyl chloride (PVC) screen at the bottom and 20 feet of blank PVC casing at the top. SB-1 and SB-2 had 1-inch diameter permanent wells installed to approximately 42 and 37 ft bg, respectively, and constructed with 10 feet of 0.10-slot PVC screen at the bottom and 32 and 27 feet of blank PVC casing at the top. The monitoring wells, MW-1 through MW-4, were constructed as permanent monitoring wells with appropriately sized screen and sand filter packs as well as with permanent surface completions. Figure 2 shows their approximate locations. TRC developed the monitoring wells on August 15, 2018 and allowed 24 hours for the wells to equilibrate after development before sampling. Prior to initiating ground water sampling activities, ground water level measurements were first collected from each well at the Site. The depth from the top of casing (TOC) to the top of the ground water was recorded at each well for use in calculating ground water elevations. A team of surveyors measured the surface elevations using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit on September 20, 2018. Ground water level measurements were recorded on a Water Level Gauging Form presented in Appendix B. Hand bailing and sampling procedures were utilized in connection with the ground water sampling activities. Disposable hand bailers were used at all four monitoring wells since the ground water levels were too deep for the peristaltic pump to lift water to the surface. Prior to sampling, each well was purged. Field parameters including pH, oxidation reduction potential (ORP/Eh), dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, turbidity, and temperature of the ground water being purged was measured periodically and recorded in the field notebook. The visual appearance of the ground water was also recorded. Three field measurement readings were recorded prior to sampling. Care was taken to minimize agitation and aeration of the samples during sample collection activities. Each ground water sample was transferred directly into appropriate pre-preserved laboratory-supplied sample containers. Each sample container was labeled with a unique identification number specifying the sample location, the time and date of sample collection, the analytical parameters required, the Site name, and the sampler’s initials. The samples were preserved, as appropriate, and chilled to approximately 4°C under chain-of-custody until shipped to the laboratory. Ground water sample collection data was recorded on the Sampling Form presented in Appendix C. Each of the ground water samples was analyzed for: • DRO by SVOC (GC) by Method 8015 • GRO and BTEX by VOC (GC) Method 8015D/GRO • Methane, Ethane, Ethene by VOC (GC) Method RSK175 • Dissolved Calcium, Dissolved Iron, Dissolved Magnesium, Dissolved Potassium, Dissolved Sodium by Metals (ICP) Method 6010B • Bromide, Chloride, Nitrate and Nitrite, Sulfate by Wet Chemistry Method 9056A • Alkalinity by Wet Chemistry Method 2320 B-2011 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 28 City of Fort Collins Brownfield Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 4 4.4 Soil Vapor Investigation Five soil vapor points were constructed on Site. Four of the points were installed surrounding the plugged and abandoned well while the last point was installed at the edge of the property as a background control sample. The four soil vapor points constructed around the plugged and abandoned well, SVP-1 through SVP-4, were installed in five foot intervals to a maximum radius of 20 feet. The fifth soil vapor point, SVP-5, was installed at the edge of the property boundary as a control sample. The soil vapor points were installed to a target depth of approximately three to five feet bgs by a direct push drill rig. The soil probes were constructed with a dedicated stainless-steel soil vapor tip, connected to the ground surface with Teflon tubing. After the soil vapor probes were installed to the target depth, the boreholes were backfilled with hydrated bentonite to create a seal and completed at-grade with flush mount surface completions. Field screening of soil vapor points using an Eagle multi-gas meter did not detect significant VOC concentrations above background levels in any of the samples. 4.5 Decontamination Procedures Down-hole drilling equipment was decontaminated with high pressure tap water prior to each soil boring. Sampling tools were decontaminated using a trisodium phosphate cleaning detergent and tap water rinse followed by a distilled water rinse. The equipment and tools were decontaminated prior to each soil boring and collection of each sample. Hand bailers from ground water purging and sampling activities were discarded after the collection of project samples. 5. RESULTS 5.1 Soil Analytical Results The soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1 along with applicable soil standards. The laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix D. The analytical results indicate that soil within the target area does not contain any COC at concentrations above the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Screening Level (COGCC SL) standards, except for arsenic. Arsenic exceeded the COGCC SL of 0.39 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at all four soil borings with the highest concentration at SB-3 (5.73 mg/kg). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the average background concentration of arsenic in Colorado is 11 mg/kg. The arsenic concentration at each soil boring is less than 11 mg/kg and there is no reason to believe arsenic contamination could have occurred on Site. Therefore, arsenic is not a COC for on-Site soil at the target area. TPH and BTEX concentrations were well below the COGCC SL in all four borings. These results confirm that there are no COCs in soil at the Site and do not pose any risk to human health and the environment. 5.2 Ground Water Analytical Results The ground water analytical results are summarized in Table 2 along with applicable Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) ground water standards. The laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix D. The ground water samples collected at the Site did not indicate an exceedance over CDPHE ground water standards at any of the four locations. There were no detections of BTEX in any of the four wells and any detections of TPH were minor. These results confirm that there are no COCs in ground water at the Site and do not pose any risk to human health and the environment. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 29 City of Fort Collins Brownfield Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 5 5.3 Ground Water Flow Directions Ground water was encountered at depths that ranged between approximately 22 and 34 feet bgs (Appendix B). Ground water level measurements (Appendix B) and grade elevations at well locations were used to estimate ground water elevations and develop a ground water elevation contour map (Figure 3). Accordingly, ground water elevations were estimated to range between approximately 5075 feet above mean sea level (ft-AMSL) near MW-3 and 5076 ft-AMSL near MW-2. Figure 3 indicates that the horizontal ground water flow direction in the shallow zone is generally southeasterly (i.e., from the northwest to the southeast) consistent with the Site topography. The average horizontal hydraulic gradient was estimated to be approximately 0.005 ft/ft. 6. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are made based on the Phase II ESA results: • Soil at the Site meets the COGCC SL for TPH and BTEX; thus, these constituents are not considered COCs for soil at the Site. • Arsenic concentrations detected during this Phase II ESA are all well below the average background concentration of 11 mg/kg in Colorado and there is no reason to believe arsenic contamination could have occurred on Site; therefore arsenic is not considered a COC for soil at the Site. • The shallow ground water at the Site meets CDPHE ground water standards for BTEX within the target area; thus, these constituents are not considered COCs for shallow ground water at the Site. 7. LIMITING CONDITIONS/ASSUMPTIONS It should be noted that this investigation is limited in nature and extent and was conducted for due diligence purposes based upon the Phase I ESA conducted by TRC. The scope of work of this Phase II ESA was based on results from the previous Phase I Investigation, which listed the plugged and abandoned wellhead as a HREC. As such, the target area evaluated in this Phase II ESA was limited to constituents likely related to historical operations at the potential REC including TPH-DRO, TPH-GRO, BTEX, and RCRA 8 Metals in soil, and BTEX, TPH, and dissolved gases in ground water. This investigation is therefore intended to identify significant impacts to environmental conditions of the Site to common and suspected COCs based on the Phase I ESA and should not be construed to guarantee or warrant the Site from environmental impacts or rule out the possibility of impacts to the Site in locations not evaluated as part of this assessment. Sincerely, TRC Environmental Corporation Natalie Pabon Jason Jayroe Engineer II Project Manager Enclosures: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 30 City of Fort Collins Brownfield Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 6 Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Monitoring Wells and Soil Vapor Points Locations Map Figure 3 – Ground Water Elevation Contour Map Table 1 – Soil Analytical Results Table 2 – Ground Water Analytical Results Appendix A – Soil Boring logs Appendix B – Water Level Gauging Forms Appendix C – Ground Water Sampling Forms Appendix D – Laboratory Analytical Results ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 31 PROJECT: TITLE: CCR Phase 2 Figure 1.dwgFILE: PROJ. NO.: DATE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY:8.5x11 --- USER: NPabon --- ATTACHED XREF'S: --- ATTACHED IMAGES:DRAWING NAME: \\fortcollins-fp2\Remediation\FTC Brownfield\Sites\Current\Oil and Gas\Country Club Reserve\Phase II\Implementation\Report\Figures\ CCR Phase 2 Figure 1.dwg --- PLOT DATE: October 22, 2018 - 4:34PM --- LAYOUT: Figure 1Version: 2017-10-21 CITY OF FORT COLLINS BROWNFIELD COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SITE LOCATION MAP N. PABON J. JAYROE J. JAYROE SEPTEMBER 2018 241300.0001.0000 FIGURE 1 131 E. Lincoln Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: 970.484.3263 WELLINGTON QUADRANGLECOLORADO USGS 7.5-MINUTE SERIES SITE LOCATION ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 32 LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROJECT: TITLE: DRAWN BY: E. EMERSON CHECKED BY: J. JAYROE APPROVED BY: J. JAYROE DATE: 7/26/2018 PROJ. NO: 241300.0001.0000 FILE NO: CITY OF FORT COLLINS BROWNFIELD COUNTRY CLUB RESERVE MONITORING WELLS AND SOIL VAPOR POINTS LOCATIONS 131 LINCOLN AVE, SUITE 200 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PHONE: 970-484-3263 NOTE SOURCE AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, GOOGLE INC. PHOTOGRAPH CIRCA 2018 SOIL VAPOR POINT (SVP) PLUGGED & ABANDONED (P&A) WELL SB-1/MW-1 SB-2 /MW-2 SB-4 /MW-4 SB-3 /MW-3 SVP-1 SVP-3 SVP-2 SVP-4 SVP-5 SOIL BORING (SB) / MONITORING WELL (MW) P&A FIGURE 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 33 DAT E: APPROVED BY : CHECK ED BY : DRAWN BY :PROJ. NO.:Path:Plot Date:OCT OBER 2018 241300 241300-002.m xd CITY OF FORT COLLINS BROWNFIELDCOUNTRY CLUB RESERVEFORT COLLINS, COLORADO N. PABON S :\1-PROJECT S \CityOfFortCollinsCO\CountyClub Reserve\2018-241300\241300-002.m xd10/23/2018, 11:05:23 AM b y S M AJOR -- LAY OU T: ANS I B(11"x17")Map Rotation:Coordinate System:0NAD 1983 S ta tePla ne Colora do North FIPS 0501 Feet (Foot U S )J. JAY ROE 1:3,600 1 " = 300 ' 0 300 600 Feet % LEGEND S IT E BOU NDARY Í!(M ONIT ORING WELL !>PLU GGED AND ABANDONED WELL GROU NDWAT ER CONT OU RS (DAS HED WHERE INFERRED, FT AM S L)TRC - GISTRC - GISFIGURE 3 131 E. Lincoln Avenue, S uite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: 970.484.3263 www.trcsolutions.com S . M AJOR GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP FILE NO.: T IT LE: PROJECT: Í!( Í!( Í!( Í!( !>5075507650765075MW-1(5076.63) MW-2(5075.96) MW-3(5075.08) MW-4(5075.56) Serramonte Dr Corte AlmadenCorte MaderaC o r te La Paz E CR 54 N Turnberry RdE Douglas Rd He a rt h fir e Dr BuschDrTrouble Trl J u a n ita R d P&A NOTES 1. BAS E M AP IM AGERY FROM ES RI “CLARIT Y ” WEB S ERVICE LAY ER, Y EAR U NK NOWN. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 34 Table 1 - Soil Analytical Results City of Fort Collins Brownfield Country Club Reserve Analyte Units COGCC SL RCRA 8 Metals Arsenic mg/kg 0.39 1.97 J 5.1 5.73 1.46 J Barium mg/kg 15000 58.8 47.5 98 104 Cadmium mg/kg 70 <0.500 <0.500 0.133 J <0.500 Chromium mg/kg 23*21.2 12.7 14.7 8.05 Lead mg/kg 400 5.13 8.04 9.08 4.21 Selenium mg/kg 390 1.54 J <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 Silver mg/kg 390 0.283 J <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 Mercury mg/kg 23 0.017 J 0.0142 J 0.0111 J 0.00473 J TPH GRO/DRO TPH (Gc/Fid) High Fraction mg/kg 500 <4.00 <4.00 <4.00 <4.00 TPH (Gc/Fid) Low Fraction mg/kg 500 0.036 J 0.0927 J 0.104 0.0241 J BTEX Benzene mg/kg 0.17 0.000778 0.00152 0.00135 0.000186 J Toluene mg/kg 85 0.000796 J 0.00214 J 0.00303 J 0.000201 J Ethylbenzene mg/kg 100 0.000125 J 0.000757 0.00102 <0.000500 Xylenes, Total mg/kg 175 <0.00150 0.00164 0.00328 <0.00150 Notes: Exceedance J = estimated concentration mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram *Chromium screened against Chromium VI screening Level 07/05/2018 L1007912-01 L1007912-02 L1007912-03 L1007912-04 Client Sample ID SB-1-32 SB-2-16 SB-3-15 SB-4-20 Date Collected 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 Lab Sample ID ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 35 Table 2 - Ground Water Analytical Results City of Fort Collins Brownfield Country Club Reserve Analyte Units CDPHE Groundwater Organic Standards1 CDPHE Groundwater Human Health Standards2 Alkalinity Alkalinity mg/l 412 440 448 442 Major Anions Bromide mg/l 0.129 J <1 <1 <1 Chloride mg/l 29.5 27.5 31.3 22.4 Sulfate mg/l 510 956 736 394 Nitrate as (N)mg/l 1 0.42 0.305 0.892 0.191 Nitrite as (N)mg/l 10 0.311 0.47 <0.1 0.15 Major Cations, Dissolved Calcium mg/l 139 181 202 140 Iron mg/l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Magnesium mg/l 69.3 105 93 71.9 Potassium mg/l 7.4 8.57 3.29 3.84 Sodium mg/l 168 271 181 126 BTEX Benzene mg/l 0.005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Toluene mg/l 0.56 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Ethylbenzene mg/l 0.7 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Xylenes, Total mg/l 1.4 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0015 Dissolved Gases Methane mg/l 0.0132 0.00855 J <0.01 0.0113 Ethane mg/l <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 Ethene mg/l <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 <0.013 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction mg/l <0.1 0.137 0.0615 J 0.0624 J TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction mg/l 0.858 0.34 <1 <1 Notes: Exceedance J = estimated concentration mg/L = milligrams per liter 1 - Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Groundwater Organic Chemical Standards, Table A (CDPHE, 2016) 2 - Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Domestic Water Supply - Human Health Standards, Table 1 (CDPHE, 2016) Date Collected 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 8/16/2018 8/17/2018 Lab Sample ID L1018955-03 L1018955-01 L1018955-02 L1018955-04 Client Sample ID MW-01 MW-02 MW-03 MW-04 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 36 APPENDIX A SOIL BORING LOGS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 37 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 38 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 39 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 40 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 41 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 42 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 43 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 44 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 45 APPENDIX B WATER LEVEL GAUGING FORMS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 46 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 47 APPENDIX C GROUND WATER SAMPLING FORMS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 48 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 49 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 50 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 51 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4Packet pg. 52 APPENDIX D LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 53 ANALYTICAL REPORT July 25, 2018 TRC Solutions - Suncor Sample Delivery Group:L1007912 Samples Received:07/10/2018 Project Number: Description:FTC CCR Report To:Jason Jayroe 131 E. Lincoln Ave Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Entire Report Reviewed By: July 25, 2018 [Preliminary Report] Shane Gambill Project Manager Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures: 060302, 060303, and 060304. 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com July 25, 2018 Jason Romer Project Manager ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 54 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.TABLE OF CONTENTS Cp: Cover Page 1 Tc: Table of Contents 2 Ss: Sample Summary 3 Cn: Case Narrative 4 Sr: Sample Results 5 SB-1-32 L1007912-01 5 SB-2-16 L1007912-02 6 SB-3-15 L1007912-03 7 SB-4-20 L1007912-04 8 Qc: Quality Control Summary 9 Mercury by Method 7471A 9 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B 10 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 11 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 12 Gl: Glossary of Terms 13 Al: Accreditations & Locations 14 Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 15 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 2 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 2 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 55 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE SUMMARY Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SB-1-32 L1007912-01 Solid Eric Emerson 07/05/18 13:20 07/10/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Mercury by Method 7471A WG1136077 1 07/10/18 20:16 07/11/18 10:55 JDG Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1136387 1 07/11/18 18:25 07/12/18 20:21 JDG Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1136204 1 07/10/18 16:37 07/11/18 19:40 GLN Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 WG1136500 1 07/12/18 19:58 07/13/18 02:36 TNG Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SB-2-16 L1007912-02 Solid Eric Emerson 07/05/18 15:50 07/10/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Mercury by Method 7471A WG1136077 1 07/10/18 20:16 07/11/18 11:53 JDG Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1136387 1 07/11/18 18:25 07/12/18 20:24 JDG Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1136204 1 07/10/18 16:37 07/11/18 20:04 GLN Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 WG1136500 1 07/12/18 19:58 07/13/18 03:08 TNG Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SB-3-15 L1007912-03 Solid Eric Emerson 07/05/18 09:30 07/10/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Mercury by Method 7471A WG1136077 1 07/10/18 20:16 07/11/18 11:55 JDG Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1136387 1 07/11/18 18:25 07/12/18 20:27 JDG Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1136204 1 07/10/18 16:37 07/11/18 20:27 GLN Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 WG1136500 1 07/12/18 19:58 07/13/18 03:19 TNG Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SB-4-20 L1007912-04 Solid Eric Emerson 07/05/18 09:40 07/10/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Mercury by Method 7471A WG1136077 1 07/10/18 20:16 07/11/18 11:58 JDG Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1136387 1 07/11/18 18:25 07/12/18 20:31 JDG Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1136204 1 07/10/18 16:37 07/11/18 20:51 GLN Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 WG1136500 1 07/12/18 19:58 07/13/18 03:30 TNG 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 3 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 3 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 56 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.CASE NARRATIVE All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All radiochemical sample results for solids are reported on a dry weight basis with the exception of tritium, carbon-14 and radon, unless wet weight was requested by the client. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report] Shane Gambill Project Manager 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 4 of 15 Jason Romer Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 4 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 57 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1007912 SB-1-32 Collected date/time: 07/05/18 13:20 Mercury by Method 7471A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Mercury 17.0 J 2.80 20.0 1 07/11/2018 10:55 WG1136077 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Arsenic 1970 J 650 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Barium 58800 170 500 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Cadmium U 70.0 500 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Chromium 21200 140 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Lead 5130 190 500 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Selenium 1540 J 740 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Silver 283 J 280 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:21 WG1136387 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Benzene 0.778 0.120 0.500 1 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 Toluene 0.796 B J 0.150 5.00 1 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 Ethylbenzene 0.125 B J 0.110 0.500 1 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 Total Xylene U 0.460 1.50 1 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 36.0 J 21.7 100 1 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)100 77.0-120 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)99.1 75.0-128 07/11/2018 19:40 WG1136204 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 769 4000 1 07/13/2018 02:36 WG1136500 (S) o-Terphenyl 45.5 18.0-148 07/13/2018 02:36 WG1136500 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 5 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 5 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 58 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1007912 SB-2-16 Collected date/time: 07/05/18 15:50 Mercury by Method 7471A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Mercury 14.2 J 2.80 20.0 1 07/11/2018 11:53 WG1136077 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Arsenic 5100 650 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Barium 47500 170 500 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Cadmium U 70.0 500 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Chromium 12700 140 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Lead 8040 190 500 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Selenium U 740 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Silver U 280 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:24 WG1136387 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Benzene 1.52 0.120 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 Toluene 2.14 B J 0.150 5.00 1 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 Ethylbenzene 0.757 B 0.110 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 Total Xylene 1.64 0.460 1.50 1 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 92.7 J 21.7 100 1 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)97.9 77.0-120 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)97.3 75.0-128 07/11/2018 20:04 WG1136204 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 769 4000 1 07/13/2018 03:08 WG1136500 (S) o-Terphenyl 43.0 18.0-148 07/13/2018 03:08 WG1136500 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 6 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 6 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 59 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1007912 SB-3-15 Collected date/time: 07/05/18 09:30 Mercury by Method 7471A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Mercury 11.1 J 2.80 20.0 1 07/11/2018 11:55 WG1136077 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Arsenic 5730 650 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Barium 98000 170 500 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Cadmium 133 J 70.0 500 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Chromium 14700 140 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Lead 9080 190 500 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Selenium U 740 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Silver U 280 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:27 WG1136387 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Benzene 1.35 0.120 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 Toluene 3.03 J 0.150 5.00 1 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 Ethylbenzene 1.02 B 0.110 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 Total Xylene 3.28 0.460 1.50 1 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 104 21.7 100 1 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)98.2 77.0-120 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)97.8 75.0-128 07/11/2018 20:27 WG1136204 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 769 4000 1 07/13/2018 03:19 WG1136500 (S) o-Terphenyl 50.2 18.0-148 07/13/2018 03:19 WG1136500 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 7 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 7 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 60 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 04 L1007912 SB-4-20 Collected date/time: 07/05/18 09:40 Mercury by Method 7471A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Mercury 4.73 J 2.80 20.0 1 07/11/2018 11:58 WG1136077 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Arsenic 1460 J 650 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Barium 104000 170 500 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Cadmium U 70.0 500 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Chromium 8050 140 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Lead 4210 190 500 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Selenium U 740 2000 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Silver U 280 1000 1 07/12/2018 20:31 WG1136387 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time Benzene 0.186 J 0.120 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 Toluene 0.201 B J 0.150 5.00 1 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 Ethylbenzene U 0.110 0.500 1 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 Total Xylene U 0.460 1.50 1 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 24.1 J 21.7 100 1 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)99.5 77.0-120 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)98.5 75.0-128 07/11/2018 20:51 WG1136204 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 769 4000 1 07/13/2018 03:30 WG1136500 (S) o-Terphenyl 41.6 18.0-148 07/13/2018 03:30 WG1136500 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 8 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 8 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 61 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1136077 Mercury by Method 7471A L1007912-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3324729-1 07/11/18 10:48 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Mercury U 2.80 20.0 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3324729-2 07/11/18 10:50 • (LCSD) R3324729-3 07/11/18 10:53 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% Mercury 300 269 269 89.7 89.5 80.0-120 0.200 20 L1007912-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1007912-01 07/11/18 10:55 • (MS) R3324729-4 07/11/18 10:58 • (MSD) R3324729-5 07/11/18 11:08 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% Mercury 300 17.0 277 266 86.7 83.0 1 75.0-125 4.01 20 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 9 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 9 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 62 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1136387 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B L1007912-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3325239-1 07/12/18 19:28 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Arsenic U 650 2000 Barium U 170 500 Cadmium U 70.0 500 Chromium U 140 1000 Lead 217 J 190 500 Selenium U 740 2000 Silver U 280 1000 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3325239-2 07/12/18 19:31 • (LCSD) R3325239-3 07/12/18 19:34 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% Arsenic 100000 94700 95900 94.7 95.9 80.0-120 1.19 20 Barium 100000 103000 104000 103 104 80.0-120 0.883 20 Cadmium 100000 97700 98700 97.7 98.7 80.0-120 1.03 20 Chromium 100000 99800 100000 99.8 100 80.0-120 0.394 20 Lead 100000 98000 99000 98.0 99.0 80.0-120 0.997 20 Selenium 100000 93700 95400 93.7 95.4 80.0-120 1.77 20 Silver 20000 19000 19000 95.0 95.2 80.0-120 0.219 20 L1007892-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1007892-01 07/12/18 19:37 • (MS) R3325239-6 07/12/18 19:47 • (MSD) R3325239-7 07/12/18 19:51 Spike Amount (dry) Original Result (dry)MS Result (dry)MSD Result (dry)MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% Arsenic 146000 55400 169000 156000 77.6 69.1 1 75.0-125 J6 7.65 20 Barium 146000 147000 290000 263000 98.3 79.6 1 75.0-125 9.83 20 Cadmium 146000 421 146000 143000 100 97.6 1 75.0-125 2.43 20 Chromium 146000 24300 161000 155000 94.1 89.4 1 75.0-125 4.32 20 Lead 146000 16800 161000 153000 98.6 93.4 1 75.0-125 4.90 20 Selenium 146000 U 138000 134000 94.9 91.9 1 75.0-125 3.21 20 Silver 29200 U 28800 28100 98.8 96.4 1 75.0-125 2.48 20 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 10 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 10 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 63 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1136204 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 L1007912-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3325027-5 07/11/18 15:22 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Benzene U 0.120 0.500 Toluene 0.253 J 0.150 5.00 Ethylbenzene 0.111 J 0.110 0.500 Total Xylene U 0.460 1.50 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction U 21.7 100 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)101 77.0-120 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)100 75.0-128 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3325027-1 07/11/18 13:22 • (LCSD) R3325027-2 07/11/18 13:46 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% Benzene 50.0 54.0 54.2 108 108 71.0-121 0.477 20 Toluene 50.0 51.9 51.5 104 103 72.0-120 0.898 20 Ethylbenzene 50.0 53.4 53.3 107 107 76.0-121 0.137 20 Total Xylene 150 168 166 112 111 75.0-124 0.779 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 100 101 77.0-120 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 99.8 99.4 75.0-128 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3325027-3 07/11/18 14:10 • (LCSD) R3325027-4 07/11/18 14:34 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 5500 6090 6060 111 110 70.0-136 0.628 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 107 107 77.0-120 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 109 110 75.0-128 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 11 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 11 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 64 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1136500 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015 L1007912-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3325293-1 07/13/18 01:31 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 769 4000 (S) o-Terphenyl 65.3 18.0-148 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3325293-2 07/13/18 01:42 • (LCSD) R3325293-3 07/13/18 01:53 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 50000 35700 36900 71.3 73.8 50.0-150 3.43 20 (S) o-Terphenyl 89.8 92.0 18.0-148 L1007912-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1007912-01 07/13/18 02:36 • (MS) R3325293-4 07/13/18 02:47 • (MSD) R3325293-5 07/13/18 02:57 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 50000 U 34800 34100 69.6 68.2 1 50.0-150 1.94 20 (S) o-Terphenyl 84.7 83.6 18.0-148 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 12 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 12 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 65 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.GLOSSARY OF TERMS Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative. Abbreviations and Definitions (dry)Results are reported based on the dry weight of the sample. [this will only be present on a dry report basis for soils]. MDL Method Detection Limit. RDL Reported Detection Limit. Rec.Recovery. RPD Relative Percent Difference. SDG Sample Delivery Group. (S) Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be detected in all environmental media. U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported. Dilution If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the result reported has already been corrected for this factor. Limits These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or duplicated within these ranges. Original Sample The non-spiked sample in the prep batch used to determine the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) from a quality control sample. The Original Sample may not be included within the reported SDG. Qualifier This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable. Result The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL” (Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL (Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect or report for this analyte. Case Narrative (Cn) A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report. Quality Control Summary (Qc) This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material. Sample Chain of Custody (Sc) This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Sample Results (Sr) This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported. Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis. Qualifier Description B The same analyte is found in the associated blank. J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. J6 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 13 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 13 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 66 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE. Pace National is the only environmental laboratory accredited/certified to support your work nationwide from one location. One phone call, one point of contact, one laboratory. No other lab is as accessible or prepared to handle your needs throughout the country. Our capacity and capability from our single location laboratory is comparable to the collective totals of the network laboratories in our industry. The most significant benefit to our one location design is the design of our laboratory campus. The model is conducive to accelerated productivity, decreasing turn-around time, and preventing cross contamination, thus protecting sample integrity. Our focus on premium quality and prompt service allows us to be YOUR LAB OF CHOICE. * Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report. * Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace National. State Accreditations Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05 Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN-03-2002-34 Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975 Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002 California 2932 New Mexico ¹n/a Colorado TN00003 New York 11742 Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375 Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704 Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41 Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140 Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069 Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915 Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002 Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979 Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356 Kentucky ¹ ⁶90010 South Carolina 84004 Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006 Louisiana ¹LA180010 Texas T 104704245-17-14 Maine TN0002 Texas ⁵LAB0152 Maryland 324 Utah TN00003 Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006 Michigan 9958 Virginia 460132 Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847 Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233 Missouri 340 Wisconsin 9980939910 Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA Third Party Federal Accreditations A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789 A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01 Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234 EPA–Crypto TN00003 ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS ¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable Our Locations Pace National has sixty-four client support centers that provide sample pickup and/or the delivery of sampling supplies. If you would like assistance from one of our support offices, please contact our main office. Pace National performs all testing at our central laboratory. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 13:52 14 of 15 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor L1007912 07/25/18 14:27 14 of 15 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 67 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 68 ANALYTICAL REPORT August 27, 2018 TRC Solutions - Suncor Sample Delivery Group:L1018955 Samples Received:08/18/2018 Project Number:241300.0001 Description:FTC CCR Report To:Jason Jayroe 131 E. Lincoln Ave Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Entire Report Reviewed By: August 27, 2018 [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures: 060302, 060303, and 060304. 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com August 27, 2018 Chris Ward Project Manager ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 69 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.TABLE OF CONTENTS Cp: Cover Page 1 Tc: Table of Contents 2 Ss: Sample Summary 3 Cn: Case Narrative 4 Sr: Sample Results 5 MW-02 L1018955-01 5 MW-03 L1018955-02 6 MW-01 L1018955-03 7 MW-04 L1018955-04 8 Qc: Quality Control Summary 9 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 9 Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A 10 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B 14 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 15 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 17 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 18 Gl: Glossary of Terms 19 Al: Accreditations & Locations 20 Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 21 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 2 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 2 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 70 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE SUMMARY Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time MW-02 L1018955-01 GW Natalie Pabon 08/16/18 13:15 08/18/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 WG1156979 1 08/24/18 14:35 08/24/18 14:35 GB Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1154105 10 08/21/18 07:39 08/21/18 07:39 ELN Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1154214 1 08/18/18 12:02 08/18/18 12:02 MAJ Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1155529 1 08/22/18 13:45 08/22/18 21:54 ST Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1154427 1 08/19/18 13:41 08/19/18 13:41 LRL Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 WG1154860 1 08/21/18 14:31 08/21/18 14:31 MEL Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 WG1155345 1 08/23/18 00:41 08/23/18 12:06 TH Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time MW-03 L1018955-02 GW Natalie Pabon 08/16/18 16:30 08/18/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 WG1156979 1 08/24/18 14:49 08/24/18 14:49 GB Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1154214 1 08/18/18 13:00 08/18/18 13:00 MAJ Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1155155 10 08/22/18 00:57 08/22/18 00:57 ELN Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1155529 1 08/22/18 13:45 08/22/18 21:56 ST Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1154427 1 08/19/18 14:03 08/19/18 14:03 LRL Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 WG1154860 1 08/21/18 14:51 08/21/18 14:51 MEL Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 WG1155345 1 08/23/18 00:41 08/23/18 12:24 TH Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time MW-01 L1018955-03 GW Natalie Pabon 08/16/18 17:30 08/18/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 WG1156979 1 08/24/18 14:57 08/24/18 14:57 GB Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1154214 1 08/18/18 13:30 08/18/18 13:30 MAJ Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1155155 10 08/22/18 01:12 08/22/18 01:12 ELN Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1155529 1 08/22/18 13:45 08/22/18 21:59 ST Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1154427 1 08/19/18 14:26 08/19/18 14:26 LRL Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 WG1154860 1 08/21/18 14:59 08/21/18 14:59 MEL Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 WG1155345 1 08/23/18 00:41 08/23/18 12:42 TH Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time MW-04 L1018955-04 GW Natalie Pabon 08/17/18 09:55 08/18/18 08:45 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst date/time date/time Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 WG1156979 1 08/24/18 15:04 08/24/18 15:04 GB Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1154214 1 08/18/18 14:16 08/18/18 14:16 MAJ Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A WG1155155 5 08/22/18 01:28 08/22/18 01:28 ELN Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B WG1155529 1 08/22/18 13:45 08/22/18 22:01 ST Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 WG1154427 1 08/19/18 14:48 08/19/18 14:48 LRL Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 WG1154860 1 08/21/18 15:03 08/21/18 15:03 MEL Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 WG1155345 1 08/23/18 00:41 08/23/18 12:59 TH 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 3 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 3 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 71 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.CASE NARRATIVE All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 4 of 23 Chris Ward Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 4 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 72 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1018955 MW-02 Collected date/time: 08/16/18 13:15 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Alkalinity 440000 2710 20000 1 08/24/2018 14:35 WG1156979 Sample Narrative: L1018955-01 WG1156979: Endpoint pH 4.5 headspace Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Bromide U 79.0 1000 1 08/18/2018 12:02 WG1154214 Chloride 27500 51.9 1000 1 08/18/2018 12:02 WG1154214 Nitrate as (N)305 22.7 100 1 08/18/2018 12:02 WG1154214 Nitrite as (N)470 27.7 100 1 08/18/2018 12:02 WG1154214 Sulfate 956000 774 50000 10 08/21/2018 07:39 WG1154105 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Calcium,Dissolved 181000 46.3 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:54 WG1155529 Iron,Dissolved U 14.1 100 1 08/22/2018 21:54 WG1155529 Magnesium,Dissolved 105000 11.1 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:54 WG1155529 Potassium,Dissolved 8570 102 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:54 WG1155529 Sodium,Dissolved 271000 98.5 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:54 WG1155529 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Benzene U 0.190 0.500 1 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 Toluene U 0.412 1.00 1 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 Ethylbenzene U 0.160 0.500 1 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 Total Xylene U 0.510 1.50 1 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 340 31.4 100 1 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)98.5 77.0-122 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)99.3 80.0-121 08/19/2018 13:41 WG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Methane 8.55 J 2.91 10.0 1 08/21/2018 14:31 WG1154860 Ethane U 4.07 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:31 WG1154860 Ethene U 4.26 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:31 WG1154860 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 137 24.7 100 1 08/23/2018 12:06 WG1155345 (S) o-Terphenyl 83.2 31.0-160 08/23/2018 12:06 WG1155345 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 5 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 5 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 73 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1018955 MW-03 Collected date/time: 08/16/18 16:30 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Alkalinity 448000 2710 20000 1 08/24/2018 14:49 WG1156979 Sample Narrative: L1018955-02 WG1156979: Endpoint pH 4.5 headspace Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Bromide U 79.0 1000 1 08/18/2018 13:00 WG1154214 Chloride 31300 51.9 1000 1 08/18/2018 13:00 WG1154214 Nitrate as (N)892 22.7 100 1 08/18/2018 13:00 WG1154214 Nitrite as (N)U 27.7 100 1 08/18/2018 13:00 WG1154214 Sulfate 736000 774 50000 10 08/22/2018 00:57 WG1155155 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Calcium,Dissolved 202000 46.3 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:56 WG1155529 Iron,Dissolved U 14.1 100 1 08/22/2018 21:56 WG1155529 Magnesium,Dissolved 93000 11.1 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:56 WG1155529 Potassium,Dissolved 3290 102 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:56 WG1155529 Sodium,Dissolved 181000 98.5 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:56 WG1155529 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Benzene U 0.190 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 Toluene U 0.412 1.00 1 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 Ethylbenzene U 0.160 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 Total Xylene U 0.510 1.50 1 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction U 31.4 100 1 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)98.4 77.0-122 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)99.3 80.0-121 08/19/2018 14:03 WG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Methane U 2.91 10.0 1 08/21/2018 14:51 WG1154860 Ethane U 4.07 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:51 WG1154860 Ethene U 4.26 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:51 WG1154860 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 61.5 J 24.7 100 1 08/23/2018 12:24 WG1155345 (S) o-Terphenyl 70.5 31.0-160 08/23/2018 12:24 WG1155345 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 6 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 6 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 74 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1018955 MW-01 Collected date/time: 08/16/18 17:30 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Alkalinity 412000 2710 20000 1 08/24/2018 14:57 WG1156979 Sample Narrative: L1018955-03 WG1156979: Endpoint pH 4.5 headspace Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Bromide 129 B J 79.0 1000 1 08/18/2018 13:30 WG1154214 Chloride 29500 51.9 1000 1 08/18/2018 13:30 WG1154214 Nitrate as (N)420 22.7 100 1 08/18/2018 13:30 WG1154214 Nitrite as (N)311 27.7 100 1 08/18/2018 13:30 WG1154214 Sulfate 510000 774 50000 10 08/22/2018 01:12 WG1155155 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Calcium,Dissolved 139000 46.3 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:59 WG1155529 Iron,Dissolved U 14.1 100 1 08/22/2018 21:59 WG1155529 Magnesium,Dissolved 69300 11.1 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:59 WG1155529 Potassium,Dissolved 7400 102 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:59 WG1155529 Sodium,Dissolved 168000 98.5 1000 1 08/22/2018 21:59 WG1155529 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Benzene U 0.190 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 Toluene U 0.412 1.00 1 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 Ethylbenzene U 0.160 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 Total Xylene U 0.510 1.50 1 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 858 31.4 100 1 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)98.3 77.0-122 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)98.1 80.0-121 08/19/2018 14:26 WG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Methane 13.2 2.91 10.0 1 08/21/2018 14:59 WG1154860 Ethane U 4.07 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:59 WG1154860 Ethene U 4.26 13.0 1 08/21/2018 14:59 WG1154860 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 24.7 100 1 08/23/2018 12:42 WG1155345 (S) o-Terphenyl 69.5 31.0-160 08/23/2018 12:42 WG1155345 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 7 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 7 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 75 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.SAMPLE RESULTS - 04 L1018955 MW-04 Collected date/time: 08/17/18 09:55 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Alkalinity 442000 2710 20000 1 08/24/2018 15:04 WG1156979 Sample Narrative: L1018955-04 WG1156979: Endpoint pH 4.5 headspace Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Bromide U J6 79.0 1000 1 08/18/2018 14:16 WG1154214 Chloride 22400 51.9 1000 1 08/18/2018 14:16 WG1154214 Nitrate as (N)191 B 22.7 100 1 08/18/2018 14:16 WG1154214 Nitrite as (N)150 27.7 100 1 08/18/2018 14:16 WG1154214 Sulfate 394000 387 25000 5 08/22/2018 01:28 WG1155155 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Calcium,Dissolved 140000 46.3 1000 1 08/22/2018 22:01 WG1155529 Iron,Dissolved U 14.1 100 1 08/22/2018 22:01 WG1155529 Magnesium,Dissolved 71900 11.1 1000 1 08/22/2018 22:01 WG1155529 Potassium,Dissolved 3840 102 1000 1 08/22/2018 22:01 WG1155529 Sodium,Dissolved 126000 98.5 1000 1 08/22/2018 22:01 WG1155529 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Benzene U 0.190 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 Toluene U 0.412 1.00 1 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 Ethylbenzene U 0.160 0.500 1 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 Total Xylene U 0.510 1.50 1 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction U 31.4 100 1 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)98.9 77.0-122 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)99.4 80.0-121 08/19/2018 14:48 WG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time Methane 11.3 2.91 10.0 1 08/21/2018 15:03 WG1154860 Ethane U 4.07 13.0 1 08/21/2018 15:03 WG1154860 Ethene U 4.26 13.0 1 08/21/2018 15:03 WG1154860 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 Result Qualifier MDL RDL Dilution Analysis Batch Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l date / time TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 62.4 J 24.7 100 1 08/23/2018 12:59 WG1155345 (S) o-Terphenyl 57.4 31.0-160 08/23/2018 12:59 WG1155345 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 8 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 8 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 76 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1156979 Wet Chemistry by Method 2320 B-2011 L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3336578-1 08/24/18 13:54 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Alkalinity 3240 J 2710 20000 Sample Narrative: BLANK: Endpoint pH 4.5 L1018955-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018955-01 08/24/18 14:35 • (DUP) R3336578-3 08/24/18 14:43 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Alkalinity 440000 437000 1 0.720 20 Sample Narrative: OS: Endpoint pH 4.5 headspace DUP: Endpoint pH 4.5 L1019519-04 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1019519-04 08/24/18 17:29 • (DUP) R3336578-7 08/24/18 17:36 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Alkalinity 51800 51600 1 0.377 20 Sample Narrative: OS: Endpoint pH 4.5 DUP: Endpoint pH 4.5 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3336578-4 08/24/18 15:39 • (LCSD) R3336578-6 08/24/18 17:14 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Alkalinity 100000 98400 95000 98.4 95.0 85.0-115 3.55 20 Sample Narrative: LCS: Endpoint pH 4.5 LCSD: Endpoint pH 4.5 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 9 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 9 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 77 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154105 Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A L1018955-01 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335298-1 08/20/18 23:07 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Sulfate U 77.4 5000 L1018541-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018541-01 08/21/18 00:58 • (DUP) R3335298-4 08/21/18 01:12 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Sulfate 5080 5160 1 1.61 15 L1018908-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018908-01 08/21/18 05:34 • (DUP) R3335298-7 08/21/18 05:48 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Sulfate 97900 97800 1 0.116 15 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335298-2 08/20/18 23:20 • (LCSD) R3335298-3 08/20/18 23:35 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Sulfate 40000 39000 38900 97.5 97.3 80.0-120 0.260 15 L1018541-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1018541-01 08/21/18 00:58 • (MS) R3335298-5 08/21/18 01:53 • (MSD) R3335298-6 08/21/18 02:07 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Sulfate 50000 5080 55100 55300 100 100 1 80.0-120 0.351 15 L1018908-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) (OS) L1018908-01 08/21/18 05:34 • (MS) R3335298-8 08/21/18 06:02 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MS Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %% Sulfate 50000 97900 143000 89.7 1 80.0-120 E 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 10 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 10 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 78 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154214 Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335108-1 08/18/18 09:19 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Bromide 131 J 79.0 1000 Chloride 86.4 J 51.9 1000 Nitrate 25.1 J 22.7 100 Nitrite U 27.7 100 L1018960-02 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018960-02 08/18/18 15:19 • (DUP) R3335108-6 08/18/18 15:34 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Bromide U 0.000 1 0.000 15 Chloride 21400 21000 1 1.90 15 Nitrate 71.0 70.5 1 0.707 J 15 Nitrite U 0.000 1 0.000 15 L1018976-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018976-01 08/18/18 19:26 • (DUP) R3335108-8 08/18/18 19:41 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Bromide ND 244 1 0.000 15 Nitrate 4650 4610 1 0.674 15 Nitrite ND 0.000 1 0.000 15 L1018976-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018976-01 08/18/18 20:27 • (DUP) R3335108-9 08/18/18 20:43 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Chloride 301000 299000 5 0.711 15 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 11 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 11 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 79 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154214 Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A L1018955-01,02,03,04 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335108-2 08/18/18 09:35 • (LCSD) R3335108-3 08/18/18 09:50 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Bromide 40000 39100 39000 97.8 97.5 80.0-120 0.359 15 Chloride 40000 38500 38500 96.3 96.2 80.0-120 0.104 15 Nitrate 8000 7930 7910 99.2 98.8 80.0-120 0.350 15 Nitrite 8000 7690 7700 96.2 96.3 80.0-120 0.112 15 L1018955-04 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1018955-04 08/18/18 14:16 • (MS) R3335108-4 08/18/18 14:32 • (MSD) R3335108-5 08/18/18 14:48 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Bromide 50000 U 28000 27900 55.9 55.8 1 80.0-120 J6 J6 0.194 15 Chloride 50000 22400 70300 70200 95.8 95.6 1 80.0-120 0.136 15 Nitrate 5000 191 4350 4330 83.1 82.7 1 80.0-120 0.404 15 Nitrite 5000 150 5080 5090 98.7 98.7 1 80.0-120 0.0846 15 L1018960-07 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) (OS) L1018960-07 08/18/18 17:38 • (MS) R3335108-7 08/18/18 17:53 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MS Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %% Bromide 50000 U 45000 90.1 1 80.0-120 Chloride 50000 13800 62800 97.9 1 80.0-120 Nitrate 5000 U 4620 92.3 1 80.0-120 Nitrite 5000 U 4950 98.9 1 80.0-120 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 12 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 12 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 80 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1155155 Wet Chemistry by Method 9056A L1018955-02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335825-1 08/21/18 23:55 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Sulfate U 77.4 5000 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335825-2 08/22/18 00:11 • (LCSD) R3335825-3 08/22/18 00:26 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Sulfate 40000 37700 37800 94.3 94.4 80.0-120 0.169 15 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 13 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 13 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 81 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1155529 Metals (ICP) by Method 6010B L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335903-1 08/22/18 21:12 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Calcium,Dissolved U 46.3 1000 Iron,Dissolved U 14.1 100 Magnesium,Dissolved 54.4 J 11.1 1000 Potassium,Dissolved 117 J 102 1000 Sodium,Dissolved 316 J 98.5 1000 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335903-2 08/22/18 21:15 • (LCSD) R3335903-3 08/22/18 21:17 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Calcium,Dissolved 10000 9840 9920 98.4 99.2 80.0-120 0.805 20 Iron,Dissolved 10000 9830 9910 98.3 99.1 80.0-120 0.831 20 Magnesium,Dissolved 10000 10000 10100 100 101 80.0-120 0.524 20 Potassium,Dissolved 10000 9720 9850 97.2 98.5 80.0-120 1.27 20 Sodium,Dissolved 10000 10200 10200 102 102 80.0-120 0.713 20 L1018796-03 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1018796-03 08/22/18 21:20 • (MS) R3335903-5 08/22/18 21:25 • (MSD) R3335903-6 08/22/18 21:27 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Calcium,Dissolved 10000 72400 82300 82400 99.4 100 1 75.0-125 0.0782 20 Iron,Dissolved 10000 5290 15200 15100 99.0 98.6 1 75.0-125 0.253 20 Magnesium,Dissolved 10000 29500 39000 39100 94.6 95.5 1 75.0-125 0.242 20 Potassium,Dissolved 10000 9630 19300 19200 97.0 96.0 1 75.0-125 0.552 20 Sodium,Dissolved 10000 51000 60100 59900 91.0 89.4 1 75.0-125 0.269 20 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 14 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 14 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 82 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335316-5 08/19/18 06:06 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Benzene U 0.190 0.500 Toluene U 0.412 1.00 Ethylbenzene U 0.160 0.500 Total Xylene U 0.510 1.50 TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction U 31.4 100 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID)99.6 77.0-122 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID)99.8 80.0-121 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335316-1 08/19/18 04:15 • (LCSD) R3335316-2 08/19/18 04:37 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Benzene 50.0 52.9 51.5 106 103 71.0-121 2.65 20 Toluene 50.0 54.0 52.7 108 105 72.0-120 2.52 20 Ethylbenzene 50.0 54.3 52.8 109 106 75.0-122 2.69 20 Total Xylene 150 164 159 109 106 74.0-124 3.04 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 99.4 99.4 77.0-122 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 98.4 99.4 80.0-121 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335316-3 08/19/18 05:00 • (LCSD) R3335316-4 08/19/18 05:22 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 5500 6210 5940 113 108 71.0-136 4.55 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 105 104 77.0-122 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 109 109 80.0-121 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 15 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 15 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 83 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154427 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 8015/8021 L1018955-01,02,03,04 L1018743-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1018743-01 08/19/18 06:51 • (MS) R3335316-6 08/19/18 15:33 • (MSD) R3335316-7 08/19/18 16:19 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Benzene 50.0 ND 47.8 47.6 95.5 95.3 1 29.0-146 0.299 20 Toluene 50.0 ND 47.9 47.5 95.8 95.0 1 35.0-140 0.856 20 Ethylbenzene 50.0 ND 46.9 47.1 93.9 94.2 1 39.0-143 0.303 20 Total Xylene 150 ND 143 143 95.3 95.1 1 42.0-142 0.140 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 99.1 99.2 77.0-122 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 98.7 98.8 80.0-121 L1018743-01 Original Sample (OS) • Matrix Spike (MS) • Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) (OS) L1018743-01 08/19/18 06:51 • (MS) R3335316-8 08/19/18 16:42 • (MSD) R3335316-9 08/19/18 17:04 Spike Amount Original Result MS Result MSD Result MS Rec. MSD Rec. Dilution Rec. Limits MS Qualifier MSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) Low Fraction 5500 ND 5600 5940 102 108 1 18.0-160 5.83 20 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(FID) 101 102 77.0-122 (S) a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene(PID) 107 108 80.0-121 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 16 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 16 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 84 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1154860 Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method RSK175 L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3335409-1 08/21/18 13:54 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l Methane U 2.91 10.0 Ethane U 4.07 13.0 Ethene U 4.26 13.0 L1018940-01 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018940-01 08/21/18 14:29 • (DUP) R3335409-2 08/21/18 14:56 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Methane ND 0.000 1 0.000 20 Ethane ND 0.000 1 0.000 20 Ethene ND 0.000 1 0.000 20 L1018960-08 Original Sample (OS) • Duplicate (DUP) (OS) L1018960-08 08/21/18 16:06 • (DUP) R3335409-3 08/21/18 16:11 Original Result DUP Result Dilution DUP RPD DUP Qualifier DUP RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l %% Methane 1370 1330 1 3.40 20 Ethane U 0.000 1 0.000 20 Ethene U 0.000 1 0.000 20 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3335409-4 08/21/18 16:15 • (LCSD) R3335409-5 08/21/18 16:22 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% Methane 67.8 77.7 70.5 115 104 85.0-115 9.64 20 Ethane 129 118 115 91.2 89.0 85.0-115 2.44 20 Ethene 127 117 113 92.0 88.9 85.0-115 3.39 20 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 17 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 17 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 85 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1155345 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (GC) by Method 3511/8015 L1018955-01,02,03,04 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3336372-1 08/23/18 11:13 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction U 24.7 100 (S) o-Terphenyl 89.0 31.0-160 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3336372-2 08/23/18 11:31 • (LCSD) R3336372-4 08/23/18 11:49 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ug/l ug/l ug/l %%%%% TPH (GC/FID) High Fraction 1500 1320 1260 88.0 84.0 50.0-150 4.65 20 (S) o-Terphenyl 106 99.0 31.0-160 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 18 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 18 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 86 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE.GLOSSARY OF TERMS Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative. Abbreviations and Definitions MDL Method Detection Limit. ND Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). RDL Reported Detection Limit. Rec.Recovery. RPD Relative Percent Difference. SDG Sample Delivery Group. (S) Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be detected in all environmental media. U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported. Dilution If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the result reported has already been corrected for this factor. Limits These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or duplicated within these ranges. Original Sample The non-spiked sample in the prep batch used to determine the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) from a quality control sample. The Original Sample may not be included within the reported SDG. Qualifier This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable. Result The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL” (Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL (Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect or report for this analyte. Case Narrative (Cn) A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report. Quality Control Summary (Qc) This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material. Sample Chain of Custody (Sc) This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Sample Results (Sr) This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported. Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis. Qualifier Description B The same analyte is found in the associated blank. E The analyte concentration exceeds the upper limit of the calibration range of the instrument established by the initial calibration (ICAL). J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. J6 The sample matrix interfered with the ability to make any accurate determination; spike value is low. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 19 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 19 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 87 ONE LAB. NATIONWIDE. Pace National is the only environmental laboratory accredited/certified to support your work nationwide from one location. One phone call, one point of contact, one laboratory. No other lab is as accessible or prepared to handle your needs throughout the country. Our capacity and capability from our single location laboratory is comparable to the collective totals of the network laboratories in our industry. The most significant benefit to our one location design is the design of our laboratory campus. The model is conducive to accelerated productivity, decreasing turn-around time, and preventing cross contamination, thus protecting sample integrity. Our focus on premium quality and prompt service allows us to be YOUR LAB OF CHOICE. * Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report. * Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace National. State Accreditations Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05 Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN-03-2002-34 Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975 Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002 California 2932 New Mexico ¹n/a Colorado TN00003 New York 11742 Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375 Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704 Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41 Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140 Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069 Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915 Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002 Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979 Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356 Kentucky ¹ ⁶90010 South Carolina 84004 Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006 Louisiana ¹LA180010 Texas T 104704245-17-14 Maine TN0002 Texas ⁵LAB0152 Maryland 324 Utah TN00003 Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006 Michigan 9958 Virginia 460132 Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847 Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233 Missouri 340 Wisconsin 9980939910 Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA Third Party Federal Accreditations A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789 A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01 Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234 EPA–Crypto TN00003 ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS ¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable Our Locations Pace National has sixty-four client support centers that provide sample pickup and/or the delivery of sampling supplies. If you would like assistance from one of our support offices, please contact our main office. Pace National performs all testing at our central laboratory. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 13:46 20 of 23 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: TRC Solutions - Suncor 241300.0001 L1018955 08/27/18 15:18 20 of 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 88 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 89 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 90 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet pg. 91 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING APPROPRIATE REVERSE SETBACKS FROM INJECTION WELLS AND PLUGGED AND ABANDONED OIL AND GAS WELLS IN THE FORT COLLINS FIELD Date: October 13, 2022 Stuart M. Ellsworth, CO PE 0034621 _________________________________ ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 92 i Contents BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Fort Collins Oil Field .............................................................................................................................. 3 Life Cycle of Wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field ..................................................................................... 5 Pre-Production Stage: Vertical Well Drilling and Construction ............................................................ 6 Pre-Production Stage: Vertical Well Completion ................................................................................. 6 Pre-Production Stage: Horizontal Wells ............................................................................................... 8 Possible Future Work on Existing Oil and Gas Wells in the Fort Collins Field .................................... 10 WELL ABANDONMENT ............................................................................................................................ 10 UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELL .......................................................................................................... 13 Disposal Well -vs- Enhanced Recovery Injection Well ........................................................................ 13 REVIEW OF REVERSE SETBACKS ADOPTED BY OTHER AGENCIES ........................................................... 15 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ............................................................................... 15 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ............................................................................................ 15 Other States ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Alberta Energy Regulator .................................................................................................................... 15 Local governments .............................................................................................................................. 16 REVERSE SETBACK RECOMMENDATIONS: .............................................................................................. 17 Reverse Setback to an Abandoned Well of 75 feet from the interior of a development: ................. 17 Reverse Setback to an Injection Well of 75 feet from the interior of a development: ...................... 18 500-Foot Reverse Setback to Injection Wells with Surface Facilities: ................................................ 19 CONCLUSION: .......................................................................................................................................... 19 REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 23 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 93 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Fort Collins has grown up around the Fort Collins Oil Field, which continues to produce relatively small amounts of oil but no natural gas. As the City has grown, the need for appropriate “Reverse Setbacks” from the remaining oil wells has become apparent. A reverse setback is the distance that must be maintained between a new building unit and an existing production, injection or plugged and abandoned well.1 This report provides background information on the Fort Collins Oil Field and the life cycle of wells, a snapshot of Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulations, and examples of other agency regulations related to reverse setbacks. This report focuses on two categories of wells that fall within 2,000 feet of the Sonders Property near the intersection of Douglas and Turnberry Roads: operating underground injection wells; and wells that have been plugged and abandoned. All operating injection wells within the City limits are without storage tanks; the injection water is transported by buried pipes called flowlines2; and the wells inject low volumes of produced water deep underground. The injection wells are constructed, inspected, and monitored under requirements imposed by the COGCC consistent with regulations adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These wells only handle injection water, which was itself produced by other wells from deep underground; they do not produce, store, transmit, or inject oil or gas; and they have little potential to impact public health, safety, and welfare. They cannot emit hydrocarbons, and the use of flowlines to transport the injection water to eliminate truck emissions, noise, odors, and roadway impacts that would otherwise arise from trucking the water to the injection well sites. Of note, there are two locations with an injection well and storage tanks outside but adjacent to the current City of Fort Collins. A plugged and abandoned well is sealed with multiple cement plugs pursuant to COGCC Rule 434. The plugs prevent air emissions from the well and isolate and protect groundwater. In addition, the operator has • Removed all surface facilities and equipment per COGCC Rule 1004, • Disconnected, purged, depressurized, sealed, and in some cases removed all flowlines per COGCC Rule 11053, and • Reclaimed and revegetated the surface per COGCC Rule 1004. 1 A production well is a well that produces oil or natural gas, though in the Fort Collins Field all of the production wells produce only oil. An injection well is a well that injects fluids deep underground. A plugged and abandoned well may previously have been either a production well or an injection well. In either case, it has been sealed with cement plugs and otherwise decommissioned as explained in the text. 2 Flowline means a segment of pipe transferring oil, gas, condensate or produced water between a wellhead and processing equipment. 3 COGCC Rule 1105 was approved is 2019 as a result of the Firestone incident. These regulations require the removal of all flowlines at the time of well abandonment unless approved by the Commission and noticed to the local government. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 94 2 For these reasons, a plugged and abandoned well presents even less risk to public health, safety, and welfare. This report recommends that newly constructed building units be subject to a reverse setback of 75 feet from existing injection wells without storage tanks or from plugged and abandoned wells. For injection wells with storage tanks, a reverse setback of 500 feet is recommended. New building units should be prohibited within these reverse setbacks, but parks, ballfields, playgrounds, gardens, and similar outdoor activity areas can be permitted within these areas. These recommended reverse setbacks will minimize risk to public health, safety, and welfare and will protect nearby residents and the environment. These reverse setbacks will also allow safe and sufficient access to the well. For injection wells, this distance will allow access needed for required annual testing, inspection, monitoring, maintenance, and eventually abandonment. For plugged and abandoned wells, this access may be needed in the unlikely event that future remedial work on the well is necessary. It should be noted that the issue of reverse setbacks for injection and plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field is separate and distinct from the issues associated with the Firestone incident. Unlike the injection wells and plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collin s Field, the Firestone incident involved a producing well that produced natural gas. The Firestone well had also been returned to production after being shut-in, and the flowline had been severed. The COGCC subsequently adopted a number of regulations that address the risks associated with returning wells to production and operating flowlines. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 95 3 BACKGROUND Fort Collins Oil Field The Fort Collins Oil Field (Field) was discovered almost 100 years ago, in 1924. It is located in Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. It generally falls within Township 8 North, Range 68 West. Figure 1 shows the general field layout highlighting the producing and enhanced recovery injection wells, flowline pipes to transport fluids, and the central processing facilities. Figure 1: A depiction of the Fort Collins oil Field with the current well status and flowlines form the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with Google Earth images of injection wells and abandoned well sites. The Field has produced over 5 million barrels of oil but is now largely depleted. This means that the energy and pressure within the oil reservoir has declined over time. Due to this reduced reservoir pressure, the existing production wells are currently being produced through enhanced recovery. Enhanced recovery is a process whereby an external fluid such as water is injected into the reservoir through injection wells. This supports reservoir pressure and displaces hydrocarbons towards the production wells. Despite the enhanced recovery process, the existing production wells in the Field remain low-producing and average less than two barrels of oil production per day.4 4 The COGCC has defined a low producing well as one that produces a daily average of less than 2 barrels of oil equivalent or 10 thousand cubic feet of natural gas equivalent of gas over the previous 12 months. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 96 4 The Field does not produce any natural gas. Therefore, there is no flowing natural gas emitted from the wells into the atmosphere or released into the soil. The field is unusual in that all produced fluids from the production wells are transported by flowlines to facilities located along the western side of the field (COGCC Fac# 333083 and COGCC Fac# 307186). These facilities separate the oil from produced water, have storage tanks, and include an enhanced recovery injection well. The oil is collected and trucked off site for sale. The water is piped by flowline to the injection wells and then reinjected as part of the enhanced recovery process. The flowlines and facilities eliminate the need for on-site separation and storage of fluids. Because the production well sites do not have separators and oil tanks, they do not generate air emissions, fluid spills, odors, or nuisance noises. This is an important consideration because the CDPHE has highlighted pre- production activities5 and oil tanks6 as a potentially significant source of well site emissions. The flowlines and central facilities also eliminate the need to truck oil and water from the production well sites, which eliminates truck traffic. Figure 2 is a Google Earth image of an enhanced recovery injection well in the City of Fort Collins Hearthfire Subdivision. The well is currently less than 80 and about 160 feet from the adjacent residential buildings. The site shows a fenced area surrounded by landscaping. The site is accessed by a 15-foot-wide drive off Town Center Drive. The site contains the injection well house for the wellhead and injection pump. There is also a production well on the site, which contains a wellhead and pumpjack. There are no other pieces of surface equipment (separators or storage tanks). The access drive and site allow for maintenance by truck mounted equipment. 5 Assessment of Potential Public Health Effects from Oil and Gas Operations in Colorado February 21, 2017 6 Oil & Gas and Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, Supporting the Denver Metro/North Front Range State Implementation Plan for the 2008 and 2015 8 -Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards DRAFT: July 8, 2022, Adopted: December xx, 2022 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 97 5 Figure 2: Google Earth image of an enhanced recovery injection well site in the Hearthfire Subdivision. Life Cycle of Wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field Distinct stages within the life cycle of a production or injection well present different risks, and understanding these stages is vital from a risk-management standpoint. • Pre-Production Stage: The pre-production stage involves the construction of the location and the well. This includes constructing the well pad and production facilities, drilling, casing, and cementing the well, and completing the well by perforating the casing and hydraulically fracturing the formation. This stage involves the largest area of disturbance, the most activity, and the greatest risk of environmental impact. • Production Stage: The production stage is the production of oil and gas from a production well or the injection of produced water into an injection well, and it is the longest stage in a well’s life cycle ranging from a few years to over 100 years. The area of disturbance, activity, and risk of impact are all greatly reduced from the pre-production stage. • Abandonment Stage: The last stage is when the well is no longer economically viable, or the reservoir is fully depleted of hydrocarbons. At this stage, the well is plugged with multiple layers of cement; all associated equipment and flowlines are removed; and the site is reclaimed and revegetated. There is little or no disturbance, activity, or risk associated thereafter with the site. The following sections provide additional information on a well’s life cycle, which helps to understand why some other agencies have required setbacks based on the activities within the various life cycle stages. The production and injection wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field have already been drilled, so no ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 98 6 pre-production activities will occur at them and based on the near depletion of the Field, it would not be economic to drill future wells in the Field . Moreover, all of the well sites are less than half an acre in size, there are no fluid storage tanks, and the surface equipment is limited to a pump and wellhead. Pre-Production Stage: Vertical Well Drilling and Construction Figure 3 is a Google Earth image of a vertical production well construction site with a 2-acre disturbed area, a drill rig, and the associated drilling equipment. Figure 4 depicts a typical rig used to drill the vertical well. The downhole portion of a well is constructed in a manner to isolate and protect all known and potentially usable ground water. This is accomplished by placing a set of telescoping steel casings cemented into the drill hole. Pre-Production Stage: Vertical Well Completion The hydraulic fracturing phase occurs after the production well has been drilled and the steel casing cemented. The steel casing is perforated with small holes at the injection formation. Water is injected down the steel casing and through the perforations at high pressure to initiate formation fractures extending about 100 feet away from the well. After the fractures have been created, the fracture water will flow back out of the well into storage tanks. After flowback is complete, the well production stage will begin. Figure 5 shows a hydraulic fracture treatment on a vertical well. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 99 7 Figure 3: Google Earth image of a vertical well drilling in 2011 on 2 -acres in Weld County. Figure 4: A typical drill rig use to drill a deep vertical hole. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 100 8 Pre-Production Stage: Horizontal Wells For new horizontal wells, the area of disturbance, activities, and potential impacts are greatly increased. A well’s horizontal portion can extend up to three miles, and multiple horizontal wells are often drilled on a single pad. The pre-production disturbed area can be 20 acres or more. The scale of operations is dramatically increased due to the large number of wells being drilled, the length of the wells’ horizontal portion, the magnitude of the hydraulic fracture treatment, and the volume of oil, natural gas and water being produced. Figure 6 shows a multiple well drilling site with the numerous pieces of production equipment (separators, oil and water storage tanks, compressors, meters, emission control devises and flaring units). Figure 7 shows a multiple well hydraulic fracturing operation with the numerous pieces of equipment (hydraulic pumping trucks, water storage tanks, flowback tanks, emission control devises and flaring units). Though hard to pick out, the pickup trucks can provide a sense of scale in the images. Figure 5: Hydraulic fracture job on a vertical well. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 101 9 Figure 6: A pre-production 15-acre site drilling multiple long horizontal wells showing the drill rig and associated equipment. Figure 7: A pre-production 15-acre site drilling multiple long horizontal wells during hydraulic fracturing of the long horizontal wells. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 102 10 Possible Future Work on Existing Oil and Gas Wells in the Fort Collins Field In the Fort Collins Oil Field, future maintenance work on existing wells would seek to maintain the wells’ mechanical integrity and their ability to continue production or injection. It would also include plugging and abandoning wells that are no longer needed. This work is considered to be routine maintenance work, and it can be scheduled during daylight hours during weekdays. Work activities might include: • Repair of the surface or downhole pumps, • Repair or replacement of downhole tubing or packers, • Cleaning and opening downhole casing perforations, • Required mechanical integrity and bradenhead testing, • Repair or replacement of flowlines, and • Well plugging and abandonment. Work would be performed in a few days or less by some or all of the following: • A small several person work crew, • A truck mounted workover rig or pulling unit to pull and place tubing, pump, or pump rods in and out of well, • A roundoff tank to hold any fluids which might come out of the hole during maintenance , • A cement truck during well plugging, and • A couple of pickup trucks. No new production well construction would be expected in the Fort Collins Oil Field. As previously noted, the Field is depleted, and the existing production wells are low producing. Throughout the Field’s long history, production wells have been drilled to various geologic formations. Production from other formations has been evaluated with little success. Therefore, deepening, or recompleting an existing production well into another formation is not a perceived future for extending the well’s productive life. Also, converting an existing vertical well into a long horizontal well is not physically possible since an older vertical well was not designed or capable of managing the stresses from current hydraulic fracture treatments or production stresses present in new long horizontal wells. WELL ABANDONMENT At the end of a production or injection well’s active life, the well is plugged with cement and other materials placed into the wellbore to prevent upward migration of fluids in the wellbore. The Ground Water Protection Council has described the plugging process as follows: “The purpose of well plugging is to permanently seal the inside of the well and wellbore so that fluid cannot migrate from deeper to shallower zones or create reservoir problems through downward drainage. The process involves the placement of cement and other materials such as gels inside the well or wellbore in a manner that prevents the upward or downward migration of formation fluids.” ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 103 11 According to the COGCC, more than 27,000 wells have been plugged in Colorado. The few wells that have experienced problems are distinguishable from the Fort Collins Field because they were older wells, often abandoned prior to 1952 when the COGCC was formed. COGCC Rule 434 imposes strict requirements concerning the plugging and abandonment of production and injection wells, and it requires that plugging procedures be reviewed and approved by the COGCC staff before plugging operations take place. Rule 434 also requires the operator to install multiple cement or mechanical plugs in the wellbore, including: • A cement or mechanical plug above any perforated interval in the well , • A cement or mechanical plug above any unperforated hydrocarbon zones that are generally produced in the nearby vicinity, • A cement plug across the casing stub (end) if casing is cut and pulled, • A cement or mechanical plug above any repaired casing leaks or cementing stage tools , • A cement plug across any freshwater aquifers not covered by surface casing or production casing cement, • A cement plug across the surface casing shoe, and • A cement plug at the surface 50 feet in length. After the well is plugged, the operator must remove all of the surface eq uipment and the subsurface flowlines and reclaim the surface terrain. Surface reclamation involves regrading and revegetating the site to match the surrounding landscape and prevent storm water runoff. Figure 8 shows how a well is constructed with cemented steel casings and abandoned with the sealing plugs. Figure 9 shows a plugged and abandoned well in the Fort Collins Oil Field with the site reclaimed. Many plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field are currently in terspersed with residential development and open space, and they have become part of the existing landscape. The equipment needed to plug a well includes a truck mounted rig, steel tank to capture well fluids, and truck mounted pumping equipment to mix and pump cement plugs. A 75 feet reverse setback area will provide an adequate and safe area to perform the work. A 16-foot-wide access drive can provide access to the site. These distances will allow access to the well and space to stage equipment around the well. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 104 12 Figure 8: Depicting a plugged and abandoned injection well. Figure 9: A plugged and abandoned well in the Fort Collins Oil Field with site reclaimed. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 105 13 UNDERGROUND INJECTION WELL An oil and gas well produces brine water, which contains dissolved salts and trace amounts of hydrocarbons. In Colorado, most of this produced water is injected deep underground into geologic formations that are 7,000 to 10,000 feet deep. These formations cannot be used for domestic or industrial purposes. These special wells are called underground injection wells, and they differ from oil and gas production wells in many ways and are regulated differently. Where production wells withdraw oil and gas from deep underground formations, underground injection wells inject water into even deeper underground formations. Accordingly, underground injection wells do not generate air emissions due to the absence of oil and gas. In the Fort Collins Oil Field, most of the injection wells do not have storage tanks, which are a potential source of emissions according to a CDPHE report7. Therefore, the injection well sites have little impact on the surrounding communities and likewise pose little risk to the environment. Disposal Well -vs- Enhanced Recovery Injection Well There are two types of underground injection wells. 1. Disposal Wells: A disposal well permanently places produced water into an authorized deep geologic formation. Disposal wells are deep wells drilled below used or potentially useable water. The Fort Collins Field has one disposal well, Peterson #14-20, located just outside the City in the SW quarter of the SW quarter of section 20, Township 8 North and Range 68 West, 968 feet northeast of the intersection of Douglas and Turnberry Roads. The produced water is transported to this well by flowlines. There are no pits or storage tanks on location. The well was drilled to a depth of 6,635 feet below ground surface. By permit , only produced water from the Fort Collins Oil Field can be injected into the well. A review of COGCC Monthly Report of Operation shows this to be a low volume injection well. 2. Enhanced Recovery Injection Wells: The second injection well classification is enhanced recovery injection wells. These are injection wells drilled into existing hydrocarbon fields for enhanced recovery as discussed previously and schematically depicted in Figure 10. The result is the production of residual oil and produced water. The produced water is then recycled back into the injection well to repeat the process. There are a number of enhanced recovery injection wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field. 7 Oil & Gas and Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, Supporting the Denver Metro/North Front Range State Implementation Plan for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards DRAFT: July 8, 2022, Adopted: December xx, 2022 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 106 14 Figure 10: Schematic of waterflood showing a water injection and oil production wells Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has regulatory authority over underground injection wells. In Colorado, EPA has delegated the permitting, monitoring, inspection, and closure of these wells to the COGCC. The COGCC’s EPA authorization and the details of their underground injection program can be found at https://cogcc.state.co.us/library.html#/technicalreports. COGCC has a robust regulatory program to authorize, permit, annually inspect, and mechanically test each injection well. The authorization process requires documentation of well construction, injection formation water analysis, fracture gradient testing, seismicity review, public, surface owner and mineral owner notifications, offset well review, water well review and a surface use agreement. The annual inspection includes an audit of surface facilities. The annual mechanical integrity testing of the wells includes an internal mechanical integrity test and external bradenhead pressure test of the casing to assure there are no well integrity issues and no potential for produced water to leak from the well bore.8 The inspection and test results are available on the COGCC website. A summary of these test results is provided to the EPA as part of the required annual and biannual reporting. 8 Mechanical Integrity Tests and Bradenhead Tests are used to monitor a well’s integrity and identify leaks. A Mechanical Integrity Test (MIT) of a well is a test of a casing’s internal integrity used to determine if there is a leak in the well’s casing, tubing, or mechanical isolation device. To perform a test an isolation packer is placed above the downhole perforations, the casing is filled with water, then a pressure is applied and held for a time. If the pressure remains stable (unchanged), the casing has integrity. If the pressure is not stable (it falls or rises) the casing does not have integrity. Reference: COGCC Mechanical Integrity Tests - Practices and Procedures A Bradenhead Test of a well is a pressure measure of the annular space between the surface casing and the next smaller diameter casing string that extends up to the wellhead. Ideally a pressure reading should be zero. A pressure reading can be an indication of fluid entering the annular space. Reference: COGCC Bradenhead Pressure Monitoring, Testing, Management, Mitigation, and Reporting ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 107 15 REVIEW OF REVERSE SETBACKS ADOPTED BY OTHER AGENCIES State oil and gas commissions regulate where and how new oil and gas wells are drilled and produced. They have adopted varying setback requirements for this purpose. But as previously explained, the pre-production and production operations associated with new long horizontal wells involve many large-scale activities and can generate impacts that are quite different and much more significant than those associated with injection wells and plugged and abandoned wells within the Fort Collins Oil Field. Local governments regulate new residential and commercial development. As part of that authority, some local governments have adopted reverse setbacks from existing oil and gas locations. Some of these local government reverse setbacks are overly broad and problematic because they do not distinguish between old low volume vertical production or injection wells, new multiple horizontal well locations, the presence or absence of surface production facilities, and plugged and abandoned wells; each of these well types and classifications presents different risks. As a result of these differences, some local governments have defined setbacks based on well stages: pre-production, during production, and for a plugged and abandoned well. Below is a summary of the reverse setbacks adopted by some state and local agencies. COGCC The COGCC has no requirements or recommendations regarding reverse setbacks. This is because the COGCC does not regulate where new residential or commercial development may occur. EPA As previously noted, the EPA regulates the drilling of injection wells in many states. Like the COGCC, EPA has no requirements or recommendations regarding reverse setbacks from injection wells. Nor does EPA have setback requirements for siting new injection wells away from existing buildings. All of EPA’s requirements for injection well siting involve the protection of underground sources of drinking water or otherwise address subsurface conditions. Other States Other states reviewed were California, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. None of these states have reverse setback requirements from production or injection wells or address where new building development should occur. Alberta Energy Regulator The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) [an equivalent to the COGCC] regulates oil and gas development in the Province of Alberta, Canada, and has adopted a reverse setback requirement for plugged and abandoned wells. Through AER-Directive 079A, Surface Development in Proximity to Abandoned Wells, the AER prohibits the construction of any structures over plugged and abandoned wells and ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 108 16 requires a 5-meter (16.5 foot) setback radius around the plugged well in case the well should need remedial work.9 Local governments In Colorado, seven other Front Range cities and counties have adopted reverse setbacks for new residential and commercial developments. Several of the reverse setbacks have been adjusted based on if the well is in the pre-production, production, or abandonment stage. Six Colorado local governments include injection wells in the definition of “Production Facility” or “Well.” Within these regulations, there does not appear to be a distinction between a disposal well or an enhanced recovery well. But several of these regulations require a special use permit, which would allow the local government to consider the lower risks associated with low volume enhanced recovery wells. Table 1 provides an overview of the tabulated results, which vary significantly. The full tabulated review is in Appendix A. Well Life Cycle Stage Reverse setback (feet) Low High Pre-production (Drilling and Completion Activities) 150 2,000 Production Well - Horizontal Wells 150 2,000 Production Well - Vertical Well 150 2,000 Plugged & Abandoned wells 25 250 Table 1: Summary of Colorado Front Range Community reverse setback for new development based on life cycle phase. Below are the reverse setback references for Denton, Texas and Los Angeles, California. This information too is included in Appendix A, together with reverse setbacks from local governments in Pennsylvania and New Mexico. • Denton, Texas has a defined reverse setback of 20-feet from an abandoned well. They did not reference injection or oil wells. • Los Angeles, California regulates new building setback through 110.4 Methane Gas Hazards, which states “no new habitable buildings or enclosed structures can be adjacent to, or within 300 feet (91.44 m) of active, abandoned or idle oil or gas well(s) unless designed according to recommendations contained in a report prepared by a registered design professional, such as a licensed civil engineer or a licensed petroleum engineer, to evaluate whether such wells are being properly operated or maintained, or are abandoned. No permits shall be issued until documentation of proper operation, maintenance, abandonment, or re-abandonment is submitted to and approved by the Building Official.” They do not reference injection wells. 9 Through AER-Directive 056, Energy Development Applications and Schedules, the AER also requires a special plan review for new development near a well producing or a facility processing sour gas . Sour gas is natural gas that contains measurable amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/by-topic/sour-gas. This requirement has no application to the Fort Collins field because the field does not contain flowing sour gas. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 109 17 REVERSE SETBACK RECOMMENDATIONS: The Fort Collins Oil Field injection wells already exist, so they have none of the disturbance activities, or potential impacts associated with pre-production work as depicted in Figures 3 through 7. The surface equipment is limited to a pumping unit and wellhead. These injection wells do not produce any oil, gas, or water. They inject water into an authorized zone. They have limited visual impact , produce no emissions, generate no routine truck trips, and are virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape. There are two injection wells with surface storage equipment, both are outside the City of Fort Collins. Plugged and abandoned wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field have even less impact. The wellbore has been sealed with multiple plugs, all surface equipment and subsurface flowlines have been removed, and the surface has been reclaimed and revegetated. Many of these wells are currently part of the existing landscape and are interspersed with residential and commercial development. State and local setback requirements for new production wells provide no useful direction on an appropriate reverse setback from existing injection wells or wells that are plugged and abandoned in the Fort Collins Oil Field. Many of those state and local requirements respond to the greater area of disturbance, activity, and potential impacts associated with horizontal production wells during the pre-production and production stages. In contrast, existing injection wells and wells that were previously plugged and abandoned do not invo lve any pre-production activities. A vertical production well may impact 2 or more acres as depicted in Figure 3, while a horizontal production well may impact 20 or more acres as depicted in Figures 6 & 7. In contrast, an injection well in the Fort Collins Field typically uses 1,000 square feet or less for the wellhead and injection pump, while a plugged and abandoned well has no surface impact once the site has been reclaimed. The following are the recommendations for a reverse setback from an existing plugged and abandoned well and from an existing injection well with and without surface facilities. New building units should be prohibited within these reverse setbacks, but parks, ballfields, playgrounds, gardens, and other non-residential public spaces could be permitted within these areas. 75-Foot Reverse Setback to Plugged and Abandoned Wells: As noted, the COGCC rigorously regulates the plugging and abandonment of wells, and it has done so for many years. After a well is plugged and abandoned, it cannot emit pollutants and the wellsite is reclaimed. In addition, the well should not require additional work. Therefore, the well does not present a risk to public health and safety or the environment. For plugged and abandoned wells, a reverse setback should be 75 feet. This recommendation is based upon the following factors: • The plugging process has a proven record of protecting the public and the environment in Colorado and other states by preventing oil and gas from reaching useable ground water or the ground surface. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 110 18 • The COGCC has not required or recommended any setback for residential structures from plugged and abandoned wells, and the Province of Alberta uses a five-meter (16.5 feet) setback requirement for this purpose. Denton, TX requires 20-feet. • Several plugged and abandoned wells within the City of Fort Collins have setbacks of 75 feet or less from an occupied building with no discernible impact or threat to public health or safety. • The remaining risk associated with a plugged well is the potent ial need to reenter and repair the well at a later time, and this contingency can be addressed through a setback of 75 feet if access to the well became necessary. • After wells are physically plugged and abandoned, casing is cut off four to six feet below ground level and the surface area is restored. The COGCC requires all plugged wells to be surveyed using a GPS system in the event the well needs to be located at some future date. A “dry hole” marker may be placed on the surface at the landowner’s discretion. • There is no risk of natural gas in the soil surrounding a well because the Fort Collins Field is an oil field that has not produced natural gas. In the highly unlikely event that a plugged well needs to be replugged, a truck mounted rig will need to access the well site. Additional equipment would include steel tanks to capture fluid from the well and truck mounted pumping equipment to mix and pump new cement plugs. A reverse setback of 75 feet is more than adequate for this purpose. 75-Foot Reverse Setback to Injection Wells without Surface Facilities: Injection wells in the Fort Collins Oil Field generally do not contain storage tanks, and they do not produce or inject oil or gas. Produced water is transported to the injection well s by flowlines. The use of flowlines greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of spills. There is no potential for any air emissions. Future well access is required for the operator to perform maintenance and an annual integrity test. This will require the use of a small truck mounted rig and can be completed in a few days. A reverse setback of 75 feet is more than sufficient for this purpose. This recommendation is based on the following considerations: • The injection wells already exist, and therefore there will be no pre-production construction activities. • The risk associated with well maintenance is limited because the well produces no natural gas emissions. • There is no surface production equipment requiring maintenance, which could generate leaks or air emissions. • The absence of surface production equipment eliminates nuisance noise and odors. • All injection wells are required to perform an annual bradenhead to assure there are no leaks. • All injection wells are required to annually perform a mechanical integrity test , which likewise ensures there are no leaks. • Several existing injection wells without storage tanks in the City of Fort Collins have setbacks of 75 feet or less from an occupied building with no discernible impact or threat to public health or safety. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 111 19 500-Foot Reverse Setback to Injection Wells with Surface Facilities: Within the Fort Collins Oil Field, there are two injection wells with surface storage which have the potential for spills and air emissions. Both are outside the City limits. These are not large high volume production facilities, which were the basis of the COGCC 2,000-foot setback adopted in 2020, so the emission risks are much less than the risks that gave rise to the COGCC setback. Moreover, as part of the CDPHE health impact study10, CDPHE reviewed over 10,000 ambient samples collected 500-feet or more from oil and gas active operations during pre-production and the production activities, and they found no elevated risks beyond 500 feet . With respect to these samples, the report states: • “All measured air concentrations were below short- and long-term safe levels of exposure for non-cancer health effects, even for sensitive populations;” and • “Cancer risks for all substances were within the “acceptable risk” range established by the U.S. EPA.” The well operator will need access to the well to perform maintenance and the annual integrity test as discussed for an injection well without surface facilities. For the two injection wells with storage tanks within the Fort Collins Field, a reverse setback should be 500 feet. This should be more than sufficient to provide access to the well to perform maintenance and the annual integrity test, and it provides an additional buffer to address the risks of potential air emissions, noise, and other impacts associated with the storage tanks. This recommendation is based on the following considerations: • The CDPHE study on health impacts found no elevated air sample s at 500 feet or more. • The injection wells already exist, and therefore there will be no pre-production construction activities. • The risk associated with well maintenance is limited because the well produces no natural gas emissions. • The storage tanks contain produced water with only traces amount of oil. • All injection wells are required to perform an annual bradenhead to assure there a no leaks into near surface ground water. • All injection wells are required to annually perform a mechanical integrity test, which likewise ensures there are no leaks. CONCLUSION: The Fort Collins Oil Field has existing injection wells and plugged and abandoned wells. Most of the injection wells in the Field have no on-site storage because the water is transported by flowlines. The absence of storage tanks eliminates the need for trucks trips to transport the injected water. With no 10 Assessment of Potential Public Health Effects from Oil and Gas Operations in Colorado February 21, 2017. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 112 20 truck traffic, the related truck noise and odor is not present to impact the surrounding community. Accordingly, there is little risk to the public and the environment. Two injection wells in the Field have storage tanks. These are outside the City of Fort Collins. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has determined oil storage tanks at oil and gas locations present a risk of air emissions. But the CDPHE health impact study found no elevated levels of exposure for cancer or non-cancer sample greater than 500-feet. Injection wells do not produce or inject hydrocarbons and are constructed to isolate and protect groundwater. As a result of these factors, there is limited risk to public health, safety, the environment, and wildlife. COGCC regulations for the plugging and abandonment of a well require the well to be sealed through the placement of multiple cement plugs, including above injection perforations, at casing cut off points, at exposed aquifers, and at the surface. These plugs provide multiple layers of protection for both ground water and nearby surface occupants. Further, all surface appurtenances and flowlines are removed, and the location is reclaimed and revegetated. A plugged and abandoned well presents no meaningful risk to the public or the environment . Under these circumstances, the following reverse setback distances are recommended to ensure that future residents are provided with a safe buffer protective of public health, safety, and the environment • A reverse setback of 75 feet for: o Plugged and abandoned wells, and o Injection wells with no storage tanks. • A reverse setback of 500 feet for the two injection wells with storage tanks. These setback distances can still be utilized for non-residential public spaces like parks or open spaces. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 113 21 REFERENCES: Opinion Supporting 100-Foot Setbacks From Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells within the Waters’ Edge Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado, David K. Dillion December 26, 2015 Alberta Energy Regulator: AER Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules, May 2021 Alberta Energy Regulator: AER Directive 079 Surface Development in Proximity to Abandoned Wells. November 2014 Alberta Energy Regulator: AER Bulletin 2013-03 Mandated Subdivision and Development Application Referrals, Setback Relaxations, Land Development Information Package, and Abandoned Well Information. 2013 Alberta Energy Regulator: Explaining AER Setbacks – EnerFAQ, September 2015 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Statutes & Regulation, January 2022 COGCC Rules and Regulations, https://cogcc.state.co.us/reg.html#/rules COGCC 2020 Rulemaking hearing audio for setback to newly drilled wells including the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments presentation of the related emission: Mission Change Rulemaking - September 4, 2020 (Morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHwVWCF4bCU&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lb gc6OwgGt02k21Jk&index=45 Mission Change Rulemaking - September 4, 2020 (Afternoon) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o9L77TLNrw&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lbgc 6OwgGt02k21Jk&index=44 Mission Change Rulemaking - September 8, 2020 (Morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq_nd6McivU&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lbgc6O wgGt02k21Jk&index=43 Mission Change Rulemaking - September 8, 2020 (Afternoon) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuBOT7cxgk8&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lbgc6O wgGt02k21Jk&index=42 Mission Change Rulemaking - September 9, 2020 (Morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KkJCq5Bl7w&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lbgc6Ow gGt02k21Jk&index=41 CDPHE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seeI_gd3TzY&list=PLpwAEXLpeKye1Zg4Lbgc6Ow gGt02k21Jk&index=46 Assessment of Potential Public Health Effects from Oil and Gas Operations in Colorado February 21, 2017 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 114 22 Oil & Gas and Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, Supporting the Denver Metro/North Front Range State Implementation Plan for the 2008 and 2015 8 - Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards DRAFT: July 8, 2022, Adopted: December xx, 2022, ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 115 23 Appendix A OTHER COMMUNITIES REGULATION SETBACK NOTES Los Angeles, California 110.4 Methane Gas Hazards 300 ft. No new buildings or enclosed structures, additions, or conversions of a building or structure to habitable or occupiable space regulated by this Code on, adjacent to, or within 300 feet (91.44 m) of active, abandoned or idle oil or gas well(s) unless designed according to recommendations contained in a report prepared by a registered design professional, such as a licensed civil engineer or a licensed petroleum engineer, to evaluate whether such wells are being properly operated or maintained, or are abandoned. No permits shall be issued until documentation of proper operation, maintenance, abandonment, or re-abandonment is submitted to and approved by the Building Official. Exceptions: 1. When approved by the Building Official, mitigation of methane gas hazards shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings or structures located no closer than 200 feet (60.96 m) to active, abandoned, or idle oil or gas well(s). 2. Grading permits may be issued when the proposed work is necessary to mitigate the methane gas hazard. 22.310.050 Oil Field Development Standards 400 ft. Drilling and Redrilling Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply within the oil field for drilling or redrilling: a. At least 400 feet from developed areas. 20 ft b. At least 20 feet from any public roadway. 500 ft develop area 200 ft public road No new storage tank, excluding a replacement tank, shall be constructed closer than 500 feet from any developed area, or closer than 200 feet from a public road. 50 ft No building shall be constructed within 50 feet of any oil storage tank Denton, Texas 6.2.2 - Required Authorization for Gas Well Development in City Limits. 500 feet Reverse Setback Butler County, Pennsylvania § 204-5. Design and installation requirements Oil and gas development is part of the Municipalities Planning Code Chapter 252 and Chapter 300: D. Drilling rigs shall be located a minimum setback distance of 1.5 times their height from any property line, public or private street, and building. San Juan County, New Mexico No defined setback distance from oil and gas well ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 116 24 COLORADO COMMUNITIES ORIGINAL SETBACK UPDATED SETBACK NOTES Fort Collins 2,000’ for all well types TBD Min. 500’ for residential and 1000’ High Occupancy Buildings, or matches COGCC, whichever greater 150’ PA* Buffers cannot contain playgrounds, parks, rec fields, community gathering spaces Properties separated by a major road are not subject to setbacks. Only applies to residential and High Occupancy Buildings Larimer County NA 1,000’ Pre- production Setbacks range from producing wells based on number of wells on well pad 200’-500’ Producing Setbacks can be reduced from 200’ to 50’ for PA 50’-200’ PA Applies to residential, commercial, and mixed-use Does not apply to agricultural, industrial, or open space uses Arapahoe County NA 250’ All OG phases and well types Applies to all occupied structures 150’ PA Broomfield 200’ Residential 2000’ Horizontal wells (any phase) Applies to residential and schools 500’ Schools 2000’ Pre- production (Vertical wells) Differentiates horizontal and vertical wells because of scale of operations and duration to drill/complete 50’-100’ PA 500’ Producing (Vertical wells) 150’-250’ PA Commerce City NA 1,000’ Applies to residential only 150’ PA Erie 350’ residential, parks 2,000’ Pre- production Applies to all buildings approved for human occupation 500’ Producing 50’-150’ PA Longmont 750’ for occupied buildings, sports fields, playgrounds No change 150’ PA Westminster 350’ from all buildings 2,000’ for all well types and buildings Applies to all buildings approved for human occupation 200’ PA 95% built out so no impact to future land use/development ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 117 Ellsworth Engineering Associates, LLC 7716 S. Harrison Circle, Centennial, CO 80122 Tel 303.489.5190 MEMORANDUM Page 1 To: Bill Swalling, Actual Communities, Inc Cc: David Neslin, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP From: Stuart Ellsworth, P.E., Ellsworth Engineering, LLC Date: May 26, 2023 Subject: Response comments to Kirk Longstein inquiries regarding reverse setbacks at Water’s Edge/Sonders properties. Kirk Longstein, City of Fort Collins, Senior Environmental Planner, has posed questions about oil and gas facilities and reverse setbacks in his email correspondence. He expressed concerns that benzene levels may increase due to hydrocarbon contamination in the surrounding groundwater and gas that has leaked from a well into the surrounding ground surface (soil gas). Water’s Edge/Sonders acknowledges the City’s concerns related to oil and gas production and the creation of appropriate reverse setbacks to protect health, safety, and welfare, and wishes to facilitate a better understanding of how appropriate reverse setbacks may be crafted within Fort Collins The focus of Water’s Edge/Sonders input has focused on plugged and abandoned wells and water injection wells. since these are the well types which impact their properties. Water’s Edge/Sonders has previously provided the City with the following three documents related to plugged and abandoned wells and water injection wells: • Opinion Supporting 100-Foot Setbacks From Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells within the Waters’ Edge Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado, David K. Dillion December 26, 2015. • Report and Recommendation Regarding Appropriate Reverse Setbacks From Injection Wells and Plugged and Abandoned Wells in the Fort Collins Field, October 13, 2022. • Comments on oil and gas facilities regulations and setbacks proposed by the City of Fort Collins, December 6, 2022 Foremost in this discussion, is to clarify that injection wells in the Fort Collins Field are more similar to water wells than producing oil wells. These injection wells inject relatively fresh water. These injection wells do not produce or withdraw any oil or gas to the surface, nor do they produce any emissions. Oil and gas wells produce oil and gas fluids released at the surface and have the potential for related emissions and other impacts. The produced oil and gas can contain benzene. At a producing oil and gas well, Mr. Longstein’s concerns do have a basis for the City to use reverse setbacks as one method to protect public health and safety. For injection wells within the Fort Collins Field, the injected water has had the oil and gas removed prior to being injected into the well. The water is injected through a combination of 3/8-inch thick steel casings cemented into the ground to a depth of about 5,034 feet below the ground surface. Mr. Longstein’s concerns for benzene and soil gas in the ground should be alleviated because: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 118 Ellsworth Engineering Associates, LLC Page 2 • No oil and gas is in the injected water. Therefore, no elevated benzene levels would be present. • The injected water contains no gas. Therefore, no soil gas potential is present at the injection well. The injection water is relatively fresh. EPA’s Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) threshold standard is 10,000 ppm for potential useable water. A review of the COGCC Fort Collins Field online documents has water analysis reporting Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels between 2,243 to 14,906 ppm. A 2018 water analysis reports the TDS level at 9,372 ppm. Longstein Question 1: Ellsworth states: “The COGCC has no requirements or recommendations regarding reverse setbacks. This is because the COGCC does not regulate where new residential or commercial development may occur.” It’s true that home rule and SB181 grant local authority to regulate surface activities including land use planning; however is there a common understanding that COGCC Rule 604 provides presumptive setbacks from high occupancy buildings? COGCC Rule 604 defines where the state oil and gas commission (now, Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission, CECMC) will allow a new well to be constructed when in proximity to an existing building. The State Commission has no authority as to where new buildings are constructed. Longstein Question 2: Ellsworth states: “Two injection wells in the Field have storage tanks. These are outside the City of Fort Collins. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has determined oil storage tanks at oil and gas locations present a risk of air emissions. But the CDPHE health impact study found no elevated levels of exposure for cancer or non-cancer sample greater than 500-feet. Injection wells do not produce or inject hydrocarbons and are constructed to isolate and protect groundwater.” Curious if you can provide the CDPHE health impact study that you reference in your recommendations that connects Injection wells to a 75’ reserve setback. Also, It’s my understanding that the industry standard is at least 150’ to access the well for ongoing operations, are you seeing other BMP standards? If I’m understanding the recommendation correctly, because there are no storage tanks at the well head, then there is no elevated risk of exposure to nearby residences; is that correct? also, the Ellsworth study references the storage site as being the primary source of contamination/risk related to the Injection site, however, does not reference surface disturbance from on-going operations. Curious if you have supporting analysis related to ongoing operations/surface disturbances at the injection well and its risk to public health? The Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) reference documents (CDPHE Studies)0F 1 1F 2 are attached. The Ellsworth Report footnoted these studies. They are easily available on the internet. The CDPHE Studies are: 1 Assessment of Potential Public Health Effects from Oil and Gas Operations in Colorado February 21, 2017 2 Oil & Gas and Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, Supporting the Denver Metro/North Front Range State Implementation Plan for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards DRAFT: July 8, 2022, Adopted: December xx 2022. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 119 Ellsworth Engineering Associates, LLC Page 3 • Oil & Gas and Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, Supporting the Denver Metro/North Front Range State Implementation Plan for the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards DRAFT: July 8, 2022, Adopted: December xx, 2022 • Assessment of Potential Public Health Effects from Oil and Gas Operations in Colorado February 21, 2017. The CDPHE Studies focused on emissions from an oil and gas well during the construction, hydraulic fracturing, and production operations. The results pointed to hydraulic fracturing and storage tanks as the main emitters of emissions. The CDPHE Studies did not discuss injection wells. The CDPHE Studies do not discuss a setback distance from an injection well. Because the CDPHE Studies pointed to storage tanks as an emission source, the Ellsworth Study (Report and Recommendation Regarding Appropriate Reverse Setbacks from Injection Wells and Plugged and Abandoned Wells in the Fort Collins Field) reasons that due to the absence of storage tanks there no tanks emissions. Due to oil and gas being removed from the water prior to transport to the injection well, there is no potential for oil or gas emissions at the well. The water is injected into the well with electric injection pumps. Therefore, there are no motor emissions. Based on these points of reason, the Ellsworth Report recommended a 75-feet reverse setback. Longstein Question 3: Also, It’s my understanding that the industry standard is at least 150’ to access the well for ongoing operations, are you seeing other BMP standards? Yes, the Industry has agreed to a 150 ft area around existing oil and gas wells in order to perform well maintenance. This distance allows for larger equipment layouts needed for oil and gas well operations like hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, a setback of 150' is adequate for existing oil and gas wells. Large maintenance operations and hydraulic fracturing jobs can utilize numerous BMPs to minimize the impacts from noise, odors, emissions, traffic, and other similar nuisances to provide public and environmental protections. Injection wells in the Fort Collins Field will never utilize large maintenance operations like hydraulic fracturing due to the high cost and reservoir dynamics. The maintenance on these wells will entail down hole clean out, the required 5-year mechanical integrity test, or well abandonment. These operations will use a small truck mounted rig, a cement truck, a roll-off fluid container and a small number of pick- up trucks. Therefore, a reverse setback of 75-feet is adequate for these operations and provides public protection. Longstein Question 4: a.) If I’m understanding the recommendation correctly, because there are no storage tanks at the well head, then there is no elevated risk of exposure to nearby residences; is that correct? b.) also, the Ellsworth study references the storage site as being the primary source of contamination/risk related to the Injection site, however, does not reference surface disturbance from on-going operations. Curious if you have supporting analysis related to ongoing operations/surface disturbances at the injection well and its risk to public health? Yes, no storage tanks at the injection well results in no elevated exposure risk from emissions to nearby residences due to the absence of an emission source. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 120 Ellsworth Engineering Associates, LLC Page 4 No health studies have been found regarding a water injection well that has no storage tanks. In an effort to seek a reference document or study, EPA was contacted, and an internet search was conducted. In an email exchange with EPA regarding reference documents on air emissions related to enhanced recovery injection wells, EPA did not have any to refer. To quote the email response: “I looked for references discussing air quality impacts related to secondary enhanced recovery injection wells. There is very little info on this topic. I think this is because secondary injection operations for enhanced recovery do not result in any significant air emissions.” An internet search on air emissions related to enhanced recovery injection wells, the response only referred to thermal injection for heavy oil (thick low gravity oil), which would never be applicable at the Fort Collins Field due to the oil being light high gravity oil. The ongoing operations/surface disturbances at the Fort Collins Field is a periodic pickup truck checking the injection pump and wellhead. The injection wells do require a mechanical integrity test every 5 years, which would be a truck mounted rig to pull out the injection tubing and test the well's integrity. Hence, the public health risk is very limited and benefitted by the mechanical integrity test assuring the well has integrity and does not leak into ground. Longstein Question 5: Should plugged and abandoned and dry and abandoned wells receive a 150-feet setback from all new occupiable buildings? In the Ellsworth Study, background on the field is discussed. Further, a description of how wells are abandoned is included. Based on this background, pages 17 and 18 present a recommendation for a 75- foot reverse setback from abandoned wells. A 75 feet reverse setback is adequate for public protection based upon the following factors: • The plugging process has a proven record of protecting the public and the environment in Colorado and other states by preventing oil and gas from reaching useable ground water or the ground surface. • Several plugged and abandoned wells within the City of Fort Collins have setbacks of 75 feet or less from an occupied building with no discernible impact or threat to public health or safety. • The remaining risk associated with a plugged well is the potential need to reenter and repair the well at a later time, and this contingency can be addressed through a setback of 75 feet if access to the well became necessary. • After wells are physically plugged and abandoned, casing is cut off four to six feet below ground level and the surface area is restored. The COGCC requires all plugged wells to be surveyed using a GPS system in the event the well needs to be located at some future date. A “dry hole” marker may be placed on the surface at the landowner’s discretion. • There is no risk of natural gas in the soil surrounding a well because the Fort Collins Field is an oil field that has not produced natural gas. Longstein Question 6: Should all producing wells receive a 2000’ setback from all new occupiable buildings? In the CDPHE Studies, elevated levels of emissions were noted during the pre-production phase of an oil and gas well. This is when a well is being constructed and hydraulic fracturing may occur. Emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations were the primary basis of the State's 2000-foot setback. CDPHE Studies also noted during a well’s production stage emissions from storage tanks decreased to below health standard at the 500-foot distance. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 121 Ellsworth Engineering Associates, LLC Page 5 On page 16 of the Ellsworth Study, it was noted that some Front Range Communities have adopted two reverse setbacks: a pre-production and production setback. It is believed that the Communities based the pre-production and production setback on the CDPHE Studies. They adopted a 2,000-foot pre- production setback for new well construction and hydraulic fracturing operations and a 500-foot production setback while an oil and gas well is in production. Longstein Question 7: Should injection wells receive a 150’ 500’, or 2000’ setback? It is understood that the City of Fort Collins has banned commercial injection wells within the city limits. The discussion here is in regard to enhanced recovery wells. As noted in the Ellsworth Report, the CDPHE Studies have made a clear distinction that a majority of emissions coming from a producing oil and gas location originate from the storage tanks. Therefore, it is inferred that both the absence of storage tanks and the oil and gas being removed from the water prior to being piped and injected in the injection well, no emissions and no emission impacts to the public are present. Ellsworth Report Page 18 provides the following basis for a 75-foot reverse setback: • The injection wells already exist, and therefore there will be no pre-production construction activities. • The risk associated with well maintenance is limited because the well produces no oil or gas hence no production associated emissions. • There is no surface production equipment requiring maintenance, which could generate leaks or air emissions. • The absence of surface production equipment eliminates nuisance noise and odors. • All injection wells are required to perform an annual bradenhead to assure there are no leaks. • All injection wells are required to perform a mechanical integrity test, which ensures there are no leaks. • Several existing injection wells without storage tanks in the City of Fort Collins have setbacks of 75 feet or less from an occupied building with no discernible impact or threat to public health or safety. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet pg. 122 Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates City Council Regular Meeting – August 21, 2018 Attachment 6: Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Minutes (April 19, 2018 and March 15, 2018) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 123 EXCERPTJeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing April 19, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Whitley and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Shepard, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Frickey, Everette and Gerber ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** Discussion Agenda: Member Rollins recused herself from this item. 4.Oil and Gas Buffers - Land Use Code Changes Project Description: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2 (Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that citizen emails and letters were received and are as follows. Jerry Dauth provided three articles about Oil and Gas for the Board’s consideration. The Board received comment and recommendation from the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Received Code Amendments (to include language that exempts approved development plans. Joyce Devaney sent a letter stating that she is in favor of increased setbacks and hopes that the Board votes in favor as well. Joyce is very concerned about the health effects of fracking. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 124 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Disclosures Member Whitley disclosed that he had ex parte communication in the form of a presentation he attended presented by the League of Women’s Voters in Longmont Colorado. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Everette gave a brief overview of current and proposed Land Use Code regarding oil and gas wells, their type, how many are known to exist, their locations and development potential near these wells. Planner Everette followed up with clarification and answers to questions asked at the previous months P&Z hearing. Member Hobbs asked if a slide in the presentation could be revisited. Member Hobbs read a bullet point at the bottom of a slide; the direct approval of any sampling plan is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan may be required to include, but is not limited to the following. Member Hobbs remarked and asked that this is a menu of the types of things that a Director of Planning could ask for, but it is not a complete list of all the things that are required, is that correct? Planner Everett responded that that is correct. That the way the code is currently written, allows some flexibility depending on the situation of that particular site. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jerry Dauth, 1925 Serramonte Dr., emphasized the safety of larger buffers zones. There is evidence that states that plugged wells can leak. Would like measuring to be done over time. Vicky Mclane, 1607 Ticonderoga Dr., asks that the setback not be reduced for plugged and abandoned wells. She is requesting that the setback be increased to 500’. The risk of cancer is 8 times higher if the setback is less. There is a high leakage rate for plugged wells. Would like continuous monitoring, Vicky knows that it is expensive, but also knows that there is equipment not yet vetted, but in process at CSU. Gayla Martinez, 3378 Liverpool St., she seconded what Vicky Mclane requested. Gayla is requesting that the setbacks not be less than 500’. Gayla offered two points to support the argument; 1) Quote from Professor Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University, “it is physically impossible to ensure that a well will not leak”. 2) Study lead by Lisa McKinzie of Colorado School of Public Health “lifetime cancer risks for those living within 500’ of wells is 8 times higher”. Staff Response Planner Everette appreciated the comments received from the three citizens. Planner Everette stated that all studies reviewed by the citizens were also reviewed by commenter staff and have informed the staff recommendation and added that many of the studies that relate to well leakage and failure also include active and fracked wells. It is hard to teas out how much leakage is associated with plugged and abandoned wells in particular. Board Questions Member Hansen spoke to the amount of $100,000 salary for staff that the City of Longmont pays to have this person monitor wells. The question was, how many wells is this one individual overseeing and how does it compare to the number of wells in Fort Collins? Planner Everette stated that the number of wells in Longmont is comparable to that of Fort Collins. 10 to 20 active and 20-30 plugged and abandoned wells. The $100,000 per year includes oversight of a contractor that goes out and does the sampling and at about $2,500 to $3,000 a well. They are able to sample all of their plugged and abandoned wells across the City. Not necessarily every well every year, but the ones they have the most concerns about, they are able to hit each year. The Longmont program started with initial site investigation and surveying, which is costlier. Roughly $16,000 per well. Staff has estimated that just the initial site investigation would cover about 6 wells in the first year at $100,000. Member Heinz requested clarification. There is a $100,000 position of someone who oversees a contractor that does the testing? And then the contractor charges $2,000 to $3,000 per well. Planner Everette explained that ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 125 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5 there is a dedicated staff person that has their own salary that is separate from $100,000. The $100,000 is just to pay a contractor to do the annual site sampling and recording. Member Heinz asked about the setback reduction from 350’ to 150’. Why did this change come up, why the reduction? Planner Everette responded for all wells, active or plugged and abandoned under the proposed code changes the new buffer would be 500’ for residential development or 1000’ for high occupancy building units. This would be the starting point. A developer could pursue alternative compliance for a reduced buffer. The 150’ minimum was determined in consultation with the City of Longmont contractors that do site sampling around wells in Colorado and around the country and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff. The consensus from the groups is that 150’ would be a safe radius for residential development, even if some leakage or site contamination were to occur. Member Heinz asked if the default was 500’, but that if they meet some certain criteria, they could possibly go to 150’. Planner Everette stated that was correct and it would be up to the P&Z Board or an administrative hearing officer to decide. Chair Schneider asked for clarification regarding which type of wells, natural gas or oil, we have in Fort Collins. Planner Everette responded that it was correct, we have oil wells. Chair Schneider stated that all the research and studies were based on natural gas wells leaking. He did not see anything regarding oil wells leaking. Planner Everette stated that much of the research lumps it all together. It is hard to determine what the leakage rate would look like. The most recent well to be drilled in Fort Collins was in the 1990’s. We do not have much of the newer oil and gas production that other communities have. Chair Schneider asked if staff looked at setting different setbacks depending on if it is an oil well or natural gas well. Planner Everette stated that staff did not consider separate setbacks for different types of production. It was asked about the potential for natural gas production in Fort Collins, there is no way to rule it out. It is not impossible, but not likely in the short term, near future there would be any natural gas interest in Fort Collins. Member Carpenter asked if staff looked at adding another requirement to the alternative compliance so that it does have to be somehow the operator that will pay for the continuous monitoring or annual monitoring? Planner Everette stated that staff has not added recommendation for ongoing annual monitoring. There are options for funding and staff wanted to leave that type of consideration up to the Board and City Council as to whether that type of cost is something that is worth putting on the developer or more likely a future homeowner that would live adjacent to that well, or if it is something the City would be willing to take on. Member Hobbs stated that the code verbiage does not require that monitoring equipment is ever installed, it’s one of a number of things that could be asked for, correct? Planner Everette replied that is how it is worded, correct. Staff’s intent is that would be required at all times, but that is not how the code language is worded. Member Hansen asked for verification Planner Everette responded that that was correct. Member Hansen asked if a developer chose to respect the 500’ setback, then they would not be required to verify location or do any testing or provide any monitoring, is this correct? Planner Everette responded that is correct. That is how the proposed code language is written. Member Hanse followed up by stating it would be advantageous to the City and its citizens to encourage developers to do that kind of study. Have you gotten any feedback on the cost versus the benefit? Planner Everette pulled up a slide on cost. For Plugging and abandoning a well is roughly $84,000, the cost for research and sampling if a well is already abandoned is roughly $31,000. The thought behind the alternative compliance option was that it would create a strong financial incentive for a developer to complete the sampling and site investigation and survey work in exchange for developable acreage. Requirements could be shifted around so that certain requirements could applicable no matter what the buffer distance is. The intent behind requiring the full sampling plan and analysis in exchange for the reduced buffer is that there would be a financial incentive for that. Board Deliberation Chair Schneider does not see how the City could demand of the developer extended testing as most often once the site is complete the LLC dissolves and the HOA takes over, and it becomes their burden and probably becomes dues to homeowners. Member Heinz asked if he meant the real estate developer that shows up to do the development, not the oil developer? Chair Schneider, correct. Member Hobbs pointed out that the Board needs to ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 126 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 accept the fact that there may not be HOA’s in some areas. Member Hobbs agrees with Member Hansen in that his concerns center on the alternative compliance issue. In this case we are talking about public health and it is felt that it is difficult to ask the P&Z Board and City staff to administer in perpetuity. Member Whitley wanted to know if staff had considered eliminating alternative compliance or making it more stringent? Member Hobbs responded that he feels we are dealing with a public safety issue that is difficult to access or predict the long-term effects. He feels it is not correct to place responsibility for that on a Planning and Zoning staff. In his view, this is something that needs environmental and scientific experts to deal with, and even then, you don’t know what is going to happen to a well in the future. Airing on the side of being conservative, preference would be to eliminate the alternative compliance and leave the setback at 500’ for abandoned wells. Member Whitley, Heinz and Carpenter all agreed. Member Schneider disagreed as he feels that due diligence needs to be completed to get the reduced setback and that people are willingly buying and willing living in that area. If someone has a major concern, then they should probably not live in that area. It is no different than an airport, people choose to live there. Also, we do not know what the future holds in the way of technology. Member Heinz feels that maybe it could get modified and setback then. She does not want to be responsible for health risks. We just do not know. Chair Schneider stated that we are talking about oil wells, if it were gas wells he might have a different opinion. He just does not see the same risk as fracking. Member Whitley asked what risks have been identified so far? There is no telling what might come in the future. Member Hansen stated that there is also an environmental health concern and if we do not give developers some incentive to investigate and possibly remedy substandard conditions at these wells, there could be a ticking time bomb that we don’t even know about. Even at the projected cost we have, that’s really cheap developable acreage, this is a huge incentive, even if the costs increase 3 to 5 times. Member Hobbs feels that the potential hazards and the potential monitoring of those hazards, the technology to monitor that in real time and in perpetuity is evolving. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about a hand full of locations within the GMA. Member Hobbs is willing to say there could be situations where the economics curve and the cost of monitoring that satisfied the surrounding citizens and this board, both of which would be voices that would be heard in such a situation, could be arrived at. He feels that the alternative compliance is too much of an open door and that treating those handful of what are currently 5 active and 10 abandoned wells with the ability for a developer to come in with a modification like we saw Waters Edge do and propose something that works, that I would agree to. But, I agree to eliminating the alternative compliance. Member Carpenter agrees with not eliminating the alternative compliance and that we have no way of saying that gas is more harmful than oil. We just don’t have that information in front of us. Member Carpenter would like to get rid of the alternative compliance. They can recommend with a modification. Chair Schneider asked if they would feel better if it was a mandated stipulation, here are the things that need to be done? Member Hansen’s concern with eliminating alternative compliance and opening it up for modifications, is that there is no set of standards that we want to see to justify reducing from 500’ to 200’ or 150’. You will have people coming in to reduce it to 50’, because the land use code will not have any standard to set what we expect out of those modifications. Member Carpenter agrees and feels there could not be a modification. Member Heinz stated that anyone could ask for a modification, but it would make sense if it were, “could be no closer than X”, and in the event that someone was asking for a modification they would have to meet these seven criteria. At that point it would be almost the same as allowing the alternative compliance. Member Heinz is concerned for the health of the people than the developer getting more place to live. Member Whitley agreed. Chair Schneider Is concerned because when the Board approved Waters Edge, there was only one person that objected, he is trying to understand. Member Carpenter feels as though they have more information at this point. At the time the previous project went through, there was no data. This time we have been give much more information. Member Whitley suspects that Waters Edge would be different if it were brought up now. Member Heinz asked if it would make sense to break this up if we are not going to agree to all of the recommendations? Member Whitley asked if they could just eliminate the object of compliance section, section C? Chair Schneider responded that it could be part of the motion. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board submit a recommendation to City Council to approve the land use code amendments relating to oil and gas buffers as submitted in the staff report with the exception of 3.8.26C4C and that this recommendation is based upon the agenda materials presented at work session, this hearing and the public comments that we have heard tonight. Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider asked City Attorney Yatabe if the motion made sense. Attorney Yatabe stated yes. Member Hobbs commented that he is appreciative of staff’s work. Having reciprocal buffers ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 127 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5 that work in conjunction with the State setbacks that they require of the oil and gas producers. He feels that the way that it has been designed to parallel that into changes that changes. These setbacks will change if the State setbacks become greater. This is a good set to do that and it is a good step to have better notification on the plats for potential land or homeowners to allow a conscious decision of living close to either an abandoned well or existing well. Member Carpenter also thanked staff for their patience in answering all the questions and helping to educate the Board so that they could make an informed decision on the issue. Member Whitley also thanked staff on this new and evolving information. Member Heinz thanked the citizens who attended every meeting to say something and show their passion. Member Hansen appreciated staff’s efforts. He is not in support of the motion as it currently stands. Member Heinz asked if they could make a motion to Council that the City take it upon itself to test out some of those abandoned wells? Chair Schneider thanked the citizens for being active and involved. Staff came to the Board with very well drafted land use code change for oil and gas, unfortunately he cannot support those changes based on the motion. He would like to have the ability to look at potential reductions that people are going to put in the time to look at the wells and make sure they are safe and clean. He does not feel we have all the research yet. He feels there should be the alternative compliance available. Vote: 4:2 (Schneider and Hansen dissenting). ***END EXERPT*** Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 128 EXCERPTJeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing March 15, 2018 EXCERPT FOR OIL AND GAS Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen,Heinz,Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Rollins Staff Present: Gloss,Yatabe,Tatman-Burruss, Everette,and Gerber ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** Discussion Agenda: 3.OIL AND GAS LAND USE CODE CHANGES Project Description: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2 (Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that Harv Teitelbaum of the Sierra Cub, expressed concerns about the health risks and safety hazards related to fracking. Kevin & Adrian Krause questioned the setback requirements for plugged/abandoned wells, and expressed concerns about health and safety risks, lack of long-term data, and potential reductions in property values. This email included an article about an oil spill near Berthoud. Laura Shaffer supports the proposed Land Use Code changes. Marsha Lotz commented that it would be important to hear from Prospect Energy regarding soil and groundwater testing. Max Moss, with HF2M Colorado, and Angela Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 129 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Milewski, with BHA Design, expressed concerns about impacts of the proposed changes on the Montava development project, particularly for plugged and abandoned wells. They proposed alternative changes that they would support. Nancy Matkin supports the code changes, except the reduced setback for plugged/abandoned wells, and would also like to know exactly where the well near her is located. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, gave a brief overview of this project in relation to the code changes that will be considered and how they relate to the buffer standards around existing oil and gas operations. Additional information is available for discussion if needed. Clarifying Questions Member Carpenter, asked Planner Everette to revisit the Montava piece in regard to a school and what would happen. Planner Everette explained that the property is currently owned by the Poudre School District and is intended for a new High School. The buffer for high occupancy building units would be measured from the edge of the oil and gas operation site to the nearest corner of an occupied building. Currently this would not prevent a school from being built on this site, if the buffer were to apply, it would prevent an edge of the school building from being located in that buffer. Montava is partnering with the School District to determine the exact location. Member Carpenter asked if the School District would have to work around this so that we did not have any piece of the school in the zone. Planner Everette explained the complicating factor with schools is the review process which is different than the typical Type I, Type II processes. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Vickey McLane, 1607 Ticonderoga Dr., supports a 500ft. setback for plugged and abandoned wells. Mrs. McLane stated it is not known by the City or COGCC how many wells and their locations have been plugged and abandoned and if they have been plugged properly. Mrs. McLane feels that all plugs fail sooner or later, so we are not dealing with absolute permanence on these plugged and abandoned wells. It is important that we have a maximum setback to protect human health and safety and she feels the records are very clear about the dangers of not having an adequate setback. Gayla Maxwell Martinez, 3378 Liverpool St., asked what the reasoning that is the data or evidence on which these proposed setback distances are based? She is not asking for an explanation of the legal or conventional precedent, but such precedence does not constitute good planning for our current realities or recognition of new knowledge and understanding that might guide us to better choices for our community’s future. Quoted Dr. Sandra Steingraber. Staff Response Planner Everette responded to Ms. McLane. Requirements we have built into the alternative compliance that would help us to identify the exact location of the wells, this would be a requirement for the developer to locate any wells on their property including the ones that we are aware of and pinpoint with GSP the exact location of those wells. We would also require investigation in to when and how those wells were plugged using any historic research and data that we can find, as well as any site investigations that may need to occur. There are methods such as ground penetrating radar that can be used to assess what is happening underground. Soil, ground water and soil gas testing will also be required to determine whether any impacts are occurring. Alternative compliance requires a point-in-time snapshot of what is happening on-site in terms of testing, and does not require further ongoing monitoring, which is something that could be considered. Planner Everette responded to Ms. Martinez. Regarding the scientific reasoning for the setback distance and concerns about fracking, impacts to human health and the impacts of oil and gas operations on air quality and various pollutants that can impact air quality and public health. Those studies that have been done to our knowledge have been done for active oil and gas operations. We do not dispute any of the findings that were stated. One of the stated goals of these code changes would be to incentivize developers to work with operators to remove active oil and gas operations and to permanently plug and abandon those wells so that those air quality impacts would not be occurring in proximity to our residents within the City limits. Articles have been reviewed and ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 130 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 6 reasoning distance for setbacks come from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservations Commissions standards for their new wells and matching those standards. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette to explain what other cities in Colorado are doing in terms of instituting reciprocal setbacks. Planner Everette responded that it is variable along the Front Range and that the City looked at the best practices. It is inconsistent and a majority did not have reciprocal setbacks or the number varied widely, some matched the States requirements, some were narrower and some communities have adopted wider requirements. The only community found to have a setback from plugged and abandoned wells is Longmont at 150’. Member Hobbs asked what the process would be if the State mandates setbacks that are different from what the proposed code change will be. Will we be back to square one? Planner Everette stated that the City of Fort Collins would increase if the State increased. Member Hobbs asked for clarification regarding the State not having a setback for plugged and abandoned wells. Planner Everette responded that is correct. Member Hobbs asked, what if they instituted a setback? Planner Everette responded that it covers both active and plugged and abandoned wells and that the default buffer would be 500’ unless a developer sought alternative compliance. Member Heinz asked about legal liability and the City. Mr. Yatabe responded that it is a very fact specific inquiry. It is difficult to answer but generally the City has quite a bit of governmental immunity along those lines, but there are exceptions and we would have to examine it at that time. Member Heinz asked if in general there could be liability back on the City? Mr. Yatabe responded that it depends on what is happening, and that he could not say that there is not potential liability, but again it is a very fact-based inquiry. Member Hansen spoke to the map of Montava regarding two wells near the site that are not on the property in question, if these are abandoned wells that need testing and monitoring set up, I do not see the incentive that you were hoping for because the owner of that well is not affected by that property, has that been thought through at all? Planner Everette pointed out the two wells and stated that the developer would be impacted by the buffers around those wells even though the wells are not on their property, the developer would still have an incentive to try to work with the adjacent property owner to do the site investigation. They would need to determine if it is in their best interest. Member Hansen asked, so they just must hope that their neighbor is willing to cooperate with them? Planner Everette responded yes. Member Hansen asked if the standard would have to apply if it were just outside the City limits? Planner Everette responded yes, if a well was affecting the development property then we would be considering those wells that are outside the City limits. Member Whitley asked about monitoring. I believe we are asking for the installation of permanent monitoring for the future use. How easy would it be to convert that to active monitoring in perpetuity if there is a problem with say methane leaking? Planner Everette spoke to soil and ground water monitoring on an annual basis, this is not a continuous monitoring. Air quality monitoring can be continuous and this is what Longmont is doing. Member Whitley asked if Longmont was the only community doing this? Planner Everette responded that Longmont is the only community that she is aware of that has a comprehensive program where they are evaluating all their plugged and abandoned wells in particular and that is something the City has chosen to fund. Member Whitley assumes that they have more plugged and abandoned wells than we do. Do you have an estimate of the liability of the cost of putting in air monitoring around Fort Collings? Planner Everette responded that Longmont has a comparable number of wells to Fort Collins. Planner Everette asked for a moment to look up the costing. Chair Schneider asked Planner Gloss or Mr. Yatabe asked about the setbacks at time of final plat and if existing developments would not have these setbacks put onto them. For instance, if an individual wanted to add onto their home, could they with the new setbacks in place? Planner Everette responded that the setbacks would apply to any project that had to go through the development review process. No, they would not be held to the new setback standards, if they were submitting for an unplatted project, then the setbacks would follow the Land Use Code. Member Schneider asked for clarification in that an existing home could be added to and would not have to comply because of the setbacks at the time because you already have a building there. Planner Everette deferred to Planner Gloss and Mr. Yatabe. Mr. Yatabe spoke to the intent and that this was for projects moving forward, however; he would like to speak to Planner Everette and staff for further clarification. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 131 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Chair Schneider asked if there is an existing daycare or in-home daycare within the new setback, are they ok or would you consider them non-conforming? Planner Everette would like to get and research for clarification. Planner Gloss responded that he believes this would be a legal non-conforming use, that it is an existing condition that new regulations are creating the non-conformity, although we should be clarifying in the code change to make certain that the language is crystal clear. Chair Schneider talked of his concern with school sites and PSD development. Example, they do not have to follow our setbacks, correct? They follow their own rules and regulations. Planner Gloss, as you recall, they are bound by the Site Plan advisory review which follow State statutes and the three criteria are based on the location character and extend of the development relative to our adopted plans. That is the charge of the Board when that development plan would come in for the School District. It is hard to say until you have something in front of you, exactly how you would apply this criteria in that case. Member Schneider asked if there have been any conversations with PSD to ask if they will comply? Planner Everette responded that there is not been any direct outreach to PSD. Member Schneider asked if this was time pressing issue or should we get some clarifications on the code language before we make a recommendation to Council to make sure that we have our information that we need, since we will potentially be the governing body on interpreting these rules and regulations for future work, is this something that we might want to consider tabling to get better clarification? Planner Everette responded that this is not something that has urgency that is being mandated. This would be up to the Board to consider. Member Schneider addressed the Board regarding their thoughts to any uncertainty or needed clarification. He does not want to push this forward without having full understanding. Member Whitley shares Member Schneider’s concerns, he would like to have more time to look at it. Member Heinz asked if there was a sense of wanting to get it confirmed before we get more development proposals out in this area. Planner Everette responded that it is certainly a potential and that there is one development proposal that is actively in development review at this time that these standards would not apply to that has wells on its site that will be coming before the Board in the next couple months. The Montava project is the largest development project that we are aware of that has wells on the property, as well as adjacent properties with wells that could be affected but do not have any pending development proposals. Member Schneider asked for clarification. Wouldn’t they still have to comply because nothing has been built at this point, even if they are in the process now? Planner Gloss responded that once you have a completed development application in, you are subject to the standards that are in affect at the time of submittal. Member Schneider felt that he had heard that this would be retroactive to all development plans. Planner Everette responded that this would apply to any development plans moving forward that are submitted once this code change was adopted. For instance, if Montava were to be submitted next week, these code changes would not be in effect, they would be subject to our current code requirements. Member Hobbs shared concerns with PSD. What could we accomplish with negotiations? Would they not want to look at this on a case-by-case basis, or do you think that we could negotiate an acceptance of these setbacks in general? What do you think we could get there? Chair Schneider - As an example the City of Fort Collins put into a mandate, no more cellphone towers on City owned property, then PSD followed suite with that. I would rather move forward knowing that PSD is wanting and willing to comply with these also instead of having us go through a review and then get challenged. Member Carpenter asked if this was something that if Poudre School District was not going to do, would we consider not doing it? They either are onboard or not. Member Schneider does not disagree, but he feels it would be nice to have that communication factor established and set before we move forward, especially if there are other clarifying questions that need to be addressed. Member Heinz – Does it make sense to recommend that Council talk to PSD. Member Schneider replied no and that staff would talk to PSD. Member Schneider does not understand why communication with PSD did not happen this time, especially when we knowingly have a site with impact. Member Heinz does not feel she needs the information to make a decision. Member Carpenter feels the same as Member Heinz, she is ready to move forward with a decision, no real reason to put if off any longer, except for the legal clarifications. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette, up until these code changes are adopted, the current status quo for the Montava project would be the State regulation or 500’ from an abandoned well, is that correct? Planner Everett responded no, If Montava were subject to the current code requirements the required buffer would be 350’, because it would be under the Fort Collins code, not the State. This would apply to both active and plugged and abandoned wells unless they pursed a modification. Member Hobbs spoke of his concern over waiting was that ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 132 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 6 something could come in that would have a smaller radius from these wells from Montava. Given that we have 350” now along with a potential of having a modification like Waters Edge, Mr. Hobbs does not see any problem in delaying so that the issues could be worked out. Member Whitley asked Planner Everette if she had found the cost estimates from Longmont. She did not have that information on hand but provided alternative cost scenarios. Member Heinz asked Planner Everette to pull up previous slides and discuss the buffers and incidents that have happened in the past. Member Heinz asked Planner Everette what the approximate area that the homes were built away from abandoned or plugged wells. Planner Everette responded that in the Trinidad case the home was built directly on top of the well and that they were not aware of the well. The well was not properly plugged. In Firestone, the well was not directly adjacent to the home but rather the incident was caused by a flow line leading from a well that was not plugged and abandoned, it was a shut-in well that had not been properly disconnected from the flow line. Member Heinz asked what a shut-in well was. Planner Everette explained that a shut-in well has been temporarily turned off, has not been plugged, has not been abandoned, however, there is an option for it to be reactivated if needed. Member Carpenter asked if there were monitors available for individual homes. Planner Everette has not yet followed up on that question. Member Carpenter requested the Planner Everette provide that information. Member Heinz asked about data collected from Longmont. Planner Everette stated it was private as they have yet to publish publicly. Member Whitley asked how hard it would be to change the wording to reflect Longmont’s air quality monitoring? Planner Everette responded that it would not be difficult to add that to the code changes, that you would just need to evaluate what the consequence of that would be and insure that the Board agrees on that. Member Whitley stated he had asked for the numbers, but that they were not available. Chair Schneider stated that it might be another good reason to postpone, to gather some more information, and that he would feel uncomfortable adding this as a requirement without having background. Member Heinz asked what kind of background he needed? Member Schneider responded that between cost and effectiveness, who does it, etc. Member Heinz asked if they also measuring effectiveness? Planner Everette responded by asking, if they are measuring the effectiveness of the monitors themselves? Member Heinz responded yes to Member Schneider clarified, yes, how effective are the monitors, the cost, how far do they read? Planner Everette responded that staff can get that information, we do not have that information currently. Member Schneider stated that just having that background would let us know how far away we are monitoring, what the other parameters that we are looking at and how much do they really protect. Member Whitley asked if Longmont is keeping this information confidential and how open would they be to share any of this information with us confidentially? Planner Everette could not speak to how open they would be to share confidential information; however, they will be releasing the information to the public once they have finalized their reports. Planner Everette did let the Board know that there is a presentation that the City of Longmont will be coming to the City of Fort Collins to give on March 19th that will showcase their program and m aybe in that presentation might be some of the desired information. Member Whitley asked staff if they could put off consideration of this until after that meeting? Member Whitley is very interested in attending the presentation. Member Heinz asked the members of the Board if they could postpone until special meeting? Member Schneider stated that the special session scheduled for March 29th has already been posted and could not be added at this time. It would have to be discussed at April’s meeting. Member Whitley asked if postponing this for one month would be that big of a problem? Planner Everette responded that there is no issue except Council, etc. However, if the Board wishes to postpone, then they should. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette if the people from Longmont were coming up to present to the Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory Board or the Natural Resources Advisory Board? Planner Everette stated that they are not coming up to present to those advisory boards, but that Jason Elkins was invited by the League of Women Voters ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 133 EXCERPTPlanning & Zoning Board March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 6 to come give the presentation to the broader community. The presentation will take place at the Coloradoan at 11:30 a.m. Member Hobbs asked if it will be televised on Channel 14? Planner Everette responded that she did not believe there are plans to televise. This is not a City sponsored event. The Coloradoan may film it. Planner Gloss commented to the Board that they have the discretion to move it to the April 19th hearing or you could just continue it without a specific date. The notification would be less of an issue because it is a legislative item. Member Carpenter asked if it going to go ahead and go to Council, or will it wait until after our recommendation, because she did not want to get into a situation where Council hears it without our recommendation? Planner Gloss responded yes, we would wait until after the Board’s recommendation to take it on to the City Council. Member Hobbs asked Planner Everette if she would be attending the presentation. Planner Everette replied yes. Members Hobbs would like to hear an update at the next work session from Planner Everette along with her notes or views on the Fort Collins Air Quality and Natural Resources Board’s issues that they have come up with, especially the Air Quality Board. Member Schneider asked if Member Hobbs is requesting to continue to a later date at this point. Member Hobbs thought Planner Gloss’s suggestion was to continue with an open continuation. Planner Gloss feels as though the assignments given to staff could be turned around fast enough to bring it back before the Board on April 19th. Member Hobbs feels that it would be good to move this forward and get it to Council. Member Heinz asked if their attendance would be considered ex parte information? Mr. Yatabe responded that since this is a legislative matter, you can attend the presentation with a strong suggestion that if you do attend you disclose so that you can put information on the record. This is not an issue as far as an ex parte communication. Member Whitley asked if an invitation was needed to go to the presentation? Planner Everette responded no, it is open to the public. Member Hansen would like to include some specific action items to justify why this is being continued. Member Whitley believes the Board is looking for more information from the Air Quality Board and Natural Resources Board and the group from Longmont’s presentation on Monday to enable the Board to make a more balanced decision. Member Heinz asked if in specific, are there not items with PSD that we want to include in that? Chair Schneider replied with PSD and the legal matters, legal non-conforming and additional clarifications items to make sure the code language is solid, the effectiveness, estimates of cost for monitoring and the radius. Member Carpenter add, and the estimates of cost for monitoring. Member Hansen made a motion continue this Land Use Code changes in regard to Oil and Gas wells and facilities to be continued to April 19th with the goal of researching and adding to the proposed changes to get more information of the effectiveness of active air monitoring and associated costs, PSD discussion initiation, to get input back to P&Z from other Fort Collins Boards and Commissions, to research the availability of in home monitoring for the gasses that may be associated with failing plugged and abandoned wells. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. ***END EXCERPT*** ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet pg. 134 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 5.10.3 – Buffering Between Buildings With Occupiable Space and Oil and Gas Facilities (A)Applicability. These standards apply to all applications to construct buildings containing occupiable space and existing buildings containing occupiable space within the proximity of an existing oil and gas facility regardless of whether such oil and gas facility is located within or outside of the City limits. These standards also apply to common outdoor areas within a buffer area. (1)Any applicant that submitted an application prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] to construct a building containing occupiable space may construct such building within an oil and gas buffer upon satisfying all applicable Code requirements for approval. However, any lot upon which such building is placed is subject to the restriction described in Subsection (E)(3). (2)Any building containing occupiable space already constructed within an oil and gas buffer prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] is exempt from the restriction on such building in an oil and gas buffer. However, any lot upon which the building is placed is subject to the restriction described in Subsection (E)(3). (B)Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to protect public health and safety by providing spacing and regulating certain uses within oil and gas buffers to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, air pollutants, soil-gas contaminants, groundwater contaminants, hazardous materials, or danger from fires or explosions. (C)General Standard. Proposed development shall ensure that the risk to public health and safety is sufficiently mitigated from all extended exposure to the main pollutants resulting from oil and gas production, including but not limited to heavy metals, salts, oil and grease (O&G), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX), total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs). Proposed development must ensure that any potential contaminants associated with existing oil and gas facilities and located on the development site are within the acceptable limits of applicable local, state and federal soil-gas, groundwater, and air quality regulations and standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating odor, dust, fumes, or gases which are noxious, toxic or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles. (D)Oil and Gas Buffers. This Subsection establishes oil and gas buffers for different oil and gas facilities, and applicable development standards within such buffers are set forth in Subsection (E). (1)Oil and Gas Buffer – Well Not Abandoned. The oil and gas buffer for an oil and gas facility whose well is not abandoned shall extend from the outer edge of the oil and gas location for two thousand (2000) feet in all directions. The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant a modification of standards pursuant to Division 2.8 to reduce the two thousand (2000) foot distance to no less than five hundred (500) feet provided the applicant provides a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment as part of the modification request showing that levels of oil and gas contaminants, if any, are within Federal Environmental Protection Agency or State health department standards, whichever ensures greater public health protections. Any approved modification shall require as a condition that the applicant annually provide a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for five (5) years from the issuance of a development construction permit. Initial baseline samples and subsequent monitoring samples shall be collected within one-half (1/2) mile radius of the existing well location. If additional contaminants are identified at the time of assessment, those containments must be remediated by the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 135 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION development applicant per Federal Environmental Protection Agency or State health department standards, whichever ensures greater public health protections. (2) Oil and Gas Buffer – Abandoned Well, Not Reclaimed. For oil and gas facilities consisting of an abandoned well that have not been reclaimed pursuant to Section 3.12.6, the oil and gas buffer shall extend five hundred (500) feet in all directions as measured from the center of the well bore. In order to qualify for this reduced buffer, the applicant must provide a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment as part of the application showing that levels of oil and gas contaminants, if any, are within Federal Environmental Protection Agency or State health department standards, whichever ensures greater public health protections. The approved application shall require as a condition that the applicant annually provide a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for five (5) years from the issuance of a development construction permit. Initial baseline samples and subsequent monitoring samples shall be collected within one-half (1/2) mile radius of the existing well location. If additional contaminants are identified at the time of assessment, those containments must be remediated by the development applicant per Federal Environmental Protection Agency or State health department standards, whichever ensures greater public health protections. This buffer is not subject to the modification of standards process. (3) Oil and Gas Buffer – Abandoned Well, Reclaimed. For oil and gas facilities consisting of abandoned wells that have been reclaimed pursuant to Section 3.12.6, the oil and gas buffer shall extend one hundred and fifty (150) feet in all directions as measured from the center of the well bore. In order to qualify for this reduced buffer, the applicant must provide a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment as part of the application showing that levels of oil and gas contaminants, if any, are within Federal Environmental Protection Agency or State health department standards, whichever ensures greater public health protections. This buffer is not subject to the modification of standards process. (E) Oil and Gas Buffer Standards. (1) Except as stated in (E)(3) below, no portion of a building that contains occupiable space may be located within an oil and gas buffer. (2) After [Insert Effective Date of Ordinance], permanent playgrounds, play structures, recreational fields, or permanent community gathering spaces may not be placed within any portion of a home owner’s association owned or maintained common area located in an oil and gas buffer. (3) Exceptions to Restriction on Buildings Containing Occupiable Space Within an Oil and Gas Buffer. (a) Any applicant that submitted an application prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] to construct a building containing occupiable space may construct such building within an oil and gas buffer upon satisfying all applicable Code requirements for approval. However, no additional building containing occupiable space for which an application was submitted after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] may be constructed on any portion of the same lot located within an oil and gas buffer. (b) Any building containing occupiable space already constructed within an oil and gas buffer prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] is exempt from the ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 136 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION restriction on such building within an oil and gas buffer. However, no additional building containing occupiable space for which an application was submitted after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE] may be constructed on any portion of the same lot located within an oil and gas buffer. (F) Disclosure. Any building containing occupiable space to be located within two thousand (2,000) feet of an oil and gas facility, the following requirements shall apply: (1) At such time as the property to be developed is platted or replatted, the plat shall show the oil and gas buffer on the property and shall contain a note informing subsequent property owners that certain lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas facility. (2) For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such residential development upon which buildings containing occupiable space may be constructed that are within two thousand (2,000) feet of an oil and gas facility. The approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located within two thousand feet of an oil and gas facility. (3) A development plan which includes any residential occupancy within two thousand (2,000) feet from an existing, permitted or proposed oil and gas facility or plugged and abandoned well must provide the following written notice, in at least fourteen (14)point font to any potential purchaser who intends to resell, occupy and/or lease the residential dwelling unit(s) prior to or and as part of the purchase agreement: As required by section 5.10.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, notice is hereby given that [insert description of lot] is within 2000 feet of a producing, permitted or proposed oil or gas location or an abandoned well. For more information contact the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner or the Energy and Colorado Carbon Management Commission formerly known as the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This above notice shall be provided by the development applicant to the prospective buyer no less than thirty (30) days before closing or such less time as consented by the parties and shall be provided before the signing of any purchase or sale agreement for the subject residential dwelling unit. Definitions to Add to Art. 5: Occupiable space shall mean, as defined in the version of the International Building Code adopted in Chapter 5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, a room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code. Oil and gas buffer shall mean the area located on a development site formed by measuring two thousand (2000) feet in all directions from an oil and gas facility location or, as applicable, the area ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 137 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION located on a development site formed by measuring two thousand (2000) feet in all directions from the middle of an oil and gas facility well bore. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet pg. 138 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION 3.8.26 Buffering forBetween Residential and Industrial UsesHigh Occupancy Building Units (A)Applicability. These standards apply only to applications that include residential uses proposed to be located in proximity to existing industrial uses. and, to the extent legally applicable, high occupancy building units. Standards regarding Buffer Yard D shall not apply to any lot for which a site specific development plan with vested rights was approved prior to September 14, 2018 so long as such site specific development plan was, or is, valid at the time of issuance of any building permit for the construction or modification of any dwelling unit or high occupancy building unit on such lot. Buffering between buildings containing occupiable space and oil and gas facilities is addressed in Section 5.10.3. (B)Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to separate residential land uses and high occupancy building units from existing industrial uses in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor, air pollutants, hazardous materials or site contamination, or danger from fires or explosions. (C)Buffer standards. Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel and may be required along all property lines for buffering purposes and shall meet the standards as provided in this Section. (1)Only those structures used for buffering and/or screening purposes shall be located within a buffer yard. The buffer yard shall not include any paved area, except for pedestrian sidewalks or paths or vehicular access drives which may intersect the buffer yard at a point which is perpendicular to the buffer yard and which shall be the minimum width necessary to provide vehicular or pedestrian access. Fencing and/or walls used for buffer yard purposes shall be solid, with at least seventy-five (75) percent opacity. (2)There are four (4) types of buffer yards which are established according to land use intensity as described in Chart 1 below. Buffer yard distances are established in Chart 2 below and specify deciduous or coniferous plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet along the affected property line, on an average basis. (3)The buffer yard requirements shall not apply to temporary or seasonal uses or to properties that are separated by a major collector street, arterial street, or highway. (4)Additional Standards Applicable to Buffer Yard D. The following requirements shall also apply to development located in Buffer Yard D: (a)Measured. For purposes of Buffer Yard D standards, the buffer yard shall be measured as either the distance from the outer edge of an oil and gas location to the nearest wall or corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit location or, if any Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopted setback measurement method applicable to a dwelling or high occupancy building unit results in a greater distance between the existing oil and gas operation site location and the dwelling or high occupancy building unit at issue, then the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission setback measurement method shall be used. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1) above. (b)Minimum Buffer Distances. The following minimum buffer distances shall apply: 1.Residential Development. The minimum buffer between a dwelling and any oil and gas location shall be five hundred (500) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. Public playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be placed within a buffer. Private common areas within a buffer shall not contain playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces. 2.High Occupancy Building Units. The minimum buffer between a high occupancy building unit and any oil and gas location shall be one thousand (1,000) feet, or the Colorado Oil and ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 139 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. Public or private playgrounds, parks, recreational fields, or community gathering spaces shall not be allowed within a buffer. (c) Alternative compliance buffer reduction from plugged and abandoned wells. Upon applicant request, the decision maker may approve a reduced buffer distance from a plugged and abandoned well for which reclamation has been completed, all of the aforementioned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations, in lieu of the minimum buffer distances set forth in the immediately preceding Subsection (b), provided that the approved reduced buffer is no less than 150 feet from the permanently abandoned well and meets the requirements specified below. 1. Procedure. To request alternative compliance, an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements established by the Director. At a minimum, the plan must: a. Clearly identify and discuss the proposed buffer reduction and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better eliminate or minimize the nuisances and reduce the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. b. Include information regarding environmental testing and monitoring for the site. Site investigation, sampling, and monitoring shall be conducted to demonstrate that the well has been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been adversely impacted by oil and gas operations or facilities or other sources of contamination. Such sampling and monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified environmental engineering or consulting firm with experience in oil and gas investigations. Director approval that the sampling and monitoring plan contains the information required pursuant to this subsection b) is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following: i. Site survey, historical research, and/or physical locating techniques to determine exact location and extent of oil and gas operations and facilities. ii. Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections. iii. Soil sampling, including soil gas testing. iv. Groundwater sampling. v. Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations. vi. A minimum of five (5) years of annual soil gas and groundwater monitoring at the well location. c. Upon completion of the site investigation and sampling, not including the ongoing monitoring, the consultant must provide a written report verifying that the soil and groundwater samples meet applicable EPA and State residential regulations and that a reduced buffer would not pose a greater health or safety risk for future residents or users of the site. Otherwise, the decision maker may specify an appropriate buffer distance or require that the following actions be completed by a qualified professional before development may occur, including but not limited to: ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 140 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION i. Remediation of environmental contamination to background levels. ii. Well repair or re-plugging of a previously abandoned well. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan eliminates or minimizes the nuisances and reduces the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section. An approved alternative compliance buffer reduction plan shall be exempt from the screening requirements of Chart 2 - Buffer Yard Types and below Subsection (e) regarding fencing. (d) Disclosure. If any residential development or dwelling, or high occupancy building unit is proposed to be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location, the following requirements shall apply: 1. At such time as the property to be developed is platted or replatted, the plat shall show the one-thousand-foot radius on the property from such oil and gas location and shall contain a note informing subsequent property owners that certain lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas location. 2. For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration specifying the lots within such residential development upon which dwellings may be constructed that are within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location. The approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property is located within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location. (e) Fencing. If any residential development is proposed to be located within five hundred (500) feet of an oil and gas location, and if an existing fence does not surround the oil and gas location, the developer must erect a fence that restricts public access to the oil and gas location along the property boundary between the oil and gas location and the development. Chart 1 Land Use Intensity Categories Land Use Intensity Category Buffer Yard Airports/airstrips Very High C Composting facilities High B Dry cleaning plants Very High C Feedlots Very High C Heavy industrial uses Very High C Light industrial uses High B Junkyards High B Outdoor storage facilities High B Recreation vehicle, boat, truck storage Medium A Recycling facilities High B Agricultural research laboratories High B Resource extraction Very High C Oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells Very High D Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) High B Warehouse & distribution facilities High B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 141 DRAFT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Workshops and custom small industry Medium A Chart 2 Buffer Yard Types Type - Base Standard (plants per 100 linear feet along affected property line)* Option Width Plant Multiplier** Option: Add 6' Wall Option: Add 3' Berm or 6' Fence Buffer Yard A: 15 feet 1.00 20 feet .90 3 Shade Trees 25 feet .80 2 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs*** 30 feet .70 .65 .80 3 Evergreen Trees 35 feet .60 15 Shrubs (33% Type 1, 67% Type 2) 40 feet .50 Buffer Yard B: 15 feet 1.25 20 feet 1.00 25 feet .90 4 Shade Trees 30 feet .80 .75 .85 4 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs*** 35 feet .70 3 Evergreen Trees 40 feet .60 25 Shrubs (Type 2) 45 feet .50 Buffer Yard C: 20 feet 1.25 25 feet 1.00 30 feet .90 5 Shade Trees 35 feet .80 .75 .85 6 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs*** 40 feet .70 4 Evergreen Trees 45 feet .60 30 Shrubs (Type 2) 50 feet .50 Buffer Yard D: 500 feet 1.25 525 feet 1.00 550 feet .90 6 Shade Trees 575 feet .80 .75 .85 7 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs*** 600 feet .70 5 Evergreen Trees 625 feet .60 35 Shrubs (Type 2) 650 feet .50 * "Base standard" for each type of buffer yard is that width which has a plant multiplier. ** "Plant multipliers" are used to increase or decrease the amount of required plants based on providing a buffer yard of reduced or greater width or by the addition of a wall, berm or fence. *** Shrub types: Type 1: 4' - 8' High Type 2: Over 8' High ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet pg. 142 Oil and Gas Reverse Setback RequirementsJuly 20, 2023Kirk LongsteinSenior Environmental PlannerITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 143 2Oil and Gas Areas of FocusNew Oil & Gas FacilitiesSiting requirementsApproval proceduresDesign standardsOperational StandardsEmissions controlsLeak detection and repairSpill detection and responseReverse SetbacksDistance for new development from existing wellsAdopted April 4September 12 Council Work SessionCode refinements proposed; September 5Distance for new development from existing wellsCode refinements proposed; September 5ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 144 3What is a reverse setback?OG Reverse SetbackFrom the building OG SetbackFrom the Well Fort Collins CodeNew wells: 2,000’ setback from all buildingsExisting Wells:2,000’ setback from residentialITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 145 Timeline4Key Dates:• 1920’s – First Oil and Gas drilling in Fort Collins• 2003 – Moratorium & 350’ reverse setbacks • 2018 – Fort Collins LUC updates – 500’ reverse setbacks with 150’ alternative compliance for PA wells• 2021 – SB181 Rule 604 updates – 2,000’ setback from new well siting• 2023 – Fort Collins LUC updates – 2,000’ setback from new well sitingITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 146 Senate Bill 181UPDATED: January 15, 2021Rule 604 b. • No Working Pad Surface will be located more than 500 feet and less than 2,000 feet from 1 or more Residential Building Units or High Occupancy Building Units• Any Wells, Tanks, separation equipment, or compressors proposed on the Oil and Gas Location will be located more than 2,000 feet from all Residential Building Units or High Occupancy Building Units5ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 147 Current Land Use Code Ordinance 114-2018LUC Sec. 3.8.26 - provide standards to separate residential land uses and high occupancy building units from existing Oil and Gas Wells 500’ buffer or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater. 150’ buffer Alternative compliance buffer reduction from plugged and abandoned wells. 5 years of annual soil gas and groundwater monitoring at the well location.6A producing well operates in the Hearthfire subdivision north of Fort Collins in this Oct. 23, 2013, photo. Coloradoan LibraryITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 148 Fort Collins Field7DOUGLAS RDOne Operator• Prospect EnergyCity• 10 Active Wellso4 Producingo6 Injecting• 20 Abandoned Wellso6 Drilled and Abandonedo14 Plugged and AbandonedGMA• 16 Active Wellso8 Producingo8 Injecting• 30 Abandoned WellsDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 149 Oil and Gas Overview8WELL NOT ABANDONDED•Producing• Enhanced Oil Recovery•Injection (Enhanced Oil Recovery) Well Fluids consisting of brine, freshwater, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide are injected into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil through a Production Well.92,000-feet setback 9No Monitoring required9Modification of standards allowedITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 150 Oil and Gas Overview9ABANDONDED, NOT RECLAIMED•Drilled (Dry) and Abandoned Well which has proved to be non-productive which means it was covered as soon as it was drilled and never produced.9500-feet setback95-years of monitoring9No modification of standardABANDONDED, AND RECLAIMED•Plugged and Abandoned Well is permanently shut down, plugged, wellhead removed, and considered safe and secure by COGCC inspection. 9150-feet setback91 environmental site assessment prior to permits9No modification of standardITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 151 10Oil and Gas MonitoringWell StatusProposed Monitoring timeline Risk Trade-offPlugging and Abandoning1 X prior to Permit LowPotential casing failure & cement shrinkage in clay soil and salty soilDry and Abandoned5 years LowPotential conduit to adjacent ground water sourceProducingNone – operator requirementHighHydrocarbons present at the surface during productionInjection – Enhanced Recovery wellsNone – operator requirementMediumClosed loop greywater injection. subsurface risk for potential sources of benzeneInjection – Disposal wellsN/AN/A – none in Fort CollinsBrines are separated from hydrocarbons at the surface and reinjected into the same or similar underground formations for disposal.*Greatest risk - older wells before 1950ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 152 Disclosure• Recorded Plat shall show the oil and gas buffer on the property.• Condo Association declaration.• Written notice 30-days prior to close, in at least fourteen (14) point font to any potential purchaser. 11ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 153 Allowed UsesNew development and existing properties9Secondary (uninhabitable) structures allowed9Secondary (habitable) structures not allowed9No permanent playground structures in common areas12ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 154 1. Increase buffer for developments near existing oil and gas operations from 500’ to 2000’ to match COGCC and Fort Collins new code setbacks2. Allow modification of standards for active well buffers, no less than 500’3. Decrease soil-gas and ground water monitoring requirements for plugged and abandoned wells from 5 years to 1 year.4. No change to buffer for developments near existing abandoned wells (not fully reclaimed) at 500’5. No change to buffer near plugged and abandoned wells (fully reclaimed) at 150’6. No change to disclosure requirements for future property owners via a property covenant 7. Add requirements for point-of-sale disclosure notice.8. Add prohibition on detached occupiable buildings from existing buildings located within the oil and gas buffer.9. Setbacks include all occupiable buildings rather than residential only.13Summary of proposed changesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 155 14Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed Land Use Code amendments for setbacks from oil and gas facilities with the following change:1. Allow any applicant that submits a completed Basic Development Review, Project Development Plan (PDP), planned unit development (PUD), or building permit application prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance to continue development review under standards adopted by Ordinance 114-2018.Staff RecommendationITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 156 15Back upBack up slidesITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 157 16Summary of proposed changes92,000’ - active wells (PR &IJ)9500’ - inactive not fully reclaimed9150’ fully reclaimed9No monitoring for active well buffer95 yrs. monitoring not fully reclaimed91 yr. monitoring fully reclaimedMontava County Club Reserve Hearth FireSondersExisting neighborhoods – allowed use within the buffer:9Secondary structures allowed9No new common area playgroundsPoint of listing disclosureITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 158 17Enhanced Oil Recovery Injection WellsMSSU #30-17 – County Club Reserve MSSU #30-07 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 159 18Peer City reverse Setback Comparison Municipality or County Producing wellPlugged and AbandonedBroomfield2,000’250’Commerce City1,000’50’Erie2,000’150’Fort Collins2,000’150’Loveland500’500’Longmont750’150’Larimer County1,000'200'ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 160 19Peer City Research - Reciprocal SetbacksMunicipality or CountyIncludes All Occupiable BuildingsCertain Uses Allowed within BufferDifferentiate Between Active and PA* Wells3$ Monitoring Requirement for PA* WellsBoulder X X XBroomfield X XCommerce City XErie XXXXXFort Collins X X X XLoveland XLongmont X X X X (occupied buildings)Larimer CountyXX (can apply for alternative compliance)* PA = Plugged/Abandoned WellsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 161 20Setback ScenarioActive and abandoned wellsITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 162 21Setback ScenarioPrior to the adoption of SB19-181500 – Feet Reverse SetbackITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 163 22Setback ScenarioAfter the adoption of SB19-1812,000 – Feet Reverse SetbackITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 9Packet pg. 164