HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.05 Impact analysis'" VALERUS 4-502 E Sections u
Impact Analysis Article IV, 4-502 E.!. Adjacent Property A copy of the appropriate portion of the Garfield County Assessor's Map is provided under a separate tab (please see Tab F: Assessor's
Maps). Garfield County Assessor's GIS data was used to create the following table identifying parcels located within 200 feet of the subject parcel boundary. Parcel No. Owner Owner Dwellingl
Acres Primary Ownership Direction Name Address Land Use Type 240107100127 K.R.K. 6606 Half 01588 Dry Farm, Private South LTD Moon Bay Ad Dr. Windsor, CO 80550 240108400129 Marvelle 7238
CR 1/600 Irrigated Private Southeast Couey 315 Silt, Farmland (8/10) and CO 81652-Kelly 9640 Wilbur (2/10) 240105300228 Marvelle 7238 CR 11137 Grazing Private Southeast Couey 315 Silt,
CO 81652-9640 217931400355 Marvelle 7238 CR 01160 Wasteland Private East Couey 315 Silt, (8110) and CO 81652-Kelly 9640 Wilbur (2110) 217931100354 Marvelle 7238 CR 01160 Wasteland Private
East Couey 315 Silt, CO 81652-9640 217932300139 Richard H. 247 Bel 0/80 35 AIC to Private Southeast and Isabel Grene Dr. LlTAC W.Graham Fisherville, VA 22939-9622 217930100522 Scott
W. 1831 0/826 Meadow Private North and Linda Railroad Hay Land S. Ave Rifle, Brynildson CO 81650-3203 217724300398 Airport 312 AABC, 1/1119 FarmAg Private Northwest Land SteA PUD Partners
Aspen, CO Limited 81611-2568 217736200345 Benzel 980 011992 Dry Farm Private West Land, Saddlehom 1 fRO Resources (orporalion
) ) Parcel No. Owner Owner Dwelling! Acres Primary Ownership Direction Name Address Land Use Tvne LLLP Rd Sedona. AZ 86351 The attached table lists all mineral rights owners for the
subject property. Article IV, 4-502 E.2. Adjacent Uses Adjacent uses (within 1,500 feet) primarily consist of oil and gas and agricultural activity (grazing and range lands). The proposed
use will not impact activities conducted on adjacent properties. The proposed use is consistent with uses in the surrounding area. Two existing compressor stations nearby (within 0.6
miles of the proposed station) are larger than the proposed facility. An existing slug catcher/pig launcher and associated tanks and secondary containment are located on Parcel I, directly
west of the proposed compressor station. An existing well pad is located directly south of the proposed compressor station. Numerous natural gas pipelines are located within about 1,500
feet of the proposed facility. Free-range grazing may occur within 1,500 feet of the proposed facility, but was not observed during any site visits to the property. Article IV, 4-502
E.3. Site Features Site features including soils, vegetation, and terrain are detailed in various reports included in the supplemental information. Vegetation primarily consists of introduced
and native grasses and forbs. There are several areas of bare ground or graveled areas on the site as well. Terrain is mostly flat with very little relief. The project area is located
between two unnamed ephemeral tributaries that drain northeast into Mamm Creek. Article IV, 4-502 E.4. Soil Characteristics Soil surveys conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) indicate that the proposed facility (Parcels I and 2) would be constructed on the Potts loam soil series (NRCS 2005). The Potts loam series is common on valley sides,
benches, and mesas, and is comprised of alluvium derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. Erosion potential is moderately low. Potts loam soils are found on slopes ranging from
3 to 6 percent. Article IV, 4-502 E.5. Geology and Hazard Soils in the project area are moderately expansive. There are no other geological or other hazards in the project area. Article
IV, 4-502 E.6. Effects on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply The proposed project will not require a source of water during the operation or construction of the facility. Therefore,
no demand will be placed on local water resources. The project will produce water in the process of gas compression. Dehydrator units will evaporate some water as water vapor. Excess
water will be removed by truck as needed, in accordance with federal and state law. 2 fRO Resources (orporation ) J
) ) ) Article IV, 4-502 E.7. Effects on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas The facility has been designed to eliminate the potential for produced water, fuels, and other chemicals
used at the compressor station to spill and impact the groundwater. Secondary containment will be used as required. The facility is covered by an area-specific Spill Prevention, Control
and Counter measures plan (SPCC); this document is attached in Section J: Supplemental Materials. Article IV, 4-502 E.8. Environmental Effects Environmental effects resulting from the
project are addressed in the Wildlife Impact Study for the Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station prepared by ERO. The report concludes that there are no federally listed threatened,
endangered, or candidate species known to occupy the project area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area, minimal impacts to wildlife are anticipated. About 1.62 acres
would be included in the grading and drainage plan. The existing environmental conditions are described in the Land Suitability Analysis and various reports contained in the supplemental
information. Each of the factors that are required to be considered in the Impact Analysis is discussed below. Article IV, 4-402 E.B.a. Determil/atiol/of the IOl/g term ami short term
effects aI/flora ami faul/a Approximately 1.62 acres of disturbed grassland would be converted to a compressor station and associated gravel driving surfaces for a period of about 25
to 30 years. A portion of this would be revegetated slopes (about 0.25 acres) that are reseeded during the appropriate season following construction. Grassland vegetation types would
be restored on those slopes, so that the long-term impact on vegetation would be about 1.37 acres. The footprint of the facility has been minimized as much as possible through careful
design. Impacts to the vegetation in the project area would slightly reduce forage available for wildlife. Short-term impacts would be about 1.62 acres, and long-term impacts would be
about 1.37 acres. However, the existing disturbed state of the project area vegetation limits its value to wildlife. Other impacts from noise could occur. Increased noise and human presence
during the construction phase of the project could result in temporary avoidance by wildlife. These impacts would be temporary and minimal. There would be very limited increased noise
during operation of the compressor. Existing noise at the site is about 53 DbA from existing noise sources east and west of the project area. Future compressor station noise from the
proposed site would be about the same magnitude. Due to low speeds on area roads (25 mph) and the limited time period for construction, the increase in traffic during construction is
not expected to result in an increased risk in animal-vehicle collisions. Finally, the project area would be fenced to prevent medium to large animals from entering the site. The proposed
fence would further minimize wildlife impacts. For additional detail, please see Section J: Supplemental Materials. 3 fRO ResDuu8s Corporation
) ) Article IV, 4-402 E.8.b. Determillatioll of the effect 011 sigllificallt archaeological, cultural, paleolltological, amI historic resources A Class I cultural resources file search
has been completed for the project area. There are no known resources, and the site has limited potential for any archaeological, cultural, paleontological, or historic resources to
be found. Additional information is in the attached memo (See Section J: Supplemental Materials). Article IV, 4-402 E.8.c. Determillatioll of the effect 011 desigllated ellvirollmelltal
resources illcludillg critical wildlife habitat. As detailed in the Wildlife Impact Study for the Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station prepared by ERO, critical habitat will not be
adversely impacted by the project. The project will be located in an area that has been previously disturbed, and does not provide critical habitat. Article IV, 4-402 E.8.d. Impacts
011 wildlife amI domestic allimals through creatioll of hazardous attractioll, alteratioll of existillg lIative vegetatioll, blockage of migratioll routes, use patterns, or other disruptiolls
The project area would be fenced to prevent wildlife and domestic wildlife from entering the Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station. The fenced enclosure would be small, and no disruption
or blockage of migration routes would occur. No areas of native vegetation would be impacted, as all vegetation has been impacted by existing land uses, including oil and gas uses and
prior grazing uses. Article IV, 4-402 E.8.e. Evaluatioll of allY potelltial radiatioll hazard that may have beell idelltified by the State of COUllty Health Departmellts There are no
potential radiation hazards associated with this parcel or facility. Radiation was tested, and is reported in the Geology Report (see Section J: Supplemental Materials; Geology Report
page 2). Article IV, 4-402 E.8.f. Spill Prevelltioll COlltrol allll Coullter Measures plall, if applicable The project area will be included in the Valerus SPCC plan. Please see Section
J: Supplemental Materials. Article IV, 4-502 E.9. Traffic Due to the limited impacts of traffic generated by the proposed project, improvements to County Road 333 are not required. Traffic
will be greatest during the 12 week construction schedule. During construction, it is anticipated that 7 to 8 one ton construction trucks will enter the site on a daily basis. Additionally,
at the beginning of the project about 2 commercial haul trucks with trailers will access the site daily for the first week of construction and the last week of 4 fRO Resources (orporolion
) -'
) ) ) construction should see a similar traffic pattern. On two different occasions during the project, a 90 ton crane will be deployed, along with the support truck, to make several
lifts. To minimize impacts, Valerus has committed to the following: I. Flagging will be conducted during delivery of compressors, or any other activities that require semis. The flagger
would be positioned on the hill crest east of the existing driveway. 2. During construction, there would be safety signage placed 200 feet east of the existing driveway entrance on CR
333. Signage would read, "Trucks entering roadway" or other appropriate language would be used. Work signage would be adequate for gravel and concrete delivery (i .e., no flaggers would
be required for those activities). 3. Oversize vehicle permits would be required for any overweight or overlength vehicles. Once construction is complete, traffic will be reduced to
one construction one ton truck on a daily basi s. In summary, there would be minimal increased traffic from project implementation. The majority of traffic impacts would occur during
the construction period. The proposed project will not increase traffic by 20 percent on any County, State, or Federal roadway or intersection. Article IV, 4-502 E.I0. Nuisance Adjacent
lands will not be impacted by the generation of vapor, dust, noise, smoke, vibration, or glare. ) Vapor, Dust, and Smoke: neea:'A:iE:£ermiIlll2ll)}Production of dust would be limited
to construction periods, and all disturbed areas would be revegetated and monitored. Smoke would not be produced by the compressor station facility. Vapor emissions would be in compliance
with Federal and State Standards. Noise: Existing noise at the site is a product of nearby compressor stations (located 0.3 and 0.6 miles from the property parcel). Existing conditions
were tested and are reported in the attached Noise Study (see Section J: Supplemental Materials). Existing noise at the site ranged from about 46 to 53 dBA during the measurement period.
Given existing conditions, the proposed compressor station must meet the limits for "Light Industrial" zone as required by COGCC Rule 802. The rule for "Light Industrial" states that
the use will not emit noise levels in excess of 65 dBA at a distance of 350 feet from the noise source, or at the nearest property line whichever distance is greater. Based on detailed
noise analysis, the noise level at 350 feet from the proposed facility will be about 53 dBA, well below the limit of 65 dBA. Site noise modeling also predicts that dBC noise levels would
comply with required standards. Glare: The proposed compressor station would not result in increased glare or nuisance lighting. Proposed enclosures would not have windows and would
be non-reflective surfaces in a neutral beige color. The facility would be equipped with partial cutoff fixtures that limit visibility and glare by shielding the upper portion of the
fixture and directing most light downward. Lighting 5 ERO Resources Corpora/ion
) ) would be turned off at night unless personnel are onsite working. It is anticipated that most of the monitoring, maintenance, and other on-site operations following construction
would be conducted during daytime hours, and use of exterior nighttime lighting would be limited. Vibration: The design for the support of the compressor units is being conducted by
a Colorado PE. Minimization of vibration is an important component in the maintenance and operation of natural gas compressors, as excess vibration causes increased maintenance expenditure
and associated downtime for replacement of bearings and other compressor components. Vibration will meet requirements set forth in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of2008,
as amended (ULUR). The Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station will be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments
at any point of any boundary line of the property. Article IV, 4-502 E,I1. Reclamation Plan Valerus estimates that the proposed facility will be operated for about 25 to 30 years during
development and production of natural gas in the area surrounding the project. Upon termination of the project, the area will be reclaimed as outlined below: • Equipment and structures
will be removed. • Valerus will remove all safety and storm water BMPs ) • The site will be returned to approximate pre-facility conditions by re-contouring and re-) vegetating. Top
soil will be redistributed and reseeded (see seed mix below) • Valerus will monitor the site to ensure that 70% of the pre-existing vegetation cover is achieved, per the requirements
of the CDPHE Stormwater Permit. Prior to implementation of reclamation, the weed management plan should be reviewed. Any noxious weed populations on site should be monitored and controlled
prior to reclamation. Precautions such as vehicle cleaning should occur per the weed management plan to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. The proposed facility location has little
topographic variation-approximately 10 to 15 feet variation across the 1.62 acres within the grading plan. In compliance with Garfield County regulations, abrupt angular transitions
and linear placement on visible slopes will be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading will be contoured so they can be re-vegetated, and will be planted and will have vegetation established
and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native
vegetation capable of supporting the post-disturbance land use (see seed mix below). 6 fRO Resources (orporation
The preferred method of seeding would involve drill seeding with 6-to IO-inch spacing between drilled rows. Fertilization would take place at the discretion of the surface owner and
reclamation contractor. Seed mixes would be obtained from an approved source and be certified weed free. Straw or other mulch cover may be used to further provide temporary cover after
seeding. Imported straw would be certified weed free. Fall seeding would occur from approximately September 15 until ground freeze or snow pack prevents critical seed soil coverage;
spring seeding would be completed by April 15. Table 1. Recommended Seed Mixture for Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Species Name Common Name Synonym Lb/ac (PLS) % PLS/ac Native
Perennial Cool Season Grasses Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye I 9% Elymus glaucus blue wildrye 5 45% Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass Agropyron 2.7 trachycaulum 24% Festuca idahoensis
Idaho fescue 0.5 5% Pascopyrum smithii western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 2 18% ~his rate is for drilled seed and should be doubled for broadcast seeding. II.l 100% Seedbed Preparation
and Slope Reconstruction. Cut and fill slopes are minimal due to the relatively flat existing topography. Mulch should be crimped into the soil surface. Furrowing will be done by drilling
seed perpendicular to any slopes. All compacted areas will be ripped to a depth of 18 inches with maximum furrow spacing of 2 feet. During reclamation operations, all disturbed areas
will be monitored and kept free of Garfield County and State of Colorado List A and B noxious weeds. Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used to mitigate
erosion and sedimentation of areas outside of the project right-of-way (ROW). BMPs would be installed at the discretion of the construction contractor and in accordance with the Storrnwater
Pollution and Prevention Plan for the project (see tab J: Supplemental Materials). Shrubs and other debris cleared from the project area would be disposed of at the landowner's discretion.
Erosion controls would be accomplished through a combination of construction techniques, preservation of natural vegetation where feasible, and structural practices. Actual BMPs used
would vary subject to the professional judgment of the construction contractor, project engineers, on-site construction supervisor, and the reclamation contractor. BMPs would remain
installed until final stabilization success criteria have been achieved. 7 fRO Resouf(6s (orparolion
) ) Topsoil would be removed and stockpiled on the southeastern corner of Parcel 3 for future reclamation, per Garfield County Reclamation Standards (Garfield County 2010). Topsoils
separated and salvaged would better preserve the native seed bank and help aid in reclamation efforts. Any topsoil pile set aside would be revegetated to prevent it from eroding and
to help maintain its biological viability. When operations at this facility cease, the stockpiled soil would be redistributed across the site and would be restored back to preconstruct
ion conditions to blend naturally with the contours of adjacent undisturbed areas. Reclamation bonding in the amount of $4,000 per acre ($6,000 for the proposed compressor site) will
be required. Total Reclamation costs are anticipated to be about $6,500 to $9,000. Additional Information is in the Storm Water Management Plan (see tab J: Supplemental Materials). 8
fRO Resources Corporation ) )
Environmental Impact Study for the Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for Valerus Compression Services, LP 919 Milam, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77002-5386
and Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation 29844 Stingley Gulch Road Hotchkiss, CO 81419 October 2010
~nvironmental fmpact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................
................................ 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .....................
................................................................. 3 3.1 TOPOGRAPHy ........................................................................................................
3 3.2 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 3 3.3 CLIMATE ...........................................................
...................................................... 4 3.4 VEGETATION ......................................................................................................... 4 3.5
SOILS ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.6 WILDLIFE ..........................................................
...................................................... 7 3.7 AGRICULTURE ...................................................................................................... 7 3.8
WATER .................................................................................................................. 10 3.8.1 Surface Water .......................................................
............................................ 10 3.8.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 10 3.9 AIR QUALITy
....................................................................................................... 10 3.10 NOISE .................................................................................
.................................. II 3.11 VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ II 4.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS .......................
................................................................. 12 4.1 VEGETATION .......................................................................................................
12 4.2 SOILS ..................................................................................................................... 12 4.3 WILDLIFE ....................................................
.......................................................... 12 4.4 AGRICULTURE .................................................................................................... 13
4.5 WATER .................................................................................................................. 13 4.5.1 Surface Water. ..................................................
................................................ 13 4.5.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................... 13 4.6 AIR
QUALITY ....................................................................................................... 14 4.7 NOISE ..........................................................................
........................................... 14 4.8 VISUAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 14 5.0 SUMMARy .........................
....................................................................................... 15 6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................
.............. 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Soils in the Vicinity of the Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station . ............................................................................
................................................................ 6 Figure 2. Elk Winter Concentration and Severe Winter Ranges in the Vicinity of the Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor
Station .......................................................... 8 Figure 3. Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Severe Winter Ranges in the Vicinity of the Proposed Valerus Hunter
Mesa Compressor Station .................................................... 9 2 ERO Resources (orporolion
) ) ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION ) Environmental Impact Study Va/erlls Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Gmjield County, Colorado Valerus Compression Services, LP (Valerus) is proposing to construct
and operate a 5-unit natural gas compression station for the gathering of natu ral gas located on private lands in southern Garfield County, Colorado. Garfield County requires that,
prio r to construction, Valerus shall prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Wildlife Impact Study (WIS). This EIS describes resources in the vicinity of the proposed compressor
station and expected impacts to those resources. The WIS is prov ided as a separate report. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Hunter Mesa Compressor Station project consists of the construction
and operation of 5 compressor units powered by natural gas. The compressor station would be the collection point fo r natural gas produced in the project vicinity. Natural gas entering
the compressor station will power the engines assoc iated with the compression to reduce emiss ions. The compressor station will be located on p0l1ions of three small parcels at the
end of an existing access road that currently allows access to an adjacent facility. The project is situated in the Piceance Basin south of the Colorado River and Rifle, west of Glenwood
Springs, and nOl1h of the Garfie ld/Mesa County Line. Specifically, the proposed compressor station is located along County Road (CR) 333 in Township 6 South, Range 92 West in Section
30. The project area location is illustrated in Figure I (map) and Figure 2 (aerial photo) in Section 4.0 of this submittal. A more detailed description of the project including staffi
ng, transpol1ation, and operations is provided in the Project Narrative (see tab E) of this submittal. 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 TOPOGRAPHY The e levation of the proposed compressor
station location is approximately 5,800 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project area is located on the northern edge of Hunter Mesa and is just south of where the mesa drops down
to the Colorado River valley. The proposed compressor s ite is located within the upper reaches of an unnamed tributary to Mamm Creek which eventually flows into the Colorado River.
The project site has litt le re lief with elevations in the general project area ranging from approximately 5,800 to 5,840 feet above msl. 3.2 GEOLOGY The project area is located in
the Colorado Plateau, which covers approximately 14,000 square miles in the Four Corners region of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The Colorado Plateau is drained by the Colorado
River and its tributaries, and is bounded by the Uinta and Rocky Mountains to the north and northeast, the Rio Grande Rift Va lley to the east, and the Mogollon Rim to the south, which
separates the Colorado Plateau from the Basin and Range 3 ERO Resources (orporation
) .... .. } ,.onmental lmpaCI Study Vaferus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station GO/field COl/nty, Colorado Province (Foos 1999). The western boundary is a broad transition zone with the Bas
in and Range Prov ince. The project location is on Hunter Mesa, which is comprised of the Wasatch Format ion and Ohio Creek Formation. These formations are composed of claystone, mudstone,
sandstone, and conglomerates. Broadway and Louviers Alluviums, which consist of gravels and various alluvium s, can be found on the subj ect prope.ty (U .S. Geological Survey 1979).
3.3 CLIMATE Historical climatic data for the project area was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center (20 I 0) for Rifle, Colorado fo r the years 19 10 to 2004. The Center,
located approximately 4 miles northwest of the proj ect area, is the closest weather station. Average monthly temperatures range from a low of 23 .1 degrees Fahrenheit (0 F) in January
to a high of7 l.l ° F in July. The monthly mean maximum temperature ranges from 36.8° F in January to 90.2° F in July; monthly mean minimum temperature ranges from a low of 9.4° F in
January to a high of 52.0° F in July. The average annual precipitation, both liquid and frozen, is 11 .61 inches with most precipitation occurring between July and October. Annual average
snowfall is 38.6 inches. The amount of annual moisture in the region can often make revegetation more difficult and requires timing of planting to take advantage of any available moisture.
3.4 VEGETA TlON An ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) biologist surveyed the project area in April, May, and July 20 I O. The project area SUPPOltS 3 main vegetation/land cover types, including
sagebrush scrub, introduced grassland and bare soil in or surrounding the project area. Within the project area, big sagebrush (Artemisia Iridenlala) and rabbitbrush (Ch,y solhamnus
spp.) are the predominant shrub species. Grass species observed mixed in the shrub community include cheat grass (Allisanlha leclorum), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolalus), western
wheatgrass (Pascopyrulll slllilhii), slender wheatgrass (EIYlllus lrachycaullls), and crested wheatgrass (Agropy ron crislallllll ). Other species observed include larkspur (Delphiniulll
spp.), frin ged sage (Arlelllisia jrigida), pussy toes (Anlennaria media), and wild onion (Alliulll spp.). The introduced grassland community consists of a mix of various wheatgrasses
previously listed, as well as introduced fo rbs including purple mustard (Chorispora lenella), kochia (Bassia sieversiana), chicory (Cichoriulll in/yhus), bindweed (Convolvulus arvellsis),
and Russian thi stle (Salsola auslralis). The proposed Hunter Mesa Compressor Station is situated on three small lease parcels (Figure 3; located in Section 4.0 of this submittal). Parcel
I is mostly occupied by bare soils, graveled access and parking areas, and other existing natural gas facilities. Parcel 2 is about 1.5-acre. Parcel 2 contains 1.2 acres of low-functioning,
previously disturbed soils that are now vegetated with cheatgrass, and about 0.3 acre of sagebrush scrub/grassland. Parcel 3 was observed to be relative ly undisturbed. It appears that
within the last 10 years, portions of the parcel may have been tilled and seeded; those portions are vegetated primarily with mixed wheatgrasses. 4 fRO Resources Corporation ) )
) ) ) \ vironmentallmpacl Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station GO/field COlln/y, Colorado A noxious weed survey identi fy ing any county-listed 0 1' state-listed noxious weed
populations present in the vicinity of the proposed fac ility or adj acent areas was conducted and identified cheatgrass and chicory, state listed C species, as occurring in the project
area. State listed C species are "species for which the Commiss ioner (in consultation with the state noxious weed advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties)
will develop and implement state noxious weed management plans designed to supp0l1 the efforts of local governing bodies to facilitate more effective integrated weed management on private
and public lands. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued spread of these spec ies but to provide additional education, research, and biological control resources to
jurisdictions that choose to require management of List C species" (Colorado Department of Agriculture 2007). Garfield County does not list cheatgrass on the Noxious Weeds List, but
does list chicory. Additional information is prov ided in the attached Noxious Weed Management Plan (see tab J: Supplemental Materia ls). 3.5 SOILS Soil surveys conducted by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicate that the proposed fac ility (Parcels I and 2) would be constructed on the Potts loam soil series (NRCS 2005). The Potts loam series is
common on valley s ides, benches, and mesas, and is comprised of alluvium derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. Erosion potential is moderately low. Potts loam soil s are found
on s lopes ranging from 3 to 6 percent. Parcel 3, which conta ins Potts loam soils along its southern boundary, consists of the PottsIIdefonso complex soil series (western portion of
parcel) and the Olney loam series. The PottslIdefonso series cons ists of a stony clay loam found on alluvia l fans, mesas, and valley s ides on slopes ranging from 12 to 25 percent.
The erosion potential for these types of soils is moderately low to low. The Olney loam series consists o f loam/sandy clay loam/gravelly sandy clay loam found on valley sides and alluvial
fans. Slopes range from 6 to 12 percent and the erosion potential for these types of soils is moderately low to low. 5 fRO Resour(es (orporation
) Legend _ Township Boundary = = Access Rood C Propo,ed Ct:lrl1Xessor Sta tion l nvironmenta,lmpac, Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Gmfield County, Colorado , ........~
.~ .= =====~":".. ......' . c.: ======'.~~~ Su1.: 1:24.000 Sue "bp: USOS 7.5' T~r .. phi¢ MoJp Ov~ang'es: Huf\ler Meu , CO(I '83); Si!l CO ( IGoe2): IMie CO{ I\152); North ~bnl'" Peak.
CO i l~O) O.1I'fiel<l County. Co'or,lojo UTM Zone 131'1, NAOal Metl!fs S~temblH Ig . 2007 N SWCA Pilon, : ~OMS7. 1 1al F,,: lO3.4al. 1245 W'_. liwc~ .'~n Figure 1. Soils in the Vicinity
of the Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station. 6 fRO Resources Corporalion ) j
) ) ) Envil'onmenlallmpac/Study Valenls Hunter Mesa Compressor Slation Garfield County, Colorado Other soil types found in the general vicinity, but not within the project area, include
the Arvada loam (COGCC 20 I 0). Figure 4 depicts the distribution of these soil types. 3.6 WILDLIFE Big game species that may utilize the project area include American elk (Cervus elaphus),
black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOWj 20 10). These species are considered to be economically
important wildlife managed by the state. Black bear and mountain lion are not expected to exist within and around the project s ite. The proposed project area is located within American
elk severe winter and winter concentration range (Figure 5) as well as mule deer severe winter range (Figure 6); it is also located just south of a mule deer winter concentration area,
which surrounds the site to the east, nOI1h, and west. The site has no trees or cliffs; therefore, few raptors are likely to nest within or around the project site, but may forage or
migrate through the project area. Some of these species include northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). A few of the threatened, endangered, candidate,
and special concern species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USrWS) and CDOW that are known to occur in Garfield County have the potential to occur in the project area.
These species include the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys la/poides), Townsend's big eared bat (Plecotus townsendii), ferruginous hawk, and sage-gruuse (Centrocercus urophasionus).
Although these species have the potential to be found within the project area, they are not likely to occur at the project site due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat and cover.
The 20 10 surveys did not identify any of these species on the project site. Garfield County listed wildlife species and impacts to wildlife species are described in more detail in the
attached Wildlife Impact Study. 3.7 AGRICULTURE The project area and surrounding vicinity is classified as "Prime agricultural lands if irrigated" (Garfield County 2002). This classification
is concentrated to areas mostly to the south of CR 333, although suitable land for irrigated crops does exist along the north side of the roadway where the compressor station is proposed;
however, there are no irrigated or agricultural crops in the project vicinity. Past agricultural activities in the project area include cattle, horse, and other grazing activities. Signs
of past seeding and possible sagebrush chaining were observed. 7 fRO Resou{(os (orporation
-TO'l\:nship Bounaory • -'" Compressor StoHon ) [Z2J '.'\'inter Concentration I!3:J Severe WWller . } ronmental Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado
'.000 Sc.lle: I:eo.ooo ant Map: r~AI P 20M :2mAeri~ tl'l1 ~ery O.l~ld eoClnty. Colorado UTM Zoo. 1lN. NADel. ~" :.r5 ~teOlber I~. 2007 N 2~5 Inle(o«\.n e:w .. Sliftl Broom~.:d. CO SOO~
1 Phon.: ~~M~1. 1 1 S1 F~~: 30J."a7. ' 2~5 WIfW.SWCI.oom Figure 2, Elk Winter Concentration and Severe Winter Ranges in the Vicinity of the Proposed Valerns Hunter Mesa Compressor Station.
8 ERO Resources (orporation ) )
) -To'A,"ship Boundary • "'''P'''''' COITp'essor $to:ion ) 1221 .... 'nler Cont entfotion . vironmenlallmpact Study Va/erus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station GGlfield COllnty, Colorado
Sc," : 1:24.000 S .. s.e M .. p: USGS 1 6' Topogr"'Ph;o J.bp OuWrI "'ll!n : Hun,., "" I'. CO ( 1' ~): SIft. CO ( l go2~ R,f1e CO( '1I~2~ No"~ M Mllm Pull. co ( l PrOO) G.ltl'i.1cI Coun:y.
Color ,~ un " lon, 13N. NADel, M.t,r$ S.p.n!b9. '0, 2007 N Ina.r'«,.n 8 'v\1 .. Sut. !OO SroorNl,ld. co 8002 . PIIotI. : 303.4S1.I IU Fu: lOl.4 87 . 1 24 ~ WIIW. 5WClo,Com Figure 3.
Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Severe Winter Ranges in the Vicinity of the Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station. 9 fRO Resources (orporation
3.8 WATER 3,8.1 Surface Water l nvironmenta' Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Gmfield COllnty, Colorado The project area is located in the Colorado Headwaters-Plateau
Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 14010005) of the Upper Colorado Sub-basin. The Colorado Headwaters-Plateau Watershed consists of small tributaries that originate in the surrounding
plateaus and mesas and drain into the Colorado River through a network of deeply-incised canyons. The Colorado River is located 3 miles north of the project area. Tributaries of the
river flow generally south to north, draining Hunter Mesa, which is bordered by the Dry Creek drainage to the west and the Mamm Creek drainage to the east. The project area is located
between two unnamed ephemeral tributaries that drain northeast into Mamm Creek. These surface drainages are surrounded by sagebrush and convey runoff in response to local precipitation
events. No wetland vegetation nor signs of hydric conditions were detected in these drainages in or adjacent to the project site. The closest surface waters to the project area are the
Dry Creek drainage, approximately I mile to the west, and the Mamm Creek drainage, located approximately 1.5 miles to the east. No stream flow and water quality data is available for
the immediate project area. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates a flow gauging station on Beaver Creek just west of the project area. This collection station is located
two drainages west of Dry Creek and provides an indication of monthly flows and available surface runoff for the area. Data for water years 1953 to 1982 from the USGS gauging station
at Beaver Creek shows a mean monthly discharge ranging between 0.83 to 21.00 cubic feet per second (cfs). Mean stream flows increase sharply from April to May (2.6 to 16.0 cf.) and peak
in June at 21 cfs (USGS 2007). Surface runoff potential and available precipitation in the project area would be of similar timing to the flow levels of Beaver Creek. Months with higher
monthly discharges would be those months that receive the highest amount of precipitation, which is typically observed during the late summer months. 3.8.2 Groundwater Groundwater in
the Piceance Basin is obtained from the Uinta-Animas aquifer; the Mesaverde and Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer systems lie just east of the project area. Groundwater use in the basin includes
recreation, tourism, agriculture, livestock, industry, and domestic or public supply (Colorado Water Conservation Board 2006). No permitted water wells are within I mile of the proposed
compressor station site and the facility does not have any water wells, discharge, or waste disposal points associated with the project. All waste generated at this site will be disposed
of off-site at an approved waste disposal facility. 3.9 AIR QUALITY According to the Air Pollution Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), all Colorado
communities are in attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CDPHE 2007). Prior to 2007, most of the non-attainment areas were located along the Front Range in communities
associated with significant urban development. Given the 10 fRO Resources (orporation }
) ) ) ) Environmental Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield COllnly, Colorado rural characteristics of the project area and lack of urban areas, attainment of
National Ambient Air Quality Standards is likely to continue in the project area. Oxidation catalysts and other best available control technologies would be implemented to maintain air
quality standards. A copy of the State Air Quality Permit application is in tab J: Supplemental Materials. 3.10 NOISE Garfield County's Unified Land Use Resolution requires that noise
levels from pipelines and associated equipment must comply with Colomdo Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's (COGCC) Rule 802 for Aesthetics and Noise Control. Noise limits that apply
depend on time of operation (daytime/nighttime), adjacent land use, and proximity to residences. The Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station would operate 24 hours per day, is within
an area dominated by oil and gas uses, and is greater than 1 mile from any residence. Therefore, the "Light Industrial" zone standards per COGCC Rule 802 apply to the facility. For this
zone, Rule 802 requires a noise limit of 65 dBA must be met at a distance of350 feet from the noise source or at the nearest property line, whichever is greater. A noise survey was completed
to measure existing noise at the site. Measured noise levels ranged from 46 to 53 dBA during the data collection period. Existing noise sources in the project vicinity include two existing
compressor stations to the west and east of the proposed project. Additional information is in the Noise Compliance Analys is (see tab J: Supplemental Materials). 3.11 VISUAL RESOURCES
The visual setting in the project area is dominated by oil and gas operations. Existing facilities include well pads, compressor stations, and other piping, tankage, and maintenance
facilities. An EnCana well pad occurs directly south of the proposed compressor station. A slug catcher/pig launcher facility is located directly west of the proposed project, and two
existing compressor stations are 0.3 and 0.6 miles from the site. The proposed compressor station location is situated on a broad mesa and is bordered by a hill immediately to the north
of Parcel 3. The compression units would be housed in individual acoustical compressor building. Each building would be about 32' 3" by 28'3" with 18' Eave height. Noise control equipment
includes exhaust silencer packages, cooler silencer packages, sound absorbing interior walls, and sound-attenuated building ventilation openings. Buildings would be equipped with fan-forced
acoustical building ventilation packages. With the highest point of the compressor building expected to be below 24 feet in height, and the location of the compressor units in the southeast
corner of Parcel 2, the adjacent hillside is expected to shield the compressor building from views from the north. A motor control center (MCC) for facility operations also would be
located on the site. A fence would enclose the compressor station, appurtenant facilities, and the adjoining existing slug catcher/pig launcher and associated storage tanks. Because
the two facilities will share an access road, enclosing both facilities in a single perimeter fence is most logical. The perimeter security fence for the project will be a 7 foot tall
chain link fence with I foot of 3 strand barb wire at the top. This fence will have a 24 foot wide 11 fRO Resources (orporalion
) "_. , );,.onmental lmpact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station GO/field COllnty, Colorado double drive gate at the entrance and will have 48" wide personnel emergency egress
gates at celtain locations. The fence and all gate locations are shown on the Plot Plan. Paint and color schemes that mirror the surrounding environment would minimize visual impacts.
The proposed color for the facility is a neutral beige color. The proposed color is consistent with other structures in the area, and with the surrounding landscape. The proposed site
location is situated far enough away from the northern edge of Hunter Mesa that it would not be easily discernable from the Interstate 70 viewshed corridor. Interstate 70 is located
to the north of the project area and is bounded by the Colorado River to the nOlth and the northern slopes of Hunter Mesa to the south. The project area is located 2.5 mi les south of
Interstate 70 and 3 miles south of the Colorado River. There are no housing units within I mile of the proposed faci li ty. 4.0 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS 4.1 VEGETATION The majority of the
project site has been previously disturbed. New disturbances include about 1.62 acres, with about 0.25 acres being temporary disturbance. About 1.62 acres of disturbed grassland would
be disturbed. Due to the small amount of proposed surface disturbance, no significant losses to the vegetative community are expected. There is always an increased potential for noxious
weed infestation as a result of any construction activity. For this reason, if new surface-distu rbing activities are proposed during the growing season, a update to the noxious weed
survey would be conducted. Appropriate weed management (per the Noxious Weed Management Plan) would be implemented to address any weed populations. Mitigation and management for noxious
weeds is discussed in the attached Noxious Weed Management Plan (see tab J: Supplemental Materials). 4.2 SOILS Construction of the proposed compressor station would result in a total
of 1.62 acres of soil disturbance. All available topsoil from Parcels I and 2 would be removed and stockpiled on Parcel 3 for future reclamation. Project reclamation and soil erosion
controls are discussed further in the project Storm Water Management Plan (see tab J: Supplemental Materials) and Reclamation Plan (Article IV, 4-502 E.II. Reclamation Plan). Due to
the small size of the affected area, stable soil types, and shallow slopes, impacts to soil are expected to be small and minor. Drainage would be managed and divelted to a stormwater
detention pond to avoid downstream impacts from increased impermeable surfaces on site. 4.3 WILDLIFE The compressor station construction would result in a short-term slight increase
in noise, human presence, and vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the site location. Potential wildlife impacts resulting from this increased activity include the possible disruption
of wildlife activity in the 12 fRO Resources (orporation ) )
) ) JnVil'onmenlallmpacl Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Slaaon Gmfield COllnly, Colorado immediate project area during construction. Following construction, it is anticipated that
noise levels, human presence, and traffic would return to existing conditions and become routine, and that impacts to wildlife would be minimal. In addition, the loss of avai lable foraging
habitat following construction will be minimal due to the lack of native vegetation on site. Most of the impacted vegetation community is disturbed grassland, which offers limited forage
opportunity. The amount of habitat that would be removed for the proposed project is small in relation to the amount available in the surrounding area. Impacts to wildlife from construction
activities are expected to be temporary and minor. Impacts to wildlife from the operation of the compressor station would be long term and minor as a result of limited activities in
the area. Larger game animals are expected to adapt to the site and adjust to routine patterns and operations and long-term noise impacts would be mitigated at the s ite. Impacts are
not expected to cause a reduction in big game populations and are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing, or a loss of viability of sens itive species. More information on
impacts to wildlife can be found in the WIS within this document. The proposed project would include a site perimeter fence to prevent most wildlife from entering the site and being
exposed to higher noise leve ls. Valerus's company policies such as no dogs and firearms would provide an additional element of protection against wildlife harassment. 4.4 AGRICULTURE
Agricultural activities existing at the site are limited to rangeland/grazing. The proposed project would remove a small amount of forage area. The proposed project would disturb about
1.62 acres, most of which is di sturbed grassland and has minimal forage value. A perimeter fence would exclude livestock grazing in the project vicinity. 4_5 WATER 4_5.1 Surface Water
Potential impacts to surface waters include increased surface runoff, erosion, and sedi mentation due to surface disturbances in the project area during construction. The project grading
plan would address storm water issues to minimize the potential impacts to surface waters. The Master Drainage Report is in tab J: Supplemental Materials. Due to the distance between
the project area and surface waters, impacts from sedimentation, runoff, and erosion would be slight. With the implementation of erosion control measures during construction, reclamation
measures outlined in the Storm Water Management Plan, site design minimizing surface runoff potentials, and natural vegetation buffers, adverse impacts to surface waters down gradient
of the project area are not expected. Hazardous materials and other spill containment measures would be employed, per industry standards, to mitigate for any potential spills (see attached
spec Plan; tab J: Supplemental Materials). 4.5.2 Groundwater No impacts to groundwater are anticipated as a result of the compressor station construction and future connecting pipeline
construction. The nature of the proposed project does not include any 13 fRO Resources (orporation
) Jnvironmental Impact Study Va/erus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Gatjield COllnty, Colorado water wells, chemical storage, discharge points, or injection wells. Produced waste such
as used oil and coolant would be hauled offsite to an approved disposal location in accordance with all state and federal regulations (also see the SPCC Plan: tab J: Supplemental Materials).
4.6 AIR QUALITY Prior to the construction and operation of the proposed compressor station, Valerus would acquire all necessary permits from CDPHE. Control technologies such as oxidization
catalysts, lean burn engines, and air-fuel ratio controllers would be used to control nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compound emissions. Dust abatement would occur
as needed to mitigate for particulates associated with vehicle traffic to the site. Water used for dust abatement would come from an approved source that meets industry and local standards
for road watering. These measures would minimize and avoid impacts to air quality from the proposed facility. 4.7 NOISE Hankard Environmental conducted a Noise Compliance Analysis for
the proposed project. As noted previously, the presence of two existing compressor stations contributes to existing noise levels. Existing noise ranges from about 46 to 53 dBA. New noise
sources include: I. Five (5) x Waukesha L7044GSI gas driven compressor packages 2. Five (5) x Air-x-Changer 156-EH cooler per compressor package The compressors and coolers would be
individually enclosed in acoustical buildings (see plot plan in Figures section). Each building would be about 32'3" by 28'3" with 18' Eave height. Noise control equipment includes exhaust
silencer packages, cooler silencer packages, sound absorbing interior walls, and sound-attenuated building ventilation openings. Based on the compressor, cooler, and building specifications,
Hankard Environmental completed an analysis of projected future noise levels (additional details are in the complete Noise Compliance Analysis, tab J: Supplemental Materials). According
to the analysis, noise levels from the station will be equal to or less than 53 dBA at a distance of350 feet in any direction from the station, which is comparable to existing ambient
noise levels. This is also substantially lower than the applicable limit of 65 dBA. Based on the analysis, the Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station would be in compliance with all
applicable Garfield County and COGCC noise regulations. 4.8 VISUAL RESOURCES In compliance with the County's Industrial Operations Supplement to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations,
the location is situated below a hill and at a sufficient distance away from the northern rim of Hunter Mesa to negate any visual impacts from the Interstate 70 viewshed corridor. Furthermore,
the project area is located 2.5 to 3.0 miles from the Colorado River and Interstate 70 corridor and is not easily discernable from either of these viewshed corridors. The site is also
situated at a sufficient distance from abutting property and there are no residences or occupied structures in the area surrounding the proposed facility. Final grading of the location
14 fRO Resources Corporation ) )
) ) ) 'Environmental Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Gmjield County, Colorado would blend in with adjacent slopes and vegetation would be cleared only to the extent
needed for construction. The paint scheme of the facility would be uniformly painted to match adjacent landscape and vegetation. With the implemented visual mitigation measures, no visual
impacts would be expected from the construction of the proposed facility. 5.0 SUMMARY Construction and operation of the proposed compressor station is not expected to have a significant
adverse affect on vegetation, wildlife, soils, agriculture, water, air quality, and visual resources. The site selection and facility design process has minimized the potential impacts
to surrounding environmental resources and utilized existing surface disturbances to the maximum extent possible. Noise levels are expected to be comparable to existing conditions. Construction
of the project would result in about 1.62 acres of surface disturbance, but 0.25 acre would be temporary disturbance and would be reseed on final grading. Approximately 1.37 acres of
longterm surface disturbances would result from the construction of the gravel surface required for the station. 6.0 REFERENCES Hankard Environmental. 2010. Noise Compliance Analysis
for Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Gas Compressor Station. Prepared for Phil Vaughan, PVCMI. October 7, 2010. Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2010. Colorado Noxious Weed List. Available
online at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1174084048733 &pagename=Agriculture-Main%2FCDAGLayout. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2010. Air
Pollution Control Division. Attainment/Maintenance Plans for Colorado Communities. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/attainmaintain.html. Accessed June 20 I O. Colorado Division of Wildlife
(CDOW). 2010. Natural Diversity Information Source. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Accessed June 2010. COGCC. 2010. Map Viewer; NRCS, NDIS, CDWR. Available
online at http://cogcc.state.co.us/infosys/Maps/LoadMap.cfm. Accessed June 20 I O. Colorado Water Conservation Board. 2006. Colorado's Decision Support Systems Map Viewer: Well Applications.
http://cdss.state.co.usIDNN/. Accessed August 2007. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Geologic map of Colorado. IS fRO Resources Corporotion
) . ironmenlal Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garjield COllnty, Colorado _ _ .2007. USGS Water-Quality Monthly Statistics for USGS Station 09092500 Beaver Creek
near Rifle, CO. Available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthlyl? referred_module =sw&site no= 09092500&por 09092500_ 1 =345540,00060, 1,1952-10,1982-09& format= htmUable&date Jormat=YYYY
-MM-DD&rdb_ compression=file&submitted form=parameter selection J ist. Accessed August 20 10. Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Rifle, Colorado, Period of Monthly Climate Summary.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edulsummary/Climsmco.html. Accessed August 2010. 16 fRO Resources Corporation ) )
'" YALERUS () Mineral Ownership
Mincl'al "Itcrest list -Garfield County. Colorado r<lrts of Lots 3 & 4 in Section 30-6S-92W Mary I.. Adki,,, 5408 Woodland WeSI Dcs Moines. Iowa 50265 ----" .. Joe O. & Jallice R. Anlcnson
31 JJ Momingsidc Drjvl~ Oecallsi"c. (';\ 92056 Theodore Il. & flarrici Anfcnson 4741 Rim Rock Road :--O-c-e-a"n side. C A.-'i2056 Ellen Anlen"'" Barrows P.O. Box 2581 i Ilclemh,k. CA
92342 And 7222 Sierra Avenue #322 Fontana, ('J\ 92336 ... -._._--------_ ..... _------B..I.M. I.ld "OX Ri Ilc (""uri Broomlield, ("0 80020 Kmhicen Ililhmll1 ('Ill'ulum 5241 (,hclsea
I.a Jolla. C/\ nOJ7 lIymn K. (,Iulinger 554 I.iberly Way Stocklon. CA 1)5207 Thomas II. & A'II1 (,llIlinger 1042 Lake. I'urg<rlory Drive Iluran!(o, ('0 R I 30 I .Iohn A. Craun 2212 Gallatin
Murian. II) 46953 I O!20 I 0 Ellell I 7222 .. FOlllm -.. '---1--' lmTOWS Antcnson Sierra Avenue 11122 1<'. CA 92.136-3296 '-"-------_ ... -... ----. Mario n A, AnlcnsOIl N, 102 Avenlle
a. NE 68114 1626 Omnlh -. ---Aspen Leal: LI.e P.O. B ox 148X Musta ---,,-g. OK 730M Jack B 1'.0.11 IIclenl and 26640 lIc1em mTO\\t's ox 2581 laic. CA 92342 Topsail laic. CA 'J::!J42
-=--Chari cs W, and Pally N. Brown LLC P.O. II ox 587, Marlow Oklah ollla 73055 --'ikrnic P.O. IJ Tracy. e Viola (,hllinger ox 1176 ('/\ 95.178 M<rry Lydia (,Iulinger 2856, S-a-lem-Surf
('"uri, N. E, ,ilJ{97305-27_",-,-9 _ -Dean I ). Craun 9217 I lIake . Inxic ("ourl rslield, CA 93311 ----" ... _---------,,--Phillil ) R. ("",un Wappaw Place "aSOUl!. SC 29464 1227 Ml
PI , --~ , .. ~
I (,,,;,,,, Family Trust daied 7i2U/2007 • P.O. Box 176 Dyer. NV 890 I 0 and IIC 78. Box I U .Bishop, Ci\9.~514 ..... William R. Cr'''111 n5 Place Chateau . Delray ll.caeh. FI,}H·15
i llarold & Barhara DeFore 11046 Lakeside Drive , Brooksville. 1'1. ,'IIJU I John [leFore 328 \Vashingtoll 1\ \'Cnlll~ Ames. 1/\ SOt)lO I lelta Pctrokum Corporation 37() 17th Street,
Suite 430 Denver, CO 8020.2.. ._ ._._-_ .. Eli/llbclh I'dwards 5277 Farlcy i\ wnuc Oroville, C/\ 95965 I.yda Bertha Flickuer a/kia Bertha I'lickncr I 174 7 Woodside Avenue I.akesidc.
('/\ 1J2040 ----ScoH (icissingcr 1109 E. 3'" Street Vinton 11\ 52349 Dwight Ink -13725 Collcll \1i11 Court Lausdowne, VA 20176 ---Russell aud Muriel E. Craun 845 W. Jasmine Lake Park,
1'1. 334U2 Vi"la Sue Crawli)rd 635 Ruth Way S'"s_",_l\_'il_I,,~ CA % 1,,3.::U _ _ Lucille DeFore 1507 Harding /\ venue Ames. I A 50010 Rayma IkFore Alln Lad Grove 218 SE 1(,'10 Street
A mes. Iowa 500 I () Charles Edwards, .I I' P.O. Bos 7542 Chico ('/\ 95926 Eneana Oil & (ias (tJSA) Inc. .170 17'10 Street Denver, CO 80202 Jcalln~ Alice Geissinger 28U8 L 16th Street.
Apartment 13 Des Moines. Iowa 5U316 \Vinnie Norman George Route 2. Box 125 Lincoln Arkansas 72744 Dwight & Donna W. Ink 5704 Mossrock Drive __-l-'I:.-{., .,.c kvi lie. Mao),.'"nd 20RS2
.IAKBEK LId 5957 County Rd .119 Rille CO XI650 Kelso Family LLC 9 I 7 /)u rf A ven lie Ames. IA SOO I 0 Geraldine Murclu.:la I.(lvin ! 9136 PrineL'ss A \'Cnlle I 1'I,,-gstaIT,-AZ ~R600'1
Brandon Wayne Manning 2695 COllnty Road 196 Duhlin,TX 76446_ __~ ,-------_._---_._------Dawn fv1dinda Manning IDOO Estale Circle j Allstin. TX 78737 Nanc)' Anne Mannillg 6404 Shorewood
Dri vc ArlingtOl!, TX 76016 Map2006~()K elo Mineral Acquisition Partners. Inc~ 101 North Rohinson. Suite 1000 Oklal!oma City.OK 731 Ol:5514 Bllh Nllllnan P.O. BllX 44(, (,,,Ivert. TX
77837 ._--_ .. " Diane M. & Luke Jenner 419 Camping Creek Court Chapin. SC 29036 __ _ c---c-c-c---~ Elvira M. Lavin P.O. Bllx 1172 I.akeside ~ AI'. 859-2=9 ----Ivan E. Lilllejohn P.O.
Box 242 Nuda. ('0 81424 ---~-Clinton Dewayne Manning 3<)08 Windmill .Ioshlla. TX 76058 ---1-Jamcs Iluward Manning and Dmolhy Louise.l. Manning as Trustees of the Manning Family Trust
dated 101512009 I 2408 San Oabricl Drive . Plano TX 75074 William M. Manning . .Ir 6404 Shorewood Drive ~ ~~r!ir!glon, TX 76cc O_I_6 _ MOROO Family U' 40S Rille Court llroomlield, CO
80020 Dick NOllmll1 1624 Windchime Sherwood, Arkansas n I 16 .--. --i ---I -----------.----~ Olive Rindo Nonn'lIl 311 X Wlh Street ~ ~-~-I-=~-~--Patricia Norman !lox 1-123 lles Moines,
Illwa 50122 SUll Rise Ileach. MO (,5079 ---
/-.---tvlary De Fore OITensll' in. & Waller OlknS!cin (,OO'! Redwood Drive Slorm I.ake. 1/\ 505RS Cin.:gg & L"hll")' Porkr 47~O NE 12nd Slreel Iks Moines. Iowa 50317 Milo (I . & I' dilh
A. Raub ISS05 COlintry I 'lIle Plalle ('ill'. M >' () 64079 Ikulah (leiss ingcr Schwmt/. .18 171'. Slh S Iks Moines. 'Ireel Iowa S0316 J.:alllll".'.I . Siu der 81S I Qlh SIre Wesl"es
M. cl lines. Iowa 5 0~ 65 Ka,hlee n'l'I1O mpson S,19 n. (",,",1 Jacksol1vi lie. ylknd C.R. Wesl 1'1. }22,14 Sarah M. \Va rd P.O. Box 460 LscolI<lido. C 2JS 'A <)204(, Linda Ped 4921
Lakewood Drive Norwalk 1/\ 502 11 And 5QO Pinel,"S! Drive Norwalk. 1/\ 5.0:::.2:::.:1...1:.._ ___ MlII:iorie I.. Rankin & (,ilherl R. Rankin 29 Rosel)'n Termcc ---l-'cS.a=n. Francisco.
C/\ 94118 RO(iO Family Limikd Parlnership 6606 I ial r Moon Ih, y Drive Windsor. CO S05S0 Ikllluh (kissingcr Schwartz ill c.:arc ofGrctchclI Swill 2014 :Vlaplc Circk Wesl Dcs :Vloines.
IA 50265 -Ronald L. Swaniml 4.183 E. 4!JIII Soulh Ammon. Idaho R3406 Janl'!t Yvonne \Valla(.~c &. Phinas W. Wallace 20S89 Soulh Sand Jose Road Tracy. CA 95376 -Sanl ivi. \Vard as persollal
n:prcSClltiltivc () till' ":slale-of Marion Craun JOIl!.!S 1496 ('akvo Dri vc I'sc<II,di<lu. ('/\ 92026 and 1'.0. Box 46()23X Escollliidio. CA ')2046 The I(m,: ~oi llg list ol'!'viincrallnlcrcsi
holders was n:vi~\v~d by me. ) r