HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/21/2018 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2018, AMENDINGAgenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 21, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2018, Amending Article 3 of the Land Use Code Regarding Buffering
Requirements for Development in Relation to Oil and Gas Facility Locations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present Land Use Code updates related to buffering new development from
existing oil and gas wells for Council consideration. The staff recommendation includes the following Code
changes:
1. Increase buffer for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
2. Add a new 1000-foot buffer requirement for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations.
3. Allow a reduced setback (150 feet minimum) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements
and performance standards are met.
4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners as part of any required recorded
declaration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Purpose and Intent
Staff initiated a review of the current oil and gas buffers with a goal of ensuring that Land Use Code (LUC)
regulations will continue to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents and provide predictability for
developers into the future.
The intent of the proposed changes is to match or exceed Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC) requirements, 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
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 2
4. Encourage developers to permanently plug and abandon active wells rather than keeping wells in
operation near residential development.
Summary of Proposed Land Use Code Updates
The current staff recommendation includes the following Code changes:
1. Increase buffer for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
2. Add a new 1000-foot buffer requirement for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations.
3. Allow a reduced setback (150 feet minimum) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements
and performance standards are met.
4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners as part of any required recorded
declaration.
The initial staff recommendation was modified based on input from the general public, landowners and other
stakeholders, and boards and commissions. The full set of proposed changes is included in Attachment 1.
Follow-up from City Council Work Session
Staff presented the proposed Land Use Code updates at the June 19, 2018, Work Session. Council was
generally supportive of the proposed Land Use Code changes and appreciated the amount and type of
outreach conducted by staff. Questions and discussion focused on the level of risk associated with plugged
and abandoned wells, as well as how various requirements and thresholds had been determined, including the
minimum 150-foot buffer around plugged and abandoned wells. Based on Council’s direction, staff followed up
on a number of questions and comments described in more detail in this agenda item summary.
Current Oil and Gas Operations in Fort Collins
The Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA) contains 16 active wells (all operated by Prospect Energy)
and 30 wells that have been abandoned. Prospect Energy’s operations in the Fort Collins Field are limited to
oil production; no natural gas is extracted or produced within the GMA. The Fort Collins Field consists of
unpressurized oil that is bonded to bedrock. Water pressure is used to force oil upward, and the resulting
product is approximately 97% water and 3% oil, with almost no associated gas.
Unlike natural gas operations in other communities along the Front Range, continuous flaring does not occur at
the Fort Collins wells, as there is little to no gas that would need to be flared. There is little possibility for
methane to migrate upward from the formation for either active or abandoned wells.
Abandoned wells in Fort Collins vary significantly in age, with some wells abandoned as far back as the 1920s
and others abandoned within the last year. As such, the amount and precision of information about these wells
(e.g., exact locations or details about how they were plugged) also varies. Unknown or undiscovered wells in
the Fort Collins Field are very unlikely given the low levels of production that have occurred in this field over
the past century.
Oil and Gas Buffers
The COGCC regulates permitting and setbacks for new wells near existing buildings but does not regulate the
reverse situation: permitting and setbacks for new development near existing oil and gas infrastructure. The
Land Use Code currently requires a buffer of at least 350 feet between existing oil and gas operations (both
active and abandoned) and new residential development.
The previously adopted 350-foot buffer was specifically intended to match the COGCC setback requirements
for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time of adoption. Since then, the COGCC has updated its setbacks
for new oil and gas wells to 500 feet. COGCC further distinguishes between general residential development
and land uses deemed to be “high occupancy,” which includes certain schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 3
correctional facilities, and daycare centers. The state requires a setback of 1,000 feet between these uses and
new wells.
Staff recommends updating the City’s buffer requirements to 500 feet for residential development and 1,000
feet for high occupancy uses, consistent with current state-level regulation and City Council’s previous
direction. The code changes also include a clause that would automatically increase the required buffer if state
requirements also increase in the future.
Plugged and Abandoned Wells and Associated Risks
Plugged and abandoned wells have been permanently removed from production and filled with a combination
of concrete plugs, slurries, and other materials. Many of the older wells in Fort Collins were abandoned prior to
current regulations and state oversight. As such, there is uncertainty about if, when, and how the wells were
plugged, and it is possible that some of these wells would not meet the current COGCC standards. Risks
related to plugged and abandoned wells are very difficult to quantify, as it is highly dependent on site-specific
conditions, production type, well construction details, plugging and abandonment techniques, and age of wells.
Staff has been unable to find research documenting failure rates or contamination risks for wells with the same
combination of production type, well age, and site conditions present in the Fort Collins Field. It is possible that
the integrity of wells plugged many decades ago has changed as they have aged. While there have been no
known issues with any abandoned wells in Fort Collins, there have been documented safety incidents related
to old, improperly plugged wells in other communities, primarily in natural gas fields that differ significantly from
the Fort Collins Field.
It is in the community’s interest to understand the existing conditions, and therefore potential risks, related to
the various abandoned wells throughout the city. The Land Use Code does not distinguish between
operational (active) wells and wells that have been plugged and abandoned. However, wells that have been
abandoned to current state standards have a much lower potential for environmental contamination, public
health impacts, and public safety incidents. Further, well sites in Fort Collins have a comparatively lower risk of
methane leaks, as no natural gas is produced from the Fort Collins Field. As such, a reduced setback may be
appropriate in situations where the City can verify that wells have been properly plugged and no leaks or
contamination have occurred.
In addition, a reduced setback for properly abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive for land
developers to coordinate the abandonment of active wells on development sites, rather than keeping wells in
operation as new development occurs. Allowing a reduced setback would encourage the developer to work
with an oil and gas operator to remove the well from operation, therefore significantly reducing public health
and safety risks near future residential properties.
There was a question at the City Council work session related to the impact of expansive soils and other
geotechnical conditions on the long-term integrity of plugged and abandoned wells. Staff has discussed this
concern with a qualified geotechnical engineer, who stated that the risk for expansive soils impacting a
plugged and abandoned well is very low. Expansive soils only expand and contract when moisture is added,
which typically only occurs as a result of heavy irrigation (e.g., for turf landscaping). The maximum “wetting
depth” for heavily irrigated areas is 15 to 20 feet of soil. Even in the event that there are irrigated, expansive
soils around a plugged and abandoned well, there is a low likelihood that the soils could put enough pressure
on a concrete well casing to cause a barrier failure.
Alternative Compliance Option
Staff recommends an alternative compliance option that would allow for a reduced buffer (150 foot minimum) if
the City can verify that plugging and abandonment have occurred in accordance with current COGCC
standards and no contamination is present on a site. A buffer of 150 feet would provide adequate space for
equipment to replug or maintain a permanently plugged well in the future, if needed. The following sampling
and monitoring measures would be required to determine whether alternative compliance would be
appropriate. The required measures replicate the sampling methods used in Longmont to document the
condition of plugged and abandoned wells in that community:
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 4
1. Site survey, historical research and/or physical locating techniques to determine exact location and extent
of oil and gas operations and facilities.
2. Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent inspections.
3. Soil sampling, including soil gas testing.
4. Groundwater sampling.
5. Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations or monitoring.
6. Additional requirements as determined by staff and/or the decision-maker.
The following verification and performance standards would need to be satisfied for a reduced buffer to be
approved:
1. Written report verifying that the soil and groundwater samples meet applicable EPA and State residential
regulations.
2. Verification that a reduced buffer would not pose a greater health or safety risk for future residents or users
of the site than baseline site conditions.
3. Remediation of environmental contamination to background levels, if necessary.
4. Well repair or replugging of a previously abandoned well, if necessary.
Disclosure to Future Property Owners
The Land Use Code currently requires notification about oil and gas wells to be placed on the plat for a new
subdivision. Based on feedback from boards and the public, staff determined that this method of notification
may be easily overlooked by a future homebuyer, so an additional method of notification is appropriate. Staff
recommends a requirement that developers include information about any existing oil and gas wells as part of
any recorded declaration required under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act for all properties within
1000 feet of any wells. This information would be more readily available to all future property owners.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Adoption of these Code changes will not have a significant impact on City resources. Additional staff time may
be required to review alternative compliance requests for plugged and abandoned wells; however, this is
comparable to the amount of time staff already dedicates to environmental concerns on various development
projects.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Staff held extensive discussions with the Planning and Zoning Board (3 work sessions and 2 hearings), Natural
Resources Advisory Board (3 meetings) and Air Quality Advisory Board (4 meetings) over the past nine
months. All three boards have provided recommendations on the currently proposed changes. The staff
recommendation and three board recommendations are summarized in Table 1 below.
A follow-up meeting was held with members of each board on June 4, 2018. The purpose of this meeting was
to confirm understanding of the proposed code changes and clarify the recommendations of each board. The
boards all support increased buffers around active wells, and they also share concerns about uncertainty and
lack of data for older plugged and abandoned wells. There was discussion, but not consensus, about the
measurement of buffers (i.e., to a property line rather than the nearest occupied building). All three boards felt
that more stringent monitoring and accountability requirements should be applied if reduced buffers will be
considered.
Based on public input and board recommendations, staff made the following modifications to the proposed
Code changes:
• Do not allow parks, playgrounds, recreational fields or community gathering spaces to be placed within a
buffer, both for residential and high occupancy uses
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 5
• Require a minimum of five years of annual monitoring of plugged and abandoned wells (if a reduced buffer
is granted)
• Require a certification that the site is free from contamination and is safe for residential use (if a reduced
buffer is granted)
• Require remediation of any environmental contamination, repair of a damaged well, or re-plugging of a well
if determined to be necessary (if a reduced buffer is granted)
TABLE 1. PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Code Change (Staff
Recommendation)
Planning and
Zoning Board
Natural Resource Adv.
Board
Air Quality Adv.
Board
1. Increase buffer
around both active
and abandoned
wells to at least 500’
for residential
development
Supported staff
recommendation
• Supported 500’ buffer
• Supported measuring
buffer to nearest
property line, rather
than nearest occupied
building
• Supported 500’
buffer
• Supported
measuring buffer to
nearest property
line, rather than
nearest occupied
building
• Do not allow
variances to
setbacks
2. Require a buffer of at
least 1000’ around
both active and
abandoned wells for
High Occupancy
Building Units*
Supported staff
recommendation
• Supported 1000’
buffer
• Supported measuring
buffer to nearest
property line, rather
than nearest occupied
building
• Supported excluding
playgrounds and
parking lots from
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 6
Code Change (Staff
Recommendation)
Planning and
Zoning Board
Natural Resource Adv.
Board
Air Quality Adv.
Board
4. Require an
additional method of
notification (property
covenant) for all
properties within
1000’
Supported staff
recommendation
Supported staff
recommendation
Supported staff
recommendation
* High Occupancy Building Units include certain schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and
daycare centers.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Feedback from stakeholders and the broader community was gathered through the following outreach
activities:
• Direct mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of existing oil and gas wells, with information on
proposed code changes and opportunities for comment (1110 letters mailed)
• Online questionnaire to collect feedback on proposed changes, advertised through direct mailing, email
lists, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website (228 completed responses)
• Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the proposed code
changes: <https://youtu.be/QUCAkpeUHgo>
• Email notifications to all members of the public and land developers who expressed a specific interest in
these code changes
• Four designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns (16 attendees total)
• Presentations at Planning & Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Air Quality Advisory
Board work sessions
• Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns as needed
In addition to broad community outreach, staff also consulted with the following targeted groups:
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) staff
• Representative of Prospect Energy (local oil and gas operator)
• Representatives for the Country Club Reserve and Montava development projects
• Poudre School District (property owner in Mountain Vista area)
• City of Longmont staff to discuss their program related to plugged and abandoned wells
• Terracon (private consultant) to discuss investigation methods, costs for plugged and abandoned wells,
and geotechnical considerations
A general summary of public input and associated revisions to the original staff recommendation are presented
in Table 2. See Attachments 2-4 for the public engagement plan, questionnaire results and a complete record
of comments.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT AND REVISIONS
Public Input Staff Response
Majority supported increased buffer around active
wells
Kept the increased buffer around active wells and
added a new buffer for high occupancy building
units
Majority had concerns about reduced buffers
around plugged and abandoned wells, including:
• Health impacts and safety risks
Agenda Item 24
Item # 24 Page 7
Public Input Staff Response
Support for additional research, site investigation,
testing and monitoring requirements
Added requirements for site investigation and
sampling in exchange for buffer reduction
(alternative compliance)
Support for additional methods of notification to
future residents
Created an additional method of disclosure
through property covenants
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Work Session Follow Up (PDF)
2. Public Engagement Plan (PDF)
3. Online Questionnaire Results (PDF)
4. Public Comments Received To-Date (PDF)
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, April 19, 2018 and March 15, 2018 (PDF)
6. Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation and Minutes (PDF)
7. Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation and Minutes (PDF)
8. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
Planning, Development &
Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2018
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation
FROM: Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
RE: June 19 Work Session Agenda Item #1: Oil and Gas Land Use Code
Updates – Follow Up
The purpose of this Memo is to follow up on questions and summarize next steps for the Oil and
Gas Land Use Code Updates, Work Session Item #1 on June 19, 2018. In attendance were
Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Horak, and Councilmembers Cunniff, Overbeck and Stephens.
Councilmember Martinez participated from home, and Councilmember Summers requested
additional information from staff following the work session.
Staff requested feedback on the following questions:
1. Does Council have feedback about the proposed staff recommendation?
2. Is any additional information needed prior to formal Council consideration of the
proposed Land Use Code changes?
Council was generally supportive of the proposed Land Use Code changes and appreciated the
amount and type of outreach conducted by staff over the past nine months. Questions and
discussion focused on the level of risk associated with plugged and abandoned wells, as well as
how various requirements and thresholds had been determined, including the minimum 150-foot
buffer around plugged and abandoned wells.
Attached are an email and graphic provided by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission that provide additional detail on plugged and abandoned wells.
Based on Council direction, staff intends to pursue the following next steps:
• Consult with a geologist and/or geotechnical engineer on how soil conditions, including
expansive soils, could potentially impact the long-term integrity of plugged and
abandoned wells
• Include performance standard(s) in the code language that focuses on minimizing
potential health and safety impacts and verifying the condition of abandoned wells
• Describe potential for long-term risks associated with plugged and abandoned wells,
both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the future Agenda Item Summary for this topic
• Schedule a date for the code changes to be formally considered by Council
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Cassie Archuleta
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:53 PM
To: Rebecca Everette; Lucinda Smith
Subject: Fwd: Re: Inquiry from FTC LGD concerning 05-069-05110 and 05-069-06255
Attachments: Plugging and Abandonment Example.pdf
Information and graphic from COGCC re P&A wells.
Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Android device
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: "Morton ‐ DNR, Marc" <marc.morton@state.co.us>
Date: Jun 21, 2018 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Inquiry from FTC LGD concerning 05‐069‐05110 and 05‐069‐06255
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Cc:
Per your request, attached is a depiction (cartoon) of a well Plugging and Abandonment (P&A), shown next
to a producing well.
The well on the left is the producing well, the well on the left is a similar well that has been plugged and
abandoned. Note that is has various cement plugs and a a cast iron bridge plug placed around the well
bore, per an approved COGCC Form 6 (Well Abandonment - Notice of Intent). Note that In this case, one
of the requirements was to cut the conductor casing four feet below the land surface.
In general, P&A'd wells pose extremely low risk. Note that developers should evaluate lands (conduct due
diligence) for their presence, as well as presence of other features of environmental concern. This is
normally done by conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, by a well qualified and experienced
environmental consulting firm
COGCC does not regulate how close a structure may built to an existing of inactive well, but COGCC
recommends developers not build on top of P&A'd wells.
I hope this helps.
Marc
Marc K. Morton
Local Government Liaison
The linked image cannot
be d isplayed. The file may
have been moved,
renamed, or deleted.
Verify that the link points
to the correct file and
location.
P 303.894.2100 x5132 | F 303.894.2109 | C 720.415.4959
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801, Denver, CO 80203
GROUND SURFACE
AQUIFER(S)
HYDROCARBON
FORMATION
WELL PLUGGING EXAMPLE- Details depend on the well
construction, geologic, and engineering characteristics.
2 SACKS CEMENT
AND CAST IRON BRIDGE PLUG
ADD 50 SACKS CEMENT
SURFACE CASING SHOE
PLUG
ADD 40 SACKS CEMENT
STUB PLUG
Cut casing 4 feet below grade
and add 10 sacks cement
CEMENT
CEMENT
PRODUCTION CASING
PERFORATIONS
CEMENTED CONDUCTOR
CEMENTED
CONDUCTOR
SURFACE
CASING
Well Plugging & Abandonment (P&A)
PRODUCING WELL
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: UPDATES TO OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: INVOLVE
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Should the City’s Land Use Code regulations related to reciprocal setbacks
(distance between new development and existing oil and gas operations) to reflect current state
standards and incentivize the decommissioning of active wells?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
• Residents living in close proximity to existing and past oil and gas operations, primarily in
northeast Fort Collins
• Landowners with existing and past oil and gas operations on their properties
• Oil and gas operator (Prospect Energy)
• Environmental protection advocates
• Land developers and development review applicants, particularly in northeast Fort Collins
• General public
TIMELINE:
Phase 1: Community Engagement
Timeframe: December 2017 to January 2018
Key Messages:
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulations include setbacks for new
oil and gas wells near existing buildings, but they do not regulate new development near existing
oil and gas infrastructure (reciprocal setbacks). The Land Use Code currently requires a reciprocal
setback of at least 350 feet from all oil and gas wells (both active and plugged/abandoned).
• The previously adopted reciprocal setback requirements were specifically intended to match the
COGCC setback requirements for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time. Since then,
COGCC has updated its setbacks for new oil and gas wells to 500 feet. Updating the City’s
reciprocal setback requirements to 500 feet would be consistent with City Council’s previous
direction.
• The Land Use Code does not distinguish between operational (active) wells and wells that have
been permanently plugged and abandoned. However, a reduced buffer for wells that have been
plugged and abandoned to current state standards may be appropriate. A reduced setback for
these wells would create a stronger incentive for land developers to coordinate the plugging and
abandonment of wells on development sites, rather than keeping the wells in operation as new
development occurs.
• The recently approved Water’s Edge development project received approval for reduced
setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells (100 and 150 feet). The Planning and Zoning
Board determined that the reduced setbacks would advance the purpose of the standard equally
well or better than a 350-foot setback.
Tools and Techniques:
• Direct mailing to property owners and residents near existing oil and gas wells with information
on proposed code changes.
ATTACHMENT 2
• Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the
proposed code changes.
• Online survey for community members to provide feedback on proposed changes, advertised
through direct mailing, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website.
• Designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns.
• Staff attendance at City Councilmembers’ regular listening sessions, as requested.
PHASE 2: Board & Commission Engagement
Timeframe: December 2018
Key Messages: See above.
Tools and Techniques:
• Planning & Zoning Board – Dec 8
• Air Quality Advisory Board – Dec 18
• Natural Resources Advisory Board – Dec 20
• Chamber of Commerce LLAC (by request)
• Other community groups (by request)
PHASE 3: Public Hearings
Timeframe: February to April 2018
Key Messages: See above.
Tools and Techniques:
• Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – TBD, February/March
• Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – TBD, February/March
• City Council Hearings (first and second readings) – TBD, March/April
Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates - Survey Results
Completion Rate: 76.8%
Complete 228
Partial 69
Totals: 297
Response Counts
1
ATTACHMENT 3
1. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations.
14% 14%Disagree Strongly Disagree
10%Disagree 10% Disagree
8%Neutral 8% Neutral
28% 28%Agree Agree
39% 39%Agree Strongly Agree
2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 14.0% 35
Disagree 9.6% 24
Neutral 7.6% 19
Agree 28.0% 70
Strongly Agree 39.2% 98
No Opinion/Not Sure 1.6% 4
Totals: 250
2
Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
2. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations.
18% 18%Disagree Strongly Disagree
17%Disagree 17% Disagree
13% 13%Neutral Neutral
28% 28%Agree Agree
22% 22%Agree Strongly Agree
4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 17.5% 43
Disagree 17.1% 42
Neutral 12.6% 31
Agree 27.6% 68
Strongly Agree 21.5% 53
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.7% 9
Totals: 246
3
Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
3. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers.
9% 9%Disagree Strongly Disagree
10%Disagree 10% Disagree
19%Neutral 19% Neutral
37% 37%Agree Agree
19% 19%Agree Strongly Agree
5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 9.3% 23
Disagree 9.7% 24
Neutral 19.4% 48
Agree 36.8% 91
Strongly Agree 19.4% 48
No Opinion/Not Sure 5.3% 13
Totals: 247
4
Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
4. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells.
13% 13%Disagree Strongly Disagree
20%Disagree 20% Disagree
20% 20%Neutral Neutral
24% 24%Agree Agree
7% 7%Agree Strongly Agree
17%Sure 17% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 12.6% 31
Disagree 20.3% 50
Neutral 19.9% 49
Agree 23.6% 58
Strongly Agree 6.9% 17
No Opinion/Not Sure 16.7% 41
Totals: 246
5
Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
5. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities.
15% 15%Disagree Strongly Disagree
15%Disagree 15% Disagree
10% 10%Neutral Neutral
31% 31%Agree Agree
27% 27%Agree Strongly Agree
2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 14.7% 36
Disagree 15.1% 37
Neutral 9.8% 24
Agree 31.0% 76
Strongly Agree 27.3% 67
No Opinion/Not Sure 2.0% 5
Totals: 245
6
Code Change #1: Development near Active Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 500 feet from existing active oil and gas
wells.
Count Response
2 No
1 1) At 12/11 COGCC meeting, the board talked about oil and gas companies walking away and leaving tax payer with bill to plug/cleanup
site. Codes changes should minimize this behavior within city limits. 2) Feet is not the right issue. What really matters is how much
poisons leaving pad to adjacent properties. Maybe scrubbers on site A allow a setup back of 10'. Maybe number of wells times poisons
means 1000' for a another site. Size/number of tanks tells us max impact of explosions. Code change should try to protect property
rights of both sides using data, you can do it so long as it explosion won't take out neighbor and poisons won't make neighbor sick. As
soon as the oil and gas says, but we have the right to kill and injury, then we can shut them down as a clear and present danger.
1 500 feet doesn't seem enough. Fort Collins should strongly enforce safety concerns both from the danger of improperly capped wells
along with the overall danger of drilling beneath an individual's property. Seismic shifting from drilling is a real danger and Colorado
needs to hold drillers accountable for future damage homeowners may suffer such as cracked foundations or walls.
1 500 feet from existing wells for development is definitely not enough distance. It should be a minimum of 2,000 feet. Peoples' health is
affected by less than that. Asthma and cancer are two effects of being closer. And, birth defects, such as spina bifida are increased by
being as close as 10 miles. We need to keep development away from drilling. Let us never forget Firestone.
1 500 feet is an improvement over 350 feet, but it isn't enough to protect developers and land owners. I wish the City of FC would go
farther.
1 500 feet is not a significantly greater distance than 350 ft, when we're talking about the risks associated with O&G development. It
needs to stop already. And furthermore, COGCC is an absolute useless commission and a farce, as demonstrated by their apathy and
disinterest in promoting public health, safety and environmental and wildlife impacts over the profits of the O&G industry. The agency
does not represent the citizens of Colorado, it represents the financial interests of the oil and gas industry. In fact, recently, the
COGCC and its lawyer, State Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, argued to the State Supreme Court that the COGCC should not have
the authority to put the health and safety of the people of Colorado above the interests of oil and gas developers. What??
1 500 feet is not enough. We are more than 500 feet from a active well and the chemical odors are horrible. I wonder what they are doing
to the environment and health of this neighborhood.
1 500 feet lessens the impacts of O&G minimally, but every increment helps, though this is woefully inadequate. Developers should
absolutely locate and have the old and abandoned wells sealed. Since cement is what they use to seal it and it is guaranteed to crack
down the line, these plugged wells are but a temporary fix. But standards, in general, are very low and short-sighted for the safety of
humans and life in general when it comes to the O&G industry. Though our state's standards may be touted as the best, they are all
absurdly inadequate.
1 500 feet setbacks are not enough to protect our community. I recommend that City staff attend COGCC hearings in person or
remotely to experience first hand the concerns of local communities and individuals impacted by oil and gas industrial operations in
their neighborhoods. These communities' health and safety are negatively impacted by these industrial operations. Fort Collins has the
opportunity to show it's commitment to it's residents' health and safety and mandate a setback of at least 2500 ft. from homes and
schools.
1 500 ft from homes and schools is a joke and dose nothing to portect those living near wells .we need a buffer of at least 1000ft on ALL
wells and much stricter regulations on protecting air and water.This 100ft perposeal on capped wells is a slap in the face of what the
residents of ft Collins want and have voiced loudly against ..This perposel dose absolutely nothing to safeguard the heath and safety of
residents and once again shows our voices matter less to the city council then oil and gas CEOS who line your pockets ..
1 500 ft is better than 350. The best option would be to opt out of oil and gas extraction and invest, heavily, in renewable energy
infrastructure.
1 500 ft is still too close
1 500' is not really a sufficient distance. Significant negative health impacts have been shown to within half a mile of active wells.
6. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change?
7
1 500ft still seems arbitrarily small. Reducing the setback for plugged wells also seems like a "setback".
1 A setback of 5000 feet may not be adequate to protect city residents from the harmful effects of VOC's. Noise and odors from such
activities are not compatible with residential living in Colorado
1 Alignment with State law is a necessity. Requiring an even greater setback would be wise but impractical.
1 Answering this on the day following the fire near the graveyard in Windsor at the Oil Well site there. It occurs to me that the science
isn't fully developed to the point where we know exactly what is safe in terms of distance from neighborhoods. There is also science
that indicates there is more air pollution due to the fracking and a increased amount of earthquakes, minor for sure but a concern.
1 Ban all oil and gas. There is no such thing as clean oil and gas or safe Oil and Gas. The excuse that we will lose jobs is a pathetic
distraction. Stop letting our politicians get bought out by oil and gas. Our politicians do not represent us they represent oil and gas.
When will we learn that we can not eat our money? Will it be after everything is dead in the water is poisoned? Will it be after we cannot
breathe because the air is poison? All for what? Jobs? Money? You literally have to be paid by some evil piece of shit to believe that oil
and gas is necessary. I believe good people are swept up by fat paychecks and ignoring the facts
1 Ban wells all together. When a well is abondoned it should become a solar panel field instead. Also the question saying it would
motivate gas and oil companies to plug abandoned wells, does that mean they are not required to? That seems unsafe and unhealthy
for everyone that lives near there.
1 Based on studies in other states, the 500 feet is still too conservative a set back. My responses above were influenced by that.
1 COGCC standards are minimums that are based only on political agreements with the oil & gas industry. These standards are not based
on best available science and do not give priority to protecting public health and safety. Based on science, setback distance should be
minimum 1500' and to ensure safety 2500'. The City of Fort Collins should give highest priority to protecting public health and safety,
and the burden of proving that public health and safety are adequately protected should be on the industry. Any operator who operate
in proximity to habitation areas should be required to post a substantial financial bond to ensure that any costs from accidents or other
events will be fully compensated.
1 Can we not make the buffer bigger? Im glad it is being increased, but "the University of Maryland's School of Public Health
recommended that state [Colorado] set a distance of 2,000 feet from any well. "
http://phpa.dhmh.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/Reports/MDMarcellusShalePublicHealthFinalReport08.15.2014.pdf
1 Colorado health studies have shown that there are health impacts within a 1/2 mile of an oil and gas well. The original setback
standards had no basis in public health, according an admission of the Director of the COGCC when I worked on this issue in 2012.
500' is better than the puny setback of 100', which is certainly not adequate. This view is the basis of my answers to this survey.
1 Doesn't go far enough and health and safety issues should outweigh property-owner and land-developer "rights" to monetary gains.
1 Even 500 feet is not enough.
1 Even a 500 ft buffer does not protect property values. If a well is sited 500 ft from my back fence, that's essentially in my backyard and as
a result, I will likely lose all the equity in my house as well as lose the value it had when I bought it!
1 Fort Collins must address reciprocal "takings" that are granted to frackers. That is to say the loss of homeowner property value that
happens when nearby fracking degrades the neighborhood because of noise, stench, danger (that is mitigated slightly in this proposed
change), air pollution, etc. This issue is ignored by the state, the Governor, and the City. The frackers are held harmless while they cry
instantly about their rights to frack if denied the ability to develop their "rights." The frackers accept no reciprocal responsibility. They
must be held fiscally responsible for property value takings.
1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change is good
or far enough to protect people's health & safety.
1 Given our image as a champion of green energy and climate friendly policies, Fort Collins should ideally not allow oil and gas
development within city limits, but to the extent that we continue to do so, we should make all possible changes to increase the health
and safety of those in our community.
1 How long will they have to comply? Who will enforce the new regulations?
Count Response
8
1 I agree it makes sense to have the same requirements as the State. I am for incentive to cap and stop active wells. Greater distance is
better but I am unsure if it is actually still safe enough for the nearby residents or schools.
1 I am in favor of limiting fracking within city limits as much as possible. I am also in favor of having fracking operations as far away as
possible from water sources (rivers, reservoirs).
1 I believe some reports suggest 1000 feet or more setbacks. I will send them in if I can find them again. Thanks.
1 I believe the setback should be at least 1,000 feet.
1 I disagreed with question 2 because I feel that this code change would reduce the potential negative impacts of O&G operations, but
certainly would not minimize them.
1 I do not feel this set back is far enough considering what happened in Firestone earlier this year. Why put people's lives and property in
danger?
1 I do support overall this change to increase setbacks and will be important to development in the rest of the GMA. Would it possible to
integrate natural/open space, as the increased setback will likely (I assume) render some areas undevelopable?
1 I don't know why you are asking me this. I don't know anything about this stuff.
1 I don't think the a setback of 500 feet is adequate. 1000 feet would be more appropriate
1 I like the increase to 500 feet, but I see no need to reduce setback of new development from plugged and abandoned wells from 350.
1 I really do not want this code change I'm ok with 350 feet.
1 I still find it hard to believe that oil and gas companies can set up wells/drills what have you in the middle of residential areas. This fact
hugely impacted where I bought my house and why I live in Fort Collins as appose to Windsor for example. Having oil and gas
operations close to homes negatively impacts the property value of those homes and could potentially negatively impact the health of
those residents.
1 I suggest that the setback distance of new homes, subdivisions and schools should be 1,000 feet. As for plugged and abandoned wells,
are you sure they won't be brought back into use in the event that oil and gas prices rise? If so, then I'd suggest that they also have a
1,000 foot buffer. A very detailed study was released yesterday with evidence that babies born to women living near fracking sites
were found to be below weight. The science is still out on some of the impacts of fracking and we should be as conservative about the
public health impacts. Finally, in the future when fossil fuels are entirely phased out, the buffered lands could be developed so the land
use code should take that into consideration in the layout of streets and land uses.
1 I support any effort to increase the setback from residences. I live near a well and the constant strong toxic odors emanating from the
well are horrible. I worry about the impact on my family's health from inhaling these toxic odors.
1 I support the increase in off set from 350 to 500 feet for existing active oil and gas wells. However I do not believe this is large enough.
Any explosion could impact homes within 500 feet. Recent explosions around the country are evidence of this. Also fumes and other
toxic compounds can easily travel 500 feet negatively impacting residential health.
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be enough
to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what goes on
underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us know in not so
subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
1 I think at the very least, 500 ft setbacks to match State Law is needed
1 I think it should be more than 500 feet.
1 I think the setback for active well should be far greater than 500 feet.
Count Response
9
1 I think the setback should be even farther away. That is why I disagreed with many of the statements!
1 I think the setback should be much more. We need to protect our city, residents, children, pregnant women, and animals from the toxic
materials and fumes! Please protect us!!
1 I want to say strongly disagree but I think my statistics can be viewed incorrectly in bar charts. I strongly disagree with all of these
because I think any housing and development should be FAR more than 500 ft in distance. If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to
fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins
residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in proximity to fracking sites.
1 I want whatever reduces the number of active wells and protects the population. Renewable energy!
1 I wish the set back was even further!
1 I would honestly like it to be even more - even 500 feet from where my kids sleep seems too close.
1 I would like to see a greater set back from new and abandoned wells. At least 1,000 feet, and preferably more. No new wells would be
most preferable.
1 I would like to see this increased even more, to at least 1000 feet and perhaps the proposed 2500 foot setback. I know municipalities
currently have little power to do so, though.
1 I would offer to make the setback even further. Fort Collins has one of the worst air qualities in the country, most likely due to the
booming oil and gas industry. While I understand we all need and use natural gas, we need to focus on clean energy and and avoid
archaic forms of fuel altogether in order to protect our health today and in the future.
1 I would prefer a larger setback than 500 feet.
1 I would propose 1000 feet from wells.
1 I would strongly prefer no drilling in City limits, and encourage the Council to put pressure on our elected representatives in Denver to
ensure the safety of all coloradoans. Do we need energy sources? Absolutely. Do oil and gas operations pose multiple health,
environmental, and safety risks? They do.
1 I'd like the state to require even larger buffers.
1 I'd like to see the setback increased to 2,500 feet.
1 I'm glad the distance is being increased to 500 feet but I would prefer 1000 feet. I have seen too many reports of oil and gas leakages
underground.
1 If the intent is to match the State O/G setback standards, would the setback be reduced if the state setbacks are reduced?
1 In general, people should be able to do what they want with their property. Putting a burden on developers to plug nearby gas wells is
likely to favor the most wealthy and connected developers over upstarts. Really, drillers should have to escrow the funds to plug their
well properly, and some portion of severance tax revenue should go to keeping old wells From blowing up people's houses.
1 Increasing the set-back is an unnecessary and excessive change and doesn't respect the land rights of the oil rights established far
before the pressure to build houses. We live across the street from two rigs. We don't like it but the builder knew it when he built and
we knew it when we bought. Decreasing the setback for plugged wells is a good idea. It's not being used anymore so it makes sense... if
the oil company is willing to cap it knowing it won't ever be able to be used again.
1 It is just and much needed in our city. One only has to look at the map of existing wells, active or not to see that it is a siege encroaching
on our beautiful land. The noise, pollution and risk for tax-paying residents needs to be protected.
1 It is not sufficiently protective of public health and safety, or groundwater protection.
1 It is still an inadequate buffer distance for the protection of public health and safety. Whether or not this provides an incentive for
developers to plug active wells will depend on who owns the wells and makes the most money, not on public safety.
Count Response
10
1 Keep them out of town
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to mitigate
potential health and safety concerns.
1 Looks good!
1 Mirroring state codes and regs will keep FC and Larimer county out of court and save tax monies.
1 My only question is "where is the data that suggests that either 350 feet or 500 feet is sufficient to protect the health and safety of
residents?" This seems somewhat arbitrary and capricious, but may serve to satisfy some who are looking for any increase to make
them "feel better" about this subject. Lets see the data....
1 My personal priority is to have not fracking at all.
1 My preference would be for the minimum setback to be more than 500 feet. However, I prefer the 500 feet setback regulation to the
350 feet setback regulation.
1 Needs to protect people and property mor5
1 New development should be MORE than 500 feet, at least 1000, and should certainly be more than that for schools.
1 Not a big enough buffer! Somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 feet would be better.
1 Oil & gas operators do not protect residents' needs; they only protect their own bottom line. These codes are still too easy on them.
1 Oil & gas producers should have to plug old wells if not in use regardless if they are to be reopened.
1 Oil and gas development is dangerous and dirty. It hurts wildlife and our air quality. It adds dirty trucks to our roads. Oil and gas
development has no business growing anywhere near our large city.
1 Oil and gas operations should not be allowed within the City limits. Horizontal drilling techniques give access to mineral rights owners
while protecting the health and safety of surface rights owners and residents. Increased cost to mineral right owners should not be
taken into consideration.
1 Overall, I would like to see oil and gas operations more, and not less regulated, considering the serious risks regarding safety and public
health. I don't have much trust in the industry, which is highly profit-driven, spends a lot of money to try and influence policies to work
on their behalf, and appears to want to milk every last dime of profits from what can be extracted. I'd hate to see Fort Collins becoming
anything like neighboring Weld County, which is oil and gas crazy, and consequently has some of the worst air quality and other related
issues in the region, and which unfortunately influences the air quality in the Fort Collins area.
1 Please make it 10,000 feet
1 Safety and a larger buffer should be a priority
1 Safety first!!!! There have been too many accidents. One is two many. We need to protect people and the environment first and
foremost!
1 Seems like good idea to conform with the state.
1 Setback distance should be doubled to 1000 ft for new wells; no development should be permitted within 1000 ft of non-productive
or abandoned wells.
1 Setbacks from active wells should be even greater.
1 Slant drilling allows oil and gas companies to drill long distances. Increase the setback to 1/2 mile.
Count Response
11
1 Stop coddling the oil and gas industry. They are exporting record amounts of our oil and gas, not paying enough taxes, and not working
in the interest of our communities, or our country. We get stuck with the mess, and pay higher prices at the pump.
1 The code changes appear to be an attempt to move oil and gas further away from residential areas, but in my opinion areas zoned
residential should not have ANY oil and gas production.
1 The contribution of fracking to overall pollution in this region is obvious, documented and frightening. MUCH more needs to be done.
The setbacks are a 2% solution in my opinion.
1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven that
over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about the public!!
ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY!
1 The further the better.
1 The oil and gas industry has proven time and time again that its only real interest is making profits. Certainly not being environmental
stewards for the community and certainly not invested in the health interests of the people living around work areas. The laws in this
state allow oil and gas companies to hide the toxic chemicals that they are using from the public because the frack fluid mixtures are
"proprietary information". I have zero interest in having an industry regulated by laughable laws anywhere near where I live. Especially
considering that most of these companies have enough money to buy the city of Fort Collins outright.
1 The proposed change is not consistent with the State standards related to new residential next to existing wells. The proposed
changes do not respect the property owner in any way.
1 The set backs are woefully inadequate to protect public health and safety.
1 The setback should be more like 1000 or 2000 ft, but also instead of punishing real estate developers, new oil and gas wells should be
set back 1 mile from existing development!
1 The way to get developers to plug and abandon active wells is to make penalties for problems that arise so severe that developers
have to protect themselves financially against that happening or face possible bankruptcy .
1 There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital defects. One study showed
increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that even 500 foot setbacks are not
sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet to reduce risk to residents in a meaningful way.
1 There should be a public meeting/hearing about these proposed changes and how they will affect the entire community; especially
those nearer wells
1 This code change aligns with my own personal values because it is preventing the toxic health detriments that oil is known to cause,
but by how much? I am certainly in favor of this but wondering if there's a way to make sure each well is even farther from
neighborhoods. Can we isolate wells and make a regulation not to develop anywhere near, to a distance of 2000-5000 ft? Can we
regulate how many new wells are built? Is there a safer way to plug them? Studies show that 10% of plugged oil wells leak. I would also
like to urge city council to set up a very well publicized meeting to talk about this, as this is a matter of severe health repercussions.
1 This code change does not address the issue of unmarked flowlines, contamination of water sources and increased set-backs for
schools.
1 This code change does not specifically address visual impact, noise and/or air quality. Distance may not mitigate all of those, depending
on terrain and other characteristics.
1 This code change will likely drive the cost of new homes up. Reducing a developers investment and interest. There needs to be a
better way to insulate nearby residents from industrial equipment without hogging up all this land.
1 This code seems fairly clearly targeted at reducing oil and gas production. The science behind it is questionable at best. Even as the city
is discussing energy subsidies for low income households, this policy will directly lead to higher energy prices. This is just bad policy,
plain and simple.
Count Response
12
1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize the
results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees with the
first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is unnecessary to protect
public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I suggest you go back to the
drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm.
1 This is taking away from the rights of the landowners near Oil & Gas wells. State Law requires O & G development to be at least 500
feet from residential units, true. What you're doing here is requiring that residential development be 500 feet from existing O & G units.
This is not the same thing. Allow developers to develop at 350 from existing O & G, if they choose to do so. If Buyers won't buy the
homes at that distance, the developer will learn quickly. It's called personal choice, as in, the Buyer can choose to live that close, or not.
Making this change will do nothing to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells. Making the second change may do so.
1 This is way too close to neighborhoods to give a buffer from potential hazards. Why can't our city be proactive in setting tough
standards to avoid cases like the explosion in Frederick that killed 2 unsuspecting people in their home.
1 This new regulation would protect the health and safety everyone involved. People over profit.
1 Though any setback is better than none, this is extremely minimal. I support this and any incremental setback, and encourage keeping
up with the state standards ONLY if they put buildings and people farther away from fracking wells, active or inactive. My own personal
values would see us shutting down wells within 10 miles of any people. Since this only addresses new wells, I doubt it would impact
whether or not developers did anything to address abandoned wells.
1 To change the setback by 150 feet is hardly going to make a difference in the safety of nearby residents. The operators of these wells
use undisclosed materials, many of which are likely to be carcinogenic. They don't dispose of fracking wastewater responsibly, either. I
am completely against fracking in Larimer county.
1 We don't know that even 500 ft is enough for safety. These wells are leaking methane into our air which we all share....the industry
needs to be shut down because we are destroying the ozone layer and the future of the planet's ecosystem, as well as the human
species.
1 We need to be dramatically stepping aeat from all fossil fuel develipment. ESPECIALLY FRACKING.
1 We should do anything we can to protect the safety of people living in Ft. Collins. With so much development occurring in our city we
need to protect the health and safety of people who live or will live here. The State does little to protect us from oil and gas operations
and the people of Ft. Collins have made it clear that we don't want oil and gas operations in backyard so anything the city can do to
protect people living in new developments is a great thing.
1 We should not be encouraging plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells.
1 What we know about VOC's from oil and gas operations is that they are very toxic. It would be better to increase setbacks even more
than 500' for public health, but an increase is better than nothing.
1 Whatever we can do to maintain public health and safety, we should do. We should be the leader.
1 Where is this idea coming from? Do we want the city to look like and have the same issues as the towns and cities in Weld County?
1 While I agree that increasing the distance from wells for new (I assume housing) will have an effect on protecting those who might move
into these new developments, it really does nothing to protect existing property owners whose homes are closer to wells. I also am
not confident that plugged and abandoned wells are necessarily safe. There are apparently no standards for those or requirements that
any standards be followed.
1 Who will be inspecting plugged and abandoned Wells to ensure they are safe? After the home exploded in Firestone, we all know the
existing system for safety inspections isn't working.
1 Why are we not making the rules more stringent and request even more distance between wells and developments in the city limits?
My experience is that plugging a well (even according to current regs) doesn't always adequately protect against blowouts over time.
1 Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that includes fossil fuels
Count Response
13
1 Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk. Repeats of the
Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells need to be clearly stated and
should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in harms way should never be permitted.
1 Would support this part of proposal.
1 safety first
1 the city rules should match the state rules. the rights of the mineral rights owner should also be respected and considered. be clear that
the rules would apply to the surface location and not the bottom hole location. subsurface production could be safely performed under
developments.
1 this is insufficiently protective of public health and safety and our water resources.
Count Response
14
7. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations.
46% 46%Disagree Strongly Disagree
20% 20%Disagree Disagree
9% 9%Neutral Neutral
15%Agree 15% Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 45.6% 103
Disagree 19.9% 45
Neutral 9.3% 21
Agree 15.0% 34
Strongly Agree 7.1% 16
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7
Totals: 226
15
Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
• Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells.
• Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and
additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply.
8. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations.
42% 42%Disagree Strongly Disagree
23% 23%Disagree Disagree
8% 8%Neutral Neutral
16%Agree 16% Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 42.4% 95
Disagree 23.2% 52
Neutral 7.6% 17
Agree 16.1% 36
Strongly Agree 6.7% 15
No Opinion/Not Sure 4.0% 9
Totals: 224
16
•
Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
•
Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and
additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply.
9. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers.
29% 29%Disagree Strongly Disagree
15% 15%Disagree Disagree
20% 20%Neutral Neutral
25% 25%Agree Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 28.6% 64
Disagree 14.7% 33
Neutral 19.6% 44
Agree 25.4% 57
Strongly Agree 7.1% 16
No Opinion/Not Sure 4.5% 10
Totals: 224
17
•
Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
•
Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and
additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply.
10. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells.
19% 19%Disagree Strongly Disagree
18%Disagree 18% Disagree
17% 17%Neutral Neutral
24% 24%Agree Agree
9% 9%Agree Strongly Agree
12%Sure 12% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 18.7% 42
Disagree 18.2% 41
Neutral 17.3% 39
Agree 24.0% 54
Strongly Agree 9.3% 21
No Opinion/Not Sure 12.4% 28
Totals: 225
18
•
Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
•
Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and
additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply.
11. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities.
43% 43%Disagree Strongly Disagree
24% 24%Disagree Disagree
9% 9%Neutral Neutral
12%Agree 12% Agree
9%Agree 9% Strongly Agree
3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 43.1% 97
Disagree 23.6% 53
Neutral 8.9% 20
Agree 12.0% 27
Strongly Agree 9.3% 21
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7
Totals: 225
19
•
Code Change #2: Development near Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells
•
Current Code Standard: New development must be at least 350 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development must be at least 100 feet from plugged and abandoned oil
and gas wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and
additional safety or monitoring requirements may apply.
Count Response
1 100 feet don't make a fucking difference when you poison the water table and the air. How is this so complicated? In this
bullshit. Don't add another fucking hundred feet. Stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us to
stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us. You're getting poison to. Your family is getting poisoned. We're
all getting poisoned. What is a hundred feet ? what is 500 ft when we are all getting poisoned?
1 100 feet is much too close!
1 100 feet is not enough. This would be terrible for the environment and our health.
1 100 ft is even more ridiculous than 500 ft!
1 100 ft. setbacks are not adequate to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents. I recommend that the City engage
with the City of Longmont to learn more about their efforts to study plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells within their city limits.
Before Fort Collins can make any determination re setbacks from (P&A) wells, the City must study soil samples, air samples and
water samples near P&A wells. The City at this point does not have enough evidence to arbitrarily set a 100 ft. setback from
P&A wells. This proposed code update should be tabled until the City has adequately studied the P&A wells sites within City
limits.
1 Again, safety first. Keep the current 350 ft set back.
1 All wells, whether abandoned or active, should require the 500 foot minimum setback. This would make landowners think twice
before allowing drilling operations on their land, as it would be permanently condemned for future use.
1 Any effort to increase the distance between residences and well is a positive move. I live very close to a well in Hearthfire and
the toxic odors that emanate daily are frightening. I am very worried about the health and welfare of my family.
1 Any person who votes in favor of reducing offsets to such a low distance risks personal liability for any injuries or deaths
resulting from such negligent disregard for the risks. The lesson from the Firestone explosion (similar but not identical
circumstances) should make clear how incredibly irresponsible it would be to decrease any existing setback from new
development.
1 Any reduction of setbacks for abandoned wells is a move in the wrong direction.
1 As long as the plugs are inspected by someone other than the developer or oil&gas company!
1 As we've seen in other cases, I'm concerned that even if wells are abandoned, they could still pose a rise to ground water and
other environmental issues. I prefer the existing 350 foot setback.
1 Changing the code to 100 feet puts residents at greater risk for their health and safety. "Fraccidents" are happening on a regular
basis. the pockets of oil and gas are so deep they routinely avoid putting extra safety precautions in place because the amounts
they pay out for accidents are a drop in the bucket for them. We must place more accountability on their shoulders.
1 Considering the explosion in Firestone I think it's a dangerous idea to decrease this distance. It should be kept the same or
increased.
1 Ditto my comments in previous section
1 Do we have enough science to know that current plugging is adequate to increase health and safety. I would agree with
stronger setbacks.
1 Don't trust O&G operators to adequately plug their facilities after abandonment, nor will a developer do it. Both are greedy pigs
motivated by their money, and neither will voluntarily invest in a money-losing venture.
12. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change?
20
1 Even a plugged well can pose a hazard, and is an eyesore. I do not think the setback should be reduced to 100 feet, perhaps a
compromise of 200 feet would be reasonable to still provide some incentive, but reduce the visual blight.
1 Even after watching the video, I really don't know what is best regarding safety for nearby residents, i.e., should we be much
stricter about proximity to active and closed wells. And is the State strict enough?
1 Fort Collins traditionally DOES NOT LOWER environmental protections! Did Pruit and Trump assume leadership positions in
FC?
1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change
is nearly far enough to protect people's health & safety.
1 From my research, I can find no state or city data that reveals all abandoned wells or their pipelines. We've had one house blow
up in our state. Again, we are taxpayers. Stop siding with big oil and gas with these weak code changes.
1 Given the danger from plugged and abandoned wells as seen in the Firestone explosion, we should not be placing more homes
next to abandoned wells by reducing the distance allowed
1 Housing should not be developed within 5000 feet of an abandoned petroleum or gas well. The harmful effects of such wells
are not fully understood.
1 How can a mineral right holder re-use a plugged and abandoned well?
1 How can allowing closer proximity to potentially dangerous conditions be safer??
1 How long will be given to comply with new regulations? Who will enforce the new regulations?
1 How were these abandoned and plugged wells inspected in 2017?
1 I DO NOT support reducing the off set from 350 to 100 feet for plugged or abandoned wells. First this assumes that the
company properly plugged the well. Secondly if they have not then the health and safety risks posed to residential homes is
increased. In addition this may have negative impacts on property values. Face it no one wants to live next to oil and gas.
1 I am concerned about having plugged and abandoned wells so close to homes. There are so many wells, and so few safety
inspectors, so how do we insure that a well that was plugged or abandoned is still safe even years later?
1 I am not clear why a REDUCED setback for abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive to plug them.
1 I believe the setback should remain the same. Even though the wells are inactive and capped, they might still pose a hazard to
nearby development if periodic air sampling at the cap is not done to ensure no slow build-up of gas fumes is occurring inside
the well. Allowing defunct wells to be much closer increases the potential hazard of the density and speed of gas fumes
impacting nearby dwellings. This testing may already be required, but I didn't find any information readily seen in the links
provided. I also believe there should be codes requiring all new developments to have these wells capped within the existing
plats and setback zones, instead of just incentives.
1 I do not favor relaxing the existing required setback.
1 I do not want this distance to be reduced.
1 I presume that "Development" means buildings occupied by people, e.g., housing. If not, my answers could change.
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be
enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what
goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us
know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
thoughts.
Count Response
21
1 I think this proposed change will drive up the cost of land for future development, perhaps contrary to the City's desire for more
affordable housing.
1 I would prefer the setback to be larger. I don't think 100ft incurs compliance on the part of the industry or safety on the part of
the civilians.
1 I'm not sure I trust that the "plugging" will last or be safe long term after recent explosions.
1 I'm not sure the data is completely in on this issue. Why change the distance if we do not 100% know what the results will be for
our children. No.
1 If a well is legally plugged, then I'm ok building there.
1 If people want to build closer to a well, they should be allowed to do so. Let the market assess the risks.
1 If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More
information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in
proximity to fracking sites.
1 In no way should the set back be reduced!
1 Inactive wells should be required to be plugged according to the highest standards, with no counterpart of incentives.
1 It seems unlikely that a developer would incur the cost and liability of plugging a well so that construction of houses could occur
nearby.
1 It'll be easier to just leave that probably. What can be done realistically with 250 feet? A bike trail?
1 It's nice to say that the abandoned wells need to meet state standards, but who will ensure this? I don't believe the state is
enforcing it's standards effectively. Until I have more confidence that plugged wells are really safe I can't support a reduced
setback.
1 Just because you gave one variance does not make it right to give any more. Talk to Jason Elkins at the City of Longmont for
their experience and work on P&A wells.
1 KEEP THE SETBACK AT 350'!!!
1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. Force drilled wells to be properly capped. Hold drillers liable for future damage by requiring
insurance policies from the drillers that will pay for property and human damage.
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to
mitigate potential health and safety concerns.
1 Leave at 350' for plugged and abandoned well.
1 Makes it worse by bringing homes and wells closer.
1 Mirroring state regs will be a benefit to FC and Larimer county
1 Mistakes can still be made, just like the fatal home explosion in Firestone.
1 No
1 No way would I support this.
1 Not enough information
1 On its face, it looks like this proposed move is based on money, rather than public health.
Count Response
22
1 Perhaps things have tightened up since the tragic explosion in Firestone, but I am skeptical. I would want to know more about
what the City, and for that matter Larimer County and the State would be doing to be sure abandoned wells and pipelines have
been properly capped and sealed before I would favor any reduction in the safety zone around any development, existing or
new.
1 Pipeline infrastructure deteriorates with time. This merely pushes the problem into the future. The responsibility for plugging
active wells and monitoring the integrity of all pipelines should reside with O&G extraction companies, not housing developers
(language in #10 is unclear as to whom is being referred to by use of the word "developers").
1 Please address frackers fiscal responsibility for their 'takings" from private property owners.
1 Please make it 10,000 feet.
1 Please see my first comment
1 Reducing the setback for a capped well makes sense. Since there is no industrial equipment and the well heads are properly
Capped. It makes no sense to enforce a large setback when that land could be useful to nearby residents.
1 Reducing these distances will greatly increase the risk of communities being affected by leaking, plugged oil wells. Stanford's
research demonstrated that plugged gas wells had a high likelihood of leaking. This is dangerous for communities living near
these wells.
1 Same as before. And, plugged and abandoned wells will fail over time. I know. I'm an environmental scientist. You're just kicking
the can down the road so that future generations will have to contend with the destruction we've caused.
1 Same comments as first part.
1 See my above answer. 500 feet is not enough distance from wells for development. It needs to be much further. 2,00 feet would
be a minimum.
1 Setback should be at least 1000 ft for abandoned/plugged wells; development of these areas should not be permitted.
1 Since Firestone's "oops" which left 2 people dead, there have been a dozen more, with other lives lost. They didn't make the
headlines, however. This is a morally bankrupt play by developers, putting the lives of anyone building within at least 150 feet at
risk. When wells are plugged they use concrete, which cracks. Not if, but when, it happens they can cause explosions like we've
seen recently. We should not be playing Russian Roulette with our citizens' lives just so developers can build more homes over
these time bombs!
1 Stanford has studied plugged wells and shown that about 10% of these leak. Therefore I personally would treat them in a similar
fashion as active wells. There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital
defects. One study showed increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that
even 500 foot setbacks are not sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet
1 Still not convinced this will achieve the goals stated but it's better than nothing.
1 Suggested language for a new rule: "New development must be at least **500 feet** from plugged and abandoned oil and gas
wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring
requirements may apply."
1 The 100 ft. not far enough. Again consider what happened in Firestone. Oil company thought well was abandoned and plugged.
A house blew up and lives were lost.
1 The argument in favor seems like a "best guess" which may be wishful thinking. There have been a number of reports of poorly
plugged wells. I doubt the state has the staff to confirm that abandoned wells are adequately plugged, nor the ability to check
these wells in succeeding years. I also question whether the 100 foot separation is adequate for safety.
1 The current code should be left as is, or made more stringent.
Count Response
23
1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven
that over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about
the public!! ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY!
1 The set backs undermine public health and safety and should be at least 2,000 feet.
1 There have been problems monitoring the quality of other aspects of the safety of inactive wells, therefore I have no confidence
in the resources and discipline being available to ensure safety whiLe reducing buffers.
1 There is no meaningful advantage provided by reducing the setback other than to benefit of developers. This perennial power
move is tiresome for all of us who are not developers. Surveys and public notices feel like a technicality and minor speed bump
to the inevitable. Sigh.
1 This allows developers and O & G operations owners to decide if they want to plug underperforming wells, because it opens up
more development potential. It allows the landowner to make decisions that benefit his/her wants and needs.
1 This code change does not address set-backs from flow-lines, whether active or not. All flow-lines need to be mapped /
disconnected at the source and removed before allowing less set-back. Soil testing for escaping hydrocarbons should be
mandatory for at least 5 years prior to reducing the set-backs.
1 This code change would make it impossible for an unused well to ever be used again if a development is built closer than the
500 feet as currently required. This proposed rule is a underhanded way to limit oil and gas industry and mineral rights owners
from exercising their rights. City Council should be ashamed of themselves for proposing this underhanded proposed code
change.
1 This is a morally bankrupt proposal. Since Firestone's "oops" that took two lives, there have been a dozen other accidents and
others have lost their lives. O&G intends to frack every square mile of our state, according to an aside of an industry rep, and
this just gives the developers more to work with while endangering lives needlessly. Recent research in "Science Advances"
shows a causal relationship between proximity to all fracking wells, producing, and non-producing, within a 10-mile radius, on
newborns' health and mortality with a sampling of over 1,125,000 cases! The closer one lives to the wells, the higher the
impacts. I sent this data to our city council last week. We should not be playing Russian roulette with our citizens' lives so we can
build more homes.
1 This is crazy! Why do these companies get to ruin our groundwater?
1 This is insane....are you all on the payroll of the oil and gas industry and developers....there is no way that you are considering
the health and safety of the citizens of Ft. Collins.
1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize
the results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees
with the first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is
unnecessary to protect public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I
suggest you go back to the drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm.
1 This is not based on public health and safety interests, but rather development interests.
1 This is ridiculous to reduce the setback to 100 feet, given the recent home explosion in Firestone and other similar systemic
problems. This needs to be INCREASED NOT DECREASED!
1 This small a setback is pretty much terrible for public health and the preservation of property rights. I consider the heavy hand
the COGCC uses against Front Range towns and cities a violation of civil rights.
1 We need to maintain a safe distance from plugged wells. The recent explosions are clear evidence of this. If you let this happen, I
think the location of the wells need to be disclosed to any future buyer. You also need to be ready and willing to take
responsibility for any damages and loss of life if the wells explode. I think this is incredibly irresponsible and shows your lack of
care for the residents of our community!
1 We should not be encouraging the plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells.
Count Response
24
1 What evidence do you base the assumption that the change will encourage OG developers to plug their abandoned wells? The
well owners are almost never the same as the surface owners (who are the ones who would benefit by being able to build more
housing under this rule change). There is no incentive for operators to do anything. What are the reasons OG operators leave
abandoned wells improperly plugged? I'm sure there is some financial or regulatory incentive and if they are not surface owners
they have no stake in surface development.
1 What is the evidence that the code change and the reduction in proximity to plugged and abandoned wells will encourage
developers to plug and abandon active wells? Is that coming from oil and gas developers themselves? How has this affected
new development?
1 What makes you think you can rely on industry to abide by the capping regs? (How silly!)
1 While plugging and abandonment for today's standards may work, locations of historical wells or their P&A process is not
always known. In addition, it is the infrastructure that would be an issue and that is the area that needs to be fully evaluated for
construction activities. In addition, poorly constructed and then poorly P&A'd wells could lead to conduits for contamination.
There are variables here that need further evaluation before reducing the setback.
1 While the idea that plugged wells are better than active ones is sound, plugged wells are known to be environmental hazards,
and can be unplugged easily. Given this, maintaining a distance of 350 feet from these wells is more likely to protect people now
and into the future.
1 Who will plug these wells for developers? Will Fort Collins suggest a professional company and will the city then have an
inspection process?
1 Why do they need an incentive to develop closer if they plug? They should be required to do this.
1 You are putting your voting citizens at risk for health issues and underweight births.
1 You know whether this would encourage developers to plug Wells which are no longer active, one would need to know what
the cost was and if it was cost-effective for those Developers and landowners to do so
1 plug the wells
Count Response
25
Count Response
3 No
2 no
1 A 500 foot setback is not enough to be healthy for those who live in the area. One half mile from a well is the distance
considered safe for home owners and for water supplies. Certainly lowering the already low standards we have for setbacks
from homes, either those in existence or those that are to be built, is a bad idea. The city has an obligation to protect the
homeowner's health and the value of that home. Thank you.
1 "Orphan wells" were a pretty noxious problem offshore and onshore in Louisiana, where I lived for eight years prior to coming
to Fort Collins. The city is increasing the safety margin for new development around active wells. I think we take the inactive
status a little too much at face value if we reduce the safety zone for development near supposedly inactive wells.
1 Again, the proposed changes and the existing policy is dramatically more harmful to the property owner than the State
standards. Property owners should be able to choose to build closer to existing wells.
1 Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement continues to shut
down energy production?
1 Although conflicts of public safety with O&G development are minor in Fort Collins now, changes in energy pricing require
stringent regulation now to protect citizens in the future
1 An increased bond for oil companies would be nice, though that may be at the state level. If, as they say, there isn't much chance
of them exceeding the current bond, then a higher amount shouldn't be much more expensive. Let the insurance companies
take the risk, not the public.
1 Anything that can be done to limit O&G development, especially fracking, should be done.
1 As a toxicologist and as someone who's dealt with oil and gas exploration and extraction in NV, I know exactly what is involved
and what kind of mess it leaves on the landscape. That should NOT be happening in residential areas at all!
1 As an environmental scientist, I strongly suggest we terminate with oil and agas development in this state as soon as possible.
1 As long as the City of Fort Collins gets their money, they really don't care about this. These changes are meant to benefit the
land developers and the City. Rich get richer and City collects permit $
1 Better maintained wells and citizen education is needed. Setbacks do very little to increase "safety". Large setbacks drive up the
cost of homes and development and occupy land that could otherwise be useful to a neighborhood.
1 COGCC has not even come close to doing its job of protecting citizens from oil and gas development. Instead they have
basically become a propaganda group promoting fossil fuels. They have put a little lipstick on the pig to try to keep Colorado
citizens from banning fracking as many cities including Fort Collins did several years ago before the state sued us. Fort Collins
should do everything in its power to fight back and create the strictest limits possible on oil and gas if they truly want to protect
their citizens.
1 Can you please notify those impacted of the location of wells that are within 1000 feet of their home? People have the right to
know where they are.
1 For me, the most important aspect of the reduced setback for plugged wells is the thorough inspection to ensure that it was
plugged properly
1 Fracked oil and gas is a lot cleaner than other fossil fuels and can sustain us for the time being. Let's use it while it's useful and
build the solar future at the same time.
13. Do you have any additional comments on the proposed Land Use Code changes or other oil and gas topics?
26
1 Fracking this close to adults & kids is extreme energy development which is isn't safe & shouldn't be allowed. Studies show the
closer you live to fracking the more serious health consequences there are. These proposals don't protect the publics health &
safety!
1 Given the recent explosions in Weld county, we must be very careful to protect our residents.
1 Health studies and recent explosions and fires have shown that the set backs favor O&G companies not residents.
1 Health, safety and environmental sustainability should have priority over property rights. Colorado's dual estate system is
outmoded; mineral extraction and urban development don't belong in the same neighborhood.
1 How did you go from voting to prevent oil and gas development within the city to these proposed changes?
1 How do these impact real estate? Our realtors and buyers made aware of all plugged, active or proposed wells? I might think this
to be an important piece of buying decision... like the way radon tests are suggested. Full transparency.
1 I also am not in favor of removing language related to the fracking moratorium. I still think we should limit or prohibit oil and gas
development within City limits.
1 I am a resident of south Fort Collins for 24 years. I strongly oppose oil and gas development near residential areas and feel our
state has overriden the views of the majority on this issue.
1 I appreciate the opportunity to fill out a survey, it helps me feel like I am in the loop
1 I believe that fractured wells must be handled separately from non-fractured wells as the risk of hydrocarbon escape and
contamination of the surrounding area is greater and these sites needs monitoring long after the well-head is capped.
1 I can't see any reason for reducing the setbacks other than a give away to developers.
1 I do not believe it is appropriate to develop new neighborhoods around or near either active or inactive wells.
1 I feel the distanves between existing wells and new wells should be increased. Also, we need more funding to have stricter
safety guidelines for Oil amd Gas development. Also, it us the concern of everyone living in the front range that HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING STOP ASAP.
1 I hope that the City chooses to protect our lovely city! Protect our health, our aesthetic, our air, our water, and our property
values! We need to invest in clean energy!! We want to continue to attract high quality people and businesses to our area!
Let's keep foco great! ...and clean!
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be
enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what
goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us
know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
thoughts.
1 I think the type of operations in an area should be included in the determination of setbacks. Some low-flow operations may not
be as critical as high volume operations.
1 I think there should be widely publicized public hearings on this proposal. Maps should be available showing the locations and
well log information of all active and abandoned wells (plugged, not plugged and whether they are just temporarily abandoned
or not), monitoring status and findings, well permit applications, and underlying pipelines, and all of this information in relation to
current and planned development, hydrogeology, and surface waters. Information on well locations, pipelines and their status,
and mineral rights ownership should also be readily available to the public and individuals to consider prior to real estate
transactions. Also, locations of abandoned wells are supposed to be marked under CO law, but we have a couple even in my
neighborhood that are not marked. One of them, drilled in 1999 and abandoned in 2000, is not even designated as plugged on
COGCC publicly available information. A local recent news story cited a homeowner in south Fort Collins who recent
Count Response
27
1 I was on the water board years ago and endorsed the regulations adopted by council which exceeded State standards at that
time. I apparently missed an opportunity to input earlier in this new consideration of proposed changes and am doing now
1 I would like better protection for citizens/residents over oil& gas companies.
1 I would like to keep a Timnath like situation, of fracking near homes and schools, from happening in Fort Collins. Any weakening
of regulations would cause alarm.
1 I would like to see Fort Collins pursue some stronger regulations or another moratorium (like other cities on the Front Range
have done). That map showing the wells does not imply that Fort Collins won't soon see development. Fracked wells often have
shorter production lives, fracking allows expansion into areas previously not economic to develop and OG resources are
usually found in contiguous areas. We need to get in front of this once more and not cave in to the arguments that there isn't
much development here. There wasn't much development anywhere on the Front Range 10 years ago.
1 I would like to think the 100-foot provision would work, but I would like to see reports indicating success from other areas
where it has been tried. At present it may be wishful thinking.
1 I would really like to see the City take a VERY strong stance on this issue rather than compromising yet more of the health and
safety of City residents and our environment in the interest of energy development.
1 I would suggest that the developers of houses and schools be required to install permanent air quality monitoring equipment
within range of active fracking sites and that the data be continuously available to the residents and parents of students.
1 I'd like to see our leaders agressively protecting our environment, especially our water and air. Thanks!
1 I'm just lucky I live in an area of fort Collins without any of these issues but looking out of your back yard to see a lit up tower
pumping oil or gas 24/7 seems like a nightmare. I really hope groundwater is not being ruined for people who need it and
suddenly earthquakes start happening.
1 I'm not against fracking. I very much want to see these areas of town developed.
1 Intensive development of oil and gas in this area has resulted in the harmful leakage of methane and ethane, contributing to the
formation of dangerous ozone levels and global warming.
1 It is a start in the right direction, but it is not significant enough. We can do better.
1 It is not a question of IF the P&A wells will leak; it is a question of when. They all leak sometime down the line, and they need to
be monitored continuously.
1 It's a shame that fort collins' moratorium on fracking was repealed. Fracking produces hazardous waste and above all irreversibly
continates our ground water. If there is opportunity to reduce fracking.in our area i hope the city governmemt will take action.
1 It's critically important for the City to pursue all means necessary to assess the risks associated with oil and gas development
and adjust the code to address them. Risks should include public health, environment, economic, social and ethical dimensions.
1 Its time for the city of Fort Collins to advocate for the plugging and abandoning of all wells within city limits, and for us to move
toward a 100% renewable energy goal.
1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. No oil exploration! Close the wells that currently exist. Require drillers to prove they have
properly capped wells. Hold drillers accountable for improperly capped wells by requiring up front insurance policies that protect
property owners from drilling activity.
1 Keep the oil and gas industry out of our city. Much of our local economy and tourist appeal is based on the cleanliness of our
water, o&g will ruin that and bleed the town dry only to scurry away from their mess once the viable product is consumed in the
ground. O&g as an industry is equivalent to the people who go through the trouble of taking shopping carts only to realize that
once they deposit their purchases in their vehicle that they no longer have interest in returning the cart to an area that isn't
threatening to other vehicles in the parking lot.
Count Response
28
1 Keep the original 350' setback when building ANYTHING near land previously used for oil & gas purposes!!! Tell the
Developers to stop being so damn greedy!
1 Keep them out of town
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to
mitigate potential health and safety concerns.
1 Let's limit oil and gas out of Fort Collins as much as possible. Please do more to stimulate growth of the solar industry. I'd like the
Earth to not have melted when my kids are grown.
1 None
1 Not aggressive enough to protect health & safety of citizens. Question: can they drill for oil & gas on city open space? Who
owns the mineral rights under city parks and open spaces?
1 Note earlier comments.
1 Of course increasing setbacks from oil and gas industrial operations from 350 to 500 ft. is an improvement but is not enough of
a setback to address the health and safety concerns of Fort Collins residents. A seemingly arbitrary setback of 100 ft for
plugged ad abandoned wells can not be considered until the safety of P&A wells is studied. I don't see how the 100 ft setback
encourages developers to properly plug wells. What evidence does the City have for this theory? Endangering city residents on
a theory is reckless. Again, this proposed change should be abandoned until safety studies have been conducted and more than
a theory can be relied on for developers plugging wells.
1 Oil and Gas companies are given too much control. Citizens need to have more protection to maintain a quality of life and safe
living environment.
1 Oil and Gas operations are industrial operations which pose health and safety hazards to those around them. They have no
place in populated or residential areas. Setbacks of 500 feet are not enough, I believe they should be closer to 1000 feet.
1 Oil and gas operators are less trustworthy than developers. Don't let either of them off the hook by reducing any standards; if
you do, you are just pandering to the money at the expense of our City's residents.
1 Please do not pander to the anti-oil and gas constituency.
1 Please make ALL setbacks as far as possible from homes. Though the state Supreme Court rode over us, the people of Fort
Collins have clearly voted to not have oil and gas production in our city limits. And the home explosions in Firestone and other
cities highlight the need for more stringent, not less strict, setbacks from abandoned or plugged oil/gas wells. Thanks for asking
for our input!
1 Please make sure you do the research to see what the state requires now for a distance that development must be away from
existing O & G operations. The way you're justifying the first suggestion is not valid.
1 Please please protect people and the environment not the oil companies. They are making plenty of money.
1 Please stop worrying so much about the oil and gas community and pay attention to the safety of your citizens.
1 Please think about the environment. I live next to these wells and it is terrible. We had no idea that we would be smelling these
chemicals when we moved in here.
1 Set back to 500 ft. is a good idea. 100 ft for capped wells is not sufficient, at least until there is far better verification that energy
companies are really following the rules for capping & sealing. (To date, this has not been demonstrated.)
1 Thank you for including the thoughts of residents in your decision.
1 Thanks for paying attention to safety & concerns of our residents. Fort Collins has a history of considering our input and I
appreciate it. More evidence should be presented on whether the code changes improve safety.
Count Response
29
1 The City has jurisdiction on surface operations. This should be used fully. I would NOT, as a future property owner, purchase a
house where oil or gas operations had previously occurred. The proposed changes, notably the 150 foot setback from
previous wells, does not protect residents. Land used for oil and gas operations should not be developed.
1 The City should consider applying a Municipal Carbon Tax, not a severance tax that is the purview of the State, but carbon
pollution tax.
1 The citizens of Colorado deserve full disclosure from COCG on the locations of all oil and gas infrastructure.
1 The city council needs to enact much stricter regulations on all future wells and operaters.. And start putting the voices of the
residents and citizens they work for over the needs of oil and gas company CEOS ..Our air quality is horrid due to the operations
and unchecked negligence of companies like Extraction...The council needs to do much more to protect our air and water and
there needs to be much more transparently on campaign donations to members of the city council from oil and gas companies..
1 The city needs to do everything possible to minimize oil and gas impact on people and property. This industry has too much
power
1 The city should fight strongly against all oil and gas drilling in city limits.
1 The proposed change is going in the right direction, but I would like to see even greater setbacks than what COGA is
supporting.
1 The second part of these changes seems to go against any voice I've seen from various voted on proposals. They would seem
to come from a few deep pockets and not the many voices of the community.
1 This is a violation of the rights of the public and homeowners to satisfy an industry that shouldn't continue to operate. They are
jeopardizing the future of the nation's children through their denial and fraud around climate change
1 This issue, like so many, is a complex intersection of understanding the structure and operation of oil and gas, social concerns,
and financial benefit (environment, people, profit). Despite the complexity, here's hoping that the profit of a few carries much
less weight to the potential well-being of many.
1 This seems to preserve the interests of the oil and gas industry and land developers, but creates grave health concerns for
residents and potential residents.
1 Too little, too late!
1 We as a city need to divest from fossil fuels. Banning fracking is not enough if we are benefitting from exploiting our neighboring
county. There must be incentives from the city to stop our dependence on oil and gas and turn to TRULY green options IF we
want to be a truly green city, which clearly we are not. (And should stop glorifying ourselves as such)
1 We can do even better than state standards. 500 feet is not a great distance. I challenge the city to go above and beyond with
more proactive measures separating oil and gas from development.
1 We need even more regulation of current wells. I don't think we should have to live with the toxic odors that we experience
daily.
1 We need to encourage the oil & gas industry.
1 We should be investing in renewable sources of energy that have little to no impact on the environment or human health and
safety.
1 We were informed we are within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged oil or gas well. We would like to know the exact
location of that well. Heard horror stories of supposed plugged wells exploding, etc. How confident is the city that that would
not happen in Fort Collins?
1 What happened to the unfortunate homeowners in Firestone should never happen again!
Count Response
30
1 When is it enough? Where are the impact studies by non-biased groups on our natural environment and quality of life? Who is
doing that homework? As a Colorado native who's family has resided in this state for 120 years, I can hardly believe the
welcome mat we have laid out for gas and oil. Within reason, we can accommodate new industry but we are far beyond that
now. It feels Orwellian when I drive around NE Colorado or browse satellite views of our state.
1 Where exactly are new proposed wells planned for? I specifically moved to Fort Collins/Larimer County to avoid living anywhere
near a fracking operation for the health and safety of my family. All of this fracking is highly irresponsible, with very little
transparency, accountability or public knowledge of what substances they are using. The almighty dollar is given top
consideration for short term gain over the long term health and safety of residents and wildlife. I knew Weld county was a joke
when it comes to "regulation" of oil and gas operations but I really had hoped for better from Fort Collins and Larimer county
officials.
1 Would like the City to continue doing what it can to eliminate fracking in the city and surrounding as much as possible.
1 Yes - I think we need to always speak out against fracking. It is very dangerous.
1 Yes stop poisoning the natural areas. What is this insane war on dandelions and mullein? Land Management doesn't even
quantify if what they do is effective. They just get their new ATVs every couple years and their poison from Monsanto and spray
it in our natural areas. They're trying to control things that have seeds in the soil for over a hundred fifty years and they're not
quantifying if they're even effective. This is a disgusting abuse of money and power and it's poisoning our natural areas, our
Rivers, and us. We live in High chaparrel desert and everyone thinks they need green grass Lawns. How insane. how many times
are you going to poison your yard, mow it, waste drinking water, and get no food from it? And native plants are noxious weeds?
You have to be insane or paid by chemical companies to think that this is a good idea. Larimer County goes 2 hours into the
mountains to poison shit the white man brought here with no proof what they are doing is working. And call them natura
1 Yes, recent studies published in Science Advances, shows a causal relationship between fracking, and infant mortality/birth
weights. In a study using over 1,125,000 mothers, it was shown that fracking negatively affects newborns, the most vulnerable
to the effects of this toxic way to acquire energy. I sent a copy of this study to our council last week. Since so many
underground wells have yet to be located, we are seeing what is called "frack hits," wherein different O&G companies
accidentally drill into old wells put, presumably by a competitor (if they are even still in business) causing chaos and leeching into
the ground and nearby water. The way we plug old wells is temporary at best. We need to be very careful how we approach
these issues. This is pretty clearly something to help developers build more homes, which wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the
O&G issues in CO.
1 amend code to align with state code and leave the rest alone.
1 http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/34-60-103.html See section 5.5 State law says corporate life is more important that human
and wild life. This should be part of legislative agenda to fix.
1 no, seems logical to adopt what the state already has approved
1 please respect the rights of all parties and not just the views of just vocal activists or folks with an agenda
Count Response
31
14. What part of the city do you live in (by quadrant)?
32% East of College & North of
Drake
32% East of College & North of
Drake
23% East of College & South of
Drake
23% East of College & South of
Drake
24% West of College & North of
Drake
24% West of College & North of
Drake
17% West of College & South of
Drake
17% West of College & South of
Drake
4% 4%city Don't live in the city
Value Percent Responses
East of College & North of Drake 31.5% 70
East of College & South of Drake 23.4% 52
West of College & North of Drake 24.3% 54
West of College & South of Drake 17.1% 38
Don't live in the city 3.6% 8
Totals: 222
32
15. What part of the city do you work in?
11% East of College & North of
Drake
11% East of College & North of
Drake
13% East of College & South of
Drake
13% East of College & South of
Drake
25% West of College & North of
Drake
25% West of College & North of
Drake
8% West of College & South of
Drake
8% West of College & South of
Drake
13% 13%Collins Work outside Fort Collins
29% Don’t currently work/am
retired
29% Don’t currently work/am
retired
1% 1%student Am a student
Value Percent Responses
East of College & North of Drake 11.1% 24
East of College & South of Drake 13.0% 28
West of College & North of Drake 25.0% 54
West of College & South of Drake 8.3% 18
Work outside Fort Collins 13.4% 29
Don’t currently work/am retired 28.7% 62
Am a student 0.5% 1
Totals: 216
33
16. Do you own or rent your residence?
86% 86%Own Own
11% 11%Rent Rent
3% 3%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
Own 86.0% 185
Rent 10.7% 23
Prefer not to answer 3.3% 7
Totals: 215
34
17. What is your gender?
44% Male
45% 45%Female Female
1% 1%binary Non-binary
1% 1%Other Other
9% 9%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
Male 44.2% 95
Female 45.1% 97
Non-binary 0.5% 1
Other 0.9% 2
Prefer not to answer 9.3% 20
Totals: 215
35
18. What is your race or ethnicity?
Percent
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian White Hispanic,
Latinx, or
Spanish origin
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Another race
or ethnicity
Prefer not to
answer
0
20
40
60
80
Value Percent Responses
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.5% 1
Asian 1.9% 4
White 79.5% 167
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin 2.9% 6
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.5% 1
Another race or ethnicity 1.0% 2
Prefer not to answer 16.7% 35
36
19. What is your annual household income?
5% $24,999 or less
9% $25,000-49,999
13% $50,000-74,999
14% $75,000-99,999
18% $100,000-149,999
8% $150,000-199,999
8% 8%more $200,000 or more
26% 26%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
$24,999 or less 5.2% 11
$25,000-49,999 8.5% 18
$50,000-74,999 12.8% 27
$75,000-99,999 14.2% 30
$100,000-149,999 18.0% 38
$150,000-199,999 8.1% 17
$200,000 or more 7.6% 16
Prefer not to answer 25.6% 54
Totals: 211
37
20. What is your age?
1% 18-24
15% 25-34
19% 35-44
15% 45-54
22% 55-64
19% 65-74
2% 75+
8% 8%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
18-24 0.9% 2
25-34 14.7% 31
35-44 19.4% 41
45-54 14.7% 31
55-64 21.8% 46
65-74 18.5% 39
75+ 2.4% 5
Prefer not to answer 7.6% 16
Totals: 211
38
1
Oil & Gas Land Use Code Changes –
Listening Sessions
Background
As part of the effort to update sections of the Land Use Code related to the buffers around oil and gas
wells, four public listening sessions were held on December 19, January 2, January 9 and January 10.
There were 16 attendees in total at the four sessions. The following notes summarize the questions and
comments received by staff during those conversations.
Summary
Listening Session #1 – December 19, 2017
• Attendee #1
o Concerned that the locations and conditions of plugged and abandoned wells are
uncertain
o Jason Elkins, City of Longmont, recently presented to the League of Women Voters
about Longmont’s efforts to inventory and evaluate plugged and abandoned wells in
their city, including locating the wells, groundwater monitoring and other site
investigations. He has determined that 150 ft is a more appropriate buffer around
plugged and abandoned wells than 100 feet, and that all wells will eventually leak over
time.
o Recommended contacting Mr. Elkins to understand Longmont’s program; use as a
model for identifying and monitoring plugged and abandoned wells [Note: staff
subsequently followed up with Longmont staff with questions and discussion]
o Noted that this topic is of great interest in the local League of Women Voters chapter
• Attendee #2
o Health, economic and financial concerns about the proposed changes
o We should not be doing any favors for the oil and gas industry, they aren’t doing us any
favors, supports any way to restrict oil and gas development
o Less than 1% of Colorado jobs are in oil and gas; one of the smallest economic sectors
but wields the most power
o Colorado has very low severance taxes for oil and gas; is it possible for the City to charge
an additional tax for drilling in the city?
o Increase setbacks to at least 2500 feet; can’t trust the oil and gas industry to protect the
health and wellbeing of residents
o Concerns about potential explosions, leaks and spills
o Recommend copying Boulder’s new regulations for Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 4
2
o Concern that drilling might be possible on Fort Collins parks and open spaces, especially
Soapstone Natural Area – recommended notifying the public about any possibility for oil
and gas development on City lands
o Material disposal
Where is frac water disposed? Where is the nearest disposal facility?
Disposal of dirt from well excavation is unregulated and being dumped into
landfills, despite containing uranium and other toxic materials
o Concerned about impacts of aquifer migration and contamination on future water
sources; nobody knows what’s happening underground
o Notification for new homeowners near wells and flowlines needs to be improved
• Attendee #3
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near
Lindenmeier Lake)
• Attendees #4 and #5
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near Dean
Acres)
Listening Session #2 – January 2, 2018
• Attendees #1 and #2
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near
Lindenmeier Lake)
• Attendee #3
o Representing some friends as well
o Supportive of changes and anything to reduce oil and gas activity in Fort Collins
o Why not just keep the setbacks for plugged and abandoned wells the same as they are
now (350’)? Accomplishes the same goal in a similar way
o Moratorium – how can the City recognize all the work that citizens put into that? A lot
of people worked hard to make that happen
• Attendee #4
o Concerned about leaks and failure of plugged wells over time, possible explosions in the
future
o Concerned about frac hits – when an operator hits an unknown abandoned well when
drilling horizontally for a new well, which compromises the old well and can cause
leaks/contamination
o Concerned about impacts to air quality, water quality, public health, accidents and
deaths from explosions
o What impact do water injection wells have on aquifers?
o Shared articles with more information (attached)
Listening Session #3 – January 9, 2018
• Attendee #1 – City Councilmember Bob Overbeck
• Attendee #2
3
o Don’t need to worry about active wells, they will go away eventually; more concerned
about plugged and abandoned wells
o Don’t want new wells to be permitted in the City
o Discourage landowners to allow new wells due to future potential buffers that would
apply
o If property values reflected “condemnation” of a 500’ buffer, then a potential buyer
would think twice
o Concern about contamination, cave-ins and other potential risks with abandoned wells
o Future landowners should be aware of risks, need to better notify property owners –
similar to floodplain alerts?
o Adopt rules in a way that does not encourage future oil and gas development
o If we have doubts about a well and whether it meets standards, then a narrower buffer
should not be allowed
• Attendee #2
o How is science being used to help make these decisions?
o Where is more research needed?
o Testing and analysis – does the City have the expertise in-house to review that type of
information, e.g., and on-staff inspector?
o Post all available oil and gas data on the City’s online GIS maps
Highlight wells with more uncertainty about location and condition
Be as transparent as possible
o Double check the number of abandoned wells in Fort Collins
o When did horizontal drilling and fracking become a viable production method?
o There is a CSU faculty member (Jeffrey Collett) researching leaked methane from wells
at a distance using a handheld device capable of triangulation
Could be used to pinpoint problem areas
Monitoring technology is rapidly enhancing
• Attendee #3
o What about monitoring of wells after a development goes in?
Do methane testing once a year on all plugged wells, including the wells that
were recently abandoned in Water’s Edge
Put burden on developer to fund annual monitoring
o Long-term studies of plugged and abandoned wells in Pennsylvania show a 5% failure
rate, odorless gas migrating upward from plugged wells
o Change measurement of buffer to the nearest lot line rather than the nearest building
o Where is produced water taken and disposed of? Can it be injected back into wells?
o Greeley is experiencing basement flooding issues – is it from water injection wells
driving groundwater upward?
Listening Session #4 – January 10, 2018
• Attendees #1 and #2
o We all share the same groundwater and public natural resources
4
o Don’t want any oil and gas development in Colorado
o Support the first change (increase buffer around active wells)
o Concerns about second change (reduce buffer around abandoned wells)
o Concerns about long term durability of concrete in wells, leaks in the long term
o Fracking has so many unforeseen issues and environmental and public health concerns
o Concerned about the toxicity of the chemicals used in fracking, and potential impacts to
water quality
o Question the motives and influence of the oil and gas industry
o Still interested in another moratorium and outright ban of fracking; would set a
precedent for other communities
• Attendee #3
o Property values should go up if a well is abandoned rather than active, which should be
enough financial incentive for developers
o A narrower setback does not take the mineral rights off the table; only allow a narrower
setback if the mineral rights have been purchased; that’s the only permanent fix
o Health and environment info – we don’t have the full picture and all the information
o Do not reduced setbacks
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:41 AM
To: Lucinda Smith; Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette
Subject: FW: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations
Fyi
From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com [mailto:harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Harv Teitelbaum
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:29 AM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations
Dear City Council Member,
As you debate the safe distance for setbacks between developments and fracking operations, this just released,
peer-reviewed research from Princeton University may be helpful in your deliberations. Thank you.
-Harv Teitelbaum
December 13, 2017
Source:
Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Summary:
Health risks increase for infants born to mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic fracturing site, according
to a new study.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/1712131
43703.htm
Hydraulic fracturing negatively
impacts infant health -- ScienceDaily
Health risks increase for infants born to
mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic
fracturing site, according to a study published
Dec. 13 in Science Advances. The research
team found that infants born within a half a
mile from a fracking site were 25 percent
more likely to be born at low birth weights,
leaving them at greater risk of infant
mortality, ADHD, asthma, lower test scores,
lower schooling attainment and lower lifetime
earnings.
2
"Given the growing evidence that pollution
affects babies in utero, it should not be
surprising that fracking, which is a heavy
industrial activity, has negative effects on
infants," said co-author Janet M. Currie, the
Henry Putnam Professor of Economics and
Public Affairs at Princeton University. "As
local and state policymakers decide whether
to allow hydraulic fracturing in their
communities, it is crucial that they carefully
examine the costs and benefits, including the
potential impacts from pollution," said study
co-author Michael Greenstone, the Milton
Friedman Professor in Economics and
director of the Energy Policy Institute at the
University of Chicago. "This study provides
the strongest large-scale evidence of a link
between the pollution that stems from
hydraulic fracturing activities and our health,
specifically the health of babies."
Using records from more than 1.1 million
births across Pennsylvania from 2004 to
2013, the researchers compared infants born
to mothers living near a drilling site to those
living farther away from a site, before and
after fracking began at that site.
The most significant impacts were seen
among babies born within .6 miles of a site, as
those babies were 25 percent more likely to be
low birth weight, that is born under 5.5
pounds.
Infants born to mothers living between half a
mile and 2 miles saw their risk of low birth
weight decrease by about a half to a third.
Infants born to mothers living beyond 2 miles
experienced little to no impact to their health.
3
"These results suggest that hydraulic
fracturing does have an impact on our health,
though the good news is that this is only at a
highly localized level," said Currie, who
directs the Center for Health and Wellbeing at
Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs. "Out of the nearly 4
million babies born in the United States each
year, about 29,000 of them are born within
about a half mile of a fracking site."
"While we know pollution from hydraulic
fracturing impacts our health, we do not yet
know where that pollution is coming from --
from the air or water, from chemicals onsite,
or an increase in traffic," said co-author
Katherine Meckel, assistant professor at the
University of California, Los Angeles. "Until
we can determine the source of this pollution
and contain it, local lawmakers will be forced
to continue to make the difficult decision of
whether to allow fracking in order to boost
their local economies -- despite the health
implications -- or ban it altogether, missing
out on the jobs and revenue it would bring."
This study follows previous work by Currie,
Greenstone and others on the local economic
benefits, which found the average household
living near a hydraulic fracturing site benefits
by as much as $1,900 per year. This was
because of a 7 percent increase in average
income, driven by rises in wages and royalty
payments, a 10 percent increase in
employment, and a 6 percent increase in
housing prices. However, the authors
cautioned that the housing prices could
change if further information about the
4
environmental and health impacts of
hydraulic fracturing were revealed.
"Housing prices are not fixed; they are based
on many factors including how well the job
market is and how safe the area is to live in,"
Currie said. "As these results and others on
the health impacts from hydraulic fracturing
become mainstreamed into the consciousness
of homeowners and home buyers, the local
economic benefits could decrease."
Materials provided by Princeton
University, Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs.
Original written by B. Rose Kelly. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.
1
Rebecca Everette
From: DanaDeb <danadeb@nance.cc>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:25 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Gas and Oil Setbacks
Hi,
Let me see if I got this right.
If I own mineral rights on a parcel. The new recommended rules would allow someone to build a structure on their
property close enough to my property that when I want to exercise my mineral rights in the future I would not be able to
do so due to other setbacks. Despicable and deceitful.
No need to contact me any further, I am disgusted with Fort Collins’ management and planning and your progressive,
social engineering policies.
Dana Nance
Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy,
Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Gayla Martinez <gmaxwellmartinez@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Due By: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:00 AM
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca,
I hesitated to respond because I'm not sure exactly where the process is at or if decisions have already been
made. I did take the time to look at some of the other information presented on the city website including the
video for the Technical Air Quality Reports from last November.
I would like to know by what criteria were the proposed set-backs established?
Research that indicates that the health impacts for VOCs are particularly significant within half a mile of a
fracking operation: "The assessment concluded that residents living less than a half mile away (2640 feet) are at
greater risk for health effects than those living more than a half mile from wells." (Health Impacts of Fracking).
The same report cites a study conducted in Garfield County that showed at 30% increase in congenital birth
defects for children born within a 10 miles radius of oil and gas operations.
Hours before the December 22nd explosion near Windsor, the NCAR Boulder Reservoir station recorded
extremely high levels of carcinogenic VOC's 25 miles away from the source. These emission levels were high
enough to have merited an evacuation of the surrounding neighborhoods in Windsor, but this, of course, did not
happen.
And, as to the safety of placing homes within 100' of "properly" capped and sealed abandoned wells and
pipelines. I don't know how we can assume that the same human error that led to the Firestone incident couldn't
happen again. As Joel Dyer stated in his May 2017 article published in the Boulder Weekly Turning Point:What
to do about theoil and gas industry’s 60,000 miles of pipe bombs under our communities and homes. :“Pipe is pipe.
According to the industry’s own literature, a small percentage of wellbores will fail shortly after the well is drilled. Over
the next 20 years, 60 percent of all wellbores will fail, and over time all wellbores will eventually fail.”
This is just a small sampling of the data that would indicate that the proposed 100' and 500' set‐backs are grossly
inadequate for maintaining public health and safety.
Thank you for your efforts to solicit citizen input.
Sincerely,
Gayla Maxwell Martinez
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Jan M <jannieski84@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:54 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks for contacting me. I would support what you are trying to do, increase set backs from wells. Do we
have evidence that plugged wells will not create the same issues.
I work in public health and would be interested in any efforts that protect clean air and avoid contaminating our
water. People live in Fort Collins for the quality of life that it offers, not the quality of its oil & gas!
Thanks.
Jan
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey on potential changes to the setbacks
between oil and gas facilities and new residential development in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking
the time to review the information and share your thoughts. Because you requested follow-up from City staff, I
am reaching out to see if you would like to chat directly about your questions or comments. We are currently
working to revise the code changes based on the feedback we’ve received so far, so I want to be sure we are not
missing out on any important questions, ideas or perspectives.
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. More information on various oil and gas topics can be
found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing from you!
Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:58 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks very much for your reply Rebecca.
My only issue was with the fact that without the needed information about how a well is plugged, answers to the
questionnaire pertaining to plugged wells are moot to some degree.
Residents are unaware of the mechanisms for plugging, and as wells vary from "played out" to fairly active, from more
water than hydrocarbons, from more gaseous to more liquid, etc., simply referring to a well as "plugged" could be very
misleading.
I am happy to visit the sites of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and review their recommendations.
However, I still fell the public should be made aware about the potential risks involved with a "plugged" well. And those
risks clearly will vary from well to well depending on specific production variables of the individual well as well as its age,
lateral collection systems etc..
As I said in my comments in the questionnaire, a repeat of the Firestone event should be avoided at all costs. Public
safety, NOT developer wishes and tax revenues generated by developing land closer to existing wells, should be the
driver in this discussion.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Joe Horan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
To: joho7218 <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 20, 2017 3:47 pm
Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in
the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you
requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the
following responses in your survey:
“Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk.
Repeats of the Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells
need to be clearly stated and should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in
harms way should never be permitted.”
More information on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s regulations can be found here:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/reg.html#/overview. Specific requirements for plugged and abandoned wells are in section 319
of the COGCC rules, available here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/documents/reg/Rules/LATEST/300Series.pdf.
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:45 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Oil and gas setbacks
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca,
Sorry, I’ve been out of town for the past 2 weeks.
I’m not sure if there is anything further to discuss.
Many citizens are concerned about the safety of living near oil and gas wells. Particularly those which are
capped are of concern as it’s unclear how much they are monitored and exactly how they are if they are.
That said, we actually live very close to an active well and have experienced little to no problems.
But I worry that relaxing setbacks may be asking for problems down the road.
Joe Horan
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:14 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez
Subject: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Rebecca - It looks like I missed the scheduled sessions on this subject and that the survey is no longer open
for responses. However, I did want to provide feedback and hope it will be taken into account in the decision-
making process.
Specifically, related to the abandoned wells, moving from 350 ft. to 100 ft. is literally and figuratively going in
the wrong direction. This proposed change makes some assumptions that should not be taken lightly which put
in jeopardy the health & safety of Fort Collins residents (current or future). Particularly, the notion that
plugging is "permanent" without any opportunity for change in condition or failure over time is troubling. To
my knowledge, the methods and materials used for plugging today are what are known and available without
significant historical data to show how they withstand time, environmental, or geological factors. The
"permanence" is further not enforced or monitored by (a lacking number of State) inspectors over 5, 10, 20, 50
years.
The City is known to be data-driven; however, this proposed change is arguably not data-driven. In another
subject area, the conclusion would likely be we don't have the data to know if, long-term, this is the right thing
to do or not, and such a change would therefore not be made. Without this decision revolving around absolute
data, known long-term facts, it is a potential risk to human health, safety and piece of mind for those who
knowingly or unknowingly end up 100 ft from an abandoned well. In an extreme case, this change could cause
direct injury or loss of human life. It could certainly reduce City residents' property values in the immediate area
of an abandoned well that experiences any issue over time.
Consider the language used in the following excerpts from an article related to plugged/plugging wells:
When companies cease production, they are supposed to plug wells with cement to reduce the risk of
leaks, and to restore vegetation and wildlife habitat aboveground.
["reducing the risk" of leaks is different than eliminating leaks or expecting no leaks to occur]
Orphaned wells are more likely than properly plugged “abandoned” wells to leak pollutants, including
methane gas, which can contaminate groundwater and even trigger explosions.
[orphaned wells are "more likely" to leak - i.e. properly plugged wells can leak too]
I would like to understand why the City feels as though plugging is in fact "permanent" and what data shows
this to be the case, including in an age of natural disasters which are increasing in magnitude and scope
(including USGS documented human-caused seismic activity in areas of increased oil & gas activity). More
importantly, if there is no risk over time, I'd like to understand why there is a setback at all. Why is it 350 ft. at
2
the state level and why must it even be 100 ft. if there is no risk? Why not 10 ft.? I'd suggest it is because there
is an implied ongoing level of risk but would appreciate the confirmation of such.
Regards,
Kevin Krause
3100 Rockwood Dr,
813 E. Elizabeth
1
Rebecca Everette
From: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:16 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good morning Rebecca, after thinking about what the City is trying to do with setbacks, I think it is the right thing to do,
i.e. align the City’s regulatory policies with those of the State.
I spent 42 years in the electric utility industry, both at the retail (distribution) and wholesale (generation/transmission)
levels. Twenty eight of those were as a CEO and I learned regulatory policies are the most beneficial when they are
applied and enforced consistently across the board. As a result of my background, I serve as the liaison between our
HOA and Prospect Energy here in Hearthfire. As a result of my association with Prospect, I am aware of the events
surrounding the Waters Edge well closure events.
My position has always been, if our country is to have a growing economy to support and provide for it’s citizens, we
need all forms of energy to meet the demands of that economy. Don’t disadvantage one over the other! Having said
that, I have determined my views in this instance, while honorable and just, simply do not fit with the City’s view of the
world. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, but I see no value in taking of your time.
Sincerely,
Ron
From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:17 PM
To: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Hi Ron,
Yes, I am available that week. There are two drop in sessions (1/9, 1‐4pm and 1/10, 3‐6pm) if either of those windows
work for you. I am also available on Thursday, 1/11 from 10‐noon or 1‐4pm. Let me know if any of those timeframes will
work.
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: rmhhome11@comcast.net [mailto:rmhhome11@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 7:27 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
2
Good morning Rebecca, thank you for responding to my comments. With this being the busy time of the year, I would
look forward to meeting with you after the first of the year, to listen and learn. Would you be available the week of the
8th of January?
Ron Harper
From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 4:00 PM
To: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in
the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you
requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the
following responses in your survey:
Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that
includes fossil fuels
Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement
continues to shut down energy production?
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to
learn more and provide input on the proposed code changes. The upcoming “drop‐in” times allow for individual
conversations with City staff. All drop‐in sessions will be held at 215 N. Mason St., Conference Room 2B (second floor):
Tuesday, January 2, 1‐4 pm
Tuesday, January 9, 1‐4 pm
Wednesday, January 10, 3‐6pm
More information on various oil and gas topics can be found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing
from you!
Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know!
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Vadim <vbmalkov@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 3:29 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org;
sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes
Attachments: Capture.jpg
Thank you, Cassie,
It was very helpful. I have attached the map I was able to create with this tool – mostly for all
my neighbors.
Guys, check out if there is anything else close to your houses.
Best,
Vadim
From: Cassie Archuleta [mailto:carchuleta@fcgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Vadim; Rebecca Everette
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com;
tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes
Hi Vadim‐
Thanks for your email.
According to records from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), there appears to be a plugged
and abandoned well in your neighborhood. The records that I see on the COGCC website appear to indicate that the
area around the well was reclaimed (the plugging and abandonment process) around 1985.
Per the exact location, the COGCC has indicated that the locations they provide for older wells are only estimates based
on what could be determined from old records. You can view the approximate location, as estimated by the COGCC,
using their maps by following the links below:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/#/home
Click “Maps” in top menu bar
Use the link that says “Click HERE to access interactive map”
One of the selections at the top of the map says “Address Search”
The COGCC ID used for the well is API # 05‐069‐06152. It’s possible there is some sort of marker on the ground
indicating the location, but the wells are plugged and cut off below the surface. The map does not show any active wells
in the area.
Also, while the COGCC regulates the location of oil and gas wells, the new proposed code updates are for future
development near existing oil and gas wells. I’ve copied Rebecca Everett, who is the lead staff for the proposed code
changes.
2
Let me know if you have any troubles with the map, and I can help navigate. If you have any concerns about the well,
the COGCC would probably be the best resource. Easiest way to contact them might be to use the “Complaints” link on
their home page.
Let me know if there is anything else I can help with.
Regards,
Cassie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASSIE ARCHULETA
Environmental Program Manager – Air Quality
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2648 office
From: Vadim [mailto:vbmalkov@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2017 12:39 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov' <gsmalkov@gmail.com>; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com;
mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: notice of land use code changes
Importance: High
Dear Cassie,
We received a letter from the City (see the attached), asking for a feedback on suggested land use
code changes, because our property is within 1000 ft of a well.
I would love to provide a feedback using the web site you suggested and it would be very
beneficial for us to know where exactly the well is located in relation to our house (526 Jansen
Dr, Ft. Collins).
Also, before providing the feedback, we, all the neighbors copied, would like to know the status of
the well(s) in question – what type (oil or gas), active or plugged/abandoned.
Please reply to this email (you can reply all) at your earliest convenience with answers to the
above questions.
Best,
Vadim Malkov
526 Jansen Dr.
Ft.Collins, CO 80525
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:32 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca - thank you for letting me, and others, know about the proposed changes to the
setbacks for P&A wells. What an improvement from the original proposal, and I am so
glad that you have been in touch with Jason Elkins. I think Longmont has used common
sense in their approach to P&A wells, along with a basic concern about health and safety
effects.
I would appreciate knowing when you are making presentations to the various Boards so
that I could sit in on one as a member of the public.
Keep up the good work.
Vicky
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Vicky,
Based on what we heard from the online survey and other outreach activities, we are currently revising the proposed
code changes to better reflect the priorities and concerns of the Fort Collins community. There was broad support for
increasing the setback around active wells to 500 feet, so that proposal has not changed.
In regard to plugged and abandoned wells, staff is now proposing a different code change. We heard concerns, including
your own, about the uncertainty and potential risk associated with abandoned wells. We are now proposing an
increased setback around plugged and abandoned wells that would match the setback for active wells (500 ft), with the
option for a reduced setback only if additional testing and monitoring is conducted to eliminate uncertainty and identify
any leaks or contamination.
The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions with the
COGCC, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and Jason Elkins in Longmont, we have determined that this buffer
distance would provide adequate space for equipment to re‐plug or maintain a plugged well in the future (if needed)
and the installation of long‐term monitoring equipment. This is also consistent with the setbacks required by the City of
Longmont. By allowing a reduced setback in some cases, it would create an incentive for developers to work with oil and
2
gas companies to permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the
community.
We are also exploring better ways to notify future property owners of their proximity to a plugged and abandoned well.
Currently, the City requires disclosure on the subdivision plat to all properties within a 1000‐ft radius, but there may be
better methods to ensure residents are properly notified.
These proposed changes will be presented to various boards in March and to City Council in April. Please let me know if
you have additional questions or if you would like to discuss further. I appreciate your ongoing involvement in these
code changes!
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:30 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Rebecca - I appreciate the email. Can you be specific about what revisions are being
considered since I may want to meet with you again if I am still uncomfortable with
them?
Thanks, Vicky
2
Cassie
From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Subject: Several items
Cassie - what an interesting meeting last night, though it was discouraging in terms of
several Council members. My partner Bob thought that Ken Summers said there were
three injection wells, you thought he meant three producing wells, but he failed to
mention the other active wells and the plugged and abandoned.
I think it is important to distinguish between injection wells, producing wells, active
wells, and whatever other types there are. And then we have the plugged and
abandoned - no problem... Let me quote from an email I received about the well in
Berthoud that spouted:
"Also, REGARDING THE LARIMER ISSUES......... I did ask Ellsworth about the Berhthoud
spill on October 29. LOTS OF OILY MESS!!! I suggested that it was a frack hit from
Extraction and or Synergy as they are horizontally drilling just east of that OLD well
that leaked like a Jed Clampett episode. By the way, he NEVER denied it was a frack
hit.
As you may recall, Extraction and Synergy showed up to the incident (on a Sunday
morning) to help build a BERM around the spill. Really Good Samaritans!! From what I
heard it got over the road and was estimated at up to 300 barrel spill. I asked
Ellsworth the API # for that well. He said that the well was not in their system. It was
one that just was not recorded. REALLY??? How many others are "not recorded". He did
say it was from 1930 and just missed getting in their files. I don't really believe that but
either way, there is a PROBLEM with COGCC recording and reporting."
My point in sharing with you is that the plugged and abandoned wells are potentially
quite dangerous, and until Fort Collins gets a handle on their accurate location and does
some monitoring, we are all in the dark.
3
Last, when is staff going to start the public involvement process on potential updates on
oil and gas regulations? Specifically, on the reduced setback for P&A wells. It seems to
me that if anything were to change, the setback should be increased, not reduced.
Hope you have a good Thanksgiving. I am in no rush for a response to this email.
1
Rebecca Everette
From: jim@tbgroup.us
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:24 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Cody Snowdon; Dan Mogen
Subject: Re: Country Club Reserve Wetland
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca,
It appears that the well may indeed be on our site. Ouch! We are working to confirm this with the State.
In regard to the upcoming potential policy change related to oil and gas facilities, here would be our
perspective.
The existing policy/code treats each type of well in the same way. In our opinion and experience a plugged and
abandoned well, compared to a water injection well, compared to a producing well are very different and should
be treated differently.
In our case we bought this property prior to the new City oil and gas setbacks. These setbacks greatly affect our
ability to plan and develop our property. It is my understanding that the policy was written to impact the oil and
gas developer and not to unfairly burden the property owner. Especially if the mineral estate was severed from
the property ownership. However that is exactly what is happening in our case. We do not own the minerals
and we do not get any revenue from the wells. The City requirements are not a burden on the mineral estate in
any way and are only a burden on us.
I remember a comment from a City staff member in the past, that the value of the land when we bought was
reduced because of the existing wells and the associated City buffers, so we have not been harmed by the City
setback and buffer requirements. That is not true in our case. When we bought the property the City followed
the State setbacks. The new City setback requirements and buffer requirements create a huge burden on our
property. We are getting no benefit from the wells. The owner of the wells does not have to participate in the
cost of the buffering. The burden falls entirely on us as the property owner.
We would suggest to the City that the buffer to plugged and abandoned wells would follow State required
setbacks. I have attached the standard that we received from the State. Especially in our case, where we would
only need to be this close on about half of the well. The other half would be open and accessible for any future
testing/remediation work.
In our circumstance, with Urban Estate zoning with the cluster option, if this buffer to plugged and abandoned
wells could be reduced it would create at least some semblance of fairness to us as the property owner.
As always, I appreciate your assistance and willingness to discuss our property. If you have any questions
please don’t hesitate to let us know.
Thanks,
Jim Birdsall
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 1 of 1 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
January 5, 2018
Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for inviting the public to share their thoughts on the potential Land Use Code
updates related to new residential and commercial development near oil and gas
operations. On behalf of HF2M and the Montava Development team, we would like to offer
the following comments for your consideration.
We have been working closely with city staff and other stakeholders over the past several
months to create a master plan for the nearly 850-acre development parcel west of the
Anheuser-Busch brewery. The master plan envisions a true traditional neighborhood
development with an integrated mix of uses including housing, employment, schools, parks,
natural areas and agriculture.
While the master plan is an outstanding opportunity to fulfill the visions and goals of the
Mountain Vista Subarea plan, the land carries many constraints on development which will
make it difficult to achieve every goal fully. We have a creative and visionary developer and
design team to deliver a balanced and successful outcome for the community.
As we continue through the master planning process, we are encouraged by the City’s
consideration of updates to the Land Use Code to align with the state standards. We
support both updates being considered:
1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas
wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and
2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and
abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current
state standards.
We hope that city staff will support and recommend these changes for City Council approval.
Sincerely,
Angela K. Milewski
BHA Design, Inc.
1
Rebecca Everette
From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com on behalf of Harv Teitelbaum
<harv.teitelbaum@rmc.sierraclub.org>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:28 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good afternoon Rebecca,
Thank you for including me in this morning's email on the above topic. Yes, in my position as state lead for Sierra Club Colorado's Beyond
Oil & Gas Campaign, I have some additional input which I would request be shared with City Council.
There have been many peer-reviewed studies finding statistically relevant health effects at distances up to 10 miles or more from fracking
operations. Examples would be childhood leukemia at up to 10 miles (McKenzie et al, CU), and asthma at up to 12 miles from fracking
operations (Rasmussen et al, JAMA). However, the bulk of independent, peer-reviewed research seems to be coalescing around the distance
of most significant health impact being approximately 1/2 mile, or 2500 feet.
The industry will no doubt discount all non-supportive studies. They may also point to the now discredited CDPHE small-scale meta survey
of a few dozen research studies, in which the agency head largely dismissed research showing health harm. However, the best meta study
done to date was conducted by Hays and Shonkoff, and published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS) in 2016. It concluded the
following:
"84% of public health studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health
outcomes; 69% of water quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of
water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or
atmospheric concentrations. This paper demonstrates that the weight of the findings in the scientific literature indicates
hazards and elevated risks to human health as well as possible adverse health outcomes associated with UNGD."
(unconventional natural gas drilling, i.e. fracking operations)
There is also the not insignificant risk of explosion, as we've seen from Firestone and Windsor. Various studies have been and are being
conducted as to the actual blast radius potential vis a vs the predicted blast radius. While there are no conclusive studies, much of the data I've
seen suggest that actual blast radii are approximately twice the predicted distances. There are many variables, of course, such as chemical
mix, volumes and pressures, but a good starting initial real-world expected blast radius would be approximately 1,000 feet, with an
evacuation zone many times larger.
These are just some of the risks and hazards I hope you will consider as you face the expected pressure and threats from the industry to
compromise health and safety. The best supported setback distance, supported by the best available peer-reviewed research, would start at
2500'.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Harv Teitelbaum
Lead, Beyond Oil and Gas Campaign
Sierra Club, Colorado Chapter
303-877-1870
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:31 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez; Adrian Krause
Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR#
42517)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca - we wanted to make sure that staff and council members had seen this as next steps are taken in
Fort Collins: Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds. It is understood that the
concept around the changes being put forth is to ensure wells are plugged to standards and monitored
adequately but the concern remains: what if that doesn't happen as intended for one reason or another and how
are residents impacted?
Thanks again,
Kevin & Adrian
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Rebecca!
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Yes, I will add you to the list. Here is our upcoming schedule for boards and City Council (this will be added to the
website and an email will be sent this week).
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
Thanks,
Rebecca
2
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Kevin Krause [mailto:kevkrause@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 6:55 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR#42517)
Thank you, Rebecca. Appreciate the reply and details. We'd definitely like to stay in the loop on any updates
and particularly the details of what it will take for certain wells to achieve the proposed 150 ft buffer as that is
the critical one. Is there a mailing list we can be a part of?
Regards,
Kevin
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Evangeline Ramirez <eramirez@fcgov.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Krause,
Thank you for your recent inquiry in regards to the survey input for proposed oil and gas related land use
changes. Please see the following response provided by Senior Environmental Planner, Rebecca Everette on
behalf of Councilmember Overbeck and City Manager Atteberry.
Kind Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gigi Ramirez | Administrative Support II
3
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6505 office
eramirez@fcgov.com
Mr. Krause,
Thank you for your email, as well as your comments at the December Natural Resources Advisory Board
meeting. Although the survey has closed, it is certainly not too late for input, so I appreciate your questions and
comments.
Based on what we heard from the online survey and other outreach activities, we are currently revising the
proposed code changes to better reflect the priorities and concerns of the Fort Collins community. There was
broad support for increasing the setback around active wells to 500 feet, so that proposal has not changed.
In regard to plugged and abandoned wells, however, staff is now proposing a different code change. We heard
concerns, including your own, about the uncertainty and potential risk associated with abandoned wells. We are
now proposing an increased setback around plugged and abandoned wells that would match the setback for
active wells (500 ft), with the option for a reduced setback only if additional testing and monitoring is
conducted to eliminate uncertainty and identify any leaks or contamination. We agree that regulatory decisions
should be based on good data and should err on the side of protecting public health and safety.
The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions
with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and staff
in other communities, we have determined that this buffer distance would provide adequate space for equipment
to re-plug or maintain a plugged well in the future (if needed) and the installation of long-term monitoring
equipment. This is also consistent with the setbacks required by the City of Longmont. By allowing a reduced
setback in some cases, it would create an incentive for developers to work with oil and gas companies to
permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the community.
4
We are also exploring better ways to notify future property owners of their proximity to a plugged and
abandoned well. Currently, the City requires disclosure on the subdivision plat to all properties within a 1000-ft
radius, but there may be better methods to ensure residents are properly notified.
These proposed changes will be presented to various boards in March and to City Council in April. Please let
me know if you have additional questions or if you would like to discuss your comments further.
Thank you,
Rebecca Everette
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Original Request
From: Bob Overbeck
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:52 AM
To: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Ray Martinez <raymartinez@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry
<DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; SAR Admin Team <SAR-Admin-Team@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett
<CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes
Kevin,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, concerns and questions on LUC changes related to
abandoned / plugged wells. Let me ask staff to follow up with your inquiry.
Darin,
Please respond to Kevin's concerns and questions.
Regards,
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
5
----------
Bob Overbeck
City Councilmember
District 1
City of Fort Collins
(970) 817-1411
boverbeck@fcgov.com
---
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the
Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive,
unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t
guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA.
On Feb 13, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rebecca - It looks like I missed the scheduled sessions on this subject and that the survey is no longer open
for responses. However, I did want to provide feedback and hope it will be taken into account in the decision-
making process.
Specifically, related to the abandoned wells, moving from 350 ft. to 100 ft. is literally and figuratively going in
the wrong direction. This proposed change makes some assumptions that should not be taken lightly which put
in jeopardy the health & safety of Fort Collins residents (current or future). Particularly, the notion that
plugging is "permanent" without any opportunity for change in condition or failure over time is troubling. To
my knowledge, the methods and materials used for plugging today are what are known and available without
significant historical data to show how they withstand time, environmental, or geological factors. The
"permanence" is further not enforced or monitored by (a lacking number of State) inspectors over 5, 10, 20, 50
years.
The City is known to be data-driven; however, this proposed change is arguably not data-driven. In another
subject area, the conclusion would likely be we don't have the data to know if, long-term, this is the right thing
to do or not, and such a change would therefore not be made. Without this decision revolving around absolute
data, known long-term facts, it is a potential risk to human health, safety and piece of mind for those who
knowingly or unknowingly end up 100 ft from an abandoned well. In an extreme case, this change could cause
direct injury or loss of human life. It could certainly reduce City residents' property values in the immediate area
of an abandoned well that experiences any issue over time.
Consider the language used in the following excerpts from an article related to plugged/plugging wells:
When companies cease production, they are supposed to plug wells with cement to reduce the risk of leaks, and
to restore vegetation and wildlife habitat aboveground.
["reducing the risk" of leaks is different than eliminating leaks or expecting no leaks to occur]
Orphaned wells are more likely than properly plugged “abandoned” wells to leak pollutants, including methane
gas, which can contaminate groundwater and even trigger explosions.
[orphaned wells are "more likely" to leak - i.e. properly plugged wells can leak too]
I would like to understand why the City feels as though plugging is in fact "permanent" and what data shows
this to be the case, including in an age of natural disasters which are increasing in magnitude and scope
6
(including USGS documented human-caused seismic activity in areas of increased oil & gas activity). More
importantly, if there is no risk over time, I'd like to understand why there is a setback at all. Why is it 350 ft. at
the state level and why must it even be 100 ft. if there is no risk? Why not 10 ft.? I'd suggest it is because there
is an implied ongoing level of risk but would appreciate the confirmation of such.
Regards,
Kevin Krause
3100 Rockwood Dr,
813 E. Elizabeth
3/13/2018 www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47
http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47 1/1
Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds
New well 3,200 feet away also might have contributed to spill
By Pamela Johnson
Reporter-Herald Staff Writer
Loveland Reporter-Herald
Posted:Thu Mar 08 10:29:33 MST 2018
Pressure caused by new drilling coupled with an improperly plugged well is suspected to have caused drilling mud to bubble out of an
old well near Berthoud in late October.
"The cement and abandonment did not happen correctly," Stuart Ellsworth, engineering manager for Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, said this week. "The records that we found were paper records that said the cement was there."
But after digging up the well site to investigate the spill, officials learned that the required amount of cement plugs were, in fact, not
installed. In a previous interview, Ellsworth explained that the general process of capping a well requires at least four layers of cement
plugs at strategic locations.
"There was the top cement, and we believe that was all that was there," Ellsworth said. "It was inadequate."
Records, however, falsely indicated that the well, which was capped and abandoned in 1984, had the correct amount of cement plugs,
according to the report. While it is unclear how this happened 34 years ago, the commission has changed its rules in the intervening
years to prevent this type of occurrence.
"Today, what we do different is ask for documentation, third-party vendor verification," said Ellsworth. "We ask for the contractor's
invoice. We don't care about the dollars, we are about the volume ... for how much cement was delivered and how much cement was
placed."
That documentation started in the 1990s, and the commission also does unannounced random inspections of wells that are being
plugged and abandoned.
But it wasn't the improper plugging alone that caused the drilling mud and small amounts of oil and gas to seep through holes in the
welded cap on private property in the 2500 block of Colo. 60. The old well was apparently disturbed by new drilling into the same
formation, resulting in the pressure needed to cause the drilling mud to bubble to the surface.
Oddly enough, several wells drilled into the Niobrara Formation within a few hundred feet of this old well, including one that was only 98
feet away did not cause the pressure, Ellsworth said. Authorities believe the culprit was a well drilled in April 2017 that was much farther
away and, unlike the closer wells, was perpendicular to the 1984, he reported.
"That's one of the oddities about this situation," said Ellsworth. "There was a well less than 100 feet away that did not cause this to
happen, but there's a well more than 3,000 feet away that may have caused this event."
The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission reviews requests to drill within 1,500 feet of an old well to make sure this sort of situation does
not happen. That review occurred in this case, though officials were relying on the records that indicated the 1984 well had been
plugged properly.
The landowner noticed the sludge discharging into his pasture and onto his driveway and ditch, heading toward the road, and called the
fire department about 9 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 29. Emergency crews arrived and created dirt berms to contain the spill, and were soon
joined by a drilling company with wells nearby and the company's special vacuum trucks to stop the flow.
The company, Extraction Oil and Gas, remained onsite after the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission responded throughout the more
than 12 days it took to properly replug the well.
Because this well was abandoned and the original company no longer exists, the commission took charge of plugging the well. Initial
estimates were that 300 barrels of drilling mud, containing some oil, spilled from the well.
Pamela Johnson: 970-699-5405, johnsonp@reporter-herald.com, www.twitter.com/RHPamelaJ.
Close Window Send To Printer
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Laura Shaffer <laura.shaffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Dear Rebecca
Thanks for the unexpected update (I realize I signed up, but I still didn't expect much!). I really appreciate
hearing from the city on this issue. It's just great that Fort Collins city government is so responsive.
I really like the proposed Land Use Code changes. I think those changes better reflect what folks in Fort Collins
rightly believe to be safe. I'm so glad to live in a city committed to its residents' safety and willing to make these
changes -- and in particular doing so in response to feedback that the city sought out itself.
Thank you
Laura Shaffer
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required
buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all
new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the
code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City
Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to
1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare
centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
2
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and
gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council,
who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends,
colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Marsha Lotz <marshallotz3@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Thank you for your email. I think it's important to hear from the actual oil company out here, I think it is called
Prospect Energy: and a representative from them about soil testing and ground water testing. I heard initially
that they had their own people , "Talon", trying to locate an unused well site on the 80 acres east of us for the
information of the proposed development. Some how we heard that some kind of agreement was made between
the developers and the city planners to not use them. They know more than anyone about this oil field. Marsha
Lotz
On Mar 2, 2018 10:05 AM, "Rebecca Everette" <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required
buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all
new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the
code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City
Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to
1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare
centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and
gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
2
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council,
who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends,
colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Doug and Nancy <dnmatkin@netzero.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The original notice that we received stated that we live within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged gas/oil
well. We live at the intersection of Precision Drive and Northern Lights Drive in Morningside Village. We
would like you to pinpoint the location of that gas/oil well for us.
I think the proposed buffers are sufficient, except for the setback around plugged or abandoned wells. I don’t
think there should be a reduced setback for these. The current buffer should remain in place regardless of any
further investigation.
Thank you.
Nancy Matkin
From: Rebecca Everette
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:05 AM
To: Undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers
around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential
development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code
changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April
2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000
feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas
operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
2
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will
ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For
more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues,
or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
____________________________________________________________
New Rule in Your City, Your State Leaves Drivers Fuming
Better Finances
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/5aa54da736e04da51695st04vuc
Right-click here to download
pictures. To help protect your
privacy, Outlook prevented
automatic download o f this
picture from the Internet.
SponsoredBy Content.Ad
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:18 AM
To: 'Max Moss'
Cc: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Attachments: Potential OG well setbacks 11x17.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca,
Here is the diagram showing the wells nearby Montava.
Thanks,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Max Moss <Max@hf2m.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:11 AM
To: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Thanks Angie,
Rebecca, there are two main concerns we have.
1. How it impacts the two abandoned/capped wells on our property.
2. How it impacts the same type well on Tom Moores land as it relates to this setback which encroaches across our
property line and could impair the school districts ability to use the site we are considering swapping with them for the
high school site. Angie will share maps with you, we might as well be very direct about this, because it has huge
implications on the development plan for Montava and the entire mountain vista sub area.
Max Moss
President | HF2M Colorado
430 N College Ave. Suite 410
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Cell# 512‐507‐5570
www.montava.com
On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> wrote:
Rebecca,
Do the buffers apply to new buildings/structures within these distances? Or simply the lot or property
associated with a new development?
2
It seems that the buffer is increasing for both active and abandoned wells, with potential but no
certainty for setback reductions. Since the PDT has been working hard to make the Development Review
process more predictable, this seems to add to the uncertainty of the potential for setback reductions.
I’m planning to send you a letter shortly with some specific concerns for the proposed language. I am
leaving town later today so unfortunately cannot attend the P&Z hearing, but hope that you can include
our comments for the hearing and for future board/commission/council hearings.
Thanks,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM
Cc: recipient list not shown:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the
required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350
feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and
abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised
the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented
to City Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet
to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from
350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional
investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City.
The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of
nearby oil and gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference
Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend
any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared
with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
3
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued
involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward
this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:14 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Cameron Gloss; Max Moss
Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Attachments: O-G Setback Letter to Boards.pdf
Rebecca,
Thanks again for sharing the updated information with us and allowing us to make comment. I would like to share this
letter with our comments, similar to those shared during the public and community outreach phase. I hope that this can
be shared with the Planning and Zoning Board for their review this week.
Thank you,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM
Cc: recipient list not shown:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers
around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential
development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code
changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April
2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000
feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas
operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
2
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will
ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For
more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues,
or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 1 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
March 12, 2018
Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for sharing the latest recommendations under consideration regarding required
buffers around oil and gas wells. We support the city’s considerations to make changes to
the setbacks that take into consideration the status of the wells and the potential
surrounding uses – increased setbacks from active wells and decreased setbacks from
permanently abandoned wells.
These changes to the code have the potential to provide both better protections for the
community, but also more certainty and predictability for property owners who wish to
develop their lands in areas where wells are present.
Unfortunately, the most recent code changes do not achieve this potential for both
protections and predictability. The proposed code changes create greater restrictions,
increased uncertainty and little predictability for property owners who wish to develop their
properties in a manner that is otherwise compliant with the Land Use Code. For a property
owner with permanently capped and abandoned wells who provides investigations, soil
sampling and groundwater testing to demonstrate that the lands adjacent to the wells are
safe, the setback for development would be automatically increased from 350 feet to either
500 or 1,000 feet depending on their planned land uses. While these costly investigations
and testing activities may allow the setback to be reduced, the proposed code changes leave
this as a discretionary reduction acceptance by the City.
The City of Fort Collins Planning, Development and Transportation Department has been
working diligently over the last several months to take specific measures to create a
development review process that is predictable, timely, logical, accountable and customer-
focused. These setback changes as currently written would have the opposite effect creating
increased cost and less certainty for property owners even with permanently abandoned
well sites.
Please consider revising the planned code changes to align with the state standards by:
1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas
wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and
2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and
abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current
state standards.
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 2 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
We provided this input during your community outreach period and continue to offer this as
a logical approach to provide both better protection for the community and predictability
for property owners who wish to develop their land otherwise meeting the requirements of
the Land Use Code and goals of City Plan.
We hope that you will share this input with the boards and commissions that are currently
reviewing these changes and with City Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
Angela K. Milewski
BHA Design, Inc.
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 1 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
March 12, 2018
Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for sharing the latest recommendations under consideration regarding required
buffers around oil and gas wells. We support the city’s considerations to make changes to
the setbacks that take into consideration the status of the wells and the potential
surrounding uses – increased setbacks from active wells and decreased setbacks from
permanently abandoned wells.
These changes to the code have the potential to provide both better protections for the
community, but also more certainty and predictability for property owners who wish to
develop their lands in areas where wells are present.
Unfortunately, the most recent code changes do not achieve this potential for both
protections and predictability. The proposed code changes create greater restrictions,
increased uncertainty and little predictability for property owners who wish to develop their
properties in a manner that is otherwise compliant with the Land Use Code. For a property
owner with permanently capped and abandoned wells who provides investigations, soil
sampling and groundwater testing to demonstrate that the lands adjacent to the wells are
safe, the setback for development would be automatically increased from 350 feet to either
500 or 1,000 feet depending on their planned land uses. While these costly investigations
and testing activities may allow the setback to be reduced, the proposed code changes leave
this as a discretionary reduction acceptance by the City.
The City of Fort Collins Planning, Development and Transportation Department has been
working diligently over the last several months to take specific measures to create a
development review process that is predictable, timely, logical, accountable and customer-
focused. These setback changes as currently written would have the opposite effect creating
increased cost and less certainty for property owners even with permanently abandoned
well sites.
Please consider revising the planned code changes to align with the state standards by:
1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas
wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and
2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and
abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current
state standards.
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 2 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
We provided this input during your community outreach period and continue to offer this as
a logical approach to provide both better protection for the community and predictability
for property owners who wish to develop their land otherwise meeting the requirements of
the Land Use Code and goals of City Plan.
We hope that you will share this input with the boards and commissions that are currently
reviewing these changes and with City Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
Angela K. Milewski
BHA Design, Inc.
From: Gayla Martinez
To: Rebecca Everette
Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 11:42:59 AM
Hi Rebecca,
I would like to thank you for the presentation you made to the Planning and Zoning Board last night.
If I had seen your presentation before preparing my own comments I would have made some
modifications.
First of all, I would congratulate the city for making a real effort to bring set-back regulations up to
date and above all to incentivize developers to plug wells which are currently active. I would
acknowledge that you and your team have clearly spent a lot of time studying the details and
preparing a plan that considers input from various stakeholders. Fort Collins has benefited from a
long history of outstanding local government and I believe that is more true today than ever. You
have set high standards which in turn leads to high expectations.
This is why I would like to encourage the city to go beyond the status quo. It’s clear that this process
of getting approval for new regulations is long and arduous so if we are going to do it, lets reach
beyond just catching up to current practice. The dual estate laws that currently constrain best
practice were created in the 19th
century when state demographics were entirely different from the
reality we live with today. Unfortunately, local governments do not have authority to change those
outdated laws. However, we do have the opportunity to position the city of Fort Collins for a much
safer, healthier tomorrow through the changes that are being considered right now!
The set-back regulations that have been proposed are outmoded. On-going scientific research is
making that more and more clear every day. Municipal and state governments across the nation
have been side-blinded by the rapid advancement of unconventional oil and gas extraction, but the
numbers are now coming in and it is imperative that we pay attention!
This is an opportunity. The evidence needed to make a clear and logical argument for greater set-
back distances--for both active and abandoned wells--is out there. Future generations of Fort Collins
residents will thank us if we can act with foresight and courage at this crucial moment.
I would like to make available to you three documents that summarize some the most recent
research. Clearly, none of us have the time to read all 1200 peer-reviewed studies that are now
available, but even a brief review of the most pertinent information makes an incontrovertible case
for the need to proceed with utmost caution. This has been the approach of most European nations
who see the United States as a giant experiment on the impacts of fracking on human health. So far
the results of that experiment are confirming their original hesitancy. I would prefer that our
community not be a part of this experiment, (although we are already participating thanks to the
significant amount of ozone floating in from Weld County). Greater set-back distances will, at the
very least, minimize the mix of residential zoning with hazardous industrial activity.
Here are the links that I would like to encourage you to take a look at:
Health Impacts of Fracking Summary specific to Colorado. (The full report, Too Dirty, too Dangerous,
can be found on the website of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The Harms of Fracking': New Report DetailsIncreased Risks of Asthma, Birth Defects and
Cancer (There is a link at the beginning of this article to the full 266 page report. I suggest that you
look specifically at the section titled "Abandoned and active oil and natural gas wells as pathways for
gas and fluid migration," p.151.)
Measure benzene, damn it! Includes a critique of the CSU study.
Again, thank you for the work you have already put in on this project and for keeping the community
informed and updated.
Best regards,
Gayla Maxwell Martinez
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Harv Teitelbaum <Harv@treeclimbingco.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 12:08 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Hearing Dates
Hello Rebecca,
How can I find out about any ex-parte or other communications or interactions Board members may have had
with oil/gas industry personnel subsequent to the initial proposing of these Code changes? We are very
interested in knowing, as the industry is notorious for back-room “turning” of public figures. Please let me
know. Thank you.
Harv Teitelbaum
Lead, Beyond Oil & Gas Campaign, Sierra Club Colorado
Harv.Teitelbaum@rmc.sierraclub.org
303.877.1870
On Mar 29, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hello,
I wanted to provide a brief update on the proposed Land Use Code changes related to oil and gas buffers. The Planning
& Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board have all decided to continue their
discussions on this topic and finalize their recommendations to City Council at their April board meetings. The City
Council hearing date has been delayed to accommodate these schedule changes. Please see below for the updated
schedule of board meetings and hearings:
April 16 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) – final
recommendation
April 18 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room) – final
recommendation
April 19 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) – final
recommendation
June 5 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers) – consideration and first reading of
proposed ordinance
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
2
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
From: Rebecca Everette
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:05 AM
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers
around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential
development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code
changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April
2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000
feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and
gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will
ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For
more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues,
or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
From: Max Moss
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Angie Milewski
Subject: Re: Montava - Oil & Gas Wells
Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 6:13:19 AM
Hi Rebecca. A question came up in a team meeting last week about the “science” behind the setback
discussion. Since jurisdictions differ on these requirements, and in fact other jurisdictions have
150’ setbacks on active wells, not capped and abandoned, we wanted to understand the science
behind the recommendations being considered.
Can you help us with that so we understand?
Max Moss
President | HF2M Colorado
430 N College Ave. Suite 410
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Cell# 512-507-5570
www.montava.com
On Apr 2, 2018, at 5:59 PM, Jayroe, Jason <JJayroe@trcsolutions.com> wrote:
Thanks Angie-
In our experience there is likely nothing left on the surface to indicate the location of the well
and depending on the age of the well, the records might not be very accurate. Our
recommendation is to conduct a geophysical survey as a non-intrusive way to locate the well.
We are looking into this but we are unsure if the Brownfield grant will cover any costs
associated with identifying the location of the plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. We
should know more about this by the end of this week.
-Jason
From: Angela Milewski [mailto:amilewski@bhadesign.com]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 4:16 PM
To: Jayroe, Jason <JJayroe@trcsolutions.com>
Cc: 'Max Moss' <Max@hf2m.com>
Subject: RE: Montava - Oil & Gas Wells
Jason,
I’m sorry for the delay in my response – I had to check our files to verify. While we did have a
bit of surveying work done to help locate the water wells on the site, the locations of the
oil/gas wells have not been surveyed nor confirmed. We are simply showing these locations
on our mapping, assuming they exist based on the available mapping from the COGCC
website – see below for a screen shot.
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:42 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Hearing Dates
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca - I would like to provide some additional feedback regarding the newly revised code changes and ask
that the feedback is shared with council as well as the members of the boards mentioned below ahead of their
next meetings.
#1 and #2: The 500 ft and 1,000 ft buffers are inadequate minimums. More and more data continues to
come out that has highlighted the air quality and related health concerns at these distances. At 500 ft the
concentrations of carcinogens and other concerning particles can be significantly elevated. As there is no
invisible shield at 500 ft, for example, exposures and health concerns are still very present and concerning
at 501 ft, 510 ft, 550 ft, 600 ft, etc. Here is one of the newest articles...from yesterday and associated
research. Happy to provide others if helpful.
#3: This continues to be an uninformed, inappropriate change that does not put the health and safety of
Fort Collins residents first. There is no way around that fact. This distance should remain at 500 ft.
Related, I attended a recent session where Broomfield city staff walked through their newly created
program to monitor plugged and abandoned wells. It is clear that a percentage of such wells fail over time
(a percentage which certainly increases over time). Their planned monitoring program is comprehensive
and ongoing...it is not a single event but instead continues indefinitely because conditions and potential
negative effects change and can come about over time. That means that their program and anything like it
which would be absolutely required (the ongoing monitoring portion vs. just initial monitoring), needs to
be funded ongoing and thus is a burden upon city taxpayers.That is the full time staff position, the
technology development, maintenance and ongoing operational costs to do so effectively. Said
differently, we (residents) should not be funding this and if the idea is to incentivize developers to ensure
that wells are properly plugged so they can develop more and make more profit; if anything, they should
be funding the ongoing, indefinite monitoring that is required to put homes or otherwise closer than
appropriate to such wells. Not getting both the language requiring ongoing, indefinite monitoring for any
plugged and abandoned well as well as requiring that developers fund this into any updated city code is a
miss and I would consider it reckless.
#4: It would be great to see more detail on this. It is critical that the true risks are conveyed and if this is
the case as it should be, it will reduce the value of such properties. As a result, lower income families will
likely occupy such properties, creating a divide and risk that they should not have to experience for the
sake of more development.
Please confirm you can send these items on as requested so they are available to the board members and council
ahead of further consideration. I appreciate it.
Thank you,
Kevin Krause
From: Vicky McLane
To: Rebecca Everette; Cassie Archuleta
Subject: Fwd: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas facilities
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 7:31:01 AM
Rebecca and Cassie - I am sure you have read about this study, but just in case you
haven't, here it is. Would you share it with your respective Boards since I think it is an
important piece of the oil and gas picture?
Thanks, Vicky
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Doug Henderson <dhender@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and
gas facilities
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>, Terry Gilbert <gilberrt@co.larimer.co.us>,
Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>, Fort Collins City Council
<cityleaders@fcgov.com>
The body of evidence about health dangers and harm from oil & gas operations is large and
keeps expanding -- there are now over 1,300 studies and articles.
Here is news of a scientific study conducted in the Front Range. And thank goodness at least
one public health agency in the Front Range dares to publicize credible information about
health dangers and harm from oil & gas.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Boulder County Health <bouldercounty@public.govdelivery.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:21 AM
Subject: New study shows unacceptable health risk levels for those living near oil and gas
facilities
The findings indicate that state and federal regulatory policies may not protect the health of
populations living near oil & gas facilities.
Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.
For Immediate Release
April 9, 2018
Media Contact
Gabi Boerkircher, 303-441-3399
Public Health Banner
New study shows unacceptable health risk
levels for those living near oil and gas facilities
Lifetime cancer risk for those living within 500ft of an oil & gas
facility is eight times higher than the EPA’s upper risk threshold
Boulder County, Colo. - A recently released study of air samples collected across
Colorado’s Northern Front Range shows elevated health risk for residents in proximity to
oil and gas development. The study, led by Lisa McKenzie, PhD, MPH, Assistant
Research Professor, at the Colorado School of Public Health, collated hundreds of
samples from three analyses sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Boulder County Public Health, and the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. Boulder County Commissioners funded the analysis
included in the study in 2014 in order to quantify methane, ozone, and volatile organic
compound (VOC) levels from sites across Boulder County.
The study found that the lifetime cancer risk for people living within 500 feet of an oil and
gas facility is eight times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s upper risk
threshold (8.3 per 10,000 vs 1 per 10,000 population respectively).
The findings indicate that state and federal regulatory policies may not protect the health
of populations living near oil and gas facilities. In particular, the risk of negative health
effects is significant even at the 500-foot setback between newly-drilled oil and gas wells
and existing homes, as required by Colorado’s current regulations.
“The study provides further evidence that people living close to oil and gas facilities are at
the greatest risk of acute and chronic health issues due to air pollutants emitted by those
facilities,” said Pam Milmoe, Boulder County Public Health Air Quality Program
Coordinator. “The results underscore the importance of not locating extraction facilities
near homes, schools, and recreation areas, and having policies that require effective
monitoring and reducing emissions from oil and gas facilities, for sites already in those
areas.”
The study considered more factors than what previous health risk studies included, such
as short-term, repeated nighttime peaks, when levels can be higher due to temperature
inversions, and childhood exposures. It also incorporated the most recent benzene health
information and cites Boulder County’s 2017 analysis of data collected with the aid of an
infrared camera that detected gas leaks at 65% of the 145 oil and gas sites inspected in
Boulder County.
“The results of this health study should support additional emission controls on wellsite
equipment, and stronger leak detection and repair requirements statewide, just as we
used the gas leak data to support stronger regulations recently adopted by the state Air
Quality Control Commission,” said Milmoe.
“We have always been, and certainly with release of this study, are increasingly
concerned about the health risks associated with oil and gas development in such close
proximity to residential areas,” said Deb Gardner, Boulder County Commissioner. “A 500
foot setback, as required by current Colorado law, is clearly not adequate to protect the
health and safety of our residents. This study demonstrates the need for immediate action
by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state legislature, and the
courts to safeguard the lives of Colorado residents against the devastating health effects
of oil and gas development near businesses, homes, and schools.”
See the press release from the University of Colorado.
The study is available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05983.
For more information about Boulder County’s work in response to oil and gas
development, visit the Oil & Gas Development webpage.
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Harv Teitelbaum <harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 2:01 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Change in Council Date
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon Rebecca,
Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. In addition to the previous email I sent about safe/non‐safe buffer distances,
researched health risks, and explosion evacuation zones, I wanted to mention a fracking exposure situation I wrote
about in the Boulder Daily Camera that affected Ft. Collins‐area residents without their knowledge. I've bolded the
section below that directly pertains to the Ft. Collins area. As you can see, venting releases of toxic fracking emissions
are not uncommon, and are almost always unreported. We only looked into the Windsor toxic gas venting because of
the fire and explosion. Please share with City Council as they make their deliberations on buffers. Thank you.
‐Harv Teitelbaum
Was Windsor fracking site sending pollution to BoCo for 12 hours prior to explosion and fire?
Boulder Daily Camera, March 10, 2018
In the days following Dec. 22, 2017, researchers from INSTAAR were making their routine examination of
measurements registered at the Boulder Reservoir. What puzzled them were readings of exceptionally
high levels of the atmospheric pollutants ethane, propane, benzene, and toluene, chemicals known to have
toxic effects on human health and produce ozone, a harmful air pollutant linked to some 10,000
premature deaths in the U.S. every year. The levels of these four pollutants, associated with natural gas
production, that day measured higher than any ever recorded at the station, representing exposures 10-
100 times background levels.
It was not long after that the researchers learned of a major explosion and fire at an Extraction Gas
production site in Windsor, almost 50 miles away, that same day. Was there a connection to the high
pollutant readings at the Boulder monitoring station?
Using the monitoring station's own meteorological capabilities along with data from NOAA, the scientists
looked at wind "back trajectories," which are the paths the air took before hitting the station that day.
Knowing that the Boulder readings for the four pollutants spiked roughly during the hours between 2 p.m.
and 8 p.m., they wondered if the back trajectory data would show any wind trajectories during that same
window directly connecting the monitoring station to the vicinity of the Windsor site.
Yes, at the time of the spike, wind trajectories closely aligned with the Windsor area. Tracing back in time,
trajectories indicated the plumes left the Windsor well site area early in the morning of Dec. 22. But
correlation is not causation. And wind trajectories, such as those that traced back roughly 7-10 hours to
the Windsor well area, become less reliable with each hour of rewound time. Therefore, more evidence
was needed.
2
In addition to measuring wind plumes backward from the station, forward wind trajectory information is
also available from NOAA. So the researchers next looked for any forward wind trajectories from Windsor
that aligned with the backward trajectories from Boulder for the same window of time. And again they
found them. Between 6-8 a.m. forward trajectories from Windsor closely aligned with the later day back
trajectories from the Boulder Reservoir station. This added confidence that the plume had heavy natural
gas influence and originated in the area of the Windsor well site.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission conducted an on-site field inspection the night of the
explosion and fire, but was unable to observe any obvious causes. The 60-day accident report, filed on Feb.
23 by the operator, Extraction, said only that the investigation was still "ongoing" and that "gas and
ignition source are still being investigated" by "third party fire investigators." In other words, they still
didn't know, or weren't saying, what caused the explosion and fire. However, the report did mention
several possibilities, including an "(o)pen line or valve, or leak on flash gas management system," along
with several other possible natural gas venting sources.
While there is much we still don't know, evidence suggests a connection between venting of natural gas-
related toxics at the Windsor well site and the high readings at the Boulder Reservoir monitoring station
on Dec. 22. With this, we can draw additional conclusions.
Considering dissipation over time and distance, the concentration levels of the pollutants
were undoubtedly considerably higher closer to their source about 50 wind miles away.
Those neighborhoods closer to the Windsor site would have been exposed to even higher
levels of these toxics, for perhaps longer periods of time, and along multiple wind
trajectories.
For example, the forward wind trajectories from Windsor indicate that after 9 a.m., wind
from the Windsor site shifted toward the north, which would have taken any plumes
directly over the greater Fort Collins area, about 10 miles away, with some outlying
communities considerably closer and therefore potentially exposed to more highly
concentrated emissions.
A review of approximately 10 months worth of atmospheric readings from the Boulder
monitoring station for the ethane/propane pair found many similar, but smaller spiking
events for these same chemicals. The backward wind trajectories for most of these events
traced back to either Greeley, Weld County, or the Broomfield area. It may be that major
natural gas venting events at fracking sites are not uncommon.
The Boulder County commissioners are to be commended for funding the CU/INSTAAR monitoring
which helped produce this data. Hopefully, they will use it wisely in determining how best to address the
planned fracking onslaught into Boulder County.
Harv Teitelbaum leads the Beyond Oil & Gas Campaign for Sierra Club Colorado.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 at 09:54, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
3
Good morning,
Thank you for your interest in the proposed Land Use Code changes related to the buffers around oil and gas wells. City
Council has decided to discuss this item at an upcoming worksession prior to considering the adoption of any code
changes. No public comment will be heard at the worksession, and no formal decision will be made. Instead, Council
will provide direction to staff on next steps related to the code changes. A final hearing date has not been scheduled.
Here is the worksession info:
City Council Worksession – Tuesday, June 19
6:00 pm at City Hall, 300 Laporte
You can attend in person, watch on TV (Channel 14), or stream live at https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/
The following advisory boards have provided recommendations to City Council on the proposed code changes:
Planning & Zoning Board
Natural Resources Advisory Board
Air Quality Advisory Board
Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
https://www.fcgov.com/oilandgas/
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Gayla Martinez <gmaxwellmartinez@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 11:30 AM
To: City Leaders; Rebecca Everette
Subject: Comments regarding latest draft of proposed changes for buffer zones in relation to oil & gas
operations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Troxel and City Council,
I would like to make a few comments on the latest draft of proposed changes for set‐back regulations in regards to new
housing and existing oil and gas wells. My concerns are related to the 150’ variance given to developers who are willing
to properly plug abandoned wells.
As was stated in the recent work session (06/19/18), conventional oil wells have a much lower failure rate than wells
associated with hydraulic fracturing. According to a study cited by Anthony Ingraffea (TEDX Albany 2013),
“Unconventional wells show a 58% higher risk of experiencing structural integrity issues relative to conventional
wells.” However, Dr. Ingraffea goes on to present data that surprisingly show conventional wells drilled after 2009
failing at a much higher rate than older conventional wells. He suggests that there are two possible explanations for this
unexpected statistic: 1) the more recent wells were poorly constructed (despite industry claims of improving technology
and safety standards), 2) older wells are often not inspected and therefore leaks are not detected. General assumptions
about the integrity of older, conventional oil wells may be based on incomplete data, (i.e. most have not been inspected
and many have not even been located).
In the same presentation, Dr. Ingraffea, shows graphs from an industry study in Alberta that recorded 15%‐16% leakage
rates for conventional wells. So, although the wells in NE Fort Collins are safer than fracked wells, the potential for
integrity loss is still present and this potential grows with time.
This brings me to my first concern. It would seem that requiring monitoring for only the first 5 years after a well is
plugged misses the point that deterioration takes place over time. The chances of a properly plugged well experiencing
leakage in the first 5 years is extremely low. The chances of that plug deteriorating after 60 years is close to 100%.
Secondly, it was mentioned that if a problem does occur, remediation would be passed on to the state through the
COGCC. The money set‐aside for this purpose is grossly underfunded. (For a clear admission of this lack of funding see
the Youtube recording of the COGCCmeeting for March 19, 2018, minutes marker 2:45‐2:48). State regulations
currently require a plugging bond of only $10,000‐$20,000/individual well and a statewide blanket bond of $60,000 for
operators with fewer than 100 wells, $100,000 for operators with 100 or more wells. The city’s estimate of the cost of
plugging one well is $84,000. I think it would be naïve to assume that the state will be ready to cover remediation costs
given the total number of plugged and abandoned wells that Coloradoans will be dealing with in the future.
My second concern has to do with the assumption that the only wells needing to be addressed are those currently
existing in the NE quadrant of the city. It may seem improbable that in remaining undeveloped land, wells for hydraulic
fracturing could be drilled, used and abandoned before the area is built out (this being the only circumstance in which
the rules under consideration would apply). However, ten or fifteen years ago, most of us would have found it difficult
to imagine the aggressive rapidity with which this industry has grown all along the Front Range. Currently, the COGCC
has a backlog of approximately 4,000 drilling applications. We cannot afford the luxury of assuming that SE Fort Collins
will never be fracked.
2
Based on these arguments, I would like to suggest two changes to the current draft:
1) Require on‐going yearly inspections of all plugged and abandoned wells. With the new monitoring technologies that
are currently coming out this process can be expected to become increasingly cost and time efficient.
2) Specify that the 150’ variance applies only to conventional wells designed to extract oil. No reduced set‐backs
should be allowed for wells drilled to extract natural gas using hydraulic fracturing.
The city should also be considering it’s own plans for covering the costs of remediation in the case of well failure.
I want to express appreciation for the time and effort that council members, city staff and advisory boards have put into
working on this proposal to update and improve set‐back regulations. The final outcome will be a reflection your
combined expertise.
Thank you,
Gayla Maxwell Martinez
EXCERPT
Jeff 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
ATTACHMENT 5
EXCERPT
Planning & 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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.
EXCERPT
Jeff 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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.
EXCERPT
Planning & 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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 maybe 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
EXCERPT
Planning & 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***
Environmental Services
215 N. Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221-6600
970.224-6177 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: May 1, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Nancy DuTeau, on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)
SUBJECT: Land Use Code Updates for Oil & Gas operations
Regulation of oil & gas operations is a complicated issue in Colorado. The Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) standards for permitting and operation, including
setbacks, are not based on scientific evidence of health and economic effects on citizens, but
rather a compromise with special interests, primarily Oil & Gas Producers and Developers.
NRAB strongly recommends Council direct staff to use all mechanisms available within city
authority to increase protection of health of residents and to reduce air and property
contamination. In addition, we recommend city leadership adopt positions advocating evidence-
based state standards for permitting and operation.
The COGCC has the authority to permit new oil & gas wells as well as set standards for
operation and closing of wells. The state is responsible for inspections for compliance with
operation standards and has an orphan well fund for sealing abandoned wells. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) has a mobile unit for sampling air
quality in residential areas in response to complaints of residents of health effects from chemical
exposures at sites.
The city, on the other hand, has two main ways to control interactions between Oil & Gas
operations and residents:
the City has authority through Land Use Code to set buffers between oil & gas operations
and new development, including buffer and site characteristics.
the City creates operator agreements with producers for individual permitted sites
NRAB recommends that Council adopt proposed changes to the Land Use Code to reflect the
new state regulations for setbacks for new wells, to apply to new development near existing and
abandoned oil & gas operations (reciprocal setbacks) with the addition of:
3.8.26 (C) (4) (a) “Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding
paragraph (1) above, with the exception of playgrounds and parking lots of high
occupancy building units”.
ATTACHMENT 6
3.8.26 (C) (4) (c) Require identification of Responsible Party when plugged well seal
fails; add requirements for repair, annual third-party monitoring, bonding requirements to
address any future well integrity issues, and inspection.
Amend the Land Use Code definition for where the buffer (reciprocal setback) is
measured to be from the edge of the property line to the edge of the well site, as opposed
to the edge of the nearest occupied building.
The NRAB recommends that the City operator agreement for producers at individual sites
include
specific requirements for monitoring as outlined in 3.8.26 (C) (4) (c) (i) (B).
Additional Recommendations
Citizens of Fort Collins are deeply engaged in the debate about regulation of Oil & Gas
operations in our state and the effects on their health and property. This is clearly shown by the
passage of a citizen-initiated moratorium on fracking within our city and on city land in 2013.
NRAB has been following this issue for several years with technical presentations by outside
scientific groups like -- CSU and National Center for Atmospheric Research for example -- some
of whom have been hired by the City to perform analysis on air quality, toxic gas levels at active
wells, and contributions to ozone, in addition to presentations at regular meetings by staff.
NRAB recommends that Council move forward with:
Verifying Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) readiness for abandoned well seal failures and
active well accidents. There are 10 active and 20 abandoned wells within city limits. No
wells sealed recently or in the past will remain sealed indefinitely, because the current
technology does not create a permanent seal.
Installing a 3rd
air monitoring station in Southeast Fort Collins as recommended in City-
funded study by National Center for Atmospheric Research. Results of wind analysis
document impact of gases from daytime upslope winds from oil & gas operations in
Weld County on ozone levels in our city.
Approving an Economic Analysis of health and economic effects on citizen health and
property contamination, including impacts of natural gas and other pollutants from
operations outside the city.
Pursuing ways to protect Natural Areas, parks and open spaces from oil & gas operations
whether the source is within or beyond City boundaries.
Urging the COGCC to increase buffer zones and to change the measurement of setbacks
from edge of well site to edge of property. Current setback measures to the edge of
buildings which, for schools, increases exposure of children on playgrounds and for other
facilities increases exposure to those who choose to enjoy outdoor spaces.
cc: Darin Atteberry
Lindsay Ex
Ryan Mounce, Barry Noon and Elizabeth Hudetz had a lively discussion about the various opportunities for the
community to get involved in creating this plan. Non-profit input, community workshops, community
ambassadors, and interactive web sites are only a few of the activities planned to gather input from community
members. Ryan said that at the website for City Planning, there is a list of events and activities for community
involvement. Ryan said that notably engaged to the process is CSU Leadership, Faculty, Staff and Students.
Upon completion of this discussion, Nancy DuTeau thanked him for his updates and, thereafter, Ryan Mounce
exited. Rebecca Everette stayed for the following discussion.
VII. OIL & GAS REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION DRAFT
Last month Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner – City of Fort Collins asked the NRAB for a
recommendation for proposed Land use changes such as 1. Increased the buffer for Residential Development
to 500 ft. (from 350 ft.), 2. The buffer for High Occupancy Residential Buildings to 1,000 ft., 3. Reduce the
buffer on Permanently Abandoned wells to 150 ft. (giving Developers incentives with additional land
availability), 4. Notice to future property owners via the property title search system, and 5. Enhanced Code
Definitions. There is a scheduled discussion on these items in a Planning and Zoning meeting Thursday, April
19, 2018.
Nancy DuTeau said that the NRAB members wanted to specify that the measurement from existing wells for
“new development” should begin at the property line instead of the building. This was important in the case of
parking lots and playgrounds. The NRAB also wanted to proscribe a way to determine a responsible party for
well seal failures.
There ensued some discussion on the different government agencies, oversight and responsibilities for
development codes, rules and regulations. For example dormant, functioning, and new wells all acquiesce to
various and different levels of government (Federal, State, Ccounty and City) depending on the particular
property and well characteristics. The recommendation requested today is quite narrow. Rebecca Everette
explained that operator agreements could address liability for new wells, but that is not this evening’s issue.
The instant issue is for the City and use Code changes to match the State regulations on Land Developers not
Oil and Gas companies. Upon request, Rebecca defined “occupied building” under the codes to mean
residential, office/retail, and schools. Places like storage facilities are not included. She mentioned that there
are ten (10) active and three (3) producing wells in Fort Collins.
Elizabeth Hudetz resumed her espousal for the highest buffer zone possible in all scenarios (2,500 ft.). One
matter driving her advocacy is fear of increased illness (cancer rates) near wells. Also, she expressed much
concern that there are not nearly enough inspectors for the high number of wells and that concrete seals on
wells are expensive but not permanent solutions and will, at some point, crack. Lawsuits brought by citizens
and municipalities against oil and gas companies encourage Elizabeth. Nancy DuTeau added that wind
patterns affect the ozone by wells located outside the county from drifting pollutants from neighboring
communities with more dense oil and gas operations. Danielle Buttke said that Alzheimer’s is now linked to
pollutants. There was agreement among NRAB members that the trend is going toward tougher regulations on
oil and gas development.
Barry Noon wanted to add Bond Requirements on Developers for potential failures and incidents at abandoned
wells. Discussion ensued that the measurements of buffer distances start at the property line.
Nancy DuTeau focused the discussion on tonight’s requirement of a recommendation for the Planning and
Zoning meeting tomorrow for the specific request. The NRAB will continue to work on the formal memo (via
email) for City Council recommendations due mid-May.
Elizabeth Hudetz made a motion that buffer measurements should begin at the edge of playgrounds and
parking lots, not at the building/structure and that . The cityFort Collins should changes its buffer measurement.
Additionally, include annual third-party monitoring and require developer bond requirements for failures. Luke
Caldwell seconded this motion. The Vote Passed unanimously.
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 2018
Nancy DuTeau thanked Rebecca for her time. Rebecca Everette also thanked the NRAB for their patience
with the technicality of the issues.
VIII. UPDATES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
• Elizabeth Hudetz was enthusiastic about an event this Sunday (April 22) for Earth Day with
Colorado Rising and Fort Collins City Plan Ambassador Program. Scheduled discussion about the
2,500-ft. set-back initiative for Oil & Gas development. Avogadro’s Number from 2-5 PM.
• Bob Mann attended the Wasteshed Advisory meeting last month and after recounting the highlights,
he noticed that he needed to re-visit some follow up dates as there are conflicting meetings and
presentation in the coming weeks. He will update the NRAB members re same.
• Luke Caldwell mentioned the Northern Colorado Recycling Roundtable on April 24, 6-8:30 PM.
RSVP @ CAFR.org.
• Lindsay gave an overview of the upcoming Super Board meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:13 PM.
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes May 1, 2018
Gayla Maxwell Martinez gave an impassioned speech leading up to the evening’s discussion regarding Oil and Gas
Proposed Buffer Zones. The legacy of her family extends far into Fort Collins history and her love and concern for the
City of Fort Collins is apparent.
First, she noted the impressive work that the City of Fort Collins has done with the natural areas and its diligence and
protectionism in regards to the Oil and Gas Regulations within the City’s purview. During a Master Naturalist Training
Class, she learned that the City does not own the mining rights on their natural areas, which greatly concerns her. She
discovered that the oil in the area is minimal and does not attract Industry interest, however other neighboring areas have
greater risk.
Gayla cautions that the Oil and Gas Industry (“Industry”) is too aggressive. She pointed out the challenges Boulder,
Colorado faces with numerous legal battles re their effort to thwart invasive drilling. She emphasizes that The City of Fort
Collins can only be protective for so long until the Industry (and developers) pushes back with legal challenges here as
well.
Gayla continued by asserting her recommendation that the buffer zones should be at least ½ mile. Dangers of diminutive
buffer zones are documented by numerous science-based and peer edited essays. She says the Industry record in
Colorado for oil spills and accidents has been dismal, even within the past two weeks. Her preference is to extend the
buffer zone as far back as possible.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Nancy DuTeau and NRAB members made a few revisions and clarifications to the February 21, 2018 Natural Resources
Advisory Board (“NRAB”) draft meeting minutes.
Luke Caldwell made a motion to approve, as amended, the February 21, 2018 minutes; seconded by Elizabeth Hudetz.
The motion passed unanimously.
IV. OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION
Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner, City of Fort Collins, made a presentation to the NRAB to solicit comment
and City Council recommendations re proposed code changes. These code changes consist primarily of modifications to
existing buffer zones to match the State of Colorado regulations. The current buffer zone matched the State of Colorado
regulations when enacted. This meeting is part of the outreach effort by the department to gather feedback and support
from the community and various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. An example of community outreach
effort is a mailing to residents within 1000 ft. of a well apprising residents of an opportunity to express concerns. The
concerns were primarily regarding the exact location of wells and health and safety. This public input resulted in revisions
to the proposed code changes.
Rebecca gave an overview of the number of wells located in the City of Fort Collins. Of the sixteen- (16) total operating
wells, only ten- (10) were within city limits and an additional thirty- (30) are abandoned wells from various decades. There
have been no new wells drilled since the 1990s.
The proposed changes are:
• Increase the buffer for Residential Development to 500 ft. (from 350 ft.)
• Add a buffer for High Occupancy Building Units of 1,000 ft.
• Allow for a reduced buffer on Permanently Abandoned wells if specific site investigation requirements are
met, with a minimum buffer of 150 ft. (giving Developers incentives with additional land availability)
• Notice to future property owners via the property covenants
• Updating relevant code definitions
The additional buffer on High Occupancy Buildings (schools, nursing homes, childcare centers, hospitals, etc.) would
provide additional protection for vulnerable (elderly, children and infirm) populations. Luke Caldwell wanted to examine
the criteria for the 1,000-ft. buffer. He thought perhaps this buffer zone would be appropriate for shrapnel from an
explosion, for example, but wondered about escaped gases that can travel over 1,000 feet. He offered that enhanced
ventilation or other safety equipment be considered. Rebecca Everette mentions that technology such as monitors and
radon mitigation systems exist.
Questioning the “tiers system,” Ling Wang added that 1,000 ft. could be the standard for every site. Rebecca explained
that the buffer zones reflect a compromise position between the interested parties. Added difficulties such as site-specific
Natrual Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 31, 2018
topography and wind-direction, for example, vary in each locale; thus, the “zones” pose challenges for scientific, well-
documented studies.
Rebecca noted that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sets buffer regulations for new oil and
gas wells. In contrast, the City of Fort Collins regulates how close the wells will come to the populace. Nancy DuTeau
asked whether the City of Fort Collins could be stricter in their regulations than the State of Colorado. Rebecca replied
that “Operator Agreements” contracts clauses might mitigate any concerns, but other communities have run into legal
issues related to additional regulation for oil and gas operations.
As part of her presentation, Rebecca showed a Fort Collins City map with an “imaginary well.” Around the well were
several circles representing the various buffer zones allowing NRAB members to observe a representation of the
proposed buffer zones in an actual populated setting. Another illustration displayed an actual Fort Collins Neighborhood
with a well (Hearth Fire). She also showed the development plans for Water’s Edge, which reflect a “variance” granted to
the developer with assurances of mitigation on abandoned wells in the project. “Alternative Compliance” is a method to
provide flexibility to developers on certain standards and could allow for reduced buffer zones if certain requirements are
met.
Rebecca reviewed the COGCC requirements for plugging and abandoning wells. Elizabeth Hudetz was concerned about
the endurance since cement and concrete can crack over time. Rebecca agreed that there would always be risk of failure
and leakage, but that the 150’ buffer zone is generous for the risk. An assessment and analysis of an Abandoned Well
failure in Trinidad, Colorado (in the 1980’s) showed that the failure resulted in about ½ acre of seepage that is less than
the 150’ buffer zone currently contemplated. Jay Adams inquired about the nature and permanency of the marker for such
wells to which Rebecca replied that they are similar to manhole covers commonly found in city streets. These are likely
not visible from the street. Rebecca Everette went on to explain that a reduced buffer (150 ft.) at Abandoned Wells is an
incentive to developers to seal the wells in accordance with state standards.
Luke Caldwell asked about monitoring for failures. Rebecca said there are several options for reporting such as the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Luke also asked who might be responsible for repair. Rebecca said that it would be a
“case specific” determination depending on the individual circumstances. A modest “Orphaned Well” fund exists for wells
that no longer have a responsible party in business. Luke noted that the “Waters’ Edge” senior development (north of Fort
Collins Country Club) might put the Homeowners Association (HOA) at risk in that case.
Expressing trepidation for federal support in this issue (reporting), Elizabeth Hudetz noted that the Environmental
Protection Agency of the United States is experiencing adversity in its current administration. Rebecca replied that the
State of Colorado Agencies are the primary organizations to address any issues. She was concerned that any Federal
and State regulations or policies were in flux. Elizabeth specifically mentioned the “Martinez Case” (a legal challenge to
current Oil and Gas state “fracking” - regulations, climate and public health standards) currently winding its way through
the Colorado court system. (Note: “fracking” is water, chemicals and other materials injected to the terrain at high
pressure to break rock and extract oil and gas.) There are potential significant implications on the industry standards
therefrom. Elizabeth Hudetz advocates setting higher standards immediately.
Elizabeth Hudetz discussed recent concerns from the Greeley community surrounding the issue and related that back to
the public comment from Gayla Martinez earlier in the evening. She said that there are documented impacts to the health
of a fetus by a low birth rate, for example, within a mile of a “fracking” site. She finalized these concerns by noting that a
4-year-old child’s death at “Hearth Fire” may be a result of impotent regulations. She is concerned about the residents
and future residents in our community. Rebecca Everette agreed that there are documented health impacts.
Danielle Buttke mentioned the well monitoring costs. Building upon that line of thinking, it was mentioned that a NICU
(Neonatal Intensive Care) admission was upwards at $100K, therefore any monitoring costs would be reasonable in
comparison.
Danielle Buttke inquired about any requirement for disclosure to future residents. Rebecca said there are existing
requirements for disclosure as well as a proposal for an additional method of notice within property title searches.
Another detail brought to light by Elizabeth Hudetz is that there are only 17 well inspectors for thousands of wells and that
seems insufficient for a vigilant program. Danielle Buttke added that any standards without monitoring, response and
responsibility is ineffective.
General agreement that the diesel-spill incident on Riverside Drive was handled well by the responders.
Natrual Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 31, 2018
Nancy DuTeau brought up the idea of a moratorium and Rebecca said that the intention was a casualty in a prior legal
challenge. Elizabeth Hudetz added that perhaps the “Martinez Case” would give us some margin in this area since the
judges seem to be ruling (thus far) in favor of enhanced regulations.
Nancy DuTeau also wanted to analyze the considerations of City versus State regulations, specifically how that influences
NRAB recommendations to City Council. Nancy thought it would not be appropriate (at the City level) to increase buffer
zones. Rebecca Everette said that the basic request is to change the City standards to meet what is required at the State
of Colorado level.
Elizabeth Hudetz advocated for a moratorium and 1,000-ft. buffer zone minimum especially near schools and
outdoor/recreation areas. Elizabeth and Nancy DuTeau discussed that the present issue before the NRAB
(recommendation) is a separate question from the dispute (and potential resulting regulations) in the “Martinez Case”.
Luke Caldwell and Danielle Buttke endorsed an increased buffer in High Occupancy buildings.
Concerning the parties involved in the negotiation between developers and oil and gas operators, Elizabeth Hudetz said it
is appropriate to consider third-party oversight.
Nancy DuTeau concluded the discussion by noting that April 13, 2018 is the due date for a first draft of recommendations.
The Fort Collins City Council will review all observations, commentary and recommendations in June 2018.
V. POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK RECOMMENDATION
Kurt Friesen - Park Planning and Development Director, City of Fort Collins began his presentation by introducing his
colleagues. Joining Kurt this evening to assist is Jeff Mihelich - Deputy City Manager, Adam Jokerst, Water Resources
Engineer, and Matt Day, Sr Landscape Architect from the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of the presentation tonight is
to outline a plan for additional funding for optional features on the Poudre River Whitewater Park. The presenters hope
that the NRAB will recommend their enhanced design to the City Council of Fort Collins.
Jeff Mihelich noted that this project is a legacy project initiated in 2011. The project is located near the intersection of
College Avenue and Vine. The project has successfully moved forward such that construction bids will be accepted in the
near future. He was enthusiastic about the project overall.
Kurt Friesen gave a high-level overview of various segments of the project. First, he noted that the property acquisition
phase is complete which was necessary for visibility from the road, safety of visitors, and a park site. A bridge will
connect downtown Fort Collins (southside) with the North side business and residential area of the Poudre River. It will
become part of the Trail System and provide pedestrian access. The proposed “South Bank Wall” is a plaza with shade
structure and more funds are necessary to add seating to encourage “gathering.” The landscaping will be restorative with
native plantings. Concrete walks provide greater accessibility. Included in the plan is a “play area.” Lighting, cameras
and emergency call boxes are proposed safety features. Included in the plan is “Dark Sky” light fixtures, which minimize
glare, reduce light trespass and sky glow. Vine Drive improvements include sidewalks, bike lanes, a parkway and
parking. The goal is to make the area attractive to increase interest in the area. A grant from the Poudre Heritage
Alliance (“PHA” promotes Poudre River’s national significance in water development, water law and water management)
might fund a “Heritage Walk” area. The most critical improvement is the flood plain and floodway . This must be
completed at the front end and not in “stages.” This is a costly and time-sensitive part of the plan.
Of interest was the 1865 Coy Ditch in the proposed area that previously irrigated the family farmland. In 1958, the City
purchased the water rights. In 1980, the water was used to irrigate a now-defunct golf course and now will be reworked
as part of a low-impact water improvement operation within the Whitewater Park Project. This modification also helps
correct flooding and erosion issues while slowing flow in the play area.
Jay Adams was interested in the South Bank of the River and its impact on the business in that area. Kurt Friesen said
that the North College business area is evolving and the bridge will provide North and South businesses reciprocal
access. The neighbors on both sides of the river are in support.
Luke Caldwell asked for an overview of the River Access for ADA individuals. Kurt replied that a properly sloped concrete
sidewalk ramp from the sidewalk to the edge of the river provides access for ADA individuals. Two “pools” provide kayak
river access and a kayak “play” area. This increases the season for kayakers during the “off season” on the Poudre River
traditional recreational areas. In addition, river tubing is encouraged.
Natrual Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 31, 2018
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes December 12, 2017
code updates in an effort to better control light pollution.
One of the goals is to pursue International Dark Sky Certification for Soapstone National Area
which offers darker than natural conditions with outstanding views of the cosmos. Gary and
Cassie have been working on night sky monitoring to gain a baseline for the City of Fort Collins
to additionally be certified.
The aggregation of lights from neighboring cities creates a sky dome where the cosmos is
invisible to the naked eye. Among the nuisances of light are glare, Sky glow and light trespass.
Ideally, selecting minimum and energy efficient lighting to the areas needed for security, walking
and visibility will reduce light pollution.
Potential Land Use Code updates would set light limits on maximum pole height, position of light
mount as well as hours of operation, thus limiting backlight, up-light and glare (BUG ratings)
Discussion
How is Fort Collins addressing this lighting issue? Gary: Building code standards are in place
for all new developments within the City.
Luke likes the regulation proposed that 75% of light fixtures be efficiency lamps. Why not aim
for 95%. Gary: We would like to see target, an achievable goal in order to gage success.
John asks what the timeline is? Rebecca: A 2018 timeline is set with the code update being
presented to the Council in the Spring 2018.
Bob inquires whether there will be any door to door outreach encouragement for porch light
upgrades in 2018? Rebecca: This was on the table but did not take place.
Bob asks how does warm verses cool lighting affect us? Rebecca: Blue during the day and
red at night would be better for humans and wildlife, and there is still some research going on in
this regard.
Gary reminds the Board that LED is usually perceived as a brighter light. Rebecca: Education
is still needed in this area.
Nancy requested that safety be redefined to include access to buildings if there were ADA
guidelines or in general, e.g., having lighting to unlock a door, outside doorway access into the
building.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Update on Oil and Gas Regulations
Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner and Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Program
Manager provided a presentation about Land Use Code requirements for buffering between oil
and gas operations and new land development. Code changes will be considered by City
Council in early 2018. (Information/Discussion: 40 min.).
One of the Board Members is recording the presentation.
The Planning Department’s focus is on the development and land use for current and existing
oil and gas development that may come into use in the future. There will be three code
changes going before the City Council. 1) Remove references to the 2013 hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) moratorium 2) Increase setback requirements for new development projects near
existing, active oil and gas operations from 350 ft. to 500 ft. 3) Reduce setback requirements for
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes December 12, 2017
new development projects near plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells from 350 ft. to 150 ft.
Oil and gas is regulated by the State. Fort Collins does not regulate the permitting or regulating;
that is done by the State. Fort Collins may determine the zone districts such as new wells and
industrial districts which are only found in small parts of city. Mitigation requirements, fencing,
landscaping, and visual impact to properties are outlined by the City. All properties should be
notified, within 1000 ft. of active or abandoned wells, with disclosures whether they be plugged
and abandoned, may be both; prior to 1950’s, abandonment.
Reciprocal setback: Distance between new land development and existing oil and gas
operations. Current code is 350 ft. buffer for new development. Proposed code to increase to
500 ft. for new developments as the state standard is 500 ft. Fort Collins wants to be consistent
with the state standards. Code is measured in relation to circumference.
Discussion
Elizabeth: The Martinez Ruling states that there will be no more permits allows until it is safe for
humans and animals. The City should essentially be in a moratorium. Oil and Gas is not
following the law right now. Rebecca: I will look into that with the City Attorney Office.
Luke: Is the 500; buffer related to air quality impacts related to human health? Cassie: This is
the current State level. The air level goes down the further out we go.
Elizabeth: There is a new study, recently release, indicating the causal relationship between
health and wells in which the Hearthfire was an inevitable time bomb. Studies have shown that
within 10 miles does have a causal relationship on people’s health. Rebecca: Our production in
Fort Collins is very low.
John: In Weld County, what is the average distance in high production areas. Cassie: They
can locate multiple wells on one pad with up to 20 or 30 on one pad.
Nancy: Broomfield County is unique and one of the strictest in the state.
Luke: What is the designation of abandoned wells? Rebecca: It is a permanent thing.
Cassie: This includes abandoning the mineral rights.
Luke: I understand the financial incentive for reducing the buffer zone in abandoned and
plugged wells, and as long as there is continued monitoring, why not use as a community
green space after adequate testing is completed?
John: Concrete is not good in the long term. The wells still need monitoring. We need to make
individuals aware of the long term dangers associated with these abandoned wells.
Nancy: Broomfield developers were responsible for mapping all the old and abandoned wells.
John: In the areas that surround the abandoned sites, what landscaping would mitigate the
wells? Rebecca: The wells are tapped below ground. You would not see the well on the
surface. There would be landscaping or a marker as indicated.
Cassie: Water is pumped down to push dead oil out. With gas wells you may see some
coloration. These are different than the big wells in Weld County.
Jay: What is the enforcement for the plugging and the abandonment? Rebecca: State does the
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes December 12, 2017
inspecting upon abandonment. Verify. Complaints, inspection is made by the State.
Carrie: The state has an orphan well program.
Elizabeth: There are fewer inspectors to number of wells.
Ling: What constitutes a new well for monitoring – what is the timeframe? Rebecca: Current,
now, current abandonment. We do not know how far back, 2013?
Jay: There are new housing developments going on near the wells outlined in the map, towards
the east of town. I am worried and not a believer. Rebecca: There is housing, much nearer the
well than 350 ft. previously. Remember that the 350 ft. was established in 2013.
Elizabeth: Frack hitting is going on. It is hitting old wells causing damage to the environment.
Toxicity, explosions, Greeley wells exploded. I emailed the Firestone video to the board.
John: What about the industrial zone? Rebecca: She will provide.
Luke: If new wells were to come in where would they be allowed? Rebecca: A lot of the
industrial zone is near Anheiser Bush area. Montavo area, east south.
Elizabeth: They drill where they feel it is best, not having consideration for the residents. It is
against the law to perform new fracking. We are on a moratorium.
Jay: Do you have an expanded map? Rebecca to send extended map.
Elizabeth: Does the city have emergency blast zone? Cassie: We have one operator in town
and we do have an emergency response team trained to manage this type of event.
Elizabeth has handed out two pages of questions. Questions are prepared by Shane Davis and
Wendall Bradley. Due to the time constraint of the meeting, Nancy DuTeau, Chair has asked
the presented to get back with the Board with their answers to these numerous questions.
There is an online survey available: http://gcgov.com/oilandgas. There are also drop-in times
to speak with city staff personally with any questions.
Updates and Announcements
• Thank you to John Bartholow for 8 years of service.
• Thank you to Katy McLaren for sharing her knowledge and experience.
• Update on E-bikes including trails and widening of trails.
____________________________________________________________________________
Meeting Adjourned: 8:43 p.m.
Next Meeting: January 17, 2018
Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting Minutes December 12, 2017
Environmental Services
215 N. Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.221-6600
fcgov.com/environmentalservices
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 22, 2018
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Mark Houdashelt, AQAB Chair
CC: Air Quality Advisory Board
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Re: AQAB Recommendation Related to Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates
___________________________________________________________________________________
The Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) has considered the issue of development setbacks from oil
and gas facilities in Fort Collins. As you are all aware from Fort Collins’ failed attempt to enact a
moratorium on oil and gas development, this is a complicated and controversial issue. Currently, the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has the authority to regulate setbacks of
new oil and gas operations from existing development, while local jurisdictions can regulate setbacks
of development from existing oil and gas operations. However, the COGCC’s authority and decision‐
making criteria are being challenged by local initiatives in Longmont and Thornton, for example, and
by the Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission case being considered by the
Colorado Supreme Court.
Currently, City Staff is recommending that the Land Use Code be changed, such that:
The buffer required between new residential development and existing oil and gas operations
be increased from 350 feet to 500 feet, and the buffer required between new High Occupancy
Building Units and existing oil and gas operations be set at 1000 feet. The proposed buffers
are the same as those designated by the COGCC for new oil and gas operations and existing
development/HOBUs (the COGCC buffers), and Staff is also proposing that these new buffers
automatically vary to match the COGCC buffers should the COGCC buffers change.
An alternative compliance buffer of no less than 150 feet be considered by the appropriate
decision‐maker around plugged and abandoned wells, and the fencing requirements in place
for the larger buffer not apply for the alternative compliance buffer, if the following specific
conditions are met:
o A site survey confirms the well location;
o Confirmation that the plugging or replugging of the well meets current State
standards;
o Soil, air and groundwater sampling are performed;
o Permanent monitoring equipment is installed for future use;
o The area is deemed safe for residential development; and
ATTACHMENT 7
o Other site‐specific requirements, as needed and appropriate, are met.
Any new properties or buildings within 1000 feet of a plugged and abandoned well show
information about the well in the property covenant, in addition to that currently required to
be included in the recorded subdivision plat.
Given the situation within Colorado, and taking into account the proposal from Fort Collins staff, the
AQAB recommends the following changes to City Code related to oil and gas setbacks:
For minimum setbacks of new development from existing oil and gas operations, we
recommend that the City implement setbacks consistent with those recommended by staff.
Additionally, the Board recommends that:
o setbacks from active wells are not eligible for variances.
o setbacks are measured from property lines as opposed to the edge of the nearest
occupied building.
For minimum setbacks of new development from plugged and abandoned wells, the situation
is more uncertain, as little research has been performed on the failure rates, health impacts
and other potential dangers associated with these types of facilities. Therefore, we
recommend that the City implement the same setbacks between new development and
plugged and abandoned wells as those adopted between new development and existing oil
and gas operations with no alternative compliance buffer allowed, as the Board feels that
staff’s proposed code changes for alternative compliance buffers is incomplete. For example,
there is not any requirement for remediation following initial testing and/or ongoing
monitoring (and notifications of testing results) and subsequent remediation.
The AQAB appreciates the opportunity to express our thoughts to City Council on this important
issue, and we would be happy to reconsider this recommendation should the Staff proposal change,
more information become available, or some of the concerns expressed above be addressed.
1
Questions from the AQAB regarding proposed oil and gas facility setbacks in Fort Collins – March 2018
Responses from Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services, 4/13/18
SETBACKS
In your presentation, you indicated that a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells would
incentivize developers to ensure these wells are properly plugged and abandoned. How big a concern is
this? What would be done differently if developers didn’t take responsibility for this? Does the City
have an estimate of the number of plugged and abandoned wells (and which specific wells) that would
potentially be attractive to development? What about operating wells that would cease production and
be plugged?
• Within City limits, there are approximately four abandoned wells that would affect future
development projects. Other active and abandoned wells are located on sites with pending
development applications, previously approved development plans, or previously built
neighborhoods
• If redevelopment were to occur in existing neighborhoods that contain active or abandoned
wells, there would be an incentive for developers to plug and abandon active wells or conduct
site sampling around wells that were previously abandoned.
• There are other wells (both active and abandoned) outside City limits but within the Growth
Management Area that could eventually be annexed into the City and developed or
redeveloped. Well locations are available online at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline
What evaluation of risk went into the COGCC decision for the 500’ setback, in terms of airborne
concentrations of various VOCs and the criteria that it would meet at the boundary, for oil and/or gas
production? In other words, how are setback distances chosen? Does the info that Cassie got from the
COGCC answer this?
• From COGCC staff: “There was no scientific justification for the 500 and 1000 foot setbacks. A
main goal if the 2013 setback rulemaking was to reduce nuisance impacts during drilling and
completion, noise, dust, light, etc., beef up required mitigation measures when in those kinds of
sites, and provide more information to citizens, local governments, surface owner, and Building
Unit owners.”
What criteria must a child care facility meet to be classified as a High Occupancy Building Unit by the
State (for the purpose of setback requirements)? COGCC presentation says “capacity of 5 people or
more.” Is that 5 children, or does it include caregivers?
• Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 26-6-102(5)): “Child care center” means a facility, by whatever
name known, that is maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of five or more
children who are eighteen years of age or younger and who are not related to the owner,
operator, or manager thereof, whether the facility is operated with or without compensation for
such care and with or without stated educational purposes…”
2
Are Thornton's or Longmont’s proposed regulations relevant to what is being considered for Fort
Collins? For example, would Fort Collins consider a 750 ft. setback from active wells like Longmont is
trying to impose?
• Longmont requires a 750’ buffer around active wells and a 150’ buffer around plugged and
abandoned wells. Thornton’s recently adopted buffers only apply to new wells, not
development near existing wells. Longmont’s code language:
o “(A) Proposed occupied buildings shall be 750 feet or more from existing oil and gas
wells and production facilities. (B) Platted residential lots, sports fields and playgrounds
shall be 750 feet or more, or the maximum distance practicable as determined by the
city, from existing oil and gas wells and production facilities. (C) Proposed unoccupied
buildings and other structures shall comply with local fire code requirements. (D)
Proposed public roads and major above ground utility lines shall be located 150 feet or
more from existing oil and gas wells and production facilities.”
o “(A)Proposed occupied structures or additions, sports fields or playgrounds shall be
located 150 feet or more from existing plugged and abandoned or dry and abandoned
oil and gas wells. (B) Proposed unoccupied structures shall be located 50 feet or more
from existing plugged and abandoned or dry and abandoned wells. (C) No proposed
residential lots shall include any portion of plugged and abandoned or dry and
abandoned oil and gas wells.”
• Broomfield requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet for residential lots and 500 feet for public or
private school buildings.
o For plugged and abandoned wells, Broomfield requires a “well maintenance and
workover easement” that is a minimum of 50 ft by 100 ft.
o Verification required that demonstrates, “that the well or former production site has
been remediated of hydrocarbon contamination to background levels.”
o No utility lines allowed within 10 ft of a plugged and abandoned well
• Berthoud, Frederick and Windsor require buffers between new development and existing wells,
which range between 150 and 350 ft.
• It is within the City of Fort Collins’ local government authority to adopt buffers around existing
wells. The City Council can adopt any buffer distance they deem necessary to protect public
health and safety.
Are higher setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells required for High Occupancy Building Units?
What about Designated Outside Activity Areas and Urban Mitigation Areas?
• The proposed 1,000 ft setback for High Occupancy Building Units would apply to both active and
abandoned wells, unless an applicant pursued the Alternative Compliance option for an
abandoned well. The minimum setback around an abandoned well location would be 150 feet
for both residential development and High Occupancy Building Units.
3
Why are alternative compliance buffers exempt from fencing requirements? Does this mean that
residents and others can access the area all the way up to the P&A well site?
• Under the proposed code changes, plugged and abandoned wells that meet the requirements
for a reduced buffer would be exempt from the fencing requirement. This would allow the
buffer area to be used for public benefit once it has been determined that no contamination is
present on the site (e.g., park space, community gardens, solar arrays).
How is disturbed surface estimated for P&A wells to determine oil and gas “location”? Is setback
measured from well bore or edge of previous well operations?
• The buffer would be measured from the outer edge of the oil and gas location, which is defined
(in the proposed code language) as: “(1) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility
has disturbed the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas
operations, or both; or (2) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility intends to
disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas
operations, or both, and such facility or operations have received all required permits prior to
submission of a residential development plan for the construction of dwellings or high
occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and gas facility or operations,
even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas facility or conduct operations has
yet to occur on the site.”
• “Oil and gas facility” is defined (in the proposed code language) as: “equipment or
improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production,
withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas. This term shall include
equipment or improvements associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned, and
plugged and abandoned wells.”
IMPACTS
What is the impact of plug and cap failure in terms of concentrations and risks? What overall impacts
were seen in the 7-8% of plugged and abandoned wells that failed? For those that failed, how long did
the leakage occur before it was detected, and would monitoring have allowed mitigation to occur early
enough to significantly reduce the impacts of the failure?
• Failure rates, concentrations, risks, impacts and timelines would be highly variable depending on
the characteristics and geology of the field, the age of the well, how it was plugged, and other
site-specific conditions. Numerous studies have been conducted related to wellbore integrity
and failure rates, though staff has not been able to find any that include information for
Colorado oil and gas wells. Failure rates worldwide, based on various studies, range from 1.9%
to 75% depending on the location, type of production, age and other factors.
• There is a distinction between well barrier failure (a single point of failure that does not lead to a
leak) and well integrity failure (failure of multiple barriers that leads to a leak). Well integrity
failure is far less common than well barrier failure.
• For all Colorado leak incidents that staff is aware of, the leaks have been from gas associated
with wells, and the failure in Berthoud was due to impacts from nearby horizontal drilling. Very
little gas is associated with the oil produced in Fort Collins, and the oil is not naturally
pressurized, as it requires water flooding and pumping to bring water and oil to the surface.
4
Can the City commit to ongoing monitoring of P&A wells to include sampling of groundwater from
installed groundwater well by developer, soil sampling and soil gas sampling? You may have answered
this last month, but maybe the specific details regarding who performs monitoring and how often
should be explained again.
• Such a commitment would need to be made by City Council and funding would need to be
provided via the biennial budget or another funding mechanism. Such a monitoring program
would require additional staff and financial resources. Staff has not explored how ongoing
monitoring would be potentially completed by the City of Fort Collins, though the monitoring
that is currently occurring in Longmont and planned for Broomfield could be used as models.
• Staff plans to propose a budget offer for the 2019-2020 budget that would fund initial site
investigation and research for a number of plugged and abandoned wells, but would not include
site sampling or ongoing monitoring.
How will testing and remediation be accomplished if P&A wells are on private property outside of
development site?
• It would be the obligation of the developer to work with adjacent property owners to conduct
site investigation, sampling and remediation (if needed). If contamination issues are found,
remediation resources from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) may
also be available.
• If adjacent property owners are not cooperative, the decision maker for the project could
consider a Modification of Standard depending on site-specific considerations and if it has been
determined there is no contamination on the development site itself.
CODE
What is the appropriate language if the code requirement would be based on a minimum distance that
cannot be altered by variance?
• The exact language would need to be determined/reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, but
would be similar to, “This section shall not be subject to the Modification of Standards
procedure described in Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code.”
In your initial presentation to the AQAB last year, you indicated that setbacks would be measured from
property lines, not property dwellings. Is the proposed code consistent with this?
• In the current code measures the buffer to the corner of the nearest occupied dwelling, which is
consistent with how COGCC measures buffers for new wells. The AQAB asked staff to consider
measurement to the property line instead at their December meeting.
• The proposed code changes do not change how the buffers would be measured (still measured
to the nearest occupied building) in order to maintain consistency with COGCC and to avoid
significantly impacting very large properties (e.g., parks, natural areas, agriculture sites).
City code seems to indicate that the buffer area is fenced off so that people cannot enter. Is that
correct? If so, is any kind of signage required to indicate he purpose of the fence?
• That is correct; the purpose of the fencing is to prevent public access. The code (current and
proposed) does not contain language requiring any kind of signage, though public safety or
notification signage would be allowed.
5
• Under the proposed code changes, plugged and abandoned wells that meet the requirements
for a reduced buffer would be exempt from the fencing requirement. This would allow the
buffer area to be used for public benefit (e.g., park space, community gardens, solar arrays).
Can you please review the requirements for notification if buildings are within 1000 ft. of P&A well? Is
there a way to inform residents of High Occupancy Building Units, since owners may not be on-site?
• Currently notification occurs via the recorded subdivision plat for any development sites within
1,000 feet of a well. This information is publically available on the City’s website, but it would be
a property owner, resident or tenant’s responsibility to locate the plat.
• An additional form of notification is proposed in the updated code changes, which would
require information about the well to be included in a covenant for any new
properties/buildings within 1,000 feet of the well. This information would appear during a title
search during the purchase of a property, and is also information that an owner or resident
could look up themselves.
• In 2017, the City sent a notification letter to all property owners within 1,000 feet of an existing
well. It would be the responsibility of those property owners to notify any residents or tenants
that were not directly contacted. Well locations are readily available online at:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline
Section 3.826(C)(4)(c)(i)(B) says that “such plan may be required to include” five specific items? Why
would all five not always be required? Under what condition would some not be required?
• An applicant would be required “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.” The exact details of the sampling plan may vary depending on site-specific
conditions or new technology that comes available. For example, the COGCC already has exact,
known locations for some plugged and abandoned wells, so a site survey and historical research
may not be needed.
Karen moved and Jim seconded a motion to support the reduction of the vector index to 0.5.
Motion failed, 3-4-1.
The motion failed due to the Board expressing concern over a lack of data. The Board would like
quantifiable data regarding the potential reduction of pesticide use or in human cases associated with
the proposed reduced threshold.
Mark moved and Vara seconded a motion to maintain an index threshold of 0.75 with the expectation that
this year be used as a pilot study to provide more substantial evidence for a decrease in the threshold.
Motion passed, 7-1-0.
Jim moved to add amendment below to above motion:
Jim stated that this issue can be revisited if AQAB members are provided rationale for the reduction
in vector index based on EPA risk assessment, CDC guidance, local epidemiology, or vector index
and incidence data and other quantitative inputs to decision-making and ecotoxicology impacts.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Oil and Gas - Land Use Code Updates
The Board continued its discussion regarding a recommendation for proposed updates to the Land Use Code
associated with development near oil and gas operations. Mark presented a draft recommendation based on
the Board’s previous discussion. Two options within the recommendation required further specification by
the Board:
Option #1: implement setbacks consistent with those designated in COGCC setbacks (500 ft) between
existing development and new oil and gas operations.
Option #2: take into consideration the documented health impacts of producing oil and gas operations and,
following the leads of some other cities, implement setbacks of 750/1000/1500/2000/2500 feet for new
residential development around existing oil and gas ops and 750/1000/1500/2000/2500 for High Occupancy
Building Units around existing oil and gas facilities.
Mark moved, and Chris seconded a motion to implement setbacks consistent with those recommended by
City staff for new oil and gas operations [Option #1 above]
Motion passed, 6-2-0.
The Board reiterated the reservations that they previously discussed regarding the implementation of
setbacks for new residential development around existing oil and gas operations. The primary concerns
discussed included the lack of data available to justify setback distances and the specifications associated
with alternative compliance options. The consensus is that it will be easier to make a recommendation once
the CDPHE health risk assessment on emissions from oil and gas operations has been released in summer of
2018.
The Board also discussed the opportunity for changes in setback distances by variance. Rebecca noted that
there is currently a process to apply for a variance, stating that all standards in that section of the code are
modifiable by the decision-maker based on the criteria that changes cannot be detrimental to the public
good, they must be equal or better than the current plan or are nominal or non-consequential. Rebecca cited
a recent variance granted (for Waters Edge), which was based on the condition that they plug and abandon
the well. Variance compliance and alternative compliance are different mechanisms.
Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Minutes April 16, 2018
Jim moved, and Arsineh seconded the motion to incorporate language into the Board’s recommendation that
setbacks from active wells are not eligible for variances.
Motion passed, 6-2-0
Mark moved, and Greg seconded the motion to implement the same default setbacks for plugged and
abandoned wells as for operating wells [500 feet]
Motion passed, 7-1-0
Vara moved, and Mark seconded the motion to prohibit alternative compliance until risks associated with
plugged and abandoned wells can be characterized
Motion withdrawn
Jim and Cassie discussed the previous motion (which was subsequently withdrawn) to prohibit
alternative compliance. Cassie noted that the downside to removing alternative compliance is that
there’s no longer an incentive to plug and abandon active wells. It also eliminates the opportunity to
obtain test results.
Mark asked for clarification on the rules of plugging and abandoning wells and what the benefits of a
developer doing so would be.
- Cassie stated that if an operator is done producing from an active well, then they need to plug and
abandon the well according to COGCC rules. If a developer encounters a previously plugged and
abandoned well, then the testing must be performed for the reduced setback. For a previous
development, the developer at Waters Edge initiated a process to plug and abandon active wells
on the property for reduced setback. The benefit to the community is that they remove an active,
operating well.
Greg and Arsineh discussed the time between plugging and testing, noting that this time frame may
have significant effects on the results depending on what’s being tested. For example, ground water
moves very slowly, but soil gases move relatively quickly so timing may prove to be significant.
Jim noted that dramatic reductions in setbacks will create a potential for reduced property values in
the future; however, the risk incurred at various setback distances was still not clear.
- Cassie replied that the well failures documented in literature are not for the same kind of wells
present in Fort Collins, so it is difficult to predict changes in property value. We currently have
development that preceded the current land use code requirements, with building right up to these
old wells.
Greg asked where City Council stands on this issue.
- Cassie stated that during the last code change, Council chose to match COGCC specifications.
The current proposal would update code to match recent COGCC updates.
The Board discussed concerns with contamination and the involvement of COGCC. Cassie noted
that the COGCC has a program to react to orphan well issues, including remediation. Fort Collins
has dead oil which must be actively pumped to the surface, so a well failure would not be expected
to include spurting oil, etc. It is not clear the exact liability that COGCC would take on with regards
to property values, etc.
Staff follow up: Cassie will send a revised version of recommendation to Board based on the changes
agreed upon at this meeting.
Board members should review the recommendation and come back with a clear idea of what they would like
to include.
AGENDA ITEM 3: City Council Future Committee Meeting on Boards and Commissions
Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Minutes April 16, 2018
Page 2
AGENDA ITEM 1: Oil and Gas - Land Use Code Updates
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, presented the results of community outreach and proposed
code changes for consideration. This item is scheduled to go before Council on June 5, 2018. She is hoping for a
recommendation from the Board.
Currently, Prospect Energy is the only operator within the City and most oil and gas activity is
concentrated in the Hearthfire neighborhood in northeast Fort Collins. There are 10 active wells within
City limits and 16 within the growth management area. There are 20 abandoned wells within City limits
and 30 within the growth management area.
Code changes under consideration include:
Increase buffer requirement for residential development near existing oil and gas operations from
350’ to 500’. This change is consistent with current state regulations.
Add a buffer requirement of 1000’ for high occupancy buildings near oil and gas operations
including public/private schools, nursing facilities, hospitals, life care institutions, correctional
facilities and child care facilities. This change is also consistent with current state regulations.
A reduced setback (minimum 150’) near plugged and abandoned wells if specific requirements
are met (via alternative compliance:
o a site survey confirms the well location
o confirmation that plugging or re-plugging the well meets current state standards
o soil, air and groundwater sampling are performed regularly
o installation of permanent monitoring equipment for future use
o the area is deemed safe for residential development
Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners
Current COGCC plugging requirements:
“Plugs must permanently prevent migration of oil, gas, water, or other substance from the
formation or horizon in which it originally occurred.”
Spaces between cement plugs should be filled with water, mud or other fluids of sufficient
density to maintain appropriate pressure levels
Cement plugs must be a minimum of 100’ long and extend at least 100’ above each “zone” to be
protected
Cement plug required from surface to 50’ in depth
Permanent markers at surface
Current disclosure includes a radius note on the plat that shows all properties within 1000’ of an existing
well. City staff are proposing an additional requirement for a recorded declaration of all properties within
1000’ for future property buyers.
Outreach included:
The City mailed notifications to every property owner within 1000’ of any active or plugged well,
Emailed stakeholders and developers,
Developed an online questionnaire,
Created a City-wide posting on Nextdoor
Offered one-on-ones to residents.
Public Comment
Majority support increased buffer around active wells
Majority concerned about reduced buffers around plugged/abandoned wells, health impacts and
long-term failures
Majority agree that additional research and sampling is required
Discussion
Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 2018
Page 3
Chris asked what is done with sampling data and if there are certain monitoring standards that must be
met for alternative compliance. If sampling results are high, would a reduced setback be allowed?
Rebecca responded that exact techniques/methods are not detailed within codes because technology
and data standards change over time. The resolution of the code, as explicitly specified within its
purposes and goals, is to adequately protect residences and mitigate any harmful contaminants. If
high levels of contaminants or leaks were discovered, they would be reported to the state/COGCC
and a reduced buffer would likely be denied unless remediated.
Arsineh noted that it is common for casings to fail over the long-term and enquired whether the City
could monitor for such failures over the long-term, especially in soils and water?
At this time the proposed code changes would only requires initial sampling by the developer; no
long-term sampling measures are stipulated, nor have they been budgeted for. City Staff has been
exploring Longmont’s model; their program conducts initial sampling, followed by subsequent
annual monitoring at all wells to check for soil vapor and ground water contamination. The
equipment to sample soil and water can be easily installed and the City has already priced such
equipment.
Arsineh enquired about the point from which setback distances were measured.
Rebecca responded that setback distances are determined from the overall operation site, including
the well bore, the pad and any equipment involved in the operation.
Mark and Rebecca discussed the issue that occurred in Firestone which originated from a cut flowline
attached to an active gas well. There may be flowlines coming from abandoned wells in Fort Collins, but
if there are, any new development would have to identify those.
Vara enquired whether or not residential child care facilities fall under the high-occupancy designation
with regards to the 1000’ setback rule.
Staff Follow-Up: Rebecca will clarify how the state defines childcare operations; it likely depends upon how
they’re licensed.
Vara asked when these codes would take effect and who they would impact.
Rebecca stated that the new requirements would only apply to new development projects and would
be paid for by the developer; the new buffers would not apply to existing structures. Furthermore,
the majority of plugged and abandoned wells are already developed, so it’s unlikely that there will be
a lot of new development in such areas as there is not much room for infill.
Harry asked if the financial cost/benefits of the proposed code changes have been calculated.
Rebecca provided a cost per site breakdown and stated that there is a high incentive to perform
testing to attain the 150’ setback radius; as much as ~16 acres of developable land could be gained
by complying with testing and reporting requirements.
Karen asked if the City will require developers to utilize certain companies for testing, and if the City
would consider performing the monitoring work themselves.
Rebecca replied that the City cannot endorse a private contractor for any work, but they can review
qualifications. She noted that they don’t currently have staff with the expertise to perform ongoing
monitoring and that Council would have to approve funding to hire such staff members. This has been
discussed.
Matt asked if there is anything written in code that allows it to evolve with state setback changes?
Rebecca responded affirmatively and noted that the language in the new code is meant to be flexible
enough to change with COGCC requirements. The City will continue to evaluate this code as more
information becomes available.
Matt expressed concern that annual testing may not be frequent enough. Residents could potentially be
Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 2018
Page 4
exposed to harmful emissions for extended periods of time between testing. He asked if the new code
would allow customer concerns or complaints to drive more frequent testing at sites that have been
approved for a reduced buffer. For example, if residents noticed the emission of a strong odor, would they
have the power to force immediate testing (and mitigation)?
Cassie replied that the state would likely respond and ask for sampling at such a time. She went on to
note that if a developer encounters a plugged and abandoned well that they were previously unaware
of, they must take ownership of it, especially if it was damaged during construction.
Mark asked if Fort Collins has the authority to specify setbacks that surpass the State’s.
Rebecca responded that other local communities have adopted buffer requirements that are higher
than the State’s requirements and that Fort Collins could as well, but she noted that it could generate
legal challenges from developers.
Mark requested more data regarding failure rates of plugged and abandoned wells and asked who is liable
for the resulting safety and air quality impacts.
Rebecca cited a 7-8% failure rate of plugged and abandoned wells based on data from a study in
Alberta, Canada.. Longmont has found that chemicals used during remediation have greater impacts
on soil and groundwater than well leaks have had; however, there are not currently many studies on
this topic.
Jim and Rebecca discussed the setback distances adopted by other cities. Longmont has adopted 750’,
Thornton has adopted >1000’, but many communities still don’t require buffers. Jim expressed a desire to
see data regarding the effects to air quality and groundwater at each of the proposed setback distances and
would like to understand the COGCC and Longmont’s methodology for choosing these distances.
Vara also expressed concerns about mitigation for natural disasters affecting oil and gas infrastructure and
area integrity.
The Board decided that they are not ready to make an official recommendation at this time. Members would like
to know exactly how and why the proposed setback distances have been chosen, what constitutes a well failure,
and what the potential health impacts associated with a failure are. CDPHE is currently working on a health risk
assessment on emissions from oil and gas operations that will be released in 2018. Rebecca noted that these
setback distances can be reevaluated after the study has been released. The Board will make a recommendation
at the next meeting after discussing how setback distances are chosen with Rebecca.
Staff Follow-Up: Rebecca will provide more information about how setback distances were chosen at the next
AQAB meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Board Elections
Harry moved, and Jim seconded a motion to elect Mark as the Chair for the next term
Motion passed, 8-0-0.
Mark moved, and Harry seconded a motion to elect Vara as the Vice Chair
Motion passed, 8-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Discussion Items
Coordination with other committees
The AQAB previously decided to participate in the Economic Advisory Committee project to organize
Air Quality Advisory Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 2018
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY
BOARD
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017
Location: Colorado River Room, 222 Laporte Ave.
Time: 5:30–8:00 p.m.
For Reference
Mark Houdashelt, Chair
Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398
Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison 970-416-2648
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Arsineh Hecobian None
Mark Houdashelt, Chair
Harry Edwards
Chris Wood
Tom Griggs
Vara Vissa, Vice-Chair
Gregory Miller
Jim Dennison
Greg Clark
Staff Present
Cassie Archuleta, Staff Liaison
Guests
Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner.
Call to Order: 5:35 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
Tom moved and Harry seconded a motion to approve the October minutes with corrections.
Motion passed, 9-0-0.
____________________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA ITEM 1: Oil and Gas Setbacks
Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner presented overview of proposed code changes under
consideration relating to setbacks for new development near oil and gas operations.
Presentation
The City is considering several code changes related to oil and gas development. Current proposals
include:
Remove references to the 2013 hydraulic fracturing moratorium.
Increase setback requirements for new development projects near existing, active oil and gas
operations from 350 ft. to 500 ft.
Reduce setback requirements for new development projects near plugged and abandoned wells from
350 ft. to 100 ft.
Fort Collins does not have authority over the permitting or regulating of oil and gas wells; that is done by
the State. Fort Collins can determine reciprocal setbacks, which are the distances between new land
development and existing oil and gas operations. Current code specifies a 350-ft. buffer for new
development. Proposed code change would increase to 500 ft. for active wells to be consistent with the
state standards for new wells. A second proposed code change would reduce the reciprocal setback for
plugged and abandoned wells to 100 feet.
Discussion
Do we keep an inventory of these wells?
o The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) keeps maps of wells, but
accuracy of older locations is questionable.
What do the 20 known plugged and abandoned wells in Fort Collins look like?
o Plugged and abandoned wells look like the surface. They are plugged below the ground with a
possible surface marker. They are capped below the surface, usually covered by grass and
difficult to identify. Surveyor’s would be able to find, but not totally obvious. States have
pulled together documentation and they continue to update this documentation on both active
and inactive wells.
Why do the wells in Weld County have a wall around them?
o These are sound, light and noise barriers required by the They are required to be 32-ft. barrier
walls. The well’s operating hours are curtailed if located near neighborhoods.
What is the meaning behind the 500-foot selected state standards? Would 250 feet make a difference
in air quality?
o Possibly. Depending upon the site, the reduction of the concentration of an air contaminant
can be significant. A health risk assessment is being performed using some of the newer data
from a front range study.
There is a school near Greeley. That school building is the distance indicator to the well, with a
playground being in between. This makes the distance closer to the individuals, children. Property
line indicator seems more beneficial.
o The Land Use Code uses the building as the indicator. We have worked with builders to use
the property line and are considering changing the code to reflect this as well.
Are wells in clusters or individual?
o Fort Collins generally has one well per site. Some new well pads in other communities have
upwards of 30 wells.
The 500-ft. setback may be more appropriate for small communities. Has 1,000 ft. been suggested for
high occupancy uses (e.g., hospitals, schools, nursing homes)?
o This will be considered in the code updates.
Exposures and risks need to be evaluated as concrete will degrade over time. Can we place a
requirement for buyers to know what is around them? Press the Developers to notify buyers?
Perform their due diligence?
o The City currently requires notification on the subdivision plat. However, this may not be the
best way to notify future property owners, so staff is exploring alternatives.
o Maybe the history of a well should be placed in the property deed, as it passes from owner to
owner.
Who is monitoring the abandoned wells?
o Soil and gas monitoring requirements were built in beyond the State’s specifications for the
Water’s Edge development. Previous plugged and abandoned wells are not monitored.
Longmont is looking into monitoring their plugged and abandoned wells.
What is the schedule for City Council?
o This is not on the six-month calendar as yet. Staff are meeting with various boards to take the
temperatures from those boards and conducting an online survey and drop-in sessions to
gather community input. Once input has been compiled, staff will determine next steps and a
timeline for board recommendations and City Council.
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas has online survey available and schedule for drop-in conversations with City
staff regarding the proposed setback changes.
_______________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA ITEM 2: Annual Report
Mark Houdashelt, chair, led a discussion on the Annual Report. The final report is due by
January 31, 2018. This report was sent out to members, consisting of 3 sections. Feedback and
suggestions for changes requested for the rough draft.
Discussion
Board members expressed comments:
Was an Executive summary needed? Would that give the document a higher likelihood of being
read by the City Council?
o There is usually not a one-paragraph Executive report.
Section 3 shows that this is a very active board.
The annual Report discusses how Board activities address items in the work plan in depth.
All goals have been accomplished for the year.
The 2nd Section of the Annual Report was added with intent of outlining the additional board
member meetings and activities outside the scope of regular meeting attendance.
The Board discussed various ways to shorten or improve the Annual Report but decided to wait until next
year to make any major format changes. The Board chair agreed to seek feedback from the Council
Liaison regarding the usefulness of the various types of information presented under the current AQAB
Annual Report format.
Staff follow-up: Board suggested that a standard template be developed, and Cassie Archuleta offered to
look into it.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Board Updates
The Board discussed the potential use of E-Bikes on City bike trails. City law is not currently in
accordance with new State law. At this time, E-bikes can be ridden on the City trails only if the
motor is off or the rider has a disability. Limited research has been performed on E-bikes; primarily
related to safety and not air quality. Boulder has allowed E-bikes on their trails. Some have
recommended there be speed limits on the trails if E-bikes are allowed there.
Mark brought up discussion regarding the potential for the AQAB to focus more on climate change.
He noted that Ross Cunniff suggested that a subcommittee possibly be created to provide more
1
Updates to Oil and Gas Buffer Regulations
Rebecca Everette, Sr. Environmental Planner
August 21, 2018
City Council Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENT 8
Recommended Changes
1. Increase buffer requirement for residential development near
existing oil and gas operations (from 350 ft to 500 ft)
2. Add buffer requirement for “high occupancy building units” near oil
and gas operations (1,000 ft)
3. Allow a reduced setback (150 ft min) near plugged and abandoned
wells if specific requirements are met (via alternative compliance)
4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners
2
Current Oil and Gas Operations
Current Operations:
• One operator – Prospect Energy
• Exclusively oil production (97% water, 3% oil)
• Limited flaring of gas, very low potential for
combustion or explosions
Existing Wells:
• 16 active wells (10 in city limits)
• 30 abandoned wells (20 in city limits)
Source: http://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline (10/1/2017) 3
Well (producing, injecting, shut-in or abandoned)
City Limits
Fort Collins
Background
• Land Use Code does not regulate:
• Siting and permitting of new wells
• Oil and gas production / operations
• Land Use Code does regulate:
• Setback of new development near
existing wells (active and abandoned)
• Fencing, landscaping and screening
measures
• Disclosure to future property owners
4
Reciprocal Setbacks / Buffers
• State setbacks for new wells:
• General development: 500 ft
• High Occupancy Building Units: 1,000 ft
• Current Fort Collins buffer around existing wells:
• Residential development: 350 ft
• Proposed code updates to match State:
• Residential development: 500 ft
• High Occupancy Building Units: 1,000 ft
* if State setbacks increase, City buffers would automatically increase to match
5
Plugged & Abandoned Wells
• Wells vary in age, production level and techniques, site conditions
• No known issues with Fort Collins P&A wells, some issues seen
in other Colorado communities
• Risk of leakage difficult to quantify, varies greatly based on
context
• Impacts from expansive soils unlikely
Important to understand history and conditions at each well
location
6
• Plugged and abandoned wells have been
permanently removed from operation
• Proposed code update: Allow a reduced
buffer (150 ft min) if verified that:
• Soil and groundwater have not been
contaminated by oil and gas activities
• Reduced buffer would not pose a greater
health/safety risk for residents
• Remediation has been completed, if necessary
• Well repair or re-plugging completed, if needed
7
Alternative Compliance –
Plugged & Abandoned Wells
Incentive for Site Sampling / Remediation
8
Buffer Radius Area (ac)
Area Gained w/
150’ buffer
150 ft 1.6 ac -
500 ft 18.0 ac 16.4 ac
1,000 ft 72.1 ac 70.5 ac
• Est. cost for research and sampling: $16,000
• Est. cost for plugging and abandoning a well: $84,000
Disclosure to Future Property Owners
• Proposed addition:
• Recorded declaration on titles
for all properties within 1,000 ft
of existing well
9
Community Outreach
• Mailing to affected property owners
• Email to stakeholders and developers
• Online questionnaire
• Citywide posting on Nextdoor
• Drop-in sessions to talk with staff
• Discussions with Planning & Zoning Board, Air Quality Advisory Board and Natural
Resource Advisory Board
• Individual phone calls and emails
Over 1,100 people directly contacted
10
Recommended Modifications
• Based on board input, the following changes were made to proposed
code language:
• No parks, playgrounds, recreational fields or public gathering spaces
allowed in buffers
• Require 5 years of annual monitoring (for P&A wells)
• Certify that the site is free from contamination and is safe for
residential use
• Require professional third-party opinion on the safety of a reduced
setback
• Require remediation of environmental contamination, well repair, or
re-plugging if necessary
11
Staff Recommendation
1. Increase buffer requirement for residential development near
existing oil and gas operations (from 350 ft to 500 ft)
2. Add buffer requirement for “high occupancy building units” near oil
and gas operations (1,000 ft)
3. Allow a reduced setback (150 ft min) near plugged and abandoned
wells if specific requirements are met (via alternative compliance)
4. Create an additional means of disclosure to future property owners
12
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE 3 OF THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING BUFFERING
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO OIL AND GAS FACILITY
LOCATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City
Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding
of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future
amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the
purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding
to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have
continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the
Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain
issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Residential Buffering Land Use Code
requirements are to ensure the health and safety of the residents of development in close
proximity to oil and gas facility locations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code
amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 3.8.26 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
3.8.26 Residential Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units
(A) Applicability. These standards apply only to applications for that include
residential development 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
[Insert Effective Date of Ordinance] 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.
-2-
(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 which 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 the distance from the outer edge of an
existing oil and gas operation site location to the nearest wall or
corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit occupied
building proposed in the residential development. The term
existing oil and gas operation site location shall include the impact
area of any well that has received all required permits prior to
submission of the residential development plan, even if drilling has
yet to occur on the site. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved
areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1) above.
-3-
(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 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.
-4-
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:
1) Site survey, historical research, and/or
physical locating techniques to determine
exact location and extent of oil and gas
operations and facilities.
2) Documentation of plugging activities,
abandonment and any subsequent
inspections.
3) Soil sampling, including soil gas testing.
4) Groundwater sampling.
5) Installation of permanent groundwater wells
for future site investigations.
6) 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
-5-
that the following actions be completed by a
qualified professional before development may
occur, including but not limited to:
1) Remediation of environmental
contamination to background levels.
2) 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.
(bd) 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 existing oil and gas operation location,
then the following requirements shall apply:
1. Aat 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 well 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 operation 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.
-6-
(ce) Fencing. If any residential development is proposed to be located
within five hundred (500) feet of an existing oil and gas operation
location, and if an existing fence does not surround the oil and gas
operation location, the developer must erect a fence that restricts
public access to the oil and gas location must be erected by the
developer along the property boundary between the oil and gas
operation location and the development that restricts public access
to the oil and gas operation.
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
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
-7-
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:
350 500
feet
1.25
375 525
feet
1.00
400 550
feet
.90
6 Shade Trees
425 575
feet
.80 .75 .85
7 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs ***
450 600
feet
.70
5 Evergreen Trees
475 625
feet
.60
35 Shrubs (Type 2)
500 650
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
Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the
addition of three new definitions which read in their entirety as follows:
High occupancy building unit shall mean any building type listed in the Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission definition of a High Occupancy Building Unit set forth in
the Code of Colorado Regulations.
Oil and gas facility shall mean equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and
gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or
-8-
processing of oil or natural gas. This term shall include equipment or improvements
associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned, and plugged and abandoned
wells.
Oil and gas location shall mean: (1) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility
has disturbed the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and
gas operations, or both; or (2) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility
intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil
and gas operations, or both, and such facility or operations have received all required
permits prior to submission of a residential development plan for the construction of
dwellings or high occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and
gas facility or operations, even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas
facility or conduct operations has yet to occur on the site.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 21st day of
August, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of September, A.D.
2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 4th day of September, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
• Potential for long-term failure of wells
• Adequacy of state regulations and inspections
Eliminated automatic buffer reduction for plugged
and abandoned wells; developed alternative
compliance option with specific sampling,
monitoring and performance requirements instead
buffers
• Supported 1000’
buffer
• Supported
measuring buffer to
nearest property
line, rather than
nearest occupied
building
• Do not allow
variances to
setbacks
3. Allow decision
maker to consider a
reduced buffer
around abandoned
wells, if additional
site testing occurs
and the site is
deemed safe for
residential
development (150’
min buffer)
• Did not support
staff
recommendation
• Consider buffer
reduction
requests on a
case-by-case
basis only
• Determine site
sampling and/or
monitoring
requirements on
a case-by-case
basis only
• Supported staff
recommendation with
additions
• Require identification
of responsible party if
plugged well fails
• Add requirements for
repair, annual third-
party monitoring, and
bonding to address
any future well
integrity issues
• Require regular
inspections
• Did not support
staff
recommendation
• Apply same buffers
as for active wells,
with no variances
allowed