The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.00 General Application Materials1 Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit Application TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC Clough NR 41-3 Pad September 16, 2024 2 Contents Project Description/Narrative ....................................................................................................................... 4 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Article 9-201 - Oil and Gas Permit ............................................................................................................. 8 Pre-Application Conference (Article 9-203.A) & Alternative Location Analysis (Article 9-203.B.1) ......... 9 Neighborhood Meeting (Article 9-203.D) ................................................................................................ 9 Oil and Gas Permit Application Materials (Article 9-204) ......................................................................... 9 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.a. Applicant’s Name and Email Address: ......................................................... 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.b. Type of Application Being Submitted: ......................................................... 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.c. Vicinity Map: ................................................................................................ 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.d. Name and Contact Information for Operator/Applicant: ........................... 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.e. Topographic Map: ....................................................................................... 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.f. Legal and Factual Grounds for Alternative Location Analysis: ..................... 11 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.g. Evidence of Liability Insurance: ................................................................... 12 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.h. Report, Study, or Plan Assessing Impacts: .................................................. 12 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.i. Additional Information Requested by Garfield County: ............................... 12 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.j Statement of Authority: ................................................................................ 13 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.k Application Fees: .......................................................................................... 14 Article IX, § 9-204.B.2.a – c Information Required by ECMC, et. al., and Traffic Study: ..................... 14 Notice of Public Hearing (Article 9-208) ................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A: Land Use Change Permit Application Form ............................................................................ 17 Appendix B: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 20 Appendix C: Topographic Map .................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix D: Certificate of Liability Insurance ............................................................................................. 24 Appendix E: Garfield County Statement of Authority / Power of Attorney ............................................... 27 Appendix F: Garfield County’s Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter ............................................ 31 Appendix G: Summary of Neighborhood Meeting for the NR 41-3 Pad ..................................................... 38 Appendix H: Memorandum of the Surface Use Agreement ....................................................................... 61 Appendix I: Lesser Impact Exemption Request Letter ................................................................................ 76 Appendix J: Alternative Location Analysis .................................................................................................. 86 Appendix K: ECMC Form 2A and Supporting Documents ......................................................................... 113 3 Submitted ECMC Form 2A .................................................................................................................... 114 Cultural Distance Map and Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(3) and Rule 304.b.(7).A .......................... 140 Location Pictures and Location Pictures Map – Rule 304.b.(4) ............................................................ 142 Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(7).A .................................................................................................... 145 Layout Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).B ...................................................................................................... 147 Wildlife Habitat Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).C........................................................................................ 160 Hydrology Map – Rule 304.b.(7).E ........................................................................................................ 163 Access Road Map – Rule 304.b.(7).F ..................................................................................................... 165 Related Location and Flowline Map – Rule 304.b.(7).G ........................................................................ 169 Geologic Hazard Map – Rule 304.b.(7).I ............................................................................................... 171 Reference Area Map – Rule 304.b.(9).B.i .............................................................................................. 173 Reference Area Pictures – Rule 304.b.(9).B.ii ....................................................................................... 175 NRCS Map Unit Description and Soils Map – Rule 304.b.(10) .............................................................. 178 Dust Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(5) ................................................................................................... 195 Transportation Plan/Traffic Assessment – Rule 304.c.(6)..................................................................... 201 Operations Safety Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(7) ......................................................................... 232 Emergency Response Plan – Rule 304.c.(8) .......................................................................................... 243 Waste Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(11) ......................................................................................... 252 Topsoil Protection Plan – Rule 304.c.(14) ............................................................................................. 267 Stormwater Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(15)................................................................................. 339 Reclamation Plan – Rule 304.c.(16) ...................................................................................................... 363 Wildlife Plan – Rule 304.c.(17) .............................................................................................................. 379 Water Plan – Rule 304.c.(18) ................................................................................................................ 407 Cumulative Impacts Plan – Rule 304.c.(19) .......................................................................................... 418 Geologic Hazard Plan – Rule 304.c.(21) ................................................................................................ 446 Biological Survey Report ....................................................................................................................... 490 Approved ECMC Form 2C ...................................................................................................................... 537 Appendix L: CDPHE Rulison Field Stormwater Discharge Permit ............................................................. 541 Appendix M: Garfield County Payment Agreement Form ........................................................................ 543 4 Project Description/Narrative Overview TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) is proposing to drill, complete, and operate thirty-nine (39) directionally drilled natural gas wells from the new Clough NR 41-3 (“NR 41-3”) pad located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. within Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private minerals. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located approximately five miles northwest of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the proposed pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The Parcel number is 2175-021-00-010 and consists of 494.610 total acres. The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) is a 564.195- acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.490-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M. in Garfield County, Colorado. Per Article 9- 203.B.1.a of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, the 564.195 acres described above includes the proposed area of mineral development, which is illustrated in the Oil and Gas Development Plan Application Lands map included below. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support the drilling, completion, and production operations of thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells; construction of a new access road; and the installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to accommodate the development of the thirty- nine (39) proposed directional wells, which will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee lease and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed/existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length. The NR 41-3 is the only location included in this Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit, however in support of the NR 41-3 pad development, TEP will utilize three (3) existing Oil and Gas Locations. The existing Federal Rulison 8 pad will be utilized as a remote support facility during completion operations, the existing NR 334-1 pad will be utilized as a centralized condensate storage facility, and the RWF 34-12 pad will be utilized as a centralized production water storage and pumping facility during production operations. The existing Federal Rulison 8 pad (ECMC Loc ID #311534), will be reconstructed within the existing limit of disturbance to support temporary placement and operations of well completion equipment and Modular Large Volume Tanks. The Federal Rulison 8 pad is located on private surface, owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, in Lot 13 of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Table of Contents 5 Table of Contents 6 Table of Contents 7 The existing NR 334-1 pad (ECMC Loc ID #324372; a.k.a. Moss-66S94W/1SWSE) will be utilized to support storage of condensate produced during long-term production of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The existing tank battery will be reconstructed, within the existing limit of disturbance, to support the installation and operation of additional tanks. The NR 334-1 pad is located on private surface, owned by Bradley and Winette Moss, in SW¼SE¼ of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The existing RWF 34-12 pad (ECMC Loc ID #324259) will be utilized as a centralized produced water storage and pumping facility during long-term production of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The existing production facilities on the RWF 34 -12 pad are sufficient to support the proposed activities. No additional construction or facility upgrades are required. The RWF 34-12 pad is located on private surface, owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, in SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Please see the NR 41-3 Pad Overview Map above for a depiction of the proposed NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location and the associated support facilities. The three support facilities will not require additional permitting considerations under Garfield County Land Use Code. To support production operations on the NR 41-3 pad, TEP will install one (1) eight-inch (8”) steel natural gas pipeline (approx. 17,897 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the existing eight-inch (8”) natural gas pipeline tie-in point, operated by TEP, located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP will also install one (1) six-inch (6”) FlexPipe/Coreline produced water pipeline (approx. 18,832 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the existing tank battery on the RWF 34-12 pad located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. In addition, TEP will install two (2) two-inch (2”) coated steel condensate pipelines (approx. 12,028 feet each) from the proposed low-pressure separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the proposed tank battery on the NR 334-1 pad located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Per discussion with Garfield County staff during the pre-application conference and the review of Article 9-101.A of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, these pipelines do not require additional permitting. Well completion operations associated with the proposed wells on the NR 41 -3 pad will be conducted remotely from the existing Federal Rulison 8 pad. Water will be transported to the Federal Rulison 8 pad via existing water pipeline infrastructure and throu gh two (2) ten-inch (10”) temporary surface water pipelines (approx. 1,174 feet each). TEP will install five (5) four-and- one-half inch (4.5”) steel temporary surface frac lines (approx. 19,843 feet each) from the Federal Rulison 8 frac pad to the NR 41-3 pad to support remote well completion and flowback operations. Recycled produced water will be pumped from existing TEP operated water management facilities to the NR 41-3 pad during well completion operations. Construction activities for the NR 41-3 pad and the associated support facilities are scheduled to begin in August 2025 and are expected to take approximately one-hundred twenty (120) days to complete. Drilling operations for the first twenty (20) of thirty -nine (39) proposed directional wells will begin in April 2026. Drilling operations are expected to take approximately one- Table of Contents 8 hundred forty (140) days and should be completed in August 202 6. Well completion operations are expected to take approximately one-hundred twenty-six (126) days and should be completed in October 2026. For the second visit, drilling operations for the last nineteen (19) of the thirty- nine (39) proposed directional wells will begin in September 2027. Drilling operations for this visit are expected to take approximately one-hundred thirty-three (133) days and should be completed in January 2028. Completions operations for the second visit will begin in February 2028 after drilling operations are complete. Completions operations are expected to take one - hundred twenty-six (126) days and should be completed in July 2028. Interim reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad will start in August 2028 and should be completed in September 2028, within six (6) months following completion of well construction and stimulation activities. Site reclamation is dependent on weather conditions and project scheduling. Development may be accelerated or delayed based on market conditions and company constraints. Article 9-201 - Oil and Gas Permit Per the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Division 2. Oil and Gas Code amendment adopted June 19, 2023, under Article 9-201.F.1., an oil and gas project that meets criteria pursuant to ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B.i. through viii. and x., and requires the submittal of an Alternative Location Analysis (“ALA”), must submit an Oil and Gas Permit. During the planning of the NR 41-3 pad, TEP reviewed the ALA Criteria outlined under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B and determined that the NR 41-3 pad met criteria viii, an Oil and Gas Location within High Priority Habitat (“HPH”) and TEP did not obtain a waiver from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH. TEP has not requested a CPW waiver to the ALA since the proposed NR 41-3 pad is a new Oil and Gas Location and CPW indicated during initial project review that an ALA should be completed to ensure that all feasible locations have bee n assessed. Therefore, an ALA is required pursuant to ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B, and a Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit is required pursuant to Article 9-201.F.1 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. TEP is not seeking a variance from noise requirements under ECMC Rule 423, or lighting requirements under ECMC Rule 424; however, TEP is seeking an ECMC Lesser Impact Area Exemption (“LIAE”), pursuant to ECMC Rule 304.d, for the Noise Mitigation Plan and Lighting Mitigation Plan requirements listed under ECMC Rule 304.c. Please see Appendix I, Lesser Impact Exemption Request Letter, for additional information on the LIAE. As required under Article 9-203.B., TEP initiated a request for a Pre-Application Conference and completed an ALA, which included the evaluation of four (4) alternative locations within the vicinity of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Table of Contents 9 Pre-Application Conference (Article 9-203.A) & Alternative Location Analysis (Article 9- 203.B.1) On July 27, 2023, TEP completed a Pre-Application Conference with Garfield County. During the meeting TEP presented the proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad and reviewed the ALA. (Please see Appendix F, Garfield County Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter, for a detailed summary (prepared by Garfield County) of discussions held during the pre-application conference meeting.) The ALA prepared by TEP includes the evaluation of all ALA criteria listed under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B, and the well location and siting requirements under ECMC Rule 604. TEP evaluated each alternative based on landscape level characteristics (i.e. slope) and mineral development potential. In addition to providing the ALA, during the pre-application conference and in accordance with Article 9-203.B.1 of the Land Use and Development Code, TEP informed Garfield County staff that they determined there are no Federal, State, or local government designated parks or open spaces within the proposed area of mineral development. TEP has reviewed both the ECMC and CDPHE spill/remediation records and did not find any environmental contamination locations within the proposed area of mineral development. There are no open ECMC remediation projects located within the area of proposed mineral development. A review of the ECMC and CDPHE spill reports did not reveal any documented incidents within the area of proposed mineral development. The proposed area of mineral development is discussed in the Overview section and depicted on the Oil and Gas Development Plan Application Lands map above. Neighborhood Meeting (Article 9-203.D) As required under Article 9-203.D. of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code and following the pre-application conference, TEP conducted a Neighborhood Meeting on August 29, 2023, after formally inviting all surface owners and tenants of all properties within 2,000 feet of the proposed working pad surface of the oil and gas location as required by Article 9-203.D. There were two surface owners that met this criterion (Clough Sheep Co LLC and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”)), but only the BLM chose to attend the Neighborhood Meeting. Please see Appendix G, Neighborhood Meeting Summary, for a detailed summary of the discussion held during this meeting. As demonstrated in the Neighborhood Meeting notes and the audio recording of the meeting included with this permit application submission, conversations with BLM were supportive of the NR 41-3 pad. Oil and Gas Permit Application Materials (Article 9-204) On August 14, 2023, prior to submittal of the OGDP application and Oil and Gas Location Assessment (Form 2A) to ECMC, TEP sent formal notice to Garfield County, the local government with land use authority over siting of the proposed NR 41-3 pad, as required by ECMC Rule 302.e and Rule 303.e.(2) & (3). The OGDP application was submitted to ECMC on October 18, 2023, and the Form 2A, 2B and 2C was submitted on November 9, 2023. Following submittal of the Form 2A, ECMC requested additional clarification and TEP resubmitted the Form 2A on July 15, 2024, with completeness determination and approval of the Form 2C on July 22, 2024. The ECMC Form 2C is attached under Appendix K. Table of Contents 10 In preparation for the submittal of this Oil and Gas Permit application, TEP determined through the ALA process that the proposed NR 41-3 pad is the preferred location, as this location minimizes the potential impact to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources, while also maximizing the potential for mineral development. The proposed NR 41-3 location also avoids the Wildlife Security NSO on BLM surface; minimizes impacts to aquatic sportfish management waters; and the surface owner is favorable of the selected location. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located more than 2,000 feet from the nearest Residential Building Unit (RBU). The nearest RBU is located more than one (1) mile from the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the proposed Oil and Gas Location during construction, drilling, completions, and long -term production operations. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration HPH, and construction of the NR 41-3 pad would create approximately 12.534-acres of new surface disturbance within a Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and compensatory mitigation have been included in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan to minimize and/or mitigate impacts to mule deer associated with the planned activities. TEP is proposing to construct the NR 41-3 pad in the Summer/Fall of 2025 and outside the CPW recommended timing limitation to avoid construction related impacts to mule deer. While the NR 41-3 pad will create new surface disturbance, TEP has designed the associated access road and pipeline corridors to take advantage of the existing disturbance of the established two-track road to minimize overall new disturbance within HPH. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is also located within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch (intermittent stream). The NR 41 -3 pad will be located 497 feet from Yellow Slide Gulch and would create approximately 1.378-acres of surface disturbance within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary. To minimize potential impacts, BMPs will be implemented at the NR 41-3 (i.e. stormwater/erosion control measures, secondary containment, etc.) to minimize the potential for downstream impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The proposed access road and pipeline corridor will also traverse through Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH. TEP will implement BMPs (i.e. dust mitigation, erosion control measures, etc.) along the access road and pipeline corridor to minimize impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters during development of this location. Yellow Slide Gulch was assessed by WestWater Engineering while performing biological surveys of the project area and they determined that Yellow Slide Gulch, in the vicinity of the proposed NR 41-3, is an intermittent stream with an Ordinary High-Water Mark, but it does not have sufficient flows to sustain fish populations. A copy of the Biological Survey Report which was prepared by WestWater Engineering is included in Appendix K. Furthermore, CPW concluded that “Yellow Slide Gulch does not currently support any populations of sportfish and is unlikely to support a sportfishery in the immediate future.” CPW supports the BMPs being proposed by TEP Table of Contents 11 to protect downstream aquatic habitats. Please see the Wildlife Plan in Appendix K for a list of site-specific BMPs and the detailed correspondence with CPW. TEP has also entered into a surface use agreement (“SUA”) with the surface owner (Clough Sheep Co LLC) to develop the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells on the NR 41-3 pad. A copy of the Memorandum of the Surface Use Agreement between Clough Sheep Co LLC and TEP Rocky Mountain LLC is included in Appendix H. In addition to the information required by Article 9 -203.B.1, which is provided in the “Pre- Application Conference (Article 9-203.A) & Alternative Location Analysis (Article 9-203.B.1.)” section above, the following information is being provided per the requirements of Article 9 - 204.B.1.a-k and Article 9-204.B.2.a-c: Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.a. Applicant’s Name and Email Address: A Land Use Change Permit Application Form is included in Appendix A and includes the applicant’s name and contact information per the Garfield County Oil and Gas Code. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.b. Type of Application Being Submitted: TEP is applying for an Oil and Gas Permit per Article 9 of Garfield County’s Land Use and Development Code. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within ECMC’s defined HPH and TEP is required to complete an ALA per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B. Pursuant to Garfield County’s Oil and Gas Code, this oil and gas location requires an approved Oil and Gas Permit from Garfield County. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.c. Vicinity Map: A vicinity map depicting the proposed location of the NR 41-3 pad is included in Appendix B. The vicinity map depicts the Section/Township/Range and nearby public roads as required by this section of the Oil and Gas Code. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.d. Name and Contact Information for Operator/Applicant: As mentioned above, a Land Use Change Permit Application Form is included in Appendi x A and includes the applicant’s name and contact information per the Oil and Gas Code. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.e. Topographic Map: A topographic map is included in Appendix C. This map depicts all applicable requirements of this section of the Oil and Gas Code. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.f. Legal and Factual Grounds for Alternative Location Analysis: Per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2), an ALA is required for the NR 41-3 pad based on the proposed pad meeting the criteria of ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B.; as the proposed Oil and Gas Location is located within High Priority Habitat and TEP did not obtain a waiver from CPW through a pre-application consultation. Per Garfield County’s Oil and Gas Code Article 9-201.F.1, which requires the submittal and approval of an Oil and Gas Permit for Oil and Gas Locations “[f]or which the ECMC will require the Applicant to conduct an Alternative Location Analysis pursuant to ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B.i. through viii. and x.,” a Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit is required for the NR 41- 3 pad. Table of Contents 12 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.g. Evidence of Liability Insurance: A Certificate of Liability Insurance is included in Appendix D. The provided insurance certificate meets the requirements of Garfield County’s Oil and Gas Code 9-211. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.h. Report, Study, or Plan Assessing Impacts: A copy of the Cumulative Impacts Plan (“CIP”) is included with the ECMC Form 2A plans and documentation in Appendix K. The CIP and the other Plans associated with the ECMC Form 2A satisfy the requirements of this section of the Oil and Gas Code. A Traffic Assessment / Traffic Study is also included which addresses “potential impacts on County service s and facilities” and the requirement in this specific section of the Oil and Code. Electricity will be supplied via portable generators during the drilling and completions phases of the project . Solar power will be utilized to energize any necessary equipment associated with production operations on the location. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.i. Additional Information Requested by Garfield County: As a result of the Pre-Application Conference with Garfield County on July 27, 2023, and TEP’s review of the provided Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter, Garfield County requested additional information be included with the application in addition to the materials required by Article 9-204 of the Oil and Gas Code. These requests for additional information will be addressed individually below. A copy of the Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter is included in Appendix F. • Garfield County stated “Lesser lmpact Exemption request for noise and light may be a concern; please provide noise and light mitigation BMPs.” A copy of the letter sent to the ECMC’s Director requesting a Lesser Impact Area Exemption request for both a Noise Mitigation Plan and a Lighting Mitigation Plan pursuant to ECMC Rule 304.d.(2) is included in Appendix I. • Garfield County requested that TEP provide “the Geologic Hazard evaluation and/or Geologic Hazard Plan (if required).” A copy of the Geologic Hazard Plan, per ECMC Rule 304.c.(21), is included with the ECMC Form 2A plans and documentation in Appendix K. • Garfield County requested that TEP “confer with CPW to determine if Garfield County could participate with the CPW consultation to localize mitigation projects.” A pre- application consultation meeting occurred on September 15, 2023, with both CPW and BLM staff in attendance. TEP invited Garfield County’s Oil and Gas Liaison Mr. Kirby Wynn to attend this meeting based on Garfield County’s request to participate. During this meeting, TEP provided details on the proposed development plan; reviewed the draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan; discussed potential impacts to sensitive wildlife in the area; reviewed best management practices; and discussed any necessary waiver s needed for planned operations. A detailed summary of this consultation is included in the Wildlife Plan in Appendix K. • Garfield County stated in the Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter that “Garfield County will confirm if a Grading Permit will be required for the project or if an Oil and Gas Table of Contents 13 Permit will suffice.” While specific guidance on the Grading Permit was not provided in the Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter, TEP has previously asked Garfield County during the preparation of another Oil and Gas Permit application if the submittal requirements listed in Table 4-201 of Article 4 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code are applicable to Oil and Gas Permit applications or are only the submittal requirements listed under Article 9-204.B.(1) to be included in an Oil and Gas Permit application. Garfield County responded to this question stating that the “applicable requirements are in Section 9-204.B.(1)”. Based on this previous response from Garfield County, a Grading Permit application is not included with the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Permit application materials since this is an Article 4 specific requirement within Table 4-201. • A Grading and Drainage Plan is listed in the Garfield County Completeness Checklist which was included with the Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter. Consistent with the statements above, a Grading and Drainage Plan is an Article 4 requirement, and a NR 41- 3 specific Grading and Drainage Plan is not included with th is application. TEP has reviewed both the Grading and Drainage Plan and Grading Permit application requirements, and believes all the information required to be included within a NR 41 -3 specific Grading and Drainage Plan or Grading Permit application is already provided in the ECMC Form 2A supporting documentation within Appendix K. A copy of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) issued Stormwater Discharge Permit certificate for the TEP’s Rulison Field is included in Appendix L as additional supporting documentation related to Garfield County’s Grading Permit application requirements. • Garfield County requested that TEP include “Any additional studies or analysis that are being conducted by TEP in support of the permit application to ECMC per Rule 304.b.(2).C and Rule 304.b. (3) through (15) inclusive, except NOT Rule 304.b. (7)(D) (Preliminary Flow Diagrams) and (7)(H) (Directional Well Plat) should be included for review by Garfield County.” A copy of the Alternative Location Analysis which was prepared for the ECMC Form 2A is included in Appendix J. All the required application materials listed within Article 9-204.B.2.a and Article 9-204.B.2.b are included with a copy of the submitted ECMC Form 2A in Appendix K. • TEP will acquire the required Small Temporary Employee Housing (STEH) and Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) permits from Garfield County prior to initiating drilling operations on the NR 41-3 pad. These permits are associated with the onsite housing that will be temporarily placed on the location for personnel during the continuous drilling operations. Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.j Statement of Authority: A copy of the executed and notarized Garfield County Statement of Authority and Power of Attorney for TEP’s Jeffrey D. Kirtland are included in Appendix E. Table of Contents 14 Article IX, § 9-204.B.1.k Application Fees: The appropriate fees associated with this Oil and Gas Permit application are included in this submittal. Article IX, § 9-204.B.2.a – c Information Required by ECMC, et. al., and Traffic Study: The required plans and supporting documentation submitted to ECMC with the Oil and Gas Development Plan and Form 2A, including the Traffic Assessment/Traffic Study, are included in Appendix K: • Submitted ECMC Form 2A • Cultural Distance Map and Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(3) and Rule 304.b.(7).A • Location Pictures and Location Pictures Map – Rule 304.b.(4) • Site Equipment List – Rule 304.b.(5): See ECMC Form 2A • Flowline Description – Rule 304.b.(6): See ECMC Form 2A • Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(7).A • Layout Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).B • Wildlife Habitat Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).C • Hydrology Map – Rule 304.b.(7).E • Access Road Map – Rule 304.b.(7).F • Related Location and Flowline Map – Rule 304.b.(7).G • Geologic Hazard Map – Rule 304.b.(7).I • Geographic Information System Data – Rule 304.b.(8): See Included Flash Drive for Files • Land Use Description – Rule 304.b.(9): See ECMC Form 2A. • Reference Area Map – Rule 304.b.(9).B.i • Reference Area Pictures – Rule 304.b.(9).B.ii • NRCS Map Unit Description and Soils Map – Rule 304.b.(10) • Best Management Practices – Rule 304.b.(11): See ECMC Form 2A or Rule 304.c. Plans • Surface Owner Information – Rule 304.b.(12): See ECMC Form 2A and Appendix H: Memorandum of the Surface Use Agreement • Proximate Local Government Information – Rule 304.b.(13): See ECMC Form 2A • Wetlands – Rule 304.b.(14): See ECMC Form 2A • School and Childcare Centers – Rule 304.b.(15): See ECMC Form 2A • Dust Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(5) • Transportation Plan (Traffic Assessment) – Rule 304.c.(6) • Operations Safety Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(7) • Emergency Response Plan – Rule 304.c.(8) • Waste Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(11) • Topsoil Protection Plan – Rule 304.c.(14) • Stormwater Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(15) • Reclamation Plan – Rule 304.c.(16) • Wildlife Plan – Rule 304.c.(17) • Water Plan – Rule 304.c.(18) • Cumulative Impacts Plan – Rule 304.c.(19) Table of Contents 15 • Geologic Hazard Plan – Rule 304.c.(21) • Biological Survey Report • Approved ECMC Form 2C The following ECMC Rule 304.c plans were not included as a part of the ECMC Form 2A and/or are not required for submittal in this application per Article 9-204.B.2.b: • Noise Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(2) – See Lesser Impact Area Exemption Request Letter in Appendix I. • Light Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(3) – See Lesser Impact Area Exemption Request Letter in Appendix I. • Odor Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(4) – Location is greater than 2,000 feet from Building Unit or Designated Outside Area. • Flood Shut-In Plan – Rule 304.c.(9) – Location is not located within a floodplain. • Hydrogen Sulfide Drilling Operations Plan – Rule 304.c.(10) – Hydrogen sulfide gas is not present, and the plan is not required per Article 9-204.B.2.b. • Gas Capture Plan – Rule 304.c.(12) – Wells will be piped into an existing gathering system, and the plan is not required per Article 9-204.B.2.b. • Fluid Leak Detection Plan – Rule 304.c.(13) – Plan is not required per Article 9-204.B.2.b. • Community Outreach Plan – Rule 304.c.(20) – Working pad surface of the proposed Oil and Gas Location is not within 2,000 feet of a Residential Building Unit, High Occupancy Building Unit, or School Facility located within a Disproportionately Impacted Community. Therefore, the Community Outreach Plan is not required per ECMC Rule 426.a. Notice of Public Hearing (Article 9-208) As required by Article 9-208 and Article 4-101.E, TEP will publish a Notice of Public Hearing in a legal publication at least 30 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing. Additionally, TEP will send written notice to: • All mineral owners and owners of record of all adjacent property within a 200-foot radius of parcel number 2175-021-00-010. • Mineral interest owners underlying parcel number 2175-021-00-010. • Owners and tenants of property within 2,000 feet of the proposed W orking Pad Surface. • The LGD of any municipality or County within one mile of the site. • The Director of the ECMC. • Any other persons or entities identified by Garfield County Community Development Director or the Garfield Board of County Commissioners. All mineral owners, surface property owners, and tenants that meet this criterion for written notice are listed in the tables below. There are no additional municipalities or Counties within one (1) mile of the site that would be noticed as part of this application. Table of Contents 16 Mineral Owners and Mineral Interest Owners Mineral Owner Name Address Clough Energy Co. LLC P.O. Box 712, Rifle, CO 81650 Bureau of Land Management 2300 River Frontage Rd., Silt CO 81652 Property Owners and Tenant within 200’ of Property Boundary Subject Property Adjacent Property Owner Parcel Number Owner Address Clough Sheep Company, LLC (2175-021-00-010) Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Valley Field Office 2175-111-00-956 2175-011-00-951 2129-102-00-954 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 US Naval Oil Shale Reserve (Administered by BLM) 2175-091-00-954 2129-322-00-959 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 Bradley & Winette Moss 2175-013-00-009 3799 County Road 233 Rifle CO 81650 Property Ownership within 2,000 of Working Pad Surface Pad Name Owner Name Parcel Number Owner Address NR 41-3 Clough Sheep Company LLC 2175-021-00-010 P.O. Box 686 Rifle CO, 81650 Colorado River Valley Field Office Bureau of Land Management 2175-091-00-954 2129-322-00-959 2300 River Frontage Road Silt, CO 81652 In addition to the public notices mentioned above, TEP will post a Notice of Public Hearing on the property per the requirements of Article 4-101.E.c of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. Two (2) notices will be installed, including one (1) at the entrance of the Oil and Gas Location and one (1) at the intersection of Garfield County Road 244 and the existing lease road. Table of Contents 17 Appendix A: Land Use Change Permit Application Form Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TYPE OF APPLICATION Administrative Review Development in 100-Year Floodplain Limited Impact Review Development in 100-Year Floodplain Variance Major Impact Review Code Text Amendment Amendments to an Approved LUCP LIR MIR SUP Rezoning Zone District PUD PUD Amendment Minor Temporary Housing Facility Administrative Interpretation Vacation of a County Road/Public ROW Appeal of Administrative Interpretation Location and Extent Review Areas and Activities of State Interest Comprehensive Plan Amendment Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act Pipeline Development Variance Time Extension (also check type of original application) INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ Representative (Authorization Required) Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number: ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ Physical/Street Address: ________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ___________________________________ Property Size (acres): __________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Waiver of Standards The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ______________________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative, Title Date OFFICIAL USE ONLY File Number: __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ Fee Paid: $_____________________________ 1.The Decision you are appealing. 2.The date the Decision was sent as specified in the notice (date mailed). 3.The nature of the decision and the specified ground for appeal. Please cite specific code sections and/or relevant documentation to support your request. 4.The appropriate appeal fee of $250.00. 5.Please note a completed Appeal Application and fees must be received within 30 calendar days of the date of the final written Administrative Interpretation. Existing Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): ____________________________________________________ Description of Project: __________________________________________________________________ For Appeal of Administrative Interpretation please include: Table of Contents 20 Appendix B: Vicinity Map !(!( !( ") 5S 92W5S 93W5S 94W 6S 93W 6S 94W6S 95W ROAN C LIF F S R D (CR 249 ) 7TH ST SOUTH A N V I L P O I N T S R D ( C R 2 4 6 ) POR C U P I N E CRE E K ( C R 3 2 5) R I FL E-SILT R D ( C R 3 4 6 ) RIF L E-RULISON RD (CR 320) AI R PORT R D RULISON-PARA CH U T E R D ( C R 309) LAST C H ANCE DR CR 3 3 4 (C R 3 3 4 ) AIRPO R T R D (CR352) FR A V E R T R E S E R V O I R R D ( C R 244) DO K E S LN (C R 2 9 6 ) LA N DFILL R D (C R 2 4 6 A ) W 2ND ST R U L I S ON R D ( CR 3 2 3 ) SILT M ESA R D (CR 2 3 3 ) GR A H A M ME S A R D SWALLOW LN (CR 2 6 4 ) PE T E R S O N L N ( C R 2 2 3 ) YELL O W S L I DE R D (CR 2 48) HU N T E R M E S A R D ( C R 3 3 3 ) E 16TH ST WES T M A M M CR EEKRD (CR 3 1 9 )R I F LE-R U L I SO N RD ( C R 3 2 0 ) JQS R D (CR 2 4 2 ) BE A VER C RE E K R D (C R 3 1 7 ) TA U G HEN B A UG H ME S A R D (C R 321) J Q S R D ( C R 242) FRAV ERT R D (CR 2 9 0 ) FEDERAL RULISON 8 RWF 34-12 NR 334-1 NR 41-3 DRcXPHnt PatK T?PURMHctV?PicHancH?RXOiVRn?NR 41-3 Pad?ViVit 1?NR 41-3 PadapU[ TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC E[KiEit pUHpaUHd Ey ATanNHUVOHy DatH pUHpaUHd AXJXVt 30 2024 NR 41-3 Pad Vicinity Map § 0 4000 80002000 FHHt 1 in = 4,000 ft Legend ")Proposed Oil & Gas Location !(Proposed Support Locations Proposed Access Road Proposed Pipeline Corridor Existing Access Road Existing County Road Township Section Table of Contents 22 Appendix C: Topographic Map ") ! ! 15 NewAccess Easement %85($8 2)/$1' 0$1$*(0(17 &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( NR 41-3 / / 'RcXment3atK7?3URMects?3Lceance?5XOLsRn?N53aG?9LsLt?N53aGaSU[ NR 41-3 Pad Topographic Map § )eet /,''HVFULSWLRQ 'LVWDQFH"IW'LUHFWLRQ /RFDWLRQ"6RXUFH /([LVWLQJ:R61HDUHVW,QWHUPLWWHQW6WUHDP 1(86*6 /([LVLWQJ:R6,QWHUPLWWHQW6WUHDP 6:86*6 7E352&.<028N7A,N//& E[KLELtSUeSaUeGE\A7anNeUsOe\ 'ateSUeSaUeGNRYemEeU Legend ")Proposed Oil & Gas Location Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Condensate Pipelines (2-2") Proposed Gas Pipeline (8") Proposed Produced Water Pipeline (6") New Access Road Easement Existing Access Road Intermittent Stream 2,000ft Buffer 2,650ft Buffer Parcel Ownership Existing Oil and Gas Location Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. Note: 1) The proposed Oil and Gas Location is greater than 15 stream miles from the nearest active down gradient Public Water Supply Intake. 2) There are no GUDI Wells, Type III Aquifer Wells, or COGCC Rule 411 Buffer Zones within 2,640 feet of the proposed Working Pad Surface. 3) Nearest downgradient surface water feature (WoS) and wetland is approximately 497’ northeast of the proposed Oil and Gas Location along an unnamed drainage. 4) Nearest Constructed Water Well is approximately 8,366' northeast of the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Permit # 259571- 5) Nearest Spring is approximately 10,547' to the northwest. Spring Name: "Buffalo Spring" 1 in = 700 ft Table of Contents 24 Appendix D: Certificate of Liability Insurance ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? INSR ADDL SUBR LTR INSD WVD DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) PRODUCER CONTACTNAME: FAXPHONE(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAILADDRESS: INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person)$ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $JECT OTHER:$ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $(Ea accident) ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) $ OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED RETENTION $$ PER OTH-STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y / N N / A (Mandatory in NH) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2016/03) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC 3657 BRIARPARK DRIVE, SUITE 700 HOUSTON TX 77042 866-260-3538 Terra Energy Partners, LLC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Ste 1500 Houston TX 77056 Liberty Insurance Corporation 42404 QBE UK Limited X X X S&A Pollution 1,000,000 100,000 5,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX X X 2,000,000 2,000,000 XXXXXXX N X 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 A 24CGLH15826 4/1/2024 4/1/2025 A 24XS1H15827 4/1/2024 4/1/2025 B WC7-641-446258-014 4/1/2024 4/1/2025 NOT APPLICABLE 4/1/2025 1431717 Y Y Y Y Y 4/4/2024 18590918 18590918 XXXXXXX Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81501 All policies (except Workers’ Compensation/EL) include a blanket automatic additional insured [provision] that confers additional insured status to the certificate holder only if there is a written contract between the named insured and the certificate holder that requires the named insured to name the certificate holder as an additional insured. In the absence of such a contractual obligation on the part of the named insured, the certificate holder is not an additional insured under the policy. X CONTINUATION DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS (Use only if more space is required) ACORD 25 (2016/03) All policies include a blanket automatic waiver of subrogation endorsement [provision] that provides this feature only when there is a written contract between the named insured and the certificate holder that requires it. In the absence of such a contractual obligation on the part of the named insured, the waiver of subrogation feature does not apply. Certificate Holder ID: 18590918 Table of Contents 27 Appendix E: Garfield County Statement of Authority / Power of Attorney Table of Contents 31 Appendix F: Garfield County’s Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter Garficld County Cornuriþ ncvtlo¡nrrt nçrr¡u:rt August 17,2023 Mr. Jeffrey D. Kirtland Regulatory Manager TEP Rocky Mountain LLC 1058 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 RE. Pre-Application Conference Summary Garfield County and TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC. Attendees: Garfield Countv Shery Bower, AICP, Community Development Director Glenn Hartmann, Principal Planner Kirby Vlfinn, Oiland Gas Liaison Trisha Fanning, Consultant, Ardor Environmental LLC Jessica Donahue, Consultant, Ardor Environmental LLC TEP Rockv Mountain. LLC Jeff Kirtland, Regulator Manager Adam Tankersley, Planning Manager Scott Ghan, Senior Regulatory Specialist Bryan Hotard, Surface Team Lead Jax Nourse, Planning Specialist Colorado Enerqv & Carbon Manaqement Gommission Ben Frissell, OGLA Supervisor John Noto, Oil and Gas Location Assessment Supervisor Kevin Fletcher, Oiland Gas Location Assessment Specialist Summary Per Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Division 2. Oil and Gas code amendments adopted July 6, 202'1, on July 27,2023, Gafüdd County and its representatives held a pre-application conference with TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC ('TEP"), and representatives from the Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission ("ECMC"). Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Section 9-203.4. requires a pre-application process for all new or modified oil and gas operations. The required pre- application conference was held in advance of the anticipated submittal of TEP's application for an oil and gas permit with the ECMC for their proposed NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan, including the NR 41- 3 Pad. The NR 41-3 Pad is located in Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. On June 22,2023, TEP representative Jeffrey Kirtland requested, in writing, a Pre-Application Conference with Garfield County per Section 9-203.4. lncluded in TEP's request was the Pre-Application Request Letter and the Pre-Application materials required per Section 9-203.8.1 of Garfield Land Use Code, which included the Alternative Location Analysis Narrative, Alternative Location Analysis Exhiþits, and an Alternative Location Analysis Data Table. Garfield County set and confirmed the pre-application meeting for July 27,2023, at 1:00 PM. On July 27,2023, Garfield County and its representatives hosted the pre-application conference which included representatives from TEP and the ECMC. TEP presented their one proposed permit location: the NR 4'1-3 pad. The permit required an Alternative Location ("ALA') under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).Bi due to the location being within High Priority Habitat ("HPH'). During the pre-application meeting, TEP discussed their overall plan for development of the proposed location. The proposed site is part of TEP's ECMC Oil and Gas Development Plan ("OGDP") application that is pending submittal. As part of TEP's presentation, representatives discussed the alternative locations reviewed as part of the ALA process, presented the advantages and disadvantages of each location, and answered questions. TEP's ALA included the evaluation of four (4) alternative locations. The ALA conducted by TEP included the evaluation of all ALA criteria listed under Rule 304.b.(2),8 and the well location and siting requirements under Rule 604. Additionally, TEP evaluated each alternative based on landscape level characteristics (i.e., slope) and mineral development potential. NR 4l-3 Pad The NR 41-3 Pad is a proposed new oil and gas location located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP is proposing to construct the NR 41-3 Pad to develop thirty-nine (39) natural gas wells. The NR 41-3 Pad is located on private surface (Clough Sheep Company, LLC). TEP stated the advantages for the proposed location as follows: 1. There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2. The Oil and Gas Location (OGL) will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 3. The OGL maximizes the area of mineral development targeting a total of thir$-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells, thirty thirty-one (31) Federal wells and eight (8) Fee wells. 4. TEP and the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company LLC) have executed a Surface Use Agreement for the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The proposed NR 41-3 access road willfollow an existing two twotrack minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. TEP also discussed what their evaluation showed as the sole disadvantage: The NR 41-3 is located withing two High Priority Habitats: Mule DeerWnterConcentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The OGL would be located within 500' but outside 300' of Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The ALA process also required TEP to review four other possible locations. Proposed Alternative 1 would be a new Oil and Gas Location located on private surface (Clough Sheep Company, LLC) within Lots 3 and 4 of Section 2, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6rh P.M. Proposed Alternative 2 is located on federal surface (Bureau of Land Management or BLM), located in the SESW and SWSE of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 94 West. Proposed Alternative 3 is a new location on Federalsurface ("BLM') within Lots 2 and 3 of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M. Finally, proposed Alternative 4 would be a new location located on Federal surface (BLM) within Lot 1 of Section 31, Township I ECMC Rule 304.b.(2) B. FORM 24" Oil and Gas Lur"al.iul Assessrncnl. Applic¿tio¡ lnfornralion Requilentents. All Fornì 2As will include the following information, unless otherwise provided ¡n a Commission Order approv¡ng a CAP pursuant to Rule 314. Alternative Location Analysis. B. Alternat¡ve Location Analysis Criteria. 5 South, Range 93 West. TEP evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed alternative. Based on their evaluation and the currently available information, TEP believes that the NR 41-3 Pad is the best possible oil and gas location for development of the proposed minerals and will be the best location to minimize the overall impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. As part of the development of the proposed NR 41-3 pad, TEP would minimize road and pipeline construction by using the existing two-track road corridor. All production equipment would be located on the NR 334-1 pad. Completion operations will be conducted from a remote location. An existing location, the Federal Rulison 8, will be reconstructed to support completion operations. Temporary surface lines will be installed following the existing access road/pipeline corridor to the NR 41-3 location. The existing tank battery at the NR 334-1 location will be upgraded and utilized as a centralized produced water storage and transfer location. TEP held onsite meetings attended by Colorado Parks and Wildlife ("CPW') on May 24,2023, to discuss the proposed development plan and locations. Formal consultation is pending. TEP presented their Well Siting Optimization Map which defines their optimal reach for lateral wells. The map illustrates the maximum reach as being -3,500' at the NR 41-3 pad, allowing for the most optimal reach for all the proposed 39 wells. Proposed Alternative Location 1 can reach 29 bottomhole locations while proposed Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 are only capable of reaching 27, 31, and 22 bottomhole locations, respectively. Evaluation of High Priority Habitat ('HPH") is required when located in proximity to a proposed location. TEP evaluated the HPH as required by rule; the proposed location is within two designated High Priority Habitats: Mule Deer \Mnter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. There will be resulting traffic and new disturbance from this development, and TEP will work with CPW to establish best management practices and mitigation. TEP is proposing to construct the location outside of the Mule Deer \Mnter recommended timing limitation. Pre-Application Meetinq Questions and Answers During the presentation there were questions directed to TEP. Garfield County requested additional discussion regarding the disturbance estimates and if it included the pipeline corridor as well as if the corridor was revegetated. TEP confirmed some revegetation has occurred. Garfield County requested additional information about Yellow Slide Gulch. TEP responded that during the onsite, CPW questioned if Yellow Slide Gulch had sufficient water flows to support fish. Garfield County recommended for the submittal to include details regarding the water flow of Yellow Slide Gulch. Garfield County inquired if drilling during the winter in Mule Deer winter habitat is typical. TEP clarified that exceptions have been granted in previous instances from CPW for activities that begin prior to winter timing and need to extend into the recommended timing closure. Garfield County inquired about the CPW winter exception process. TEP described the additional compensatory mitigation fees or how, in lieu of compensatory mitigation, an operator can conduct a wildlife mitigation project. Garfield County requested clarification on where the compensatory mitigation funds are distributed. TEP has discussed with CPW where the funds would be applied, but CPW did not guarantee that the funds would be applied within Garfield County. Garfield County requested confirmation that the Neighborhood Meeting would consist of TEP, the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company, LLC), and the Bureau of Land Management. TEP concurred. Garfield County inquired about the Noise and Light Lesser lmpact Exemption requests that TEP indicated they would be asking of ECMC. TEP confirmed that despite Lesser lmpact Exemption requests, best management practices ("BMP') for Noise and Light will be included in the application. Garfield County inquired regarding Geologic Hazard Assessment and if a plan would be included in the application. TEP relayed that the Geologic Hazard evaluation was çurrently underway to determine if a Hazards Plan was necessary. Garfield County reminded them there are several areas of geologic hazard concern in Garfield County and Yellow Slide Gulch has topography that could be a concern. Garfield County asked if the Colorado Geological Survey was one of the referral agencies; Garfield will discuss further internally. Garfield County inquired regarding concerns about construction of the location itself. TEP clarified that they may conduct soil tests to determine appropriate construction methods. The group discussed anticipated submittal timeframes. TEP estimates submitting the application in October. The discussion then turned to the access roads and pipelines. TEP confirmed the proposed pipelines will be within 5 feet of the existing road all the way to the NR 334-1 pad. After the NR 334-1 pad, the pipelines would follow the road for approximately another half mile before turning south and following an existing pipeline corridor. Due to the topography in the area and potential construction slopes, Garfield County and TEP discussed whether a grading permit may be required. Garfield County will confer internally and let TEP know if the grading permit will be required in addition to the oil and gas permit. Garfield County inquired of TEP updates regarding emissions controls and any operational updates that have changed to meet new air emission regulations. TEP explained generally how their locations and operations are in compliance with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulations. As a follow-up, Ardor inquired about the status of the construction permit required by CDPHE's Regulation 3. TEP responded they would have to check into that. Garfield County requested clarification regarding the size of the proposed disturbance. TEP confirmed 12 acres is the proposed disturbance and that the larger size was due to safety concerns with the proposed 39 wells and the proposed SIMOPS. Garfield County requested additional information regarding pad operations and the drill cuttings management. TEP clarified they will have a cuttings trench on location for disposal. TEP also highlighted that while the initial disturbance will be 12 acres, after interim reclamation, the pad would be approximately 1.5 acres. ECMC offered that the remote frac support pad would potentially require a Form 4 sundry and recommended TEP consult with CPW on that location for the Form 4 submittal. TEP confirmed they intend to submit two Form 4s - one for the Federal Rulison 8 location as the frac support pad, reconstruction of the pad, and to add Minion tanks to it; and the second Form 4 would be to update the equipment on the lrlR 334-1 location. Garfield County asked for clarification on all of the proposed activities on existing locations to confirm those support locations are covered under any necessary permits. TEP offered to provide an exhibit in their submittal that demonstrates all proposed activities. Garfield County requested clarification regarding traffic routes and how TEP controls the traffic on public roads. TEP cxplained that maps and directions are provided to contractors to illustrate approved routes. Garfield County asked ECMC if ECMC would be providing any written feedback or follow-up comments. TEP asked ECMC if this pre-application meeting would also be considered as a pre-application meeting with ECMC or if an additional meeting would be required. ECMC explained that they did not see any initial red flags with the application or anything that would stop it from being processed. TEP asked if there would be a written summary from ECMC, ECMC explained that they only provide a written summary after a pre- application meeting with ECMC specifically; being requested to participate in Garfield County's pre- application meeting would not trigger ECMC's ten-day summary letter. Summarv of Staff Comments During the Pre-Application meeting it was confirmed the proposed location will require a county Land Use Change Permit. TEP will provide in their application all required documentation per Article 9 Section 204 in support of their proposed and alternative locations including all items as stated in the foregoing summary. TEP willfurther provide the following with their application: . Lesser lmpact Exemption request for noise and light may be a concern; please provide noise and light mitigation BMPs. o TEP will provide the GeologicHaza¡d evaluation and/or Geologic Hazard Plan (if required). o TEP will confer with CPW to determine if Garfield County could participate with the CPW consultation to localize mitigation projects. o TEP will conduct a neighborhood meeting. . Garfield County will confirm if a Grading Permit will be required for the project or if the oil and gas permit will suffice.. Any additional studies or analysis that are being conducted by TEP in support of the permit application to ECMC per Rule 304.b.(2XC) and Rule 304.b. (3) through (1) inclusive, except NOT Rule 304.b. (7XD) (Preliminary Flow Diagrams) and (7XH) (Directional Well Plat) should be included for review by Garfield County; . Referrals will be sent out in accordance with 9-206; o A public Hearing will be held in accordance with 9-208 and 9-209; and the Standards of Approval are contained in Sections 9-205. The foregoing summary is advisory in nature and is not binding by the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon information provided at the Pre- Application Conference. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. The summary is valid for a six-month period, after which an update should be requested. The Applicant is advised that the Application submittal once accepted by the County becomes public information and will be available (including electronically) for review by the public. Proprietary information can be redacted from documents prior to submittal. Please find attached Garfield County's Completeness Checklist identiffing application requirements. The information provided herein is current as of the date of this letter. TEP will be subject to the Land Use and Development Code, along with any other applicable regulations in place on the date of application submittal. lf anything changes with the proposed project, we ask that TEP please inform us so that we can determine if the changes will require a new pre-application meeting. Sincerely, /zt--A--¡ Glenn Hartmann lnterim Community Development Director Garficld County Corrnilyn fthpnrt nq.rffi Completeness Checklist Oil& Gas Permit Number:Operator/Location Name OPERATOR NAME Oil & Gas Permit (Permit no.) has been deemed incomplete. Please note, the following items without a check mark are required but not included in the application submittal. Please revise the application and re- submit for review. Garfield County 9-204. B. 1 Requi red Application lnformation : Electronic bookmarked PDF copy of the entire Application, including a Table of Contents with hyperlinks An executive summary that includes a map illustrating the entire project proposal _Land Use Change Permit Application Form (9-204.8.1.a-b, d, j.) Vicinity Map (9-204.8. 1.c.) Topographic Map (9-204.8. 1 .e.) Summary for the variance or ALA being sought (9-204.8.1.f.) Evidence of Liability lnsurance (9-204.8.1.9.) An assessment of impacts to public health, safety, welfare, wildlife & environment (9-204.8.1.h.) Additional information requested at the pre-application conference (9-204.8.f .i.) Grading and Drainage Plan (4-203.E.) Notice Package (9-208 & 4-101 .E.) Application Fee (9-204.8. 1.k.) Additional Application Materials that require ALA or Substantial Modification: Alternative Location Analysis (9-204.8.2.) ECMC Contents of an ALA (9-204.8.2.a.) ECMC Form 2A Requirements, with exceptions as listed in Code (9-204.8.2.a.) ECMC Form 2A Plans, with exceptions as listed in Code (9-204.8.2.b.) -A Traffic Study (9-204.8.2.c.) AdditionalApplication Materials when a Variance from Noise or Lighting is Requested: -ECMC Noise Mitigation Plan (9-204.8.4.a.) ECMC Preliminary Ambient Noise Plan (9-204.8.4.b.) ECMC Light Mitigation Plan (9-204.8.4.c.) -Analysis of the variance impact & how the variance still satisfies the standards of approval (9-204.8.4.) Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit Applications Upon receipt of an application packet, Garfield County's intent is to review for completeness within 20- business days. lf the application is not complete, the applicant will be notified via email of the missing items, Upon receipt of the revised application submittal, Garfield County's intent is to review for completeness within 20- business days. Please Note: Any revised ECMC submlttal shall be submltted to Gartleld County concurrently. Updated lll2022 Table of Contents 38 Appendix G: Summary of Neighborhood Meeting for the NR 41-3 Pad Summary of TEP Rocky Mountain LLC Neighborhood Meeting for the NR 41-3 Pad Required by Garfield County Land Use Development Code (Oil and Gas Code) 9-203 D. The following is a summary of the TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (TEP) Neighborhood Meeting that was conducted pursuant to the Garfield County Land Use Development Code 9-203 D for the proposed NR 41-3 Pad location. Meeting Location: Terra Energy Partners Executive Conference Room 1058 County Rd. 215 Parachute CO 81635 Meeting Date: August 29th, 2023 Meeting Start Time: 9:03 AM MDT Neighborhood Meeting Notice and Meeting Attendees: Neighbors who were sent Notice of the Meeting: Bureau of Land Management (Attn: Alexander Provstgaard) – Landowner Clough Sheep Co LLC - Landowner Neighbors who attended the Meeting: (see attached meeting sign in sheet) Bureau of Land Management Alex Provstgaard Emily McCall Jetton Klepac Garfield County: Kirby Wynn – Garfield County Oil and Gas Liaison TEP asked Mr. Wynn if he would like to attend the meeting. A certified mail notice was not sent to the county. Mr. Wynn was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting. TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (TEP) Representatives: Lindsey Ellsworth – TEP Bryan Hotard – TEP Adam Tankersley - TEP Jax Nourse – TEP Scott Ghan - TEP NR 41-3 Pad Legal description Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Section 3: Lot 1 Garfield County, Colorado Meeting Notes: The conference room at TEP’s Parachute Office was reserved for the Neighborhood Meeting. Large, detailed maps were made available for review by the attendees that illustrated the proposed NR 41-3 Pad location and the surrounding lands, as well as the existing and proposed oil and gas infrastructure associated with the project. A hand-out that included all the presentation materials used during the meeting was provided to all meeting attendees. The handouts are attached to this summary. A video projector and large screen were used for the PowerPoint presentation material, and the meeting was audio recorded as required by the Garfield County Oil and Gas Code. A copy of the audio recording will be provided with this summary. Lindsey Ellsworth opened the meeting with background information on why the Neighborhood Meeting was necessary. In 2021, Garfield County adopted changes to their Land Use and Development Code which requires Operators to obtain an Oil and Gas permit from the County for an Oil and Gas location when an Alternative Location Analysis (ALA) was triggered from the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC). Pad NR 41-3 pad requires an ALA because it is located within a High Priority Habitat (HPH). Consequently, TEP held the Neighborhood Meeting to comply with the Garfield County Land Use Development Code requirements to inform all landowners within 2,000 feet of TEP’s proposed new NR 41-3 pad in which TEP plans to drill and complete thirty-nine (39) new wells. Ms. Ellsworth also explained that an important objective of the meeting was to answer any questions or concerns the neighbors might have regarding this project. Mr. Tankersley then took over the meeting and provided a PowerPoint presentation which went through a detailed overview of the project. The presentation included a narrative description of TEP’s plans to construct, drill, and complete the NR 41-3 Pad northwest of Rifle, Colorado. The NR 41-3 Pad is located within Lot 1 of Section 3, T6S, R94W in Garfield County Colorado. The Pad is located on private surface owned by Clough Sheep Company, LLC and the wells will drill into both private and federal minerals. It will include thirty-nine (39) new wells which will be drilled in two phases. Visit 1 will include twenty (20) wells and Visit 2 will include nineteen (19) wells. Mr. Tankersley explained TEP would be utilizing three existing support pads for this project: the Federal Rulison 8 Pad, the NR 334-1 Pad, and the RWF 34-12 Pad as well as the associated pipelines and access roads. Access to the NR 41-3 Pad will be from Garfield County Rd 244 and would utilize an existing access road to the NR 334-1 Pad. From that point, a new access road would be constructed to follow an existing two track to the NR 41-3 Pad location. Mr. Tankersley explained the NR 41-3 Pad would be 12.02 acres. The access road would be 25.77 acres. The proposed pipeline corridor would be comprised of an eight-inch (8”) natural gas pipeline, a six-inch (6”) produced water pipeline, and two (2) two-inch (2”) condensate pipelines. Total project disturbance is 46.72 acres, 36.65 of which would be new. Production facilities will be on location. During drilling operations, TEP will be using a closed loop drilling system and drill cuttings will be stored in an on-location cuttings trench. Mr. Tankersley went on to explain that completions operations will be managed from a remote frac location on the existing Federal Rulison 8 Pad, also owned privately by Clough Sheep Company, LLC. The Federal Rulison 8 Pad will be reconstructed within the existing boundary of disturbance. Completions will include the installation of two (2) ten-inch (10”) HDPE Temporary Surface Pipelines that will connect to the RWF 34-12 Pad. From there, TEP will install five four and half inch (4.5”) Steel Temporary Surface Frac Lines between the Federal Rulison 8 frac pad and NR 43-1 pad. The frac lines will be installed on the surface following existing and proposed access roads and pipeline corridors. On the frac pad itself, TEP will install six minion tanks and produced water will be delivered via pipeline for completions operations. During Visit 1, TEP will be doing SIMOPS, but during Visit 2, there will not be enough room on pad to do SIMOPS, therefore, completions will occur after drilling. Mr. Tankersley described that Production Operations would take place on the existing NR 334-1 Pad, which would be upgraded and utilized as a centralized condensate storage and measurement location for the wells on the NR 41-3. Mr. Tankersley provided an outline of the estimated timing of all phases of the operations. The construction of the pad is set to begin in the Spring of 2024. Drilling of the twenty (20) Visit 1 wells is expected to begin in April of 2025 and run through August of 2025. Completions operations are expected to begin in June of 2025 and continue through October of 2025. Visit 2 drilling operations for the remaining nineteen (19) wells are to begin in October of 2026 and last through March of 2027 with completion operations beginning in April of 2027 and lasting through September of 2027. Interim reclamation will take place in October through November of 2027, weather permitting. Mr. Tankersley then asked if there were any questions on the Plan of Development. Alexander Provstgaard (BLM) asked if the NR 41-3 Pad and the NR 334-1 Pad were within the same agreement boundary? He was just thinking ahead in case off-lease measurement approvals were needed. Adam clarified TEP would need to request off-lease measurement for the NR 334-1 Pad because measurement would occur off site of where the wells are located. Mr. Tankersley provided a presentation about the oil and gas site considerations that were used during the ALA process to comply with the ECMC requirements. He explained that considerations included subsurface constraints that affect well counts from a site, the use of existing oil and gas locations, the use of existing facilities and pipeline infrastructure, topography, proximity to resources such as wildlife habitat and water resources, and proximity to Residential Building Units, High Occupancy Building Units, Disproportionately Impacted Communities, schools, and other such features, which does not really apply in this situation. The table on the right-hand side of the O&G Location Siting Consideration slide that was shown outlines some of the considerations for the alternative locations TEP evaluated. They are all generally the same, except for the well count due to the location of this project. Mr. Tankersley moved onto the ALA map of the five (5) locations that were reviewed, including the NR 41-3 Pad. The NR 41-3 Pad and alternative locations 1 and 2 are located within High Priority Habitat (HPH). Whereas alternatives 3 and 4 are outside HPH. This is specific to ECMCs habitat layers and does not include any additional layers that CPW or BLM may be managing. The next slide of the Wildlife/BLM Wildlife Security No Surface Occupancy map gives a little more detail of wildlife habitat in the area. The NSO covers alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Tankersley explained that historically, TEP has seen push back from BLM and CPW when pads are proposed in these areas, and they prefer us to stay out of that sort of area (Wildlife Security NSO). So, TEP believes these locations would be challenging to gain approval for as well as to access. Mr. Tankersley referred to the Well Siting Optimization map which determines how many wells can be developed on any given location on the map. Alternative 1 is 29 wells, Alternative 2 is 27 wells, Alternative 3 is 31 wells, and Alternative 4 is 22 wells. NR 41-3 is the best location to reach all 39 bottom holes while minimizing impacts to wildlife. Mr. Tankersley then explained the Topographic Map shows areas that are greater than 30% slope in purple and yellow. TEP tries to stay under a 30% slope, however development can occur in areas with steeper slopes to some limited capacity. The 4 alternatives and the NR 41-3 are located in a relatively flatter area in the steep slope boundaries which define our limitations in regard to these oil and gas locations. The alternative 3 access road would be crossing areas that are steeper than 30% and for Alternative 4, road grades are roughly 15-16% which is possible but would be problematic from a construction standpoint. Mr. Tankersley went on to explain that Alternative Locations were evaluated as part this application process, which requires assessment of both the advantages and the disadvantages of each location. He did not go through all the advantages/disadvantages but touched on some noteworthy items. All five locations are not within 2,000 feet of any BU/RBUs/HOBUs/Schools/childcare facilities. During the onsite, TEP received some initial thoughts from BLM, CPW, and Garfield County and determined the NR 41-3 is the preferred location. TEP held a pre-application meeting with Garfield County and the ECMC was in attendance. The County did not voice any concern for the NR 41-3 pad. The main concern with the NR 41-3 Pad is its proximity to HPH within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Alternative Location 1 is within a HPH and is in closer proximity to the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. In addition, TEP the well count would down to 29 wells. Alternative 2 creates more surface disturbance due to the access road and pad. It is also located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. In addition, it is within the BLM Wildlife Security NSO boundary. The view shed is also a concern. The main advantage of Alternative 3 and 4 is it is not within a HPH, but it is within the BLM Wildlife Security NSO boundary, which limits development. At the completion of his comments, Mr. Tankersley asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mr. Tankersley concluded with the statement that in short, TEP believes the NR 41-3 is the best location to target these minerals and minimize the impacts to the public and to the environment. This location was selected due to the fact it maximizes potential mineral development, avoids impacts to the NSO boundary, and minimizes impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP is working with the surface owner on a surface use agreement and believes an agreement will be executed in the coming weeks. TEP is also working with CPW to develop a mitigation plan which would include mitigation fees for impacts to wildlife and additional fees for operations. Mr. Tankersley also stated that TEP intends to avoid construction activities during the mule deer timing limitations and will take that into consideration for planning activities. Mr. Tankersley handed the meeting back over to Ms. Ellsworth and she opened it for questions and comments. Question from Alexander Provstgaard: “Wes had concerns about viewshed and VRM and hope TEP will be taking that to heart since it is very visible from Rifle and that paint schemes and such are taken into consideration”. Response from Mr. Tankersley: “The results of the VRM analysis indicate that the impacts aren’t significant, but they did provide some mitigation measures that could be implemented to minimize contrast. Painting tanks will be implemented for sure and there are some other ideas that can be implemented”. Comment from Emily McCall: Said she would like to be included in the CPW Pre-Application Consultation Meeting to review the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Response from Mr. Tankersley: Nothing has been formally scheduled. We are still preparing the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Once that is complete, we will get something scheduled with you and Mr. Elm. Comment from Emily McCall: She mentioned there was a small portion of the access road that would be crossing BLM. Response from Mr. Tankersley: “Yes, there is and there would be a TL associated with that as well as any activities on the pad”. There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Ellsworth closed the meeting by thanking everyone for joining TEP for this discussion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:31 PM MDT. NR 41-3 Pad Neighborhood Meeting August 29, 2023 Meeting Agenda 1.Introduction 2.Purpose of Meeting 3.Project Overview 4.Alternative Location Analysis 5.Questions Purpose On July 6, 2021, Garfield County adopted changes to the Land Use and Development Code which requires Operators to obtain an Oil and Gas Permit for any Oil and Gas Location that triggers an Alternative Location Analysis with the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC") or if this Operator is seeking a variance to the Noise and / or Lighting standards in the ECMC Rules. TEP Rocky Mountain LLC ("TEP") is proposing to drill 39 new wells from the proposed NR 41-3 Pad. The NR 41- 3 pad is located within a High Priority Habitat (“HPH"), which triggers an Alternative Location Analysis ("ALA") with the ECMC and a Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit. Purpose of Neighborhood Meeting: 1)Inform all landowners, within 2000’ of the new Oil and Gas Location, of TEP’s development plans to drill and complete 39 new wells from the proposed NR 41-3 Pad. 2)Answer any questions or concerns any meeting participant has regarding the proposed project. 3)Adhere to the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use Code by holding a recorded neighborhood meeting to gather feedback from participants on the proposed development plan. NR 41-3 OGDP – Project Overview NR 41-3 Pad - Plan of Development Location Information •New Oil and Gas Location •Legal Location: Lot 1 of Section 3, T6SR94W •Garfield County, Colorado •Resource Lands Zone District •Surface Owner: Clough Sheep Company, LLC •Existing Wells: None •Proposed Well: Thirty-nine (39) Proposed Natural Gas Wells •Two Visits Planned for this location 12 months apart •Visit 1: Twenty (20) Wells Drilled •Visit 2: Nineteen (19) Wells Drilled •Access Route: From Garfield County Road 244 Construction •Construction of New OGL: 12.02-acres •Constructed Access Road (following existing two-track): 25.77-acres •Proposed Pipeline Corridor: 7.93-acres •Proposed 8” Gas Pipeline (approx. 17,858’) •Proposed 6” Produced Water Pipeline (approx. 18,682’) •Proposed 2-2” Condensate Pipelines (approx. 11,911’) •Total Project Construction Disturb: 45.72-acres (36.65-acres new) •Production facilities (separators, tanks, ECD, etc.) will be installed on location for initial fluid processing. Drilling Operations •Closed loop drilling system •Cuttings trench on-location (on-location disposal) Completions Operations •Completion operations will be conducted at remote frac location. Existing Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed to support remote completion operations on the NR 41-3 drill pad. •Installation of 2-10” HDPE Temporary Surface Pipeline. •Installation of 5-4.5” Steel Temporary Surface Frac Lines between frac crew and proposed wells. •Frac Lines will be installed on surface following existing / proposed access roads and pipeline corridors •SIMOPS for Visit 1 but not Visit 2 Production Operations •The existing NR 334-1 pad tank battery will be upgraded and utilized as a centralized condensate storage and measurement location for the wells on the NR 41-3 to reduce truck traffic up to the proposed location. Estimated Development Timing •Visit 1: •Construction: Spring 2024 •Drilling: April 2025 – August 2025 •Completions: June 2025 – October 2025 •Visit 2: •Drilling: October 2026 – March 2027 •Completions: April 2027 – September 2027 •Interim Reclamation: October 2027 – November 2027 O&G Location Siting Consideration General Factors Considered 1)Well Count / Subsurface Constraints 2)Proximity to Existing Oil and Gas Development 3)Proximity to Existing Infrastructure 4)Topography 5)Proximity to Environmental Resources (i.e. Wildlife Habitat, Water Resource, etc.) 6)Proximity to Residential Building Unit, High Occupancy Building Unit, Disproportionately Impacted Community, Schools, etc. TEP prefers to utilize existing oil and gas locations whenever possible. When existing locations are not available TEP maximizes the well count and utilizes remote support facility to minimize surface impacts. As required by ECMC, TEP initiated an Alternative Location Analysis which includes the evaluation of four (4) alternative locations within the vicinity of the proposed NR 41-3 Pad. Alternative Location Summary Alternative 1 (Private Surface) •New O&G Location (Private Surface) •Potential for Development of 29 Wells •Access from CR 244, existing lease road and similar construction to NR 41-3 road •Similar Facilities / setup requirements •Remote Frac from Federal Rulison 8 Alternative 2 (BLM Surface) •New O&G Location (BLM Surface) •Potential for Development of 27 Wells •Access from CR 244, existing lease road and similar construction to NR 41-3 road •Similar Facilities / setup requirements •Remote Frac from Federal Rulison 8 or other nearby pad Alternative 3 (BLM Surface) •New O&G Location (BLM Surface) •Potential for Development of 31 Wells •Access from JQS Road, major road construction compared to NR 41-3 road •Major facilities upgrade / setup requirements •Frac on location or remotely from nearby pad Alternative 4 (BLM Surface) •New O&G Location (BLM Surface) •Potential for Development of 22 Wells •Access from JQS Road, major road construction compared to NR 41-3 road •Major facilities upgrade / setup requirements •Frac on location or remotely from nearby pad Alternative Locations Map / High Priority Habitats Wildlife / BLM Wildlife Security No Surface Occupancy (NSO) Fischer RBU (<2000’)Rainey RBU (>2000’) All alternative locations located on BLM surface would be within the Wildlife Security NSO. Well Siting Optimization Topographic Considerations – Steep Slopes & BLM NSOs Potential O&G Locations and access to those locations are limited by steep slopes within the project area, as well as the BLM NSOs and CSU. Alternative Location Analysis (Advantages/Disadvantages) Locations Advantages Disadvantages NR 41-3 Pad (Proposed Location Private Surface) 1.There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2.The Oil and Gas Location (OGL) will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 3.The OGL maximizes the area of mineral development targeting a total of thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells, thirty-one (31) Federal wells and eight (8) Fee wells. 4.TEP and the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company LLC) are in the process of negotiating a Surface Use Agreement for the proposed NR 41-3 pad. 5.The proposed NR 41-3 access road will follow an existing two-track minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. 6.BLM, CPW, and GarCo preferred this location over all the alternative per the onsite. 7.ECMC did not voice any concerns regarding this location at the GarCo pre-app meeting. 1.The NR 41-3 is located withing two High Priority Habitats: Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The OGL would be located within 500' but outside 300' of Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Alternative 1 (Private Surface) 1.There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2.The OGL will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 3.TEP and the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company LLC) have previously executed a SUA for the Alternative 1 pad location; therefore, the surface owner would approve of this alternative. 4.The proposed access road planned for the NR 41-3 pad would also be used for Alternative 1, which follows an existing two-track minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. 1.Located within HPH, including Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. 2.Located within 300 feet of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters of Yellow Slide Gulch, which may cause more potential downstream impacts to aquatic sportfish. 3.Only provide for the development of twenty-nine (29) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. Alternative 2 (BLM Surface) 1.There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2.The OGL will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 3.The proposed access road planned for the NR 41-3 pad would also be used for Alternative 2, which follows an existing two-track, minimizing new surface disturbance due to road Construction. 1.Creates more overall surface disturbance, from construction of the proposed Oil and Gas Location, access road, and pipeline corridor, than the proposed NR 41-3 pad. 2.Located within HPH, including Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. 3.Located within 300 feet of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters of Yellow Slide Gulch, which may cause more potential downstream impacts to aquatic sportfish. 4.Only provides for the development of twenty-seven (27) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 5.BLM NSO - I-70 Viewshed, Wildlife security below rim, VRM Class II Below rim 6.BLM CSU - Riparian and Wetland, Erosive Soils / Slopes, Lease Below Rim 7.BLM TL – Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Alternative 3 (BLM Surface) 1.There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2.The OGL would not be located within HPH. 3.The OGL will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 1.Require more new disturbance due to no existing access to location nor existing pipeline infrastructure near by 2.Only provides for the development of thirty-one (31) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 3.BLM NSO - I-70 Viewshed, Wildlife security below rim, VRM Class II Below rim 4.BLM CSU - Riparian and Wetland (road), Erosive Soils / Slopes, Lease Below Rim 5.BLM TL – Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Alternative 4 (BLM Surface) 1.There are no BUs / RBUs / HOBUs / School / Childcare Center within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2.The OGL would not be located within HPH. 3.The OGL will not be within a DIC or Surface Water Supply Area. 1.Requires more new disturbance due to no existing access to the location nor existing pipeline infrastructure near by 2.Only provide for the development of twenty-two (22) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 3.BLM NSO - I-70 Viewshed, Wildlife security below rim, VRM Class II Below rim 4.BLM CSU - Riparian and Wetland (road), Erosive Soils / Slopes (road), Lease Below Rim (road) 5.BLM TL – Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Alternative Location Analysis Summary Through the ALA process, TEP has determined that the NR 41-3 pad is the best possible location for development of the target minerals, while also minimizing impacts to the public and to the environment. The NR 41-3 Pad was selected as the preferred location since it maximizes potential mineral development, avoids impacts to the Wildlife Security NSO on BLM surface, minimizes impacts to aquatic sportfish management waters, and we are currently working with the surface owner on an SUA. Impacts to wildlife will be mitigated through the implementation of BMPs, payment of compensatory mitigation fees, and adherence with the Mule Deer timing limitation for construction related activities. Questions? 1)Do you have any questions regarding the proposed project (i.e. construction, drilling, completions, production, etc.) 2)Thank you for attending the meeting. Please make sure you sign the check-in sheet before leaving. 3)If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lindsey Ellsworth (970-263-2739; lellsworth@terraep.com) or Adam Tankersley (970-589-6277; atankersley @terraep.com) Table of Contents 61 Appendix H: Memorandum of the Surface Use Agreement Table of Contents 76 Appendix I: Lesser Impact Exemption Request Letter TEP Rocky Mountain LLC 1058 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 November 14, 2023 Julie Murphy Director Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203 RE: ECMC Rule 304.d.(2) Lesser Impact Area Exemption NR 41-3 Pad (New Location): Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. OGDP Docket #231000324, Form 2A Doc # 403520979 Garfield County, Colorado Dear Director Murphy, TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (TEP) has filed an Oil and Gas Development Plan and Form 2A, Oil and Gas Location Assessment with the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) for the above referenced location. ECMC Rule 304.d. stipulates that the Director may exempt an Operator from submitting any of the information required by Rule 304.b. or any plan required by Rule 304.c. TEP requests an exemption from the Director based on evidence showing the information or plan is unnecessary because impacts to the reso urce will be so minimal as to pose no concern. Please see the attached Lesser Impact Exemption Request Table for details. Pursuant to COGCC Rule 304.d.(2), Operators may request an exemption from the Director in writing, without proceeding through the ordinary Rule 502 variance process. A request for an exemption will be provided with the Form 2A at the time the Form is submitted. This letter serves as the required exemption request. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-263-2736 or via email at jkirtland@terraep.com . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Kirtland Regulatory Manager Attachment NR 41-3 Pad Lesser Impact Area Exemption Request Table Exemption Requested From Resource Concern Exemption Circumstance Description Rule 304.c.(2) Noise Mitigation Plan Noise impacts on the public and wildlife The impact on resources will be so minimal as to pose no concern. During planning of the NR 41-3 pad, TEP determined through on -site surveys and review of available aerial imagery that there are no residential building units (RBU) within 2,000 feet of the proposed working pad surface (WPS) of the Oil and Gas Location. The nearest RBU is located more than 1-mile from the WPS of the Oil and Gas Location. Since no RBUs are present within 2,000, it is unlikely for noise generated during pre -production or production operations to adversely impact members of the public. Please refer to the Cultural Distance Map showing that there are no residential building units within 2,000 of the Oil and Gas Location. TEP also reviewed High Priority Habitat within one mile of proposed NR 41 -3 pad. The pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area High Priority Habitat. TEP is proposing to begin construction operations in August 2024, outside of the Winter Timing Limitation for mule deer; however, planned drilling and completions operations are scheduled within the winter timing limitation. The pad is located in relatively close proximity to existing oil and gas operations; however, the pad is somewhat isolated given the topography in the area. During consultation with CPW, TEP and CPW discussed noise related impacts to mule deer from development of the proposed NR 41 -3 pad. TEP stated that noise levels from drilling operations on the NR 41 -3 pad would be compliant with the noise standards under ECMC rules. Additionally, TEP would be conducting remote frac operations to further reduce impacts to mule deer (included noise related impacts). TEP will be paying a habitat mitigation fee to CPW to offset impacts to mule deer due to direct and indirect impacts associated with development activities, including winter operations. Based on this evaluation it is unlikely for noise during pre -production or production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. Please see the Wildlife Habitat Drawing included in the Form 2A showing all HPH boundaries within one mile of the working pad surface. CPW informed TEP that noise impacts are not anticipated for this Oil and Gas Location based on the operational consideration and best management practices described in the application. Please see Attachment A, CPW Correspondence from September 20, 2023 , for additional detail on CPW’s evaluation of noise impacts. Exemption Requested From Resource Concern Exemption Circumstance Description Rule 304.c.(3) Lighting Mitigation Plan Lighting impacts on the public and wildlife The impact on resources will be so minimal as to pose no concern. During planning of the NR 41-3 pad, TEP determined through on -site surveys and review of available aerial imagery that there are no residential building units (RBU) within 2,000 feet of the proposed working pad surface (WPS) of the Oil and Gas Location. The nearest RBU is located more than 1 -mile from the WPS of the Oil and Gas Location. Since no RBUs are present within 2,000, it is unlikely for light generated during pre -production operations to adversely impact members of the public. Please refer to the Cultural Distance Map showing that there are no residential building units within 2,000 of the Oil and Gas Location. TEP does not currently plan to have any onsite lighting during long -term production operations. TEP also reviewed High Priority Habitat within one mile of proposed NR 41 -3 pad. The pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area High Priority Habitat. TEP is proposing to begin construction operations in August 2024 outside of the Winter Timing Limitation for mule deer; however, planned drilling and completions operations are scheduled within the winter timing limitation. The pad is located in relatively close proximity to existing oil and gas operations; however, the pad is somewhat isolated given the topography in the area. During consultation with CPW, TEP and CPW discussed lighting related impacts to mule deer from development of the proposed NR 41 -3 pad. TEP stated that lighting from drilling operations on the NR 41 -3 pad would be compliant with the lighting standards under ECMC rules. Additionally, TEP would be conducting remote frac operations to further reduce impacts to mule deer (included lighting related impacts). TEP will be paying a habitat mitigation fee to CPW to offset impacts to mule deer due to direct and indirect impacts associated with development activities, including winter operations. Based on this evaluation it is unlikely for lighting during pre -production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. There will be no onsite lighting during production operations, except during emergency events. Please see the Wildlife Habitat Drawing included in the Form 2A showing all HPH boundaries within one mile of the working pad surface. CPW informed TEP that lighting impacts are not anticipated for this Oil and Gas Location based on the operational consideration and best management practices described in the application. Please see Attachment A, CPW Correspondence from September 20, 2023 , for additional detail on CPW’s evaluation of noise impacts. ATTACHMENT A COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE CORRESPONDENCE SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 1 Adam Tankersley From:Taylor Elm - DNR <taylor.elm@state.co.us> Sent:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:26 PM To:Adam Tankersley Cc:Jax Nourse Subject:Re: NR 41-3 Pad - Wildlife Mitigation Plans & Waivers Attachments:image001.jpg; CPW On-Site Photos.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Adam, Thank you for sending all of the additional information, and for taking the time to discuss it with CPW and BLM on September 15th. I have reviewed the items that you have requested for this location and provided responses below. If there are additional follow up items that we need to discuss, please reach out and we can set up a time to meet. Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters – Waiver Request CPW has reviewed this request to provide a waiver for new disturbance within 300-500 feet of the 1202.c.(1).S. Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters buffer (Yellow Slide Gulch). During our onsite visit to the NR 41-3 Pad on May 24, 2023, CPW was able to assess the Yellow Slide Gulch waterway in person (onsite photo documentation attached). Based on this in-person review, CPW's lack of data regarding fish presence, and WestWater's aquatic habitat assessment, CPW has concluded that Yellow Slide Gulch does not currently support any populations of sportfish and is unlikely to support a sportfishery in the immediate future. Additionally, CPW supports the best management practices that are being implemented and does not anticipate any adverse impacts to downstream aquatic habitats due to the long distance between the area of disturbance and downstream perennial waterways. CPW approves this waiver request to conduct oil and gas operations between 300 and 500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of this drainage. Furthermore, CPW agrees with the modified facility inspection frequency based on implementation of remote monitoring technology and to minimize overall impacts to the mule deer winter concentration area by reducing traffic to the pad location. Compensatory Mitigation CPW agrees with the compensatory mitigation amounts that have been provided based on our earlier discussions and assessment of indirect impacts to the mule deer high priority habitat. We also agree with the timeline regarding payments of the compensatory mitigation fees based upon greater certainty of the proposed schedule. Noise and Lighting LIAE We appreciate confirmation that noise and light standards outlined in the ECMC's 400 Series regulations will be adhered to, and support the best management practices that we have discussed to minimize noise and light from the proposed development. We do not anticipate adverse impacts to wildlife resources as a result of noise and light, and therefore we do not request any additional noise or light mitigation be included for this application. Wildlife Mitigation Plan 2 CPW has reviewed the provided Wildlife Mitigation Plan and approves of this document. The best management practices and consultation process that occurred for this location is portrayed accurately and we do not have any suggested changes regarding the plan. Please let us know if there are any aspects that change and require an additional review from CPW staff. Again, we appreciate the early consultation and communication regarding this development proposal. Thank you, Taylor Elm Northwest Region Energy Liaison To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. P 970.947.2971 | C 970.986.9767 711 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 taylor.elm@state.co.us | cpw.state.co.us On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:22 PM Adam Tankersley <ATankersley@terraep.com> wrote: Good Afternoon Taylor, Thank you for meeting with TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) on September 15, 2023 to review the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the NR 41-3 pad. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been updated per our discussions and have been attached for your final review and approval. TEP respectfully requests approval of one (1) waiver for this Oil and Gas Location as described below. Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters – Waiver Request TEP respectfully requests CPW’s approval of a waiver to Rule 1202.c.(1).S pursuant to Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii to conduct new ground disturbance and well work on the NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 pad is located within 500 feet of Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Per Rule 1202.c., “[o]perators will not conduct any new ground disturbance and Well work, including access road and pad construction, drilling and completion activities, and Flowline/utility corridor clearing and installation activities in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.c.(1).” However, under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii, “CPW may waive the application of and the Director may grant an exception to Rule 1202.c.(1).S” if the operator commits to the listed Best Management Practices. TEP will adhere to all Best Management Practices listed under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb, except for Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb.3 requiring daily inspection of the Oil and Gas Location. TEP request approval to modify the inspection frequency such that it is consistent with the agree upon modification under Rule 1202.a.(10).C, daily inspections for the first six (6) to nine (9) months and weekly inspections for the remaining life of the wells. Compensatory Mitigation TEP has agreed to pay a total of $155,793.98 in compensatory mitigation fees for direct, indirect, and seasonal TL relief associated with development of the NR 41-3 Pad. The following provides a breakdown of the compensatory mitigation fees along with the estimated payment due date based on the proposed schedule: 3  Direct Impact Fee: $76,008.79 (Prior to Construction; ±July 2024)  Indirect Impact Fee: $45,592.79 (Prior to Construction; ±July 2024)  Seasonal TL Fee Visit 1: $5,689.45 (Prior to Visit 1 Winter Operation; ±March 2025)  Seasonal TL Fee Visit 2: $28,493.75 (Prior to Visit 2 Winter Operation; ±November 2025) The Season Timing Limitation Fees will be paid to CPW prior to conducting winter operations and following further consultation with CPW. As discussed, further consultation may be necessary to ensure the fees aligns with any scheduling changes that may occur after the application has been submitted / approved. As described in the Wildlife Plan, TEP may consult with CPW further regarding compensatory mitigation projects in lieu of payment of the fees listed above. Any project agreed to with CPW would be documented via a revised Wildlife Plan and Sundry to ECMC following consultation with CPW. Noise and Lighting LIAE As part of the Form 2A, TEP will be submitting a Lesser Impact Area Exemption request for the Noise Mitigation Plan and Lighting Mitigation Plan for the NR 41-3 pad. TEP’s evaluation of noise and lighting impacts associated with our proposed operations indicated that the proposed activities would be in compliance with noise standards outlined in Rule 423 and with lighting standards outlined in Rule 424. The NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP has included Best Management Practices for noise and lighting in the Wildlife Plan as discussed during the pre-application consultation meeting. There will be no onsite lighting during long-term production operations. Based on the proposed Best Management Practices and Compensatory Mitigation described in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, it is unlikely for noise and/or lighting during pre- production or production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. Attached is the latest draft of the Plan of Development, Wildlife Plan, Wildlife Habitat Drawing, and Lesser Impact Area Exemption request for your review. Please let me know if CPW has any question regarding the waiver request or BMPs listed in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Additionally, please let me know if CPW agrees with TEP assessment on noise and lighting impacts associated with activities planned on the NR 41-3 pad. Thanks, Adam Tankersley | Planning Manager | TEP Rocky Mountain LLC | 1058 CR215 Parachute, CO 81635  (Office) 970-623-8994 |  (Mobile) 970-589-6277 |  ATankersley@terraep.com 4 This message and any related attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify the sender immediately. TEP - NR 41-3 Pad Location CPW On-Site Photos of Yellow Slide Gulch Figure 1: This photo was taken on May 24, 2023 at the intersection of the Yellow Slide Gulch and Garfield County Road 244. The lack of culvert infrastructure at the county road indicates that this waterway infrequently transmits water. The water present during the spring of 2023 is likely due to abnormally heavy snowfall and melt that occurred from the previous winter. Figure 2: This photo was taken just upstream of the previous photo and illustrates the ephemeral nature of this waterway and its lack of riparian vegetation that would be indicative of year-round flows required to support sportfish populations. Table of Contents 86 Appendix J: Alternative Location Analysis Alternative Location Analysis – 304.b.(2) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 12 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has prepared the following Alternative Location Analysis (“ALA”) for the NR 41-3 pad in compliance with the requirements listed under the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 304.b.(2). The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP is proposing to construct the proposed NR 41-3 pad to develop thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. During the development planning process, TEP reviewed the ALA Criteria outlined under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B and determined that criteria viii., “[t]he proposed Oil and Gas Location is within High Priority Habitat and the Operator did not obtain a waiver from CPW through…pre-application consultation”, was met for the proposed NR 41-3 Pad. TEP initiated an ALA, which includes the evaluation of four (4) alternative Oil and Gas Locations within the vicinity of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The ALA prepared by TEP includes the evaluation of all ALA criteria listed under Rule 304.b.(2).B, and the well location and siting requirements under Rule 604. Additionally, TEP evaluated each alternative based on landscape level characteristics (i.e. slope), mineral development potential, and other regulatory limitations, such as No Surface Occupancy (“NSO”), Controlled Surface Use (“CSU”), and Timing Limitations (“TL”) enforced by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). PROPOSED OIL AND GAS LOCATION (TIER III-A) The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location located on private surface (Clough Sheep Company, LLC) within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. From the proposed NR 41-3 pad, TEP would directionally drill thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells located within Sections 31 and 32 of Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., and Section 2 of Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells, thirty-one (31) wells would be directionally drilled into Federal minerals (COC-073070) and eight (8) wells would be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee minerals. Please see the ALA Overview Map showing the Area of Mineral Development for the NR 41-3 pad. Advantages 1. There are no Residential Building Unites (“RBU”) or High Occupancy Building Units (“HOBU”) within 2,000 feet of the proposed Working Pad Surface (“WPS”) of the NR 41-3 pad. 2. There are no Building Units within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 3. There are no school facilities or childcare centers within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 4. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within Disproportionately Impacted Communities. 5. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within a surface water supply area. 6. The Oil and Gas Location maximizes the area of mineral development targeting a total of thirty- nine (39) proposed natural gas wells, thirty-one (31) Federal wells and eight (8) Fee wells. 7. TEP and the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company LLC) have executed a Surface Use Agreement for the proposed NR 41-3 pad. 8. The proposed NR 41-3 access road will follow an existing two-track minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. Disadvantages 1. The proposed NR 41-3 is located within High Priority Habitat (“HPH”): a. Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area b. Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Page 3 of 12 Potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The WPS of the proposed NR 41-3 pad is located more than 2,000 feet from the nearest RBU. The nearest RBU is located more than one (1) mile from the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the proposed Oil and Gas Location during construction, drilling, completions, and long-term production operations. Additionally, site specific mitigation measures and BMPs will be implemented to eliminate or minimize potential impacts (i.e., application of freshwater on roadways). The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within the Mule Deer Winter Concentration HPH boundary as shown on the ALA Data Map for the NR 41-3 pad included in Attachment A, Alternative Location Analysis Maps and Exhibits. Construction of the NR 41-3 pad would create approximately 12.534-acres of new surface disturbance within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area. Best Management Practices and compensatory mitigation have been included in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, attached to the Form 2A, to minimize and/or mitigate impacts to mule deer associated with planned activities for the proposed NR 41-3 pad. TEP is proposing to construct the Oil and Gas Location in the Summer/Fall of 2024 outside the CPW recommended timing limitation avoiding construction related impacts to mule deer. While the NR 41-3 pad would create new surface disturbance, TEP has designed the associated access road and pipeline corridors to take advantage of the existing disturbance of the existing two-track to minimize overall new disturbance within HPH. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is also located within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch (intermittent stream) as shown on the ALA Data Map for the NR 41-3 pad included in Attachment A. The WPS of the NR 41-3 pad would be located 497 feet from Yellow Slide Gulch and would create approximate 1.378-acres of surface disturbance within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary. To minimize potential impacts, BMPs will be implemented at the Oil and Gas Location (i.e. stormwater / erosions control measures, secondary containment, etc.) to minimize the potential for downstream impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The proposed access road and pipeline corridor will also traverse through Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP will implement mitigation measures (i.e. dust mitigation, erosion control measures, etc.) along the access road and pipeline corridor to minimize impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters during development of this location. Please see the Wildlife Plan attached to the Form 2A for a list of site-specific BMPs. Permitting Considerations TEP is required to permit this location through the ECMC via the Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) process. TEP is required to consult with CPW due to the location being within High Priority Habitat. TEP has consulted with CPW regarding impacts to wildlife and has prepared a Wildlife Mitigation Plan documenting the Best Management Practices and Compensatory Mitigation Fees required for this Oil and Gas Location. The Relevant Local Government for the NR 41-3 pad is Garfield County. A Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit is required prior to development of this Oil and Gas Location. TEP has submitted the Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit application for the NR 41-3 pad concurrently with the NR 41-3 OGDP. The BLM Application for Permit to Drill (APD) associated with the proposed Federal wells planned on the NR 41-3 pad will be required prior to development of this Oil and Gas Location. TEP has submitted the twenty (20) BLM APDs included as part of Visit 1 concurrently with the NR 41-3 OGDP. Page 4 of 12 Conditions or factors that make this location unavailable There are no conditions known to TEP that would make the NR 41-3 pad unavailable for development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION – 1 (TIER III-B) Alternative 1 would be a new Oil and Gas Location located on private surface (Clough Sheep Company, LLC) within Lots 3 and 4 of Section 2, Township 6 South, Range 94 West P.M. The new pad would be located east of the proposed NR 41-3 pad and would be accessed via Garfield County Road 244, an existing lease road, and the proposed new access road following the existing two-track. Alternative 1 would require the construction of a new Oil and Gas Location, access road, and pipeline corridor, similar to that of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Alternative 1 would only be able to develop twenty-nine (29) of the proposed thirty-nine (39) natural gas wells and would not fully develop the proposed minerals. Alternative 1 would trigger an ALA due to its footprint overlaying Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundaries. Based on these considerations Alternative 1 would be classified as a Tier III-B location. The following advantages and disadvantages would apply to Alternative 1. Advantages 1. There are no RBUs or HOBUs within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2. There are no Building Units within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 3. There are no school facilities or childcare centers within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 4. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within Disproportionately Impacted Communities. 5. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within a surface water supply area. 6. TEP and the surface owner (Clough Sheep Company LLC) have previously executed a SUA for the Alternative 1 pad location; therefore, the surface owner would approve of this alternative. 7. The proposed access road planned for the NR 41-3 pad would also be used for Alternative 1, which follows an existing two-track minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. Disadvantages 1. Alternative 1 is located within HPH, including Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. 2. Alternative 1 would be located within 300 feet of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters of Yellow Slide Gulch, which may cause more potential downstream impacts to aquatic sportfish. 3. Alternative 1 would only provide for the development of twenty-nine (29) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. Potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The Alternative 1 pad location would not be within 2,000 feet of an RBUs. The nearest RBU would be located more than one (1) mile from the Alternative 1 pad location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the Alternative 1 location during construction, drilling, completions, and long-term production operations. Additionally, site specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to eliminate or minimize potential impacts (i.e. application of freshwater on roadways) Page 5 of 12 The Alternative 1 pad is located within the Mule Deer Winter Concentration HPH boundary as shown on the ALA Data Map for the Alternative 1 pad included in Attachment A, Alternative Location Analysis Maps and Exhibits. Construction of Alternative 1 would create approximately 12.06 acres of new surface disturbance within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. Best Management Practices and compensatory mitigation would be implemented to minimize and/or mitigation impacts to mule deer associated with development of the Alternative 1 location. TEP would propose completing construction activities outside the CPW recommended timing limitation (December 1 – April 30), avoiding construction related impacts to wintering mule deer. While the Alternative 1 location would create new surface disturbance, TEP would design the associated access roads and pipeline corridors to take advantage of the existing disturbance of existing two-tracks, access roads, and pipeline corridors to minimize overall new surface disturbance within HPH. The Alternative 1 pad is also located within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch (intermittent stream) as shown on the ALA Data Map for the Alternative 1 pad included in Attachment A. Alternative 1 would be located only 277.97 feet from Yellow Slide Gulch and would have more direct surface disturbance (approx. 4.30-acres) within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary, than the proposed NR 41-3 pad. BMPs could be implemented at the Oil and Gas Location (i.e. stormwater / erosion control measures, secondary containment, etc.) to minimize the potential for downstream impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The proposed access road and pipeline corridor would also travers through Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP would implement mitigation measures (i.e. dust mitigation, erosion control measures, etc.) along the access road and pipeline corridor to minimize impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Permitting Considerations TEP would be required to permit this location through the ECMC via the Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) process. TEP would be required to consult with CPW due to the location being within High Priority Habitat. Since Alternative 1 would be located within Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters, CPW would need to provide a waiver for the sitting of Alternative 1. Given that there would be more direct impacts to the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters from development of Alternative 1 than the impacts assessed for the proposed NR 41-3 pad, TEP believes CPW would likely not grant a waiver for this location. The Relevant Local Government for the Alternative 1 location is Garfield County. A Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit is required prior to development of this Oil and Gas Location since the Oil and Gas Location would be subject to an Alternative Location Analysis, per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B. The BLM would be required to complete an additional environmental assessment prior to approval of any associated Application for Permits to Drill since this alternative would develop Federal Minerals. Conditions or factors that make this location unavailable Development of the Alternative 1 Oil and Gas Location would require the execution of a new SUA with the surface owner. However, TEP has previously received approval from the surface owner for an Oil and Gas Location at the Alternative 1 location. TEP has approached the surface owner to determine if a new SUA for Alternative 1 would be an acceptable option. The surface owner (also a mineral owner) prefers the NR 41-3 pad since it maximizes the area of mineral development. Page 6 of 12 ALTERNATIVE LOCATION – 2 (TIER III-B) Alternative 2 would be a new Oil and Gas Location located on Federal surface (BLM) within the SE¼SW¼ and SW¼SE¼ of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. This location would be northwest of the proposed NR 41-3 pad and would be accessed via Garfield County Road 244, existing lease roads, and the proposed new access road following the existing two-track. Alternative 2 would require the construction of a new Oil and Gas Location, construction of an access road, and construction of a pipeline corridor, similar to that of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Alternative 2 would only be able to develop twenty-seven (27) of the proposed thirty-nine (39) natural gas wells and would not fully develop the proposed mineral acreage. Alternative 2 would trigger an ALA due to it being located overlying Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH Boundary. Based on these considerations Alternative 2 would be classified as a Tier III-B location. The following advantages and disadvantages would apply to Alternative 2. Advantages 1. There are no RBUs or HOBUs within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2. There are no Building Units within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 3. There are no school facilities or childcare centers within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 4. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within Disproportionately Impacted Communities. 5. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within a surface water supply area. 6. The proposed access road planned for the NR 41-3 pad would also be used for Alternative 2, which follows an existing two-track, minimizing new surface disturbance due to road construction. Disadvantages 1. Alternative 2 would create more overall surface disturbance, from construction of the proposed Oil and Gas Location, access road, and pipeline corridor, than the proposed NR 41-3 pad. 2. Alternative 2 is located within HPH, including Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. 3. Alternative 2 would be located within 300 feet of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters of Yellow Slide Gulch, which may cause more potential downstream impacts to aquatic sportfish. 4. Alternative 2 would only provide for the development of twenty-seven (27) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 5. Alternative 2 would be located on Federal surface administered by the BLM, which would be subject to the following NSOs, CSUs, and TLs: a. NSOs: I-70 Viewshed, VRM Class II, Wildlife Security b. CSUs: Erosive Soils / Slopes, Riparian and Wetland c. TLs: Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The Alternative 2 pad location would not be within 2,000 feet of an RBUs. The nearest RBU would be located more than one (1) mile from the Alternative 2 pad location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the Alternative 2 location during construction, drilling, completions, and long-term production operations. Additionally, site specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to eliminate or minimize potential impacts (i.e. application of freshwater on roadways). Page 7 of 12 The Alternative 2 pad is located within the Mule Deer Winter Concentration HPH boundary as shown on the ALA Data Map for the Alternative 2 pad included in Attachment A, Alternative Location Analysis Maps and Exhibits. Construction of Alternative 2 would create approximately 10.31 acres of new surface disturbance within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. Best Management Practices and compensatory mitigation would be implemented to minimize and/or mitigation impacts to mule deer associated with development of the Alternative 2 location. TEP would propose completing construction activities outside the CPW recommended timing limitation (December 1 – April 30), avoiding construction related impacts to mule deer. While the Alternative 2 location would create new surface disturbance, TEP would design the associated access roads and pipeline corridors to take advantage of the existing disturbance of existing two-tracks, access roads, and pipeline corridors to minimize overall new surface disturbance within HPH. The Alternative 2 pad is also located within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch (intermittent stream) as shown on the ALA Data Map for the Alternative 2 pad included in Attachment A. Alternative 2 would be located only 292.05 feet from Yellow Slide Gulch and would have more direct surface disturbance (approx. 5.74-acres) within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary than the proposed NR 41-3 pad. BMPs could be implemented at the Oil and Gas Location (i.e. stormwater / erosion control measures, secondary containment, etc.) to minimize the potential for downstream impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. The proposed access road and pipeline corridor would also travers through Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP would implement mitigation measures (i.e. dust mitigation, erosion control measures, etc.) along the access road and pipeline corridor to minimize impacts to Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Permitting Considerations TEP would be required to permit this location through the ECMC via the Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) process. TEP would be required to consult with CPW due to the location being within High Priority Habitat. Since Alternative 2 would be located within Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters, CPW would need to provide a waiver for the sitting of Alternative 2. Given that there would be more direct impacts to the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters from development of Alternative 2 than the impacts assessed for the proposed NR 41-3 pad, TEP believes CPW would likely not grant a waiver for this location. The Relevant Local Government for the Alternative 2 location is Garfield County. A Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit is required prior to development of this Oil and Gas Location since the Oil and Gas Location would be subject to an Alternative Location Analysis per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B. The BLM would be required to complete an additional environmental assessment prior to approval of any associated Application for Permits to Drill (“APD”) since this alternative would develop Federal Minerals. As mentioned above, Alternative 2 would be located on Federal surface subject to surface use stipulations. Conditions or factors that make this location unavailable The Alternative 2 location would be located on Federal surface and would require the approval of BLM APDs and Right-of-Ways (ROW) prior to development. Development of the Alternative 2 location would be subject to three (3) NSOs that would make this location unavailable for development, which include I- 70 Viewshed, Visual Resource Management Class II Below Rim, and Wildlife Security Below Rim. While these NSOs do provide some exceptions allowing development within the area of the Alternative 2 location, it is unlikely given the proposed scope of development for this location to fall under the exceptions allowed in the stipulation. Additionally, during pre-application consultation, BLM representatives expressed Page 8 of 12 concerns regarding this alternative primarily due to its location with the Wildlife Security NSO, and expressed their support for the NR 41-3 pad. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION – 3 (TIER I-B) Alternative 3 would be a new Oil and Gas Location located on Federal land (BLM) within Lots 2 and 3 of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M. The location would be north of the proposed NR 41-3 pad and would be accessed via Garfield County Road 242 (aka JQS Road) and a proposed access road approximately 8,672 feet (1.64 miles). Alternative 3 would require the construction of a new Oil and Gas Location, construction of an access road, and construction of a pipeline corridor. Alternative 3 is would not trigger an ALA based on the criteria listed under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B, however, other BLM stipulations would apply to this location as discussed below. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not fully develop the minerals proposed by the Form 2A. Alternative 2 would only be able to develop thirty-one (31) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. Based on these considerations Alternative 3 would be classified as a Tier I-B location. The following advantages and disadvantages would apply to Alternative 3. Advantages 1. There are no RBUs or HOBUs within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2. There are no Building Units within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 3. There are no school facilities or childcare centers within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 4. The Oil and Gas Location would not be located within HPH. 5. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within Disproportionately Impacted Communities. 6. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within a surface water supply area. Disadvantages 1. Alternative 3 would create more surface disturbance from construction of the proposed pad and associated access road and pipeline corridor than what’s currently proposed for the proposed NR 41-3 pad and associated infrastructure. No existing access roads or two-tracks are known to exist between the Alternative 3 location and CR242. 2. Alternative 3 would only provide for the development of thirty-one (31) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 3. Alternative 3 would be located on Federal surface administered by the BLM, which would be subject to the following NSOs, CSUs, and TLs: a. NSOs: I-70 Viewshed, VRM Class II, Wildlife Security b. CSUs: Erosive Soils / Slopes, Riparian and Wetland c. TLs: Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The Alternative 3 pad location would not be within 2,000 feet of an RBUs. The nearest RBU would be located more than one (1) mile from the Alternative 3 pad location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the Alternative 3 location during construction, drilling, completions, and long-term production operations. Additionally, site specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to eliminate or minimize potential impacts (i.e. application of freshwater on roadways). Page 9 of 12 The Alternative 3 pad is not located within HPH listed under ECMC Rule 1202.c.(1) or Rule 1202.d. While the Alternative 3 location would not create any new surface disturbance within HPH, the proposed pipeline corridor required to transport natural gas and produced water from the Alternative 3 location would cross through HPH. However, the impacts would be minimal since these sections of the pipeline corridor would follow existing access roads and pipeline ROWs. Permitting Considerations TEP would be required to permit this location through the ECMC via the Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) process. TEP would be required to consult with CPW since the associated pipeline infrastructure would be located within High Priority Habitat; however, with the implementation of BMPs for pipeline construction, impacts to wildlife would be negligible. The Relevant Local Government for the Alternative 3 location is Garfield County. A Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit would not be required for development of Alternative 3 since the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code only requires an Oil and Gas Permit for location that trigger an Alternative Location Analysis per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B, or if the operator is seeking a variance from ECMC noise and/or lighting standards. The BLM would be required to complete an additional environmental assessment prior to approval of any associated Application for Permits to Drill (“APD”) since this alternative would develop Federal Minerals. As mentioned above, Alternative 3 would be located on Federal surface subject to surface use stipulations. Conditions or factors that make this location unavailable The Alternative 3 location would be located on Federal surface and would require the approval of BLM APDs and ROW prior to development. Development of the Alternative 3 location would be subject to three (3) NSOs that would make this location unavailable for development, which include the I-70 Viewshed, Visual Resource Management Class II Below Rim, and Wildlife Security Below Rim. While these NSOs do provide some exceptions allowing development within the area of the Alternative 3 location, it is unlikely based on the proposed scope of development for this location to fall under the exceptions allowed in the stipulation. Additionally, during pre-application consultation, BLM representatives expressed concerns regarding this alternative primarily due to its location with the Wildlife Security NSO, and expressed their support for the NR 41-3 pad. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION – 4 (TIER I-B) Alternative 4 would be a new Oil and Gas Location located on Federal surface (BLM) within Lot 1 of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M. and NW¼NW¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West 6th P.M. The location would be north of the proposed NR 41-3 pad and would be accessed via Garfield Country Road 242 (aka JQS Rd.) and a proposed access road approximately 6,184 feet (1.89 miles) in length. Alternative 4 would require construction of a new Oil and Gas location, construction of an access road, and construction of a pipeline corridor. Alternative 4 would not trigger any ALA based on the criteria listed under ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B; however, other BLM stipulations would apply to this location, which are further described below. Additionally, Alternative 4 would not fully develop the minerals proposed by the Form 2A. Alternative 4 would only be able to develop twenty-two (22) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. Based on these considerations Alternative 4 would be classified as a Tier I-B location. The following advantages and disadvantages would apply to Alternative 4. Page 10 of 12 Advantages 1. There are no RBUs or HOBUs within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 2. There are no Building Units within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 3. There are no school facilities or childcare centers within 2,000 feet of the WPS. 4. The Oil and Gas Location would not be located within HPH. 5. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within Disproportionately Impacted Communities. 6. The Oil and Gas Location will not be within a surface water supply area. Disadvantages 1. Alternative 4 would create more surface disturbance from construction of the proposed pad and associated access road and pipeline corridor than what’s currently proposed for the proposed NR 41-3 pad and associated infrastructure. No existing access roads or two-tracks are known to exist between the Alternative 4 location and CR242. 2. Alternative 4 would only provide for the development of twenty-two (22) of the thirty-nine (39) proposed well locations. 3. Alternative 4 would be located on Federal surface administered by the BLM, which would be subject to the following NSOs, CSUs, and TLs: a. NSOs: I-70 Viewshed, VRM Class II, Wildlife Security b. CSUs: Erosive Soils / Slopes, Riparian and Wetland c. TLs: Big Game Winter Range (Dec 1 – April 30) Potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The Alternative 4 pad location would not be within 2,000 feet of an RBUs. The nearest RBU would be located more than one (1) mile from the Alternative 4 pad location. Due to the remote nature of this Oil and Gas Location, TEP does not anticipate any impacts to the public associated with noise, light, dust, odors, and air emissions originating from the Alternative 4 location during construction, drilling, completions, and long-term production operations. Additionally, site specific mitigation measures and BMPs would be implemented to eliminate or minimize potential impacts (i.e. application of freshwater on roadways). The Alternative 4 pad is not located within HPH listed under ECMC Rule 1202.c.(1) or Rule 1202.d. While the Alternative 4 location would not create any new surface disturbance within HPH, the proposed pipeline corridor required to transport natural gas and produced water from the Alternative 4 location would cross through HPH. However, the impacts would be minimal since these sections of the pipeline corridor would follow existing access roads and pipeline ROWs. Permitting Considerations TEP would be required to permit this location through the ECMC via the Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) process. TEP would be required to consult with CPW due to the associated pipeline infrastructure being within High Priority Habitat; however, with the implementation of BMPs for pipeline construction, impacts to wildlife would be negligible. The Relevant Local Government for the Alternative 4 location is Garfield County. A Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit would not be required for development of Alternative 4 since the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code only requires an Oil and Gas Permit for location that trigger an Alternative Location Analysis per ECMC Rule 304.b.(2).B, or if the operator is seeking a variance from ECMC noise and/or lighting standards. Page 11 of 12 The BLM would be required to complete an additional environmental assessment prior to approval of any associated Application for Permits to Drill (“APD”) since this alternative would develop Federal Minerals. As mentioned above, Alternative 4 would be located on Federal surface subject to surface use stipulations. Conditions or factors that make this location unavailable The Alternative 4 location would be located on Federal surface and would require the approval of BLM APDs and ROW prior to development. Development of the Alternative 4 location would be subject to three (3) NSOs that would make this location unavailable for development, which include the I-70 Viewshed, Visual Resource Management Class II Below Rim, and Wildlife Security Below Rim. While these NSOs do provide some exceptions allowing development within the area of the Alternative 4 location, it is unlikely based on the proposed scope of development for this location to fall under the exceptions allowed in the stipulation. Additionally, during pre-application consultation, BLM representatives expressed concerns regarding this alternative primarily due to its location with the Wildlife Security NSO, and expressed their support for the NR 41-3 pad. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Surface Constraints During evaluation of potential alternative locations TEP also reviewed the best available surface information (i.e. slope) to determine what area within the project vicinity would be suitable for site construction. TEP generally limits site construction to areas with slope less than 35 percent to ensure site stability and to minimize overall site disturbance. Slope between 35 percent and 50 percent can be utilized to some limited capacity when site conditions permit. Areas with steep slopes require more surface area for cut and fill slope, which can significantly increase total surface disturbance for the same working pad footprint. Additionally, steep slopes required a more in-depth geotechnical evaluation to ensure slopes are stable and suitable for the proposed activities. TEP has prepared a Slope Map included in Attachment A, Alternative Location Analysis Maps and Exhibit, showing areas within the vicinity that have steep slopes greater than 35 percent and that may be problematic for site construction. Garfield County, Colorado Land Use Code As mentioned above, TEP is required to obtain approval of an Oil and Gas Permit through Garfield County, Colorado, per Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Article 9: Pipelines and Oil and Gas Code, Division 2. Oil and Gas Code prior to development of the NR 41-3 pad, and any alternative location that triggers an ALA or if a noise or light variance is needed. As required by Section 9-203, TEP formally requested a Pre-Application Conference with the Community Development Department on June 22, 2023 for the NR 41-3 pad and included the required Pre-Application Materials as required under Section 9-203.B of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. The Pre-Application Conference was conducted by Garfield County on July 27, 2023, as required by Section 9-203.C, and was attended by representatives of TEP, Garfield County, and ECMC. Garfield County’s Community Development Director, Sheryl Bower, provided a summary of the pre-application conference to TEP on August 17, 2023, as required by Section 9-203.E, which provided further guidance on application materials required for review of the Oil and Gas Permit. Please see Appendix A, Garfield County Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter, included in the Pre-Application Consultation Summary document attached to the Form 2A for additional details. Page 12 of 12 TEP conducted a pre-application Neighborhood Meeting, as required by Section 9-203.D, on August 29, 2023, with surface owners and tenants of all properties within 2,000 of the proposed WPS of the Oil and Gas Location. Please see Appendix B, Neighborhood Meeting Summary, of the Pre-Application Consultation Summary document attached to the Form 2A for additional details. TEP has prepared all applicable materials required for the Oil and Gas Permit as well as those materials requested during the Pre-Application Conference and has submitted the Oil and Gas Permit concurrently with submittal of the NR 41-3 OGDP. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Permitting Requirements During initial planning of the NR 41-3 pad, TEP consulted with BLM regarding planned operations on the NR 41-3 pad. TEP submitted required documentation to BLM for completion of the environmental assessment for this project. Since Federal minerals would be developed from all alternative locations, BLM would be required to complete additional analysis of these alternative locations prior to development, if selected, which would further delay project development. TEP has prepared the BLM APDs for the twenty (20) proposed wells planned under Visit 1 along with all required ROWs associated with development of the Federal wells on the NR 41-3 pad and has submitted them concurrently with submittal of the NR 41-3 OGDP. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANAYSIS SUMMARY Through the ALA process, the NR 41-3 pad was selected as the preferred location because it minimizes the potential impact to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources, while also maximizing the potential for mineral development. The development plan for the NR 41-3 would maximize the utility of existing Oil and Gas Locations as remote support facilities during well completion and long- term production operations minimizing new surface disturbance required for well development. Even through the NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Water HPH boundaries, the pad location minimizes new surface disturbance within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary and avoids surface disturbance within the Wildlife Security NSO on the adjacent Federal surface. Alternative 1 and 2 have a closer proximity to the surface water features associated with Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters and would increase the overall surface disturbance within this boundary. Alternative 2 – 4 are all located on Federal surface subject to NSOs, CSUs, and TLs that would make this location unavailable for development. Through the pre- application consultation process CPW, BLM, and Garfield County reviewed the alternatives and have expressed their support for the proposed NR 41-3 pad compared to the alternatives. The NR 41-3 pad would utilize the existing surface disturbance from the two-track minimizing new surface disturbance and direct impacts to wildlife habitat. Additionally, the NR 41-3 development plan benefits from the use of remote support locations to minimize surface disturbance and long-term production operations at the NR 41-3 pad. The use of remote support facilities may not be possible for Alternatives 3 and 4 since these locations are more remote than the NR 41-3 pad. TEP has executed a SUA with the surface owner to develop the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells planned for the NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 pad is the surface owner’s preferred location. TEP believes the NR 41-3 pad is the most protective of public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources, while also maximizing mineral development. ATTACHMENT A NR 41-3 PAD ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS MAPS AND EXHIBITS 27282930 32 33 34 31 2526 35 36 62413 5S 93W5S 94W 6S 93W 6S 94W JQS RD (C R 242)JQSRD(CR 24 2) YELL O W S LID E RD (CR 2 4 8 ) F R A V E R T RESE R V O I R R D(CR24 4 ) R OAN C L IF F S RD ( C R 2 4 9 )HM 32-33 NR 23-3 7?3URMHFWV?3LFHDQFH?5XOLVRQ?154133DG?9LVLW1?154133DGDSU[MQRXUVH $/7(51$7,9(/2&$7,21$1$/<6,6 2YHUYLHZ0DS5XOH304E2FL 154132*'3 2LODQG*DV/RFDWLRQ15413 )RUP2$'2&1XPEHU403520979 6HFWLRQ3 7RZQVKLS66 5DQJH94: 6WK30 *DUILHOG&RXQW\&2 0 30001500 )HHW 127(7+,60$3,6$&203,/$7,212)38%/,&/<$9$,/$%/('$7$7+($&&85$&< $1'&203/(7(1(662)6$,''$7$+$6127%((19(5,),('%<7(352&.< 02817$,1//&(;,67,1*&21',7,2160$<',))(5)520:+$7,66+2:1 'DWH9122023752$0 $XWKRU-D[1RXUVH $OWHUQDWH/RFDWLRQ4 /DW39575956 /RQJ107864230 15413 /DW39561906 /RQJ107866390 $OWHUQDWH/RFDWLRQ2 /DW39564596 /RQJ107871526 $OWHUQDWH/RFDWLRQ3 /DW39570959 /RQJ107865914 $OWHUQDWH/RFDWLRQ1 /DW39559818 /RQJ107859416 $OWHUQDWH/RFDWLRQ3 /DW39570959 /RQJ107865914 Active Oil and Gas Location Structures Pad Centroid 2,000ft Buffer Proposed WorNing Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Intermittent Stream Perennial Steam Potential Wetland (NWI) High Priority Habitat Area of Mineral Development Existing Access Road County Road T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA MAP NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: NR 41-3 Pad Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 3 Township: 6S Range: 94W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO ¹0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 10/6/2023 9:32 AM Author: Jax Nourse ! ! H 3231 23 6: 6: &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( / / H Pad Centroid Buffer Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Garfield County Parcels Intermittent Stream Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 thwYLbD t5 w5LL ϬͲϱϬϬΖ ϱϬϭͲϭϬϬϬΖϭϬϬϭͲϮϬϬϬΖ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ dĂďůĞ Ͳ /ŽƵŶƚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ wĂĚŝŝ ŽĨ tt^ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘.Ϳ Legend Zoning: Resource Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land L5 bĞĂƌ CĞĂƚƵƌĞ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ5ŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ ͲͲ DƵůĞĞĞƌtŝŶƚĞƌŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶ Ϭ E ͲͲ ƋƵĂƟĐ^ƉŽƌƞŝƐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ Ϭ E >ϭ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ>ŝŶĞ ϭϰϵ͘ϱϴ E >Ϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ ϰϵϲ͘ϴϬ E ͲͲ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐZŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ tĞƚůĂŶĚƐ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ďŽǀĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚhƟůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŚŝůĚĂƚĞĞŶƚĞƌ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŽƵŶƚǇŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟĂŶĂƚĞůǇ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇtĞůů;dǇƉĞ///Žƌ'h/Ϳхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĂŝůƌŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ bĞĂƌĞƐƚ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů CĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϮͿ. ĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘ Θ .Ϳ T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA MAP NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: Alternative 1 Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 2 Township: 6S Range: 94W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO ¹0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 10/6/2023 8:39 AM Author: Jax Nourse ! ! H 3231 23 6: 6: %85($8 2)/$1' 0$1$*(0(17 &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( / / H Pad Centroid Buffer Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Intermittent Stream Garfield County Parcels Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Legend thwYLbD t5 w5LL ϬͲϱϬϬΖ ϱϬϭͲϭϬϬϬΖϭϬϬϭͲϮϬϬϬΖ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ dĂďůĞ Ͳ /ŽƵŶƚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ wĂĚŝŝ ŽĨ tt^ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘.Ϳ Zoning: Resource Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land Alternate Location 1 Lat: 39.559818 Long: 107.859416 L5 bĞĂƌ CĞĂƚƵƌĞ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ5ŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ ͲͲ DƵůĞĞĞƌtŝŶƚĞƌŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶ Ϭ E ͲͲ ƋƵĂƟĐ^ƉŽƌƞŝƐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ Ϭ E >ϭ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ>ŝŶĞ ϮϳϬ͘ϳϮ ^ >Ϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ Ϯϳϳ͘ϵϳ E ͲͲ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐZŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ tĞƚůĂŶĚƐ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ďŽǀĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚhƟůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŚŝůĚĂƚĞĞŶƚĞƌ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŽƵŶƚǇŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟĂŶĂƚĞůǇ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇtĞůů;dǇƉĞ///Žƌ'h/Ϳхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĂŝůƌŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ bĞĂƌĞƐƚ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů CĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϮͿ. ĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘ Θ .Ϳ T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA MAP NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: Alternative 2 Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 31 Township: 5S Range: 93W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO ¹0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 10/6/2023 8:56 AM Author: Jax Nourse ! ! H 3231 36 2 3 6: 6: 6: &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//&861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( 861$9$/ 2,/6+$/( 5(6(59( / / H Pad Centroid Buffer Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Intermittent Stream Garfield County Parcels Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Legend thwYLbD t5 w5LL ϬͲϱϬϬΖ ϱϬϭͲϭϬϬϬΖϭϬϬϭͲϮϬϬϬΖ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ dĂďůĞ Ͳ /ŽƵŶƚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ wĂĚŝŝ ŽĨ tt^ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘.Ϳ Alternate Location 2 Lat: 39.564596 Long: 107.871526 Zoning: Public Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land L5 bĞĂƌ CĞĂƚƵƌĞ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ5ŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ ͲͲ DƵůĞĞĞƌtŝŶƚĞƌŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶ Ϭ E ͲͲ ƋƵĂƟĐ^ƉŽƌƞŝƐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ Ϭ E >ϭ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ>ŝŶĞ ϭϳϰ͘ϱϲ ^ >Ϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ ϮϵϮ͘Ϭϱ E ͲͲ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐZŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ tĞƚůĂŶĚƐ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ďŽǀĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚhƟůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŚŝůĚĂƚĞĞŶƚĞƌ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŽƵŶƚǇŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟĂŶĂƚĞůǇ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇtĞůů;dǇƉĞ///Žƌ'h/Ϳхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĂŝůƌŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ bĞĂƌĞƐƚ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů CĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϮͿ. ĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘ Θ .Ϳ T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA MAP NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: Alternative 3 Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 31 Township: 5S Range: 93W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO ¹0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 10/6/2023 9:17 AM Author: Jax Nourse ! ! ! ! H 3231 23 6: 6:&/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( / / / / H Pad Centroid Buffer Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Intermittent Stream Garfield County Parcels Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Legend thwYLbD t5 w5LL ϬͲϱϬϬΖ ϱϬϭͲϭϬϬϬΖϭϬϬϭͲϮϬϬϬΖ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ dĂďůĞ Ͳ /ŽƵŶƚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ wĂĚŝŝ ŽĨ tt^ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘.Ϳ Alternate Location 3 Lat: 39.570959 Long: 107.865914 Zoning: Public Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land L5 bĞĂƌ CĞĂƚƵƌĞ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ5ŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ >ϭ DƵůĞĞĞƌtŝŶƚĞƌŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶ ϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘Ϭϵ ^t >Ϯ ƋƵĂƟĐ^ƉŽƌƞŝƐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ ϭ͕ϱϵϬ͘ϱϵ^t >ϯ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ Ϯ͕Ϭϳϳ͘ϳϱ ^t >ϰ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ>ŝŶĞ Ϯ͕ϱϬϬ͘ϯϭ ^ ͲͲZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲWƵďůŝĐZŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲtĞƚůĂŶĚƐ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲďŽǀĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚhƟůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲŚŝůĚĂƌĞĞŶƚĞƌ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲŽƵŶƚǇŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƟǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟŽŶĂƚĞůǇ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ&ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲWƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲWƵďůŝĐtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇtĞůů;dǇƉĞ///Žƌ'h/Ϳхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲZĂŝůƌŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ bĞĂƌĞƐƚ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů CĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϮͿ͘. ĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘ Θ .Ϳ T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA MAP NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: Alternative 4 Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 31, 32 Township: 5S Range: 93W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO ¹0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 10/6/2023 10:03 AM Author: Jax Nourse ! ! ! ! ! H 2930 3231 6: -46 5 ' &5 &/28*+6+((3 &203$1<//& 861$9$/2,/ 6+$/(5(6(59( / / / / / H Pad Centroid Buffer Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Intermittent Stream Perennial Steam Garfield County Parcels Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Legend thwYLbD t5 w5LL ϬͲϱϬϬΖ ϱϬϭͲϭϬϬϬΖϭϬϬϭͲϮϬϬϬΖ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ dĂďůĞ Ͳ /ŽƵŶƚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ wĂĚŝŝ ŽĨ tt^ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘.Ϳ Alternate Location 4 Lat: 39.575956 Long: 107.864230 Zoning: Public Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land L5 bĞĂƌ CĞĂƚƵƌĞ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ5ŝƌĞĐƟŽŶ >ϭ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ ϯϯϭ͘ϲϭ E >Ϯ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ>ŝŶĞ ϭ͕ϳϰϴ͘ϭϳ E >ϯ DƵůĞĞĞƌtŝŶƚĞƌŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟŽŶ Ϯ͕ϰϴϭ͘ϵϬ >ϰ ƋƵĂƟĐ^ƉŽƌƞŝƐŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚtĂƚĞƌ ϯ͕ϰϭϯ͘ϱϵ^t >ϱ WƵďůŝĐZŽĂĚ ϰ͕ϯϵϴ͘ϵϬ E ͲͲ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ tĞƚůĂŶĚƐ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ďŽǀĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚhƟůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŚŝůĚĂƚĞĞŶƚĞƌ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŽƵŶƚǇŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚKƵƚƐŝĚĞĐƟǀŝƚǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƌƟĂŶĂƚĞůǇ/ŵƉĂĐƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ &ůŽŽĚƉůĂŝŶ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ,ŝŐŚKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐǇƵŝůĚŝŶŐhŶŝƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽƵŶĚĂƌǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞ>ŽĐĂů'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ WƵďůŝĐtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇtĞůů;dǇƉĞ///Žƌ'h/Ϳхϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ZĂŝůƌŽĂĚ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽů&ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ ͲͲ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞtĂƚĞƌ^ƵƉƉůǇƌĞĂ хϱ͕ϮϴϬ Eͬ 5ŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ bĞĂƌĞƐƚ /ƵůƚƵƌĂů CĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ;wƵůĞƐ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϮͿ. ĂŶĚ ϯϬϰ͘ď͘;ϯͿ͘ Θ .Ϳ NR 23-3 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE 7?ProMects?Piceance?RXlison?NR 41-3 Pad?9isit 1?NR 41-3 Padapr[ MnoXrse 7EP RO&.Y MO8N7AIN LL& E[KiEit prepared Ey MnoXrse 'ate prepared SeptemEer 12 223 NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Well Siting Optimization Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. 14 )eet 1 in = 800 ftLegend Proposed Gas Well Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Parcel Ownership Well Count 1 Well Count 39 Well Count Note 7Ke Well Siting Optimization Map sKoZs tKe potential Zell coXnt at any given point on tKe sXrIace Eased on a 3¶ ma[imXm lateral reacK Ior tKe proposed Eottom Kole locations Alternate Location 4 Lat 3 Long 1423 NR 41-3 Lat 31 Long 13 Alternate Location 2 Lat 34 Long 112 Alternate Location 1 Lat 3818 Long 1416 Alternate Location 3 Lat 3 Long 114 Location Well &oXnt NR 41-3 39 Alternative Location 1 29 Alternative Location 2 27 Alternative Location 3 31 Alternative Location 4 22 5S 93W5S 94W 6S 94W 2293 32 33 31 25 36 2 4 13 NR 23-3 HM 32-33 MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BROWN, DENNIS L & LORI A MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTCLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLCU S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC POTTER, TERESA ANN & SAMUEL B POTTER, TERESA ANN CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE Ma[ar T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx jnourse TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: jnourse Date prepared: September 12, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Slope Map Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet 1 in = 1,000 ft Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Existing Access Road County Road Existing O&G Location (TEP) Parcel Ownership Percent Slope 35%- 40% 40% - 45% 45% - 50% 50% - 55% 55% - 60% Alternate Location 4 Lat: 39.575956 Long: 107.864230 NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 Alternate Location 2 Lat: 39.564596 Long: 107.871526 Alternate Location 1 Lat: 39.559818 Long: 107.859416 Alternate Location 3 Lat: 39.570959 Long: 107.865914 ATTACHMENT B NR 41-3 PAD ALTERNATIVE LOCATION ANALYSIS DATA WORKSHEET Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude Latitude 39.5619067 39.559818 39.5645961 39.5709599 39.5759564 Distance to nearest Cultural Feature:Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance Building > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Residental Building Unit > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 HOBU > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Designated Outside Activity Area > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Public Road > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 4,398.90 Above-ground Utility > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Railroad > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Property Line 149.58 270.72 174.56 2,500.31 1,748.17 School Facility > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Child Care Center > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Boundary of DIC > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 RBU, HOBU, or School Facility within a Disproportionately Impacted Community within 2000 feet > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 > 5,280 Number of cultural features within: 0-500 feet 501-1,000 feet 1,001- 2,000 feet 0-500 feet 501-1,000 feet 1,001- 2,000 feet 0-500 feet 501-1,000 feet 1,001- 2,000 feet 0-500 feet 501-1,000 feet 1,001- 2,000 feet 0-500 feet 501-1,000 feet 1,001- 2,000 feet BUs ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- RBUs ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- HOBUs ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- School Properties ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- School Facilities ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- DOAAs ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ -- 304.b.(2).B Criteria Met (include as many lines as needed, and provide a brief description of each criteria met) LongitudeLongitude -107.8663906 -- -- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ---- Proposed Location Alternative 1 (Clough)Alternative 2 (BLM) -- -- -107.859416 Direction Direction ---- Longitude Longitude -- 304.b.(2).C.iii.aa 304.b.(2).C.ii --> 304.b.(3).B 304.b.(2).B.viii: Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters 304.b.(2).B.viii: Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters 304.b.(2).B.viii: Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters ---- ---- -- -- N S S ------ ------ S -- -- -- -- Alternative 4 (BLM) Longitude -107.8642309 Direction -- -- -- -- NE 304.b.(2).C.ii --> 304.b.(3).A ---- -- -107.8715264 -107.8659149 DirectionDirection -- -- ---- ---- Alternative 3 (BLM) -- -- N -- -- -- -- -- NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Data Table Reference Point Proposed Location Alternative 1 (Clough)Alternative 2 (BLM)Alternative 4 (BLM)Alternative 3 (BLM) NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Data Table Location within DIC or within 2000' of DIC? YES or NO Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance If YES, distance to nearest BU:---------- If YES, distance to nearest HOBU: ---------- If YES, distance to nearest School: ---------- If YES, describe community outreach efforts per 304.b.(2).C.iii Number Number Number Number Number ---------- Distance Distance Distance Distance Distance ---------- Relevant Local Government Name RLG land use or zoning designation RLG permitting process Status of RLG permit if applicable Current Land Use Plans for future use at Location Plans for future use proximal to location Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type 496.80 N Intermitten t Stream 277.97 N Intermitten t Stream 292.05 N Intermitten t Stream 2077.75 SE Intermitten t Stream 331.61 N Intermitten t Stream -- ---- NO NO NO NO Direction Direction 304.b.(2).C.iii.bb Direction -- -- Direction Direction ------ ---- Oil and Gas Permit Required Submitted Concurrently NA NA NA -- Description -- -------- -- DescriptionDescriptionDescription -- Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, RangelandNon-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland 304.b.(2).C.iii.ee NA NANANA Distance to nearest wetland, surface water (Waters of the State), surface water supply area, or PWS supply well (Type III aquifer or GUDI) 304.b.(2).C.iii.ff If YES, the number and description of existing Oil and Gas Locations, Facilities, and Wells within 2000' of any RBU, HOBU, or School within 2000' of the proposed location -- 304.b.(2).C.iii.dd 304.b.(2).C.iii.cc Distance to municipal or county boundaries within 2000', and names of the Proximate Local Government(s) Name -- Garfield County Resource Lands Public Lands ---- NO -- -- -- Description -- Name -- Garfield County Oil and Gas Permit Required Oil and Gas Permit Required NA Name Name ------ Garfield County Name Garfield County Garfield County Resource Lands Public Lands Public Lands NA NA Non-Crop Land, Rangeland Non-Crop Land, Rangeland NA Proposed Location Alternative 1 (Clough)Alternative 2 (BLM)Alternative 4 (BLM)Alternative 3 (BLM) NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Data Table Distance Direction Description Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type Distance Direction Type 0 N Mule Deer (MWCA) and Aquatic (SFMW)0 N Mule Deer (MWCA) and Aquatic (SFMW)0 N Mule Deer (MWCA) and Aquatic (SFMW)1,123.09 S Mule Deer (MWCA)2,481.90 E Mule Deer (MWCA) Anticipated Method of RTC Surface Ownership Oil and Gas Location Access Road Pipeline ROW Total Disturbance Existing Disturbance New Disturbance 604.a considerations 604.b considerations Any variance or other relief required Tier Classification Description of potential impacts to health, safety, welfare, wildlife, and the environment related to the development of this location Description of advantages and disadvantages associated with this location Permitting considerations for this location Conditions or factors that make the location unavailable 46.40 39.57 48.65 70.77 62.83 19.58 30.40 21.23 14.15 7.93 7.93 7.93 41.38 41.38 Surface Disturbance Calculations (estimated acreage) 12.71 12.06 Compliant with all 604.b requirements Compliant with all 604.b requirements III-B III-B Compliant with all 604.b requirements Compliant with all 604.b requirements None required None required None required None required III-A I-B See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative Surface Use Agreement Surface Use Agreement BLM ROW BLM ROW Clough Sheep Company LLC Clough Sheep Company LLC BLM BLM Distance to nearest HPH 304.b.(2).C.iii.hh 304.b.(2).C.iii.gg Compliant with all 604.a requirements Compliant with all 604.a requirements Compliant with all 604.a requirements Compliant with all 604.a requirements Additional Information 10.31 8.17 7.30 9.94 8.37 8.87 25.70 25.70 36.47 31.20 39.78 45.07 37.21 25.77 BLM Stipulations (NSO, CSU, TL). See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative BLM Stipulations (NSO, CSU, TL). See ALA NarrativeSee ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative None required I-B See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative BLM Stipulations (NSO, CSU, TL). See ALA Narrative BLM ROW BLM Compliant with all 604.a requirements Compliant with all 604.b requirements The following items should be answered in a written narrative format and attached to the Form 2A as "ALA Narrative Summary" (PDF format) See ALA Narrative See ALA Narrative Proposed Location Alternative 1 (Clough)Alternative 2 (BLM)Alternative 4 (BLM)Alternative 3 (BLM) NR 41-3 Pad Alternative Location Analysis Data Table Any other considerations Total Number of Potential Wells Potential Well Development 39 29 27 31 22 Alternative 4 is located on BLM surface requiring approval of ROW Grants for construction of the pad, road, and pipeline; however, all surface uses will be subject to NSOs making location unavailable for development. Surface Use Agreement has been executed. BLM, CPW, and Garfield County have reviewed the ALAs and expressed support for the NR 41-3 pad during the pre-application consultation process. CPW and TEP have agreed to a Wildlife Mitigation Plan and Compensatory Mitigation Amended SUA would be required Alternative 2 is located on BLM surface requiring approval of ROW Grants for construction of the pad, road, and pipeline; however, all surface uses will be subject to NSOs making location unavailable for development. Alternative 3 is located on BLM surface requiring approval of ROW Grants for construction of the pad, road, and pipeline; however, all surface uses will be subject to NSOs making location unavailable for development. Table of Contents 113 Appendix K: ECMC Form 2A and Supporting Documents (Documents Pertaining to Article 9-204.B.2.a and 9-204.B.2.b Requirements) Table of Contents 114 Submitted ECMC Form 2A State of Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801, Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 894-2100 Fax: (303) 894-2109 Oil and Gas Location Assessment FORM 2A Rev 05/22 This Oil and Gas Location Assessment is to be submitted to the ECMC for approval prior to any ground disturbance activity associated with oil and gas operations. Approval of this Oil and Gas Location Assessment will allow for the construction of the below specified Location; however, it does not supersede any land use rules applied by the local land use authority. Please see the ECMC website at https://ecmc.state.co.us/ for all accompanying information pertinent this Oil and Gas Location Assessment. Document Number: 403520979 11/14/2023 Date Received: This Location includes a Rule 309.e.(2).E variance request. This Location is within 2,640 feet of a GUDI or Type III Well per Rule 411.b.(4). This Location or its associated new access road, utility, or Pipeline corridor meets Rule 309.e.(2).A, B, or C. CONSULTATION This location is included in a Comprehensive Area Plan (CAP). CAP ID # X This location includes a Rule 309.f.(1).A.ii. variance request. jkirtland@terraep.com (970) 263-2736 ( ) Jeff Kirtland email: Fax: Phone: Contact Information Name: 81635 CO Zip:State:PARACHUTE 1058 COUNTY ROAD 215 TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC 96850 City: Address: Name: Operator Operator Number: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR THIS LOCATION (check all that apply) Plugging, Abandonment, and Reclamation 20160057 Gas Gathering, Gas Processing, and Underground Gas Storage Facilities Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility X Federal Financial Assurance X In checking this box, the Operator certifies that it has provided or will provide at least this amount of Financial Assurance to the federal government for one or more Wells on this Location. Amount of Federal Financial Assurance $655000 Surface Owner Protection Bond. New LocationX Refile Amend Existing Location # If this Location assessment is a component of an Oil and Gas Development Plan (OGDP) application, enter the OGDP docket number(s). Docket Number OGDP ID OGDP Name 231000324 If this Location assessment is part of an approved Oil and Gas Development Plan, enter the OGDP ID number(s). <No existing OGDP number provided> 41-3 Number:NR Name: LOCATION IDENTIFICATION Expiration Date: Location ID: OGDP ID: Page 1 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 08/31/20232.4 Date of Measurement:GPS Quality Value: 6664694W 6S 3 Ground Elevation:Meridian:Township:LOT 1 QuarterQuarter:Section: Provide the location description and the latitude and longitude of a single point near the center of the Working Pad Surface as a reference for this Location. Range: Type of GPS Quality Value:PDOP Latitude:39.562176 Longitude:-107.866757 RELEVANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SITING INFORMATION GARFIELD Municipality: Per § 34-60-106 (1)(f)(I)(A), the following questions pertain to the “Relevant Local Government approval of the siting of the proposed oil and gas location.” N/ACounty: This proposed Oil and Gas Location is in an area designated as one of State interest and subject to the requirements of § 24-65.1-108, C.R.S. No Does the Relevant Local Government regulate the siting of Oil and Gas Locations, with respect to this location?Yes A siting permit application has been submitted to the Relevant Local Government for this proposed Oil and Gas Location:No Date Relevant Local Government permit application submitted: Current status or disposition of the Relevant Local Government permit application for this proposed Oil and Gas Location:Other Status/disposition date: If Relevant Local Government permit has been approved or denied, attach final decision document(s). Provide the contact information for the Relevant Local Government point of contact for the local permit associated with this proposed Oil and Gas Location: Kirby WynnContact Name:Contact Phone:970-625-5905 Contact Email:kwynn@garfield-county.com PROXIMATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION For every Proximate Local Government (PLG) associated with this proposed Oil and Gas Location, provide the PLG’s point of contact and their contact information. < No row provided > (Enter as many Related Locations as necessary. Enter the Form 2A document # only if there is no established COGCC Location ID#) Well Site is served by Production Facilities 324259 402063279 Well Site is served by Production Facilities 324372 This proposed Oil and Gas Location is:LOCATION ID #FORM 2A DOC # RELATED REMOTE LOCATIONS FEDERAL PERMIT INFORMATION A Federal drilling permit (or related siting application) has been submitted for this proposed Oil and Gas Location: No Date submitted: Current status or disposition of the Federal drilling permit (or related siting application) for this proposed Oil and Gas Location: Not yet submitted Status/disposition Date: If Federal agency permit has been approved or denied, attach the final decision document(s). Provide the contact information of the Federal point of contact for the Federal permit associated with this proposed Oil and Gas Location. Contact Name:Wesley Towes Contact Phone:970-876-9000 Contact Email:wtowes@blm.gov Bureau of Land Management - CRVOField Office: Page 2 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Additional explanation of local and/or federal process: TEP will be acquiring APDs for 31 of the 39 wells that have bottom hole locations in Federal Oil & Gas Lease COC073070, and will acquire three (3) BLM Right-of-Way Grants for access across BLM surface to the NR 41-3 pad and for a water pipeline to transfer produced water off location, as well as a grant which includes construction of gas and condensate pipelines across BLM to the NR 41-3 pad. A siting permit application will be submitted to the Relevant Local Government for this proposed Oil and Gas Location following the submittal of the Form 2A. Yes 08/14/2023Date of local government consultation: Complete this section for any pre-application consultation related to this proposed Oil and Gas Location that occurred prior to the submission of this Form 2A. If a pre-application Formal Consultation Process occurred, attach a Consultation Summary. RELEVANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR FEDERAL PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Did a pre-application Formal Consultation Process occur with the Federal land manager per Rule 301.f.(3)? Did a pre-application Formal Consultation Process occur with the Relevant Local Government per Rule 301.f.(3)?Yes Date of federal consultation:05/24/2023 Was an ALA that satisfies Rule 304.b.(2).C (or substantially equivalent information per Rule 304.e) developed during a federal or local government permit application process? If yes, attach the ALA to the Form 2A. Yes Complete this section for any pre-application consultation related to this proposed Oil and Gas Location that occurred prior to the submission of this Form 2A. If a pre-application Formal Consultation Process occurred, attach a Consultation Summary. ALA APPLICABILITY AND CRITERIA If YES, indicate by checking the box for every Rule 304.b.(2).B criterion met by this proposed Location, and attach an ALA. See Rule 304.b.(2).B.i-x for full text of criteria. Does the proposed Oil and Gas Location meet any of the criteria listed in Rule 304.b.(2)B?Yes i. WPS < 2,000 feet from RBU/HOBU ii. WPS < 2,000 feet from School/Child Care Center iii. WPS < 1,500 feet from DOAA iv. WPS < 2,000 feet from jurisdictional boundary and PLG objects/requests ALA v. WPS within a Floodplain vi.aa. WPS within a surface water supply area vi.bb. WPS < 2,640 feet from Type III or GUDI well vii. WPS within/immediately upgradient of wetland/riparian corridor viii. WPS within HPH and CPW did not waive ix. Operator using Surface bond X x. WPS < 2,000 feet from RBU/HOBU/School within a DIC Is the proposed Oil and Gas Location within the exterior boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and the Tribe objects to the Location or requests an ALA? If YES, attach an ALA to the Form 2A. Operator requests the Director waive the ALA requirement per Rule 304.b. (2).A.i: No Provide an explanation for the waiver request, and attach supporting information (if necessary). Page 3 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS DASHBOARD List every alternative location reviewed and included in the ALA. Provide a latitude and longitude for the approximate center of the alternative location, all Rule 304.b.(2).B Criteria met, if a variance would be required to permit the location, and a brief comment on the key points of the alternative location. #latitude longitude i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Variance Required?Comments 39.559818 -107.859416 x ALA #1: Rule 304.b.(2).B.viii: Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters 39.564596 -107.871526 x ALA #1: 304.b.(2).B.viii: Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters 39.570959 -107.865914 39.575956 -107.864230 304.b.(2).B.i-x Criteria Met: SURFACE & MINERAL OWNERSHIP Name:Clough Sheep Company LLC Phone:970-618-7749 Fax:PO Box 686 Address: Address: Email:d_snyder@live.com City:Rifle State:CO Zip:81650 Surface Owner Info: X IndianFederalStateFeeSurface Owner at this Oil and Gas Location: All operations on this Oil & Gas Location will develop the minerals beneath the Location, and the Operator intends to use a surface bond per Rule 703 to secure access to this Location – attach lease map or provide lease description. All operations on this Oil & Gas Location will develop the minerals beneath the Location, and the surface owner owns the minerals beneath this Location and is committed to an oil and gas lease – attach lease map or provide lease description. The Operator has a signed Surface Use Agreement for this Location – attach SUA. The Operator/Applicant is the surface owner. Check only one: X Minerals beneath this Oil and Gas Location will be developed from or produced to this Oil and Gas Location: Mineral Owner beneath this Oil and Gas Location: Surface Owner protection Financial Assurance type:Surety ID Number: Lease description if necessary: X IndianFederalStateFee Yes N/A Wells Indicate the number and type of major equipment components planned for use on this Oil and Gas Location: SITE EQUIPMENT LIST 39 Drilling Pits 0 Pump Jacks 0 Gas or Diesel Motors 0 Oil Tanks 0 Production Pits 0 Separators 41 Electric Motors 0 Condensate Tanks 0 Special Purpose Pits 0 Injection Pumps 0 Electric Generators 0 Water Tanks 0 Multi-Well Pits 0 Heater-Treaters 0 Fuel Tanks 0 Buried Produced Water Vaults 0 Modular Large Volume Tank 0 Gas Compressors 0 LACT Unit 0 Page 4 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Dehydrator Units 0 Vapor Recovery Unit 0 VOC Combustor 0 Flare 0 Enclosed Combustion Devices 1 Pigging Station 0Meter/Sales Building 0 Vapor Recovery Towers 0 OTHER PERMANENT EQUIPMENT Permanent Equipment Type Number NG Generator 1 IA Reciever 1 Knockout Pot 1 Blowdown Tank - 200bbl 1 Chemical Pumps 4 Air Compressor 1 Chemical Tanks 5 OTHER TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT Temporary Equipment Type Number Enclosed Water Tank (500bbl) - FB 3 High Pressure Four Phase Sep - FB 2 Low Pressure P-Tank (500bbl) - FB 1 Water Transfer Pump - FB 1 Enclosed Combustion Device - FB 3 FLOWLINE DESCRIPTION Per Rule 304.b.(6), provide a description of all onsite and off-location oil, gas, and/or water flowlines. Off- Location Flowlines: 1 - 8" Steel Gas Gathering Line - approx. 17,897' 1 - 6" FlexSteel Water Pipeline - approx. 18,832' 2 - 2" FlexPipe Condensate Line - approx. 12,028' Off-Location Flowlines - Temporary: 5 - 4.5" Steel Surface Frac Lines - approx. 19,843' 2 - 10" HDPE Surface Water Supply Line - approx. 1,174' On-Location Flowlines: 39 - 2" Coated Steel Wellhead flowlines - approx. 120' 1 - 2" Coated Steel Fuel Gas Pipeline to the Rig - approx. 120' 1 - 4" Aluminum Surface ECD Process Piping - approx. 200' 1 - 2" Coated Steel Surface Blowdown Line - approx. 120' 1 - 1" Coated Steel Surface Gas Line to ECD - approx. 30' 1 - 1" Coated Steel Surface Gas Line to Tanks - approx. 120' GAS GATHERING COMMITMENT Operator commits to connecting to a gathering system by the Commencement of Production Operations? If the answer is NO, a Gas Capture Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 903.e MUST be attached on the Plans tab. Yes Provide the distance and direction to the nearest cultural feature as measured from the edge of the Working Pad Surface. Building:5280 Feet CULTURAL DISTANCE AND DIRECTION Distance N Direction Rule 604.b Conditions Satisfied (check all that apply): 604.b. (1)Details of Condition(s) 604.b. (2) 604.b. (3) 604.b. (4) Residential Building Unit (RBU):5280 Feet N High Occupancy Building Unit(HOBU)5280 Feet N Page 5 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Designated Outside Activity Area:5280 Feet Public Road:5280 Feet Above Ground Utility:5280 Feet Railroad:5280 Feet Property Line:150 Feet N N N N N School Facility:5280 Feet Child Care Center:5280 Feet N N Disproportionately Impacted (DI) Community: 5280 Feet N NFeet5280RBU, HOBU, or School Facility within a DI Community. RULE 604.a.(2). EXCEPTION LOCATION REQUEST Operator requests an Exception Location Request from Rule 604.a.(2) [well is less than 150 feet from a property line]. Exception Location Request Letter and Waiver signed by offset Surface Owner(s) must be attached. CULTURAL FEATURE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY RULE 304.b.(3).B. Provide the number of each Cultural feature identified within the following distances, as measured from the Working Pad Surface: Building Units Residential Building Units High Occupancy Building Units School Properties School Facilities Designated Outside Activity Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-500 feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 501-1,000 feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,001-2,000 feet Will a closed-loop drilling system be used? Is H2S gas reasonably expected to be encountered during drilling operations at concentrations greater than Will salt based (>15,000 ppm Cl) drilling fluids be used? Will salt sections be encountered during drilling: Estimated post-construction ground elevation: Size of location after interim reclamation in acres: 12.70Size of disturbed area during construction in acres: CONSTRUCTION 1.95 DRILLING PROGRAM Yes No Will oil based drilling fluids be used?No 6658 or equal to 100 ppm?If YES, attach H2S Drilling Operations Plan.No No Page 6 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Drilling Fluids Disposal: DRILLING WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OFFSITE Recycle/reuseDrilling Fluids Disposal Method: Cutting Disposal:ONSITE Cuttings trenchCuttings Disposal Method: Other Disposal Description: Beneficial reuse or land application plan submitted?No Reuse Facility ID:or Document Number: Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility ID, if applicable: CURRENT LAND USE Other Residential RecreationForestry CommercialIndustrial Rangeland Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)Non-IrrigatedIrrigated Subdivided: Non-Crop Land: Crop Land: Current Land Use: check all that apply per Rule 304.b.(9). XX Describe the current land use: The current land use for this property is considered rangeland / non-crop land. The property in the immediate vicinity of the Oil and Gas Location is primarily used for cattle grazing but is also periodically used for recreation, including hunting. Describe the Relevant Local Government’s land use or zoning designation: Garfield County currently has the property zoned as Rural (resource lands). Describe any applicable Federal land use designation: Other Residential RecreationForestry CommercialIndustrial Rangeland Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)Non-IrrigatedIrrigated Subdivided: Non-Crop Land: Crop Land: Final Land Use: check all that apply per Rule 304.b.(9). XX FINAL LAND USE Reference Area Latitude: If Final Land Use includes Non-Crop Land (as checked above), the following information is required: Describe landowner’s designated final land use(s): REFERENCE AREA INFORMATION The surface owner does not intend to modify the current land use. Therefore, the final land use designation will remain as rangeland / non-cropland. The property in the immediate vicinity of the Oil and Gas Location is primarily used for cattle grazing but is also periodically used for recreation, including hunting. 39.562950 -107.868337Reference Area Latitude: Provide a list of plant communities and dominant vegetation found in the Reference Area. Plant Community Dominant vegetation Shrub Land Pinyon/Juniper Woodlands Shrub Land Wyoming Sagebrush Shrub Land Gamble Oak Noxious weeds present: SOILS Page 7 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] List all soil map units that occur within the maximum extent of the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Attach the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) report showing the "Map Unit Description" listing the typical vertical soil profile(s). This data is to be used when segregating topsoil. The required information can be obtained from the NRCS website at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/ or from the ECMC website GIS Online map page. Instructions are provided within the ECMC website help section. NRCS Map Unit Name:57 - Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes NRCS Map Unit Name: NRCS Map Unit Name: GROUNDWATER AND WATER WELL INFORMATION Provide the distance and direction, as measured from the Working Pad Surface, to the nearest: water well:8366 Feet NE Spring or Seep:18797 Feet SE Estimated depth to shallowest groundwater that can be encountered at this Oil and Gas Location:Feet Basis for estimated depth to and description of shallowest groundwater occurrence: State Engineers Office and USGS records indicate there are not any wells located within the ½-mile pad buffer. Depth to shallow groundwater residing in the local flow system is probably greater than 100 feet below the well pad. Based on NRCS soil properties and qualities for Potts-Ildefonso complex mapped soil unit, depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The absence of aquatic vegetation and woody phreatophytes supports the notion that shallow groundwater does not occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pad. Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the site are deemed to be low based on the site hydrogeology. Sensitive Area Checklist, WestWater Engineering 09/13/2023. 100 SURFACE WATER AND WETLANDS Provide the distance and direction to the nearest downgradient surface Waters of the State, as defined in the 100-Series Rules, measured from the Working Pad Surface: The nearest downgradient surface Waters of the State is Yellow Slide Gulch Feet NE497 If less than 2,640 feet, is the Waters of the State identified above within 15 stream miles upstream of a Public Water System intake?No Provide the distance and direction to the nearest downgradient wetland, measured from the Working Provide a description of the nearest downgradient surface Waters of the State: If the proposed Oil and Gas Location is within a Rule 411.a Surface Water Supply Area buffer zone, select the buffer If the proposed Oil and Gas Location is within a Rule 411.b GUDI/Type III buffer zone, select the buffer Is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit required for the proposed Oil and Gas Location, access road, or If a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit is required, provide the permit status, and permit number if available: zone type: associated pipeline corridor?No Pad Surface:SEFeet5280 zone type: Public Water System Administrator - Contact Name Email Public Water System Administrator - Contact Name Email Is the Location within a Floodplain?No Floodplain Data Sources Reviewed (check all that apply): Page 8 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Federal (FEMA)X State X County Local Does this proposed Oil and Gas Location lie within a Sensitive Area for water resources, as defined in the Yes Other 100-Series Rules? CONSULTATION, WAIVERS, AND EXCEPTIONS This Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or pipeline corridor falls within federally designated critical habitat or an area with a known occurrence for a federal or Colorado threatened or endangered species. Provide description in Comments section of Submit tab. X When Rule 309.e.(2) Consultation must occur, check all that apply: This location is included in a Wildlife Mitigation Plan This Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or pipeline corridor falls within an existing conservation easement established wholly or partly for wildlife habitat. Provide description in Comments section of Submit tab. When Rule 309.e.(3) Consultation is not required, check all that apply: This Oil and Gas Location has been included in a previously approved, applicable Wildlife Protection Plan. This Oil and Gas Location has been included in a previously approved, applicable Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This Oil and Gas Location has been included in a previously approved, applicable conservation plan. Pre-application Consultation: X A pre-application consultation with CPW, regarding this Oil and Gas Location, occurred on: 09/15/2023 CPW Waivers and Exceptions (check all that apply and attach all CPW waivers to this Form 2A): The applicant has obtained a Rule 304.b.(2).B.viii CPW waiver for the requirement to complete an ALA. The applicant has obtained a Rule 309.e.(2).G CPW waiver and consultation is not required. The applicant has obtained a Rule 309.e.(5).D.i CPW waiver and is requesting an exception from Rule 1202.c. (1).R. X The applicant has obtained a Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii CPW waiver and is requesting an exception from Rule 1202.c. (1).S. The applicant has obtained a Rule 309.e.(5).D.iii CPW waiver of Rule 1202.c.(1).T. The applicant has obtained a Rule 309.e.(5).D.iv CPW waiver and is requesting an exception from Rule 1202.c.(1) in accordance with an approved CAP. The applicant has obtained a Rule 1202.a CPW waiver. The applicant has obtained a Rule 1202.b CPW waiver. In accordance with Rule 1203.a.(3), the applicant requests an exception from compensatory mitigation Rule(s): HIGH PRIORITY HABITAT AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION This Oil and Gas Location, associated access roads, utility, or Pipeline corridor falls wholly or partially within the following High Priority Habitats (Note: dropdown options are abbreviated - see Rule 1202 for full rule text): Page 9 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] No Target Species BMP Type Description 1 BLACK BEAR Wildlife - Avoidance The operator agrees to report bear conflicts immediately to CPW staff. 2 BLACK BEAR Wildlife - Avoidance TEP will install and utilize bear proof dumpsters and trash receptacles for food- related trash at all facilities that generate trash. 3 RAPTORS Wildlife - Minimization Exclusionary devices will be installed to prevent birds and other wildlife from accessing equipment stacks, vents, and openings. 4 RAPTORS Wildlife - Avoidance TEP will conduct vegetation removal activities outside the migratory bird nesting season (April 1 – August 30). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, TEP will implement hazing or other exclusionary measures prior to April 1 to avoid take of migratory birds. Alternatively, TEP may conduct a migratory bird survey prior to vegetation removal as required by ECMC Rule 1202.a.(8) to avoid take of migratory birds. Operator Proposed Wildlife BMPs High Priority Habitat (list all that apply) Oil and Gas Location Access Road Utility or Pipeline Corridor 1202.c.(1).S - Sportfish mgmt waters, non-Gold Medal x x x 1202.d.(3) - Mule deer migration & winter x x x The following questions are for Oil and Gas Locations that cause the density to exceed one Oil and Gas Location per square mile in Rule 1202.d High Priority Habitat: Direct Impacts: Is Compensatory Mitigation required per Rule 1203.a for this Oil and Gas Location? Is a Compensatory Mitigation Plan proposed to address direct impacts for this Oil and Gas Location? Have all Compensatory Mitigation Plans been approved for this Location? If not, what is the current status of each Plan? TEP has committed to payment of the Compensatory Mitigation Fee as described below; therefore a Compensatory Mitigation Plan is not required. TEP and CPW have agreed to evaluate potential mitigation projects within the northwest region of Colorado that could be used to off-set direct and indirect impacts to mule deer. If TEP and CPW agree to a compensatory mitigation project, TEP will submit a sundry to amend this Wildlife Mitigation Plan detailing the relevant plan. Is a Compensatory Mitigation Fee proposed for this Oil and Gas Location? Direct impact habitat mitigation fee amount: $ No No Yes 76008.79 Yes Indirect Impacts: Is a Compensatory Mitigation Plan proposed to address indirect impacts for this Oil and Gas Location? Have all Compensatory Mitigation Plans been approved for this Location? If not, what is the current status of each Plan? TEP has committed to payment of the Compensatory Mitigation Fee as described below; therefore a Compensatory Mitigation Plan is not required. TEP and CPW have agreed to evaluate potential mitigation projects within the northwest region of Colorado that could be used to off-set direct and indirect impacts to mule deer. If TEP and CPW agree to a compensatory mitigation project, TEP will submit a sundry to amend this Wildlife Mitigation Plan detailing the relevant plan. Is a Compensatory Mitigation Fee proposed for this Oil and Gas Location? Indirect impact habitat mitigation fee amount: $ Yes No No Yes 45592.79 Is Compensatory Mitigation required per Rule 1203.d for this Oil and Gas Location? Page 10 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 5 MULE DEER & ELK Wildlife - Avoidance The operator agrees to reclaim mule deer and elk habitats with CPW- identified native shrubs, grasses, and forbs appropriate to the ecological site disturbed. 6 MULE DEER & ELK Wildlife - Minimization To minimize the potential for wildlife related traffic accidents, TEP has implemented speed restrictions for all lease roads and requires that all TEP employees and contractors adhere to these posted speed restrictions. 7 MULE DEER & ELK Wildlife - Minimization Certified weed-free native seed in seed mixes, except for non-native plants that benefit wildlife will be used. TEP will use certified, weed free grass hay, straw, hay or other mulch materials used for the reseeding and reclamation of disturbed areas. 8 MULE DEER & ELK Wildlife - Minimization Operations involving the use of a drilling rig, workover rig, or fracturing and any equipment used in the drilling, completion or production of a well are subject to and will comply with the Agricultural maximum permissible noise levels described in Rule 423.a.(2).A. of 65 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 60 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 9 MULE DEER & ELK Wildlife - Minimization Site lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, inward, away from the nearby areas where wildlife may be present, and toward operations to avoid glare on nearby roads or wildlife habitat areas. 10 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Contain Flowback and Stimulation Fluids in Tanks that are placed on a Working Pad Surface in an area with downgradient perimeter berming 11 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Construct lined berms or other lined containment devices pursuant to Rule 603.o around any new crude oil, condensate, and produced water storage Tanks that are installed after January 15, 2021 12 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Inspect the Oil and Location on a daily basis for the first six to nine months of production operations and weekly for the remaining life of the wells. 13 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Maintain adequate Spill response equipment at the Oil and Gas Location during drilling and completion operations 14 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Stormwater control measures will be in place during all phases of development (construction, drilling, completions, interim reclamation, and production) to control stormwater runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion, transportation of sediment offsite, and site degradation and to minimize potential downstream impacts on aquatic sportfish. 15 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization During installation of the proposed pipelines, stormwater control measures will be implemented to avoid and/or minimize potential off- site migration of sediment. Stormwater control measures such as straw bales or straw wattles will be utilized at drainage crossings to avoid or minimize potential sedimentation within aquatic high priority habitat. 16 AQUATIC SPECIES/AMPHIBIANS Wildlife - Minimization Reclamation of pipeline corridors at drainage crossing will be completed immediately following completion of pipeline installation to minimize potential impacts to aquatic wildlife. No BMP CPW Proposed Wildlife BMPs AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Will the Operator install and administer an air quality monitoring program at this Location?Yes No BMP Target CDPHE Recommendation ECMC Action Air Operator Proposed BMPs Page 11 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Description Per the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) Air Pollution Control Division (“APCD”) requirements, TEP will implement ambient air quality monitoring on site during drilling, completion, and the first six (6) months of production operations; an air monitoring plan will be submitted 60 days prior to start of drilling operations. CDPHE Comment Air Description Pipelines: Operator will have adequate and committed pipeline take away capacity for all produced gas and oil CDPHE Comment Air Description Test separators and associated flowlines, sand traps, and emission control systems will be installed onsite to accommodate green completions techniques. CDPHE Comment Air Description Operator will properly maintain vehicles and equipment CDPHE Comment Air Description Venting/Flaring: Operator will not flare or vent gas during completion or flowback, except in upset or emergency conditions, or with prior written approval from the Director for necessary maintenance operations CDPHE Comment Air Description Flowback and stimulation fluids will be sent to enclosed tanks, separators, or other containment/filtering equipment before the fluids are placed into any pipeline storage vessel, other open top containment located on the well pad, or into tanker trucks for offsite disposal; no open top tanks will be used for initial flowback fluids containment. CDPHE Comment Air Description TEP will install equipment designed specifically to aid in the mitigation of VOC emissions from this location; this equipment includes emission control devices (ECDs) and tank load out controls; if one of these pieces of equipment is not operational, facility controls will automatically shut-in the pad until the equipment is back on-line. CDPHE Comment Air Description Operator will use non-emitting pneumatic controllers CDPHE Comment CDPHE Proposed COAs OR BMPs No BMP PLANS Total Plans Uploaded: 12 (1) Emergency Spill Response Program consistent with the requirements of Rules 411.a.(4).B, 411.b.(5).B, & 602.j (2) Noise Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 423.a (3) Light Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 424.a Page 12 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] (4) Odor Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 426.a (5) Dust Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 427.aX (6) Transportation Plan X (7) Operations Safety Management Program consistent with the requirements of Rule 602.d X (8) Emergency Response Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 602.j (9) Flood Shut-In Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 421.b.(1) (10) Hydrogen Sulfide Drilling Operations Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 612.d (11) Waste Management Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 905.a.(4)X (12) Gas Capture Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 903.e (13) Fluid Leak Detection PlanX (14) Topsoil Protection Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 1002.cX (15) Stormwater Management Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 1002.fX X (16) Interim Reclamation Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 1003 X (17) Wildlife Plan consistent with the requirements of Rule 1201 X (18) Water Plan X (19) Cumulative Impacts Plan (20) Community Outreach Plan X (21) Geologic Hazard Plan VARIANCE REQUESTS Check all that apply: This proposed Oil and Gas Location requires the approval of a Rule 502.a variance from ECMC Rule or Commission Order number: ALL exceptions and variances require attached Request Letter(s). Refer to applicable rule for additional required attachments (e.g. waivers, certifications, SUAs). Page 13 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] RULE 304.d LESSER IMPACT AREA EXEMPTION REQUESTS Check the boxes below for all Exemptions being requested. Lesser Impact Area Exemption Request must be attached, and will include all requested exemptions. 304.b.(1). Local Government Siting Information 304.b.(2). Alternative Location Analysis 304.b.(3). Cultural Distances 304.b.(4). Location Pictures 304.b.(5). Site Equipment List 304.b.(6). Flowline Descriptions 304.b.(7). Drawings 304.b.(8). Geographic Information System (GIS) Data 304.b.(9). Land Use Description 304.b.(10). NRCS Map Unit Description 304.b.(11). Best Management Practices 304.b.(12). Surface Owner Information 304.b.(13). Proximate Local Government 304.b.(14). Wetlands 304.b.(15). Schools and Child Care Centers 304.c.(1). Emergency Spill Response Program X 304.c.(2). Noise Mitigation Plan 304.c.(3). Light Mitigation Plan X 304.c.(4). Odor Mitigation Plan 304.c.(5). Dust Mitigation Plan 304.c.(6). Transportation Plan 304.c.(7). Operations Safety Management Program 304.c.(8). Emergency Response Plan 304.c.(9). Flood Shut-In Plan 304.c.(10). Hydrogen Sulfide Drilling Operations Plan 304.c.(11). Waste Management Plan 304.c.(12). Gas Capture Plan 304.c.(13). Fluid Leak Detection Plan 304.c.(14). Topsoil Protection Plan 304.c.(15). Stormwater Management Plan 304.c.(16). Interim Reclamation Plan 304.c.(17). Wildlife Plan 304.c.(18). Water Plan 304.c.(19). Cumulative Impacts Plan 304.c.(20). Community Outreach Plan 304.c.(21). Geologic Hazard Plan TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (TEP) is proposing to drill, complete, and operate thirty-nine (39) directional natural gas wells from the newly proposed NR 41-3 pad. An Alternative Location Analysis (“ALA”) is only required for an Oil and Gas Location that meets any of the criteria listed in Rule 304.b.(2).B, the NR 41-3 pad is within a High Priority Habitat, and therefore an ALA has been attached. The following 304.c Plans are not required for this submittal: - Odor Mitigation Plan - The working pad surface of the proposed Oil and Gas Location is not located within 2,000 feet of a Building Unit or Designated Outside Activity Area. TEP identified no existing buildings within one (1) mile of the working pad surface of the NR 41-3 pad. - Flood Shut-in Plan - Location is not within a flood plain. - Hydrogen Sulfide Drilling Plan - Do not expect to encounter H2S during drilling. - Gas Capture Plan - Will connect to a mid stream gas gathering system prior to commencement of production ops. - Community Outreach Plan - Location is not w/in 2000' of a RBU, HOBU, or school located w/in a DIC. - Emergency Spill Response Plan - All proposed operations will not fall within 15 stream miles of an active Public Water System intake. - Noise Mitigation Plan - TEP is requesting an exemption to the Noise Mitigation Plan - Light Mitigation Plan - TEP is requesting an exemption to the Light Mitigation Plan Comments OPERATOR COMMENTS AND SUBMITTAL Page 14 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] mluke@terraep.com Regulatory Specialist 11/14/2023 Melissa Luke ECMC Approved:Director of ECMC Date: Based on the information provided herein, this Oil and Gas Location Assessment complies with ECMC Rules, applicable orders, and SB 19-181 and is hereby approved. Title: Email:Date: Print Name: Signed: I hereby certify that the statements made in this form are, to the best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete. Best Management Practices No BMP/COA Type Description 1 Planning * Prior to submittal of the Application for Permit to Drill Form 2 and the Oil and Gas Location Assessment (Form 2A), TEP conducted meetings with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), Garfield County, and the surface owner. These meetings were held to discuss TEP’s proposed development plan for the NR 41 -3 pad and associated support facilities. Changes were made to the proposed development plan based on feedback received from all stakeholders and included in the application. * The development plan for the NR 41-3 pad was prepared to minimize surface impacts to the greatest extent possible through the development of multiple wells from one Oil and Gas Location by utilizing directional drilling technology, and utilizing existing facilities and infrastructure where possible, which minimizes the surface area needed to conduct operations on the Oil and Gas Location. * Existing infrastructure operated by TEP will be utilized for transportation of natural gas and produced water to minimize the surface disturbance required for tying into gathering facilities. * Site lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, inward, away from nearby areas where wildlife may be present, and toward operations to avoid glare on nearby roads or wildlife areas` 2 General Housekeeping * Any chemicals used will be kept to a minimum * Any chemical or hydrocarbon spills will be cleaned up immediately in accordance with established company procedures * All materials will be stored in a neat and orderly manner in their appropriate containers * TEP will follow manufacturers’ recommendations and company policies for proper use and disposal of products.` COA Type Description 0 COA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, IF ANY LIST All representations, stipulations and conditions of approval stated in this Form 2A for this location shall constitute representations, stipulations and conditions of approval for any and all subsequent operations on the location unless this Form 2A is modified by Sundry Notice, Form 4 or an Amended Form 2A. Page 15 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 3 General Housekeeping 1) TEP will properly characterize and dispose of all waste streams at facilities approved for acceptance of each waste stream. 2) TEP will properly characterize and dispose of all waste at the appropriate specific landfill/waste disposal location that allows for acceptance of the particular waste stream. 3) No offsite disposal of cuttings to another Oil and Gas Location shall occur without prior approval of an amended Waste Management Plan specifying disposal location and waste characterization method; commercial disposal of drill cuttings and drilling fluids will only require the operator to maintain documentation (manifests, bills of lading) of drill cuttings and drilling fluids disposal; the operator will implement measures (covers, misting) in trucks to reduce dust and particulate matter (PM) emissions during transport of water-based muds, solids, and drill cuttings materials from the well pad location. 4) A closed loop drilling system will be employed. 5) The moisture content of any water/bentonite-based drilling mud (WBM) generated cuttings will be minimized through good engineering practices and mechanical processes to prevent the accumulation of liquids greater than de minimis amounts. 6) All cuttings generated during drilling will be managed within the proposed cuttings trench prior to disposition. 7) Solids control and separation equipment will be utilized to separate WBM-generated cuttings solids from liquids (water/bentonite drilling mud). 8) In the event that the drill cuttings analytically demonstrate constituents above able 915-1 standards, the cuttings will be remediated prior to interim reclamation activities to levels below all applicable standards of Table 915-1 or are within background limits; No liners will be used or disposed of in the cuttings trench. 9) Any trash generated during the project will be disposed of properly at a commercial disposal facility.` 4 Wildlife The following wildlife Best Management Practices will be employed by TEP during development of NR 41-3 pad: 1) TEP will inform and educate all employees and contractors on wildlife conservation practices, including no harassment or feeding of wildlife. 2) TEP will utilize existing water pipelines to minimize truck traffic to the location and minimize potential impact to wildlife. 3) TEP will minimize direct impacts to wildlife habitat by utilizing existing infrastructure and disturbance corridors whenever possible. 4) Well telemetry equipment will be installed to minimize site visitation through remote monitoring of production operations. 5) During post-development production operations, TEP will make best efforts to minimize operations at this location during winter months (December 1 – April 30) by minimizing operations, when possible, to between 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 6) Spill response equipment will be provided on site during drilling and completion operations. Additional spill response equipment will be staged at a nearby location that can be accessed quickly as needed during drilling and completion operations as well as during long-term production operations. 7) A Pesticide Use Proposal will be approved by the BLM prior to the use of herbicides, and pesticides shall be applied by certified applicators trained in the identification of native milkweeds and forbs. Herbicide shall not be applied to any known special status plant. To reduce impacts to native pollinators, the operator shall avoid the risk of herbicide drift onto nontarget plant species by spot-treating target species, limiting herbicide applications to low-wind conditions, and mechanically removing noxious weeds when practicable. Applicators shall take special care to avoid herbicide contact with non-target species when native plants in the treatment area and project vicinity are in bloom.` Page 16 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 5 Storm Water/Erosion Control The proposed off-location pipelines will be installed within a fifty-foot (50’) pipeline Right-of-Way located on private property and BLM. An additional fifteen-foot (15’) of temporary workspace will be added to the pipeline Right-of-Way near the approach to the Oil and Gas Location due to steeper slopes. Prior to initial pad construction, TEP will have the proposed pad location and pipeline corridors staked for construction and will hold a pre-construction onsite with the excavation and stormwater contractors to review proposed site construction. TEP’s stormwater management contractor will review the preliminary erosion control plan and determine if any additional control measures are needed. Any new control measures implemented because of this review or requested by the surface owner will be documented as required by Federal and/or State regulations. TEP’s stormwater contractor will then oversee the installation of stormwater control measures (i.e. wattles, straw bales, etc.) along the outer perimeter of the proposed disturbance boundary. TEP’s construction contractor will then begin removal of existing vegetation within the disturbance footprint by hydro-axing or brush hogging the trees or larger bushes within the project disturbance boundary. Stormwater control measures, such as wattles, sediment traps, and diversion ditches, will then be installed along the perimeter of the site prior to pad excavation. Topsoil within the pad disturbance footprint will then be stripped and stockpiled both northwest and southeast of the proposed pad location adjacent to the access road and northwest of the proposed pad location. Topsoil will be stripped to a depth of approximately twelve inches (12”) and segregated from all other subsurface materials for use during reclamation. Wattles will be placed around the perimeter of the topsoil stockpile to prevent offsite migration of organic materials. Excavation of the pad will then commence and will be constructed based on the Layout Drawings included as an attachment to the Form 2A. A perimeter berm will be constructed around the fill side of the pad location and around the cuttings trench. A drive over berm will be constructed at the pad entrances. The area beneath the proposed rig footprint, approximately forty feet (40’) from the proposed cellar, will be compacted to ensure stability of the rig during drilling operations. The pad working surface will be bladed level and graveled. The proposed production equipment and on- location flowlines will also be installed. The cut and fill slopes and topsoil stockpile will be hydro-mulched following completion of pad construction to minimize the potential for site degradation during the initial drilling and well completion phase of the project. Interim reclamation of the Oil and Gas Location will occur following completion of well construction. Stormwater control measures will be implemented during interim reclamation and will include diversion ditches, sediment traps, surfacing materials (as needed), and application of seed and mulch. Additional control measures may be implemented as needed to prevent off-site migration of sediment and pollutants. Stormwater control measures planned for interim reclamation are depicted on Appendix A, NR 41-3 Drill Pad Stormwater Management Erosion Control Plan.` Page 17 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 6 Material Handling and Spill Prevention TEP will use the following site-specific BMPs at the NR 41-3 pad to evaluate / determine that all above ground and below ground onsite (and offsite) fluid handling, storage, transmission, and transportation equipment have integrity and comply with the applicable standards cited in the ECMC rules include the following: * Audio, Visual, and Olfactory (AVO) inspections: AVO inspections will be conducted monthly at the Oil and Gas Location throughout the life of the facility. * Routine inspection of all production equipment, wellheads, temporary equipment, etc.; Routine inspections to be conducted at the Oil and Gas Location will include: Routine physical inspections of production equipment (by TEP production personnel); Air Compliance inspections and monitoring (by TEP Air Compliance staff); SPCC Inspections (by 3rd party contractor), Storm Water Management inspections (by 3rd party contractor), and continuous, dedicated SCADA monitoring of fluid production rates and pressures, and fluid storage volumes (by TEP production personnel). * As part of our LDAR, STEM, OOOOa inspection / compliance programs, TEP will adhere to the use of Approved Instrument Monitoring Methods (AIMM) for inspecting production equipment and facilities at the Oil and Gas Location. * Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) inspections are performed at all locations; however, the inspection frequency is tiered based upon the level of emission controls that are required / employed at each location. * Spill prevention training is provided to all field employees on a monthly basis. The monthly training consists of reviewing past incidents, root causes of the incidents, and what specific actions (lessonslearned) could be taken to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents in the future. * TEP spill response procedures will be adhered to for any spills or releases occurring at the Oil and Gas Location. All spills will be managed in accordance with the ECMC 900 Series rules. * Temporary flowback tanks placed on location will have proper secondary containment including a perimeter berm around the Working Pad Surface and containment under the flowback tanks. * Any temporary surface or permanent surface/buried pipelines (on-location / off- location flowlines; and any temporary surface lines used for hydraulic stimulation and/or flowback operations) will be pressure tested in accordance with the 1100-series rules prior to being placed into initial service and following any reconfiguration of the pipeline network. * Permanent tank batteries will be placed within engineered, steel secondary containment with an impervious liner system or other secondary containment systems. * Pollution control containers (spill boxes) to be used on truck loading lines within the limits of the secondary containment systems. * The use of cathodic protection on buried steel lines to mitigate corrosion. * Storage Tank Emission Monitoring (STEM) inspections are performed monthly at any location where emissions must be controlled (> 2 tpy). * OOOOa inspections are performed semi-annually on any facility constructed after 2015. * Flare Logs are completed daily for all locations where active flares and emissions controls are required. * All equipment deficiencies will be corrected immediately or as soon as practical (all identified problems and corrections/repairs will be documented and records will be maintained in the TEP’s office). * Automation technology will be utilized at this location; this technology includes the use of fluid level monitoring for the tanks and high-level shut offs.` Page 18 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 7 Dust control Best Management Practices: The following Best Management Practices will be utilized during development of the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location to minimize or mitigate fugitive dust: a. Pad / Road Construction: Fresh water will be periodically applied to disturbance areas during construction to minimize fugitive dust. b. Fresh water will be used to minimize fugitive dust during construction, drilling, completion, and production operations. c. TEP will not use produced water or other process fluids for dust suppression. d. Construction During High Wind: Contractor will monitor wind conditions during site construction. During wind events in excess of 13 miles per hour, TEP construction contractors will apply freshwater from an approved source to the disturbance area of the pad, road, or pipeline corridor to minimize or mitigate propagation of fugitive dust. Accessibility and worker safety will be considered prior to application. During periods of sustained high winds over 20 miles per hour, TEP’s construction contractors may temporarily suspend work to minimize potential for migration of fugitive dust, ensure worker safety, and to minimize impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife. e. Road Surfacing: The existing and proposed lease road will be spot graveled during site construction to ensure there is sufficient gravel on the road to minimize fugitive dust. f. Speed Restrictions: TEP has implemented speed restrictions on all lease roads and requires all TEP employees and contractors to adhere to all posted speed restrictions. The speed limit for the existing and proposed access road is twenty (20) miles per hour, unless otherwise posted. g. Road Maintenance: During long-term production operations, TEP will conduct annual inspections of the existing road and will perform maintenance actions as necessary to ensure road integrity and minimize fugitive dust. Road maintenance actions may include, but are not limited to, regrading, spot graveling, storm water control maintenance, and application of magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and / or fresh water. h. Site Visitation: TEP will utilize telemetry equipment to minimize well site visitation, when possible, to reduce fugitive dust from vehicles traveling the dirt / gravel roads. i. Soil Management: Topsoil and stockpiled soils will be stabilized through either tackifiers, seeding practices, or erosion control blankets.` 8 Construction * Prior to commencement of construction activities, TEP will hold a pre-construction meeting with contractors to review proposed site construction and installation of stormwater control measures. The site will be staked for construction prior to the preconstruction meeting. Staking will identify the boundaries of the proposed site to protect existing vegetation in areas that should not be disturbed.` 9 Noise mitigation * Any operations involving the use of a drilling rig, workover rig, or fracturing and any equipment used in the drilling, completion, or production of a well are subject to and will comply with the Agricultural maximum permissible noise levels in Rule 423.a.(2).A. of 65 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 60 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. * If a noise complaint is made to either TEP directly, the ECMC, or the local government, and TEP is notified of the complaint, noise levels will be measured within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint; TEP will contact the concerned party (if contact information is available) to discuss the complaint and the results of the noise measurements.` Page 19 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 10 Odor mitigation * Water/bentonite-based mud (WBM) drill cuttings are circulated up the annulus and through the rig flowline to a mud-gas separator, where any gas entrained in the mud is separated and flows off the separator’s overhead to an internal combustion device; the drilling cuttings then flow with the drilling mud over two sets of drying shakers and then through a centrifuge to further dry the cuttings; the dried cuttings are placed into steel bins where they are temporarily stored on location prior to placement into the cuttings trench. * If odor complaints are received and it is determined that they are caused by the drilling fluids, If odor complaints are received and it is determined that they are caused by the drilling fluids, then an odor neutralizing agent or similar product will be added to the system to eliminate the odor. * Hydrocarbon odors from production facilities will be minimized by keeping produced fluid hydrocarbons and natural gas contained within pipes, separators, tanks, and combustors; all tanks will be sealed with thief hatches and gaskets; tank vapors will be captured with properly sized piping and combustors.` 11 Final Reclamation BMPs for Short-Term Stabilization Proper stockpile construction (e.g., away from drainages, with 2:1 slopes, proper heights, and control measures downgradient) and management should help to preserve the chemical and biological integrity of topsoil. According to site conditions, the following BMPs may be used to stabilize topsoil stockpiles in the initial phase of construction. * Protection from Contamination: based on changes in physical characteristics (e.g., organic content, color, texture, density, or consistency), soil horizons will be segregated and stockpiled separately; stockpiles of different soil types will be separated by compacted earthen berms, sediment control logs, straw bale barriers, etc.; and stockpile surfaces will be stabilized to control for erosion and sedimentation. * Protection from Compaction: topsoil stockpiles will be indicated on site with signage; stockpiles will be placed in areas away from vehicle and equipment traffic; and when stockpiling, compaction will be minimized by limiting the number of equipment passes, limiting stockpile height, and using vegetation. * Protection from Wind Erosion: surface roughening, applying hydro-seed/mulch, using soil tackifier, covering stockpiles with rolled erosion control products, etc. * Protection from Water Erosion: surface roughening, applying hydro-seed/mulch, using soil tackifier, covering stockpiles with rolled erosion control products, etc. * Weed Establishment Prevention: TEP uses cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls to prevent the establishment of weeds. TEP’s complete Weed Control plan is included in Requirement 12 below. BMPs for Long-Term Stabilization Final reclamation: When drilling, completion operations and recontouring of the site are complete (as described in the Reclamation Plan), all topsoil will be moved from the stockpile area and placed over the facility’s cut and fill slopes to ensure long term topsoil health including protection from erosion, prevention of weed establishment, and maintenance of soil microbial activity. The following BMPs will be used after topsoil placement is complete on cut and fill slopes. * The seedbed will be prepared on all topsoiled areas to alleviate compaction and minimize the potential for erosion. * Topsoiled areas will be planted with desirable species, or a seed mixture provided by the Surface Owner for the location(s). * Protection from Wind and Water Erosion: topsoiled areas will be covered with certified weed free mulch at an application rate specified by the product’s manufacturer, or a specification sheet that follows good engineering practices. * Weed Establishment Prevention: TEP uses cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls to prevent the establishment of weeds. TEP’s complete Weed Control plan is included in Appendix D.` Page 20 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] 12 Final Reclamation 1) The Oil and Gas Location will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography during site reclamation. All subsoil and topsoil separated and segregated during site construction will be replaced to a uniform depth during reclamation recontouring operations. 2) The Oil and Gas Location will be reseeded by drill, broadcast, or hydroseed methods. Drill seeding will be utilized wherever soil characteristics and slope allow for effective operation of a rangeland seed drill. 3) TEP will use a seed mix approved by the surface owner. 4) Erosion controls will be implemented per the Stormwater Management Plan included in the Form 2A for this location and will be inspected and maintained as required by Federal, State, and Local regulations. 5) Noxious weeds, which may be introduced due to soil disturbance during reclamation, will be treated in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. 6) Site reclamation will occur within six (6) months following well completion operations. 7) The areas identified to be interim reclaimed will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography during site reclamation; all topsoil will be moved from the stockpile area and placed over the facility’s cut and fill slopes to a uniform depth to ensure long term topsoil health including protection from erosion, prevention of weed establishment, and maintaining soil microbial activity until final reclamation; 8) The seed bed will be prepared on all topsoiled areas to alleviate compaction and minimize the potential for erosion; 9) Topsoiled areas will be planted with desirable species or a seed mixture provided by the Surface Owner for this particular location;` Total: 12 comment(s) Page 21 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] General Comments ATTACHMENT LIST Att Doc Num Name 403520979 FORM 2A SUBMITTED 403594433 OTHER 403594434 PRELIMINARY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS 403594458 SURFACE AGRMT/SURETY 403594467 DIRECTIONAL WELL PLAT 403594468 OTHER 403594487 OTHER 403594491 GEOLOGIC HAZARD MAP 403594497 SENSITIVE AREA DATA 403594501 OTHER 403594503 OTHER 403594504 OTHER 403594505 RELATED LOCATION AND FLOWLINE MAP 403594507 ACCESS ROAD MAP 403594510 WILDLIFE HABITAT DRAWING 403594511 CULTURAL FEATURES MAP 403594512 LOCATION DRAWING 403594513 LOCATION PICTURES 403594515 ALA NARRATIVE SUMMARY 403594516 HYDROLOGY MAP 403594519 REFERENCE AREA PICTURES 403594520 LESSER IMPACT AREA EXEMPTION REQUEST 403594521 LESSER IMPACT AREA EXEMPTION REQUEST 403594522 REFERENCE AREA MAP 403594523 NRCS MAP UNIT DESC 403594526 OIL AND GAS LOCATION GIS SHP 403815846 LAYOUT DRAWING Total Attach: 27 Files Page 22 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] User Group Comment Comment Date CPW Summary: The purpose of this Wildlife Consultation Summary is to give ECMC Commissioners, ECMC staff (for the wildlife portion of the Director's Recommendation document), and interested stakeholders insight into how CPW made their conclusions for this proposed oil and gas development plan and associated wildlife consultation process. The proposed NR 41-3 oil and gas location falls within the following CPW-mapped High Priority Habitats (HPH): mule deer winter concentration area (Rule 1202.d.) and aquatic sportfish management waters (Rule 1202.c.). CPW is satisfied that wildlife impact avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures have been addressed pursuant to the requirements of ECMC's 300 and 1200 Series Regulations. Consultation History: CPW’s NW Region staff engaged in a pre-application consultation process with the operator, including an on-site tour of the proposed development on May 24, 2023 with staff from the Bureau of Land Management’s Colorado River Valley Field Office. Subsequent consultation meetings have occurred with the operator and CPW staff including the formal pre-application consultation meeting on September 15, 2023 to discuss wildlife measures relevant to the proposed development. Additionally, CPW has been given an opportunity to review the Wildlife Mitigation Plan for this OGDP, and has granted approval following our review. Alternative Location Analysis (ALA): The operator has prepared an ALA pursuant to Rule 304.b.(2). due to the presence of mapped high priority habitats. CPW was able to visit two of the proposed alternate locations during the 2023 on-site (Alternatives 1 and 2). Three of the viable alternatives to access the target mineral resources are located within a Wildlife Security Area designated by BLM in their 2015 Colorado River Valley Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan. This area is allocated as a no surface occupancy (NSO) area for oil and gas development due to high wildlife values and would require a waiver from BLM for development. The only alternative that is not located within the Wildlife Security Area is Alternative 1. This alternative results in a slight reduction to overall disturbance due to a shorter access road and pipeline corridor; however, due to topography constraints, this pad location would result in surface disturbance much closer to the Yellow Slide Gulch waterway. Due to this tradeoff, it was determined that the minimal amount of additional disturbance was worth increasing the distance between the pad site and Yellow Slide Gulch. Additionally, the proposed alternative is the landowner’s preferred location and a surface use agreement has been executed. CPW supports the proposed alternative for these reasons. Minimization Measures (Best Management Practices): CPW approves of the Operator’s Proposed Best Management Practices and has formally adopted the BMPs submitted with the Form2A permit application in webforms. 08/21/2024 CPW CPW-Granted Waivers: TEP requested a CPW waiver to allow for development within 300-500 feet of the mapped sportfish management water. CPW assessed the Yellow Slide Gulch drainage during the 2023 on-site and determined that this drainage is not a perennial stream and does not contain adequate year-round water flows to support any sportfish species. Follow up conversations with CPW’s aquatic biologist confirmed that this waterway likely does not contain populations of sportfish, but seasonal use by Colorado River native fish species is unknown. TEP has agreed to implement all best management practices included in Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb. with CPW agreeing to a modified inspection frequency based on the use of remote monitoring technologies which will reduce long-term vehicle traffic to the location. Based on these factors, CPW agreed to grant a waiver to Rule 1202.c. and provided written approval via email on September 20, 2023. Compensatory Mitigation: The proposed NR 41-3 location is located within a Rule 1202.d. HPH (mule deer winter concentration area) triggering the need to assess compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources. The operator has elected to satisfy their compensatory mitigation requirements by paying a monetary fee to CPW’s SB-181 compensatory mitigation program. The total OGDP development will result in direct disturbances greater than 11 acres and the direct impact mitigation fees were calculated based on the total long-term and short-term (interim reclaimed) amounts of disturbance. The total direct impact mitigation requirement for this development will be $76,008.79. 08/21/2024 Page 23 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] For indirect impacts, CPW determined that the location will cause the density of active oil and gas facilities to exceed one per square mile, but will not exceed five locations per square mile. To offset these indirect impacts on high priority habitat, CPW utilized the big game rapid assessment tool to estimate the degree of indirect impacts associated with the proposed development. Primary factors that influenced the indirect impact results were: high big game forage quality and range conditions, low use of existing facilities, and use of best management practices to reduce impacts (reduction). CPW’s assessment resulted in 62.031 acres of indirect impacts, which equates to a payment of $45,592.79. Additional indirect impact payments may be required based on exceptions to the big game winter range seasonal timing restriction. TEP has worked with CPW and BLM to identify additional mitigation requirements which are explained on page 13 of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Depending on final scheduling of the two proposed occupations, TEP will remit the appropriate amounts to CPW to satisfy both BLM and State requirements for waivers of the seasonal timing limitations. Compensatory mitigation payments will be remitted at least 30 days prior to initiating construction activities. Conclusion: CPW concurs that the operator has effectively consulted with CPW to implement the full mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, and mitigate). CPW does not have any unresolved issues or objections to this permit application and the materials submitted by the operator. Approved in ECMC’s WebForms System by: Taylor Elm on August 21, 2024 OGLA The Director has determined this OGDP application is complete. Form pushed to IN PROCESS. 07/22/2024 OGLA Added BMPs from the OGDP Plans.07/22/2024 OGLA The Director has determined this OGDP application is complete. Form pushed to IN PROCESS. 07/22/2024 OGLA The Conditions of Approval (COA) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Form 2A and the Final Order are the final enforceable permit conditions for this Oil and Gas Location. Any plan or attachment that contains information or language that is contrary to or less protective than ECMC rules or the COAs and BMPs on the Form 2A or Final Order does not relieve the operator from compliance with the applied COAs, BMPs or any ECMC rules. 07/22/2024 OGLA Return to Draft for revisions to: Waste Management Plan, Form 2A data fields, remote shut-in BMP question, and associated Hearing Application issues. 04/23/2024 OGLA Operator requested a Rule 304.d Lesser Impact Area exemption from the Rule 304.c.(3) Light Mitigation Plan. The request is based on the plan being unnecessary because impacts to the resource will be so minimal as to cause no concern. The nearest RBU is over 5280 feet away. The proposed location is in mule deer winter concentration HPH and CPW has indicated support for the request with the proposed BMPs. Request granted by the Director. 03/27/2024 OGLA Operator requested a Rule 304.d Lesser Impact Area exemption from the Rule 304.c.(2) Noise Mitigation Plan. The request is based on the plan being unnecessary because impacts to the resource will be so minimal as to cause no concern. The nearest RBU is over 5280 feet away. The proposed location is in mule deer winter concentration HPH and CPW has indicated support for the request with the proposed BMPs. Request granted by the Director. 03/27/2024 Total: 9 comment(s) Page 24 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Public Comments No public comments were received on this application during the comment period. Page 25 of 25Date Run: 8/30/2024 Doc [#403520979] Table of Contents 140 Cultural Distance Map and Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(3) and Rule 304.b.(7).A T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx jnourse CULTURAL DISTANCE MAP AND LOCATION DRAWING NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: NR 41-3 Pad Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 3 Township: 6S Range: 94W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO 0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 9/11/2023 9:26 AM Author: Jax Nourse Pad Centroid Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Fence Existing Two Track 2,000ft Buffer Parcel Ownership NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 Legend Zoning: Resource Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land 3231 23 S W S W 861$9$L2,L 6+$L(5(6(59( &L28*+6+((3 &203$1<LL& 861$9$L2,L 6+$L(5(6(59( &L28*+6+((3 &203$1<LL& L L Maxar, Microsoft NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 0 -500 501 -1,000 1,001 -2,000 Building 8nit 0 0 0 Residential Building 8nit 0 0 0 +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit 0 0 0 School Propert\0 0 0 School Facilit\0 0 0 'esignated Outdoor ActiYit\ Area 0 0 0 LID 15&XOWXUDO'LVWDnFeV7DEOe5XOeE% Count within radi of WPSCultural Feature LID Distance from WPSBearing Direction 1A 1 1A 1 L 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 Residential Building 8nit 1A 1 +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit 1A 1 School Facilit\1A 1 15&XOWXUDO'LVWDnFeV7DEOe5XOeE$ Cultural Feature Residential Building 8nit +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit School Propert\ School Facilit\ 'esignated Outdoor ActiYit\ Area Child Care Center AEoYe Ground 8tilities Railroad Propert\ Line 'isproportionatel\ ,Ppacted CoPPunities within a 'isporpotionatel\ ,Ppacted CoPPunities within 2,000 Feet of the WPS Building Building 8nit LID Distance from WPSBearing Direction 1A 1 L2 ,22SE 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 0 1Existing TwoTrack PriYate 15LRFDWLRn'UDZLng7DEOe5XOeE$ Feature .nown Water Wells .nown Sewers with 0anholes PuElic Road Fences Pipelines or Pipeline 0arkers 0ines Oil and Gas Wells and Associated Production Facilities ,nMection Wells and Associated Facilities Plugged Oil and Gas Wells Table of Contents 142 Location Pictures and Location Pictures Map – Rule 304.b.(4) T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx jnourse TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: jnourse Date prepared: September 11, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Location Pictures Pad Center Looking North Pad Center Looking South Project Overview Pad Center Looking East Pad Center Looking West Project Access Road Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. Notes: 1) Reference the attached Location Pictures Map for the locations where each picture was taken for the Oil and Gas Location 2) Project Overview: Lat: 39.560664; Long: -107.865800 3) Location Pictures: Lat: 39.562182; Long: -107.866768 4) Project Access Road: Lat: 39.561369; Long: -107.865487 3231 23 5S 93W 6S 94W CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE Location Point Lat:39.562182 Long:-107.866768 Pad Overview Lat:39.560664 Long:-107.8658 Access Road Lat:39.561369 Long:-107.865487 South North EastWest NW NW 7?3URMHFWV?3LFHDQFH?5XOLVRQ?15133DG?9LVLW1?15133DGDSU[MQRXUVH 7(352&.<02817$,1//& ([KLELWSUHSDUHGE\MQRXUVH 'DWHSUHSDUHG6HSWHPEHU11223 NR 41-3 Pad Location Pictures Map Lot 1 oI Section 3 ToZnship 6 South, RanJe 4 :est 6th P.M. 122 )HHW 1 in 120 It Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Legend Location oI Picture Location Picture )ieOd oI 9iew ProSosed WorNing Pad SurIace ProSosed 'a\Oight Line ProSosed OiO and *as Location ProSosed Access Road ParceO OwnershiS Table of Contents 145 Location Drawing – Rule 304.b.(7).A T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx jnourse CULTURAL DISTANCE MAP AND LOCATION DRAWING NR 41-3 OGDP Oil and Gas Location: NR 41-3 Pad Form 2A DOC. Number: 403520979 Section: 3 Township: 6S Range: 94W 6th P.M. Garfield County, CO 0 1,000500 Feet NOTE: THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF SAID DATA HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM WHAT IS SHOWN. Date: 9/11/2023 9:26 AM Author: Jax Nourse Pad Centroid Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Fence Existing Two Track 2,000ft Buffer Parcel Ownership NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 Legend Zoning: Resource Lands Land Use: Rangeland / Non-Crop Land 3231 23 S W S W 861$9$L2,L 6+$L(5(6(59( &L28*+6+((3 &203$1<LL& 861$9$L2,L 6+$L(5(6(59( &L28*+6+((3 &203$1<LL& L L Maxar, Microsoft NR 41-3 Lat: 39.561906 Long: 107.866390 0 -500 501 -1,000 1,001 -2,000 Building 8nit 0 0 0 Residential Building 8nit 0 0 0 +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit 0 0 0 School Propert\0 0 0 School Facilit\0 0 0 'esignated Outdoor ActiYit\ Area 0 0 0 LID 15&XOWXUDO'LVWDnFeV7DEOe5XOeE% Count within radi of WPSCultural Feature LID Distance from WPSBearing Direction 1A 1 1A 1 L 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 Residential Building 8nit 1A 1 +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit 1A 1 School Facilit\1A 1 15&XOWXUDO'LVWDnFeV7DEOe5XOeE$ Cultural Feature Residential Building 8nit +igh Occupanc\ Building 8nit School Propert\ School Facilit\ 'esignated Outdoor ActiYit\ Area Child Care Center AEoYe Ground 8tilities Railroad Propert\ Line 'isproportionatel\ ,Ppacted CoPPunities within a 'isporpotionatel\ ,Ppacted CoPPunities within 2,000 Feet of the WPS Building Building 8nit LID Distance from WPSBearing Direction 1A 1 L2 ,22SE 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 1A 1 0 1Existing TwoTrack PriYate 15LRFDWLRn'UDZLng7DEOe5XOeE$ Feature .nown Water Wells .nown Sewers with 0anholes PuElic Road Fences Pipelines or Pipeline 0arkers 0ines Oil and Gas Wells and Associated Production Facilities ,nMection Wells and Associated Facilities Plugged Oil and Gas Wells Table of Contents 147 Layout Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).B K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Proposed Access Road Proposed Temporary Surface Lines Proposed Frac Pipelines (4-4.5") Proposed Flowback Pipelines (1-4.5") Proposed Temporary Surface Water Supply Lines (2-10") 3532333431 5 1 1 2 1 3 10 11 12 1415 13 5S 3: 6S 3:6S 4: 5:) 3412 15 3341 )('(5$L 58L,S21 8 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC MEAD, MIRALEE BROWN, DENNIS L & LORI A CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC SNYDER, DANNY LEE & LORI CHERI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PIONEER MESA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC ANDERSON, SHELLY STORMY DAWN BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE CHAVEZ RANCH LLC MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D MCKENZIE, DAVID RYAN U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE RED ROCK GATHERING COMPANY LLC Maxar T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: September 6, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Well Completions Support Pad & Surface Flowline Drawing Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 2,5001,250 Feet 1 in = 1,250 ftProposed Surface Water Supply Lines Proposed Surface Frac and Flowback Lines Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Existing Access Road Existing County Road Parcel Ownership Existing O&G Location (TEP) 12 6S 94W Lot 13 Lot 12 FEDERAL RULISON 8 C10 C12 C15C03 C15 C15 C06 C11 C09 C09 C09 C09 C09 C09 C09 C04 C04 C04 C04 C04 C04 C05 C14 C14 C01 C02 C14 C10 C08 C08 C08 C08 C07 /HJHQG E[isting WellKead Proposed WorNing Pad SurIaFe Proposed Pad %erm Proposed DayligKt Line E[isting ProduFtion ETuipment Proposed 7opsoil StoFNpile E[isting Oil and *as LoFation Proposed AFFess Road E[isting Drainage Interim ReFlaim WorNing Pad SurIaFe Proposed FraF Supply Line -1 Proposed FraF Line -4 Proposed FlowEaFN Line 1-4 Proposed Flowline Proposed 7anN ManiIold Proposed 7ransIer +ose C1CKemiFal SNid CCompletions Pump ManiIold C3Data 9an C4EleFtriF Completions Pump C*as SNid C6*enerator SwitFK *ear C%lender C8+arpoon 7anN 1EEl C9Natural *as Powered *enerator C1ProduFed Water 7ransIer Pump C11Pump SwitFK *ear C1SeFondary 7anN Containment C147ransIer Pump C19FD 7railer E[isting *as Pipeline E[isting ProduFed Water Pipeline E[isting WellKead Line E[isting AFess Road E[isting Pad T:\Projects\Piceance\_Document Preparation\F2A 304.b.(07).B.iii Well Completion Layout\304_b_07_B_iii_Well_Completion_Layout.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: May 21, 2024 NR 41-3 Pad Preliminary Well Completion & Stimulation Layout Drawing on Federal Rulison 8 Pad PRELIMINARY § 0 70 14035 Feet 1 in It Notes: 1) Exhibit depicts the preliminary completions equipment layout on the existing Federal Rulison 8 pad (ECMC Location ID: 311534) supporting remote well completion operations for the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 Drill Pad. 2) Four (4) Modular Large Volume Tanks with a total capacity of 60,000bbls. Working Capacity 56,000bbls. 3) MVLTs will be placed within a lined containment structure capable of containing 150% of the volume of the largest tank (15,000bbls). Tank containment will consist of a four-and-one-half foot (4.5') high Muscle Wall with two (2) sixty millimeter (60mil) synthetic liners. 4) A minimum two-and-one-half foot (2.5’) high pad perimeter berm will be in place along the fill sides of the Oil and Gas Location during completion operations. Perimeter berm will be compacted to be sufficiently impervious. 5) Equipment used during well completion operations may vary depending to on availability at the time of operations. 6) Equipment location may vary depending on site conditions and availability of space on the site during well completions operations. Lot 13 of Section 12 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( 5S 93W 6S 94W FB01 FB01 FB02 FB 0 3 FB 0 3 FB 0 3 FB04 FB05 SWSE Lot 4 Lot 4 Lot 1 Ma[ar MicroVoIt T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: September 6, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Preliminary Flowback Equipment Layout Drawing PRELIMINARY Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 80 16040 Feet 1 in = 80 ft Legend !(Proposed Wells (SHL) Proposed Cellar Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Cuttings Trench Proposed Daylight Line Proposed Production Equipment Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Proposed Frac Line (4-4.5") Proposed Flowback Line (1-4.5") Proposed Flare Line Proposed Flowline Proposed Transfer Hose Proposed Wellhead Manifold FB01 - HP 4-Phase Separator FB02 - LP P-Tank FB03 - Produced Water Tank FB04 - Water Pump FB05 - ECD (Low Pressure) Notes: 1) Proposed production equipment will be installed prior visit 1 drilling operations since SIMOPS will be performed. 2) Proposed production equipment for Visit 2 will be installed after drilling is complete and the rig has left location. 3) Equipment used during flowback operation may vary depending on availability at the time of operations. 4) Equipment location may vary depending on site conditions and availability of space on the site during well completions operations. 5) Please see the Stormwater Management Plan attached to the Form 2A for site specific stormwater control measures. !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( ! Proposed Separators Visit 1 Quad Separators (5) Visit 2 Quad Separators (5) Proposed Equipment Low Pressure Separators (2) Air Compressor/Generator/IA Receiver Enclosed Combustion Device (1) Proposed Blowdown Tank (200bbl) Proposed Cuttings Trench Proposed Topsoil Stockpile Proposed Topsoil Stockpile Proposed Pipelines Proposed Gas Pipeline (8") Proposed Water Pipeline (6") Proposed Condensate Pipelines (2-2") 6: 6: SWSE Lot 4 Lot 4 Lot 1 CLO8G+ S+EEP COMPANY LLC 8S NA9AL OIL S+ALE RESER9E 5 T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: September 6, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Oil and Gas Facilities Layout Drawing Site Construction Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 80 16040 Feet 1 in = 80 ftLegend !(Proposed Gas Well Proposed Air Compressor / Generator Proposed Emission Control Device Proposed LP Separator Proposed Temporary Blowdown Tank (200bbl) Proposed Quad Separator (Vist 1) Proposed Quad Separator (Vist 2) Proposed Blowdown/Vent Dump Line (1-2") Proposed Condenstate Dumplines (2-2") Proposed Condensate Lines (2-2") Proposed Fuel Gas Pipeline (1-2") Proposed Gas Line (1-8") Proposed Gas Sales Line (1-8") Proposed Process Piping (Vent; 1-3") Proposed Produced Water Line (1-6") Proposed Supply Gas Pipeline (1-1") Proposed Water Dumpline (1-6") Proposed Wellhead Line (1-2") Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Cuttings Trench Proposed Daylight Line Proposed Production Equipment Proposed Topsoil Stockpile Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Parcel Ownership !Setback Requirement K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( ! 6: 6: CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE 75 ' T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: September 6, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Oil and Gas Facilities Layout Drawing Interim Reclamation Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 80 16040 Feet 1 in = 80 ft Legend !(Proposed Gas Well Proposed Air Compressor / Generator Proposed Emission Control Device Proposed LP Separator Proposed Quad Separator (Vist 1) Proposed Quad Separator (Vist 2) Proposed Permanent Blowdown Tank (200bbl) Proposed Blowdown/Vent Dump Line (1-2") Proposed Condenstate Dumpline (2-2") Proposed Condensate Line (2-2") Proposed Fuel Gas Pipeline (1-2") Proposed Gas Line (1-8") Proposed Gas Sales Line (1-8") Proposed Process Piping (Vent; 1-3") Proposed Produced Water Line (1-6") Proposed Supply Gas Pipeline (1-1") Proposed Water Dumpline (1-6") Proposed Wellhead Line (1-2") Proposed Production Equipment Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Interim Reclaim Working Pad Surface Parcel Ownership Project Disurbance Area !Setback Requirement Proposed Permanent Blowdown Tank 200bbl Proposed Separators Quad Separators (10; 5V1 / 5V2) Proposed Equipment Low Pressure Separators (2) Air Compressor/Generator/IA Receiver Enclosed Combustion Device (1) Table of Contents 160 Wildlife Habitat Drawings – Rule 304.b.(7).C ! 52$ 1 &/,))6 5 ' &5 RWF 12-12 RWF 331-11 NR 334-1 Production Pad FEDERAL RULISON 161 NR 334-1 NR 314-2 HM 32-33 RWF 512-11 NR 23-3 H u b b ar d G u l c h Yello w Slid e G ulc h 2829 32 3331 35 36 2 4 1 3 109 11 12 6:6: 6: BROWN, DENNIS L & LORI A CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE POTTER, TERESA ANN & SAMUEL B MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D POTTER, TERESA ANN L 1 T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: ATankersley Date prepared: September 6, 2023 154133ad :ildliIeHabiWaW'rawiQJ Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 1,200 2,400600 Feet 1 in = 1,200 ft Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Access Road Proposed Pipeline Corridor Existing Access Road Existing County Road 5,280ft Buffer (WPS) Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Aquatic Cutthroat Trout Designated Crucial Habitat Aquatic Native Species Conservation Water Parcel Ownership Existing O&G Location (TEP) Notes: 1) The following source information was reviewed during preparation of the Wildlife Drawing: a. ECMC High Priority Habitat Layers b. IPaC: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/; No Federally List Critical Habitat Found c. Migratory Birds: https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php; Operator will comply with Rule 1202.a.(8). d. State Protected Species: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx e. Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restriction for Colorado Raptors: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/ WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer-Guidelines.pdf /,''HVFULSWLRQ 'LVWDQFHIW'LUHFWLRQ --Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area 0 North --ATuatic SportIish ManaJement Area 0 North L1 Mule Deer SeYere Winter RanJe 4,63South ! 52$ 1 &/,))6 5 ' &5 RWF 12-12 RWF 331-11 NR 334-1 Production Pad FEDERAL RULISON 161 NR 334-1 NR 314-2 HM 32-33 RWF 512-11 NR 23-3 H u b b ar d G u l c h Yello w Slid e G ulc h 2829 32 3331 35 36 2 4 1 3 109 11 12 6:6: 6: BROWN, DENNIS L & LORI A CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE POTTER, TERESA ANN & SAMUEL B MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE MOSS, BRADLEY F & WINETTE D POTTER, TERESA ANN L 1 Maxar 7?3roMecWV?3iceaQce?5uliVoQ?154133ad?9iViW1?154133adaSr[$7aQNerVle\ 7(352&.Y02817$,1//& ([hibiWSreSaredb\$7aQNerVle\ 'aWeSreSaredSeSWePber62023 NR 41-3 Pad Wildlife Habitat Drawing Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 1200 2400600 )eeW 1 in = 1,200 ft Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Access Road Proposed Pipeline Corridor Existing Access Road Existing County Road 5,280ft Buffer (WPS) Aquatic Sportfish Management Water Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Aquatic Cutthroat Trout Designated Crucial Habitat Aquatic Native Species Conservation Water Parcel Ownership Existing O&G Location (TEP) Notes: 1) The following source information was reviewed during preparation of the Wildlife Drawing: a. ECMC High Priority Habitat Layers b. IPaC: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/; No Federally List Critical Habitat Found c. Migratory Birds: https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php; Operator will comply with Rule 1202.a.(8). d. State Protected Species: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx e. Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restriction for Colorado Raptors: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/ WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer-Guidelines.pdf /,''HVFULSWLRQ 'LVWDQFHIW'LUHFWLRQ --Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area 0 North --ATuatic SportIish ManaJement Area 0 North L1 Mule Deer SeYere Winter RanJe 4,63South Table of Contents 163 Hydrology Map – Rule 304.b.(7).E Table of Contents 165 Access Road Map – Rule 304.b.(7).F ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") £¤6 §¨¦70 5S 93W 6S 93W6S 94W ¬«13 W 2 N D S T(C R 2 6 4 )W 2 N D S T (CR 198) FRAVE R T R E S E RV OIR R D ( C R 2 4 4 ) E 16TH ST W 2ND S T SWALLOW L N ( C R 2 6 4) F R A VERT R D ( C R 2 9 0 ) YELLO W S L IDE R D (CR 2 4 8 ) FEDERAL RULISON 8 NR 334-1 MaxaU NRWHV 1 AOO %XLOGLQJ UQLWV+LJK OFFXSDQF\ %XLOGLQJ UQLWV KDYH EHHQ YHULILHG E\ XVLQJ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IROORZLQJ GDWD VRXUFHV &RXQW\ DDWD AHULDO IPDJHU\ DQG RU FLHOG 9HULILFDWLRQ AOO +LJK 3ULRULW\ +DELWDW +3+ SWDWH 3DUNV DQG SWDWH :LOGOLIH AUHDV KDYH EHHQ YHULILHG E\ XVLQJ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IROORZLQJ VRXUFHV &O*&& +3+ DDWD DQGRU &RXQW\ 3DUFHO DDWD 7E3 GRHV QRW KDYH NQRZOHGJH RI DQ\ &RQVHUYDWLRQ EDVHPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH SURMHFW DUHD 3 FHGHUDOO\ DHVLJQDWHG &ULWLFDO +DELWDW RU 7 E SSHFLHV NQRZQ WR RFFXU KDYH EHHQ YHULILHG E\ XVLQJ I3D& EQYLURQPHQWDO &RQVHUYDWLRQ OQOLQH S\VWHP NR &ULWLFDO +DELWDW RU 7 E SSHFLHV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG 3OHDVH VHH WKH %LRORJLFDO SXUYH\ RHSRUW 4 AOO :DWHUV RI WKH SWDWH KDYH EHHQ YHULILHG E\ XVLQJ RQH RU PRUH RI WKH IROORZLQJ GDWD VRXUFHV US*S +\GURORJLFDO DDWD DQGRU WKH NDWLRQDO :HWODQGV IQYHQWRU\ DDWD USA&E SHFWLRQ 44 SHUPLWV DUH QRW UHTXLUHG 7KH H[LVWLQJ DFFHVV URDG ZLOO XQGHUJR PLQRU PDLQWHQDQFH DFWLYLWLHV GXULQJ VLWH FRQVWUXFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR VSRW JUDYHOLQJ VWRUPZDWHU FRQWURO PDLQWHQDQFH HWF« T:\Projects\Piceance\Rulison\NR 41-3 Pad\Visit 1\NR 41-3 Pad.aprx jnourse TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: jnourse Date prepared: July 11, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Access Road Map Lot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § 0 1,650 3,300825 Feet 1 in = 1,650 ft Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Existing Support Location (TEP) ")Other Existing O&G Location (TEP) Verified Building Verified Building Unit Verified Residential Building Unit Existing Access Road (No New Disturbance) New Constructed Road (Requiring New Disturbance) Potential Wetland (NWI) Intermittent Stream Perennial Steam Existing Access Road (TEP) Existing County Road Highway Interstate IQWHUVHFWLRQ DW &RXQW\ RRDG 44 3URSRVHG RHPRWH FUDF 3DG FHGHUDO RXOLVRQ 8 3DG 3URSRVHG NR 41-3 3DG 3URSRVHG SXSSRUW LRFDWLRQ &RQGHQVDWH SWRUDJH £¤6 £¤6 §¨¦70 ¬«13 CR264 CR CR198 CR233 CR2 4 4 C R 2 96 C R 2 9 0 CR CR291 CR248 CR321 CR320 NR 334-1 FEDERAL RULISON 8 C R 2 4 4 HW Y 1 3 Lease r o a d Le a s e R o a d HWY 6 7(352&.<02817$,1//& (¤KLELWSUHSDUHGE\MQRXUVH 'DWHSUHSDUHG6HSWHPEHU NR 41-3 Pad Haul Route Map )HHW 1 LQ IW 7?3URMHFWV?3LFHDQFH?5XOLVRQ?153DG?9LVLW?153DGDSU¤MQRXUVH Notes: 1) Distance from I-70 to NR 41-3 Pad: ± 8.83 Miles 2) Distance from I-70 to NR 334-1 Pad: ± 6.58 Miles 3) Distance from I-70 to Federal Rulison 8 Pad: ±1.85 Miles Legend 3URSRVHG :RUNLQJ 3DG SXUIDFH 3URSRVHG OLO DQG *DV LRFDWLRQ E[LVWLQJ LHDVH RRDG E[LVWLQJ &RXQW\ RRDG E[LVLWQJ +LJKZD\ E[LVWLQJ IQWHUVWDWH 3URSRVHG +DXO RRXWHV E[LVWLQJ SXSSRUW 3DG OWKHU E[LVWLQJ 3DG Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Existing NR 334-1 Pad Existing Federal Rulison 8 Pad 1DPH 6XUIDFLQJ /HQJWKPL HWY 6 PaYemeQt 01 Lease Road ExLstLQJ*raYel 170 )HGHUDO5XOLVRQ+DXO5RXWH6HJPHQWV 1DPH 6XUIDFLQJ /HQJWKPL HWY 6 PaYemeQt 264 HWY 13 PaYemeQt 123 CR 244 PaYemeQt 029 Lease Road ExLstLQJ*raYel 242 Lease Road CoQtruFted*raYel 22 15+DXO5RXWH6HJPHQWV 'HYHORSPHQW3KDVH 1XPEHURI6HPL 7UXFNV 1XPEHURI3LFNXS 7UXFNV 7RWDO7UXFN7ULSV CoQstruFtLoQ 201 480 681 'rLllLQJ 91 92187 460 7317 CompletLoQs 91 92173700 4 IQterLm ReFlamatLoQ 17 60 77 ProduFtLoQ1 116 30 466 7RWDO (VWLPDWHG7UXFN7ULSVSHU3KDVH 13URGXFWLRQ WUXFN WULSV DUH D RQH \HDU HVWLPDWH 7UXFN WULSV ZLOO GHFUHDVH RYHU WKH OLIH RI WKH ZHOOV EDVHG RQ ZHOO SHUIRUPDQFH £¤6 §¨¦70 5S 92W 5S 93W 6S 93W6S 94W ¬«13 W 2 N D S T (C R 264) AIR P ORT R D ME G A N A V E 7T H ST S O U T H W 2 N D ST (CR 198) FRAVE R T R E S ER V O I R R D ( C R 2 4 4 ) DO K E S LN ( C R 29 6) W 2ND S T STEPHENS HILLRD(CR 2 9 1) SIL T MESARD ( C R 2 3 3 ) GR A H A M M E S A R D SWALLOW LN (CR 264) Y E LL O W S L ID E R D ( CR 2 48) E 16TH ST F R AVER T R D ( C R 290 ) FEDERAL RULISON 8 NR 334-1 7?3URMHFWV?3LFHDQFH?5XOLVRQ?153DG?9LVLW?153DGDSU¤MQRXUVH 7(352&.<02817$,1//& (¤KLELWSUHSDUHGE\MQRXUVH 'DWHSUHSDUHG6HSWHPEHU NR 41-3 Pad Access Road Map HPH LRW 1 RI SHFWLRQ 3 7RZQVKLS SRXWK RDQJH 4 :HVW WK 30 )HHW 1 in = 2,000 ft Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Existing Support Location (TEP) Other Existing O&G Location (TEP) Existing Access Road (No New Disturbance) New Constructed Road (Requiring New Disturbance) 2,000ft Buffer Existing Access Road (TEP) Existing County Road Highway Interstate Aquatic Sportsfish Management Waters Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Proposed Remote Frac Pad Federal Rulison 8 Pad Intersection at County Road 244 Proposed Support Location (Condensate Storage) Table of Contents 169 Related Location and Flowline Map – Rule 304.b.(7).G Table of Contents 171 Geologic Hazard Map – Rule 304.b.(7).I Legend Lot 1 of Section 3, T6S, R94W 6th P.M. N: 1638241.8 E: 2332904.3 Garfield County, Colorado Source: USGS Base Map with Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Dataset (COGCC GIS) Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Areas NR 41-3 Pad Site 1 Mile Radius North Scale 0’5280’2640’ Exhibit GH-1: Geologic Hazards Map NR 41-3 Pad Terra Energy Partners, LLC 3050 Post Oak, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77056 During review of potential Geologic Hazards in the vicinity of the NR 41-3 pad, a historic landslide area was identified through review of data from the Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Mapping System. However, upon further review it was determined that the landslide area poses minimal or no risk to the proposed Oil and Gas Operations or Location. Please see the Geologic Hazard Plan attached to the Form 2A for additional details. I, Stephen Sunnenberg, certify that I am a Professional Geologist, having met the educational requirements and professional work experience required by C.R.S. § 23-41-208(b). I have reviewed information pertaining to this Oil and Gas Location and the surrounding area and have identified no Geologic Hazards within one mile radius of the Oil and Gas Location. __________________________________ Stephen Sunnenberg 10/9/2023 Date Professional Geologist Table of Contents 173 Reference Area Map – Rule 304.b.(9).B.i !\ !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( 6: 6:CLOUGH SHEEP COMPANY, LLC U S NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE US NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVE 5HIHUDQFH$UHD /DW /RQJ C:\Users\atankersley\Desktop\Temp\TempProProject\SandBox.aprx ATankersley TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC Exhibit prepared by: AJT Date prepared: September 8, 2023 NR 41-3 Pad Reference Area Map Lot 2 of Section 19 Township 7 South, Range 93 West 6th P.M. c 0 100 20050 Feet 1 in = 100 ft Legend !(Proposed Gas Well !\Reference Area Point Proposed Cellar Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Cuttings Trench Proposed Daylight Line Proposed Production Equipment Proposed Topsoil Stockpile Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Parcel Ownership Table of Contents 175 Reference Area Pictures – Rule 304.b.(9).B.ii Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC Taken By: West Water Engineering Date Taken: 07/19/2023 NR 41-3 REFERENCE AREA PICTURES Notes: 1) Please see the Reference Area Map for an aerial overview of the reference area 2) Reference Area Location: Lat: 39 56295 / Long: -107 868337 3) Please see the Vegetation Assessment conducted on July 19, 2023 for additional details on the reference area including a list of dominant vegetation within the reference area Reference Area Overhead Table of Contents 178 NRCS Map Unit Description and Soils Map – Rule 304.b.(10) Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnxv Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arvada and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arvada Setting Landform:Fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Map Unit Description: Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R034BY006UT - Alkali Flat (Greasewood) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wann Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jny6 Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arvada and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arvada Setting Landform:Fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Map Unit Description: Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Ecological site: R034BY006UT - Alkali Flat (Greasewood) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 21—Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnxk Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cushman and similar soils:45 percent Lazear and similar soils:40 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cushman Setting Landform:Breaks, mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: stony loam H2 - 3 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 6 to 17 inches: loam H4 - 17 to 32 inches: very gravelly loam H5 - 32 to 36 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Map Unit Description: Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 3 Ecological site: R034BY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Lazear Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: stony loam H2 - 4 to 16 inches: cobbly loam H3 - 16 to 20 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 1.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R034BY322UT - Upland Shallow Loam (Two- Needle Pinyon / Utah Juniper) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Idlefonso Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank Hydric soil rating: No Rock outcrop Percent of map unit:5 percent Map Unit Description: Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 3 Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 3 of 3 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jny0 Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Ildefonso and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ildefonso Setting Landform:Breaks, valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: very stony loam Properties and qualities Slope:25 to 45 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:35 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R034BY330UT - Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) Hydric soil rating: No Map Unit Description: Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Minor Components Ascalon Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Potts Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 55—Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyr Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Potts and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Potts Setting Landform:Mesas, benches, valley sides Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 57—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyt Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Potts and similar soils:60 percent Ildefonso and similar soils:30 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Potts Setting Landform:Mesas, valley sides Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Map Unit Description: Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Description of Ildefonso Setting Landform:Valley sides, mesas Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: very stony loam Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 12 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:35 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R034BY330UT - Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 67—Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnz5 Elevation: 5,800 to 8,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Torriorthents, steep, and similar soils:60 percent Rock outcrop, steep:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Torriorthents, Steep Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank, base slope Down-slope shape:Concave, convex Across-slope shape:Concave, convex Parent material:Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature:4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Map Unit Description: Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 1 of 2 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop, Steep Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional):Free face Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Typical profile H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to paralithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Map Unit Description: Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep---Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 2 }}}}}} }} }} }} }} }} }}}} }}}} }}}} }} 15 3URGXFWLRQ 3DG 5:) 5:) )('(5$/ 58/,621 5:) 5:) )('(5$/ 58/,621 5:) 5:) 15 5:) &/28*+ &/28*+ )('(5$/ 58/,621 5:)5: 5:) 5:) 3URGXFWLRQ3DG 1(5 )('(5$/ 1(5 15 15 F R A V E R T R D ( C R 2 9 0 ) F R A V E R T R E S E R V O I R R D ( C R 24 4 ) Y E LLO W S L I DE R D ( C R 2 4 8) 57 56 9 34 21 21 21 21 21 67 55 56 9 9 55 57 57 39 57 57 9 55 67 9 67 57 34 34 34 57 57 35 57 3 3 3 57 4 56 67 67 57 55 35 56 57 55 57 3 58 57 9 57 66 35 35 4 67 39 3535 35 34 56 21 35 35 21 55 57 35 67 57 4 4 4 34 57 7?3URMHFWV?3LFHDQFH?5XOLVRQ?153DG?9LVLW?153DGDSU[MQRXUVH 7(352F.<02817$,1IIF ([OLELWSUHSDUHGE\MQRXUVH 'DWHSUHSDUHG0D\ NR 41-3 Pad Soils Map PRELIMINARYLot 1 of Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M. § )HHW 1 in = 1,200 ft Water Line Tie-In at Proposed RWF 34-12 Tank Battery Legend Proposed Working Pad Surface Proposed Oil and Gas Location Proposed Access Road Proposed Pipeline Cooridor Soil Survey (NRCS) Existing Pad Proposed NR 41-3 Pad Condensate Line Tie-In at NR 334-1 Upgraded Tank Battery Table of Contents 195 Dust Mitigation Plan – Rule 304.c.(5) Dust Mitigation Plan – 304.c.(5) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 5 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has developed the following Dust Mitigation Plan, which describes the methods TEP may use to minimize and / or mitigate fugitive dust generated from the development of proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. Fugitive dust is typically created during construction activities and from vehicular traffic on dirt or gravel roads. Additionally, fugitive dust can be propagated from the well pad and gravel roads during high wind events. Application of dust control measures, as described below, minimizes the potential for adverse impacts from fugitive dust generated during development. This dust mitigation plan is being submitted as required by ECMC Rule 304.c.(5) and based on the requirements outlined in ECMC Rule 427. WELL SITE LOCATION AND ACCESS The NR 41-3 pad is proposed within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC. The land on which the pad is proposed is classified as non-crop land and rangeland. The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) involves the construction of the proposed NR 41- 3 pad, construction of a new pipeline corridor to tie-in to existing infrastructure for natural gas, produced water, and condensate transportation, and the utilization of other existing facilities to support well completion and fluid storage for reuse and recycling. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to a 12.705-acre footprint to support development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. The pad will have a constructed pad elevation of 6,658.3 feet. The long-term disturbance of the NR 41-3 pad following interim reclamation will be 1.958-acres. The NR 41-3 pad will be accessed via Garfield County Road 244, existing private lease roads, and a proposed access road following an existing two-track on private and BLM surface. Approximately 1,521 feet, or 0.29 miles, of Garfield County Road 244 is a paved road and is maintained by Garfield County Road and Bridge. The existing lease roads from Garfield County Road 244 to the existing NR 334-1 pad is an improved gravel roads and is approximately 12,778 feet, or 2.42 miles in length. The proposed access road from the NR 334-1 pad to the NR 41-3 pad will be an improved gravel road and will be approximately 11,880 feet, or 2.25 miles in length. Please see the Access Road Map attached to the Form 2A for a depiction of the existing access route. DUST MITIGATION TEP will employ several methods to minimize and / or mitigate fugitive dust during construction, drilling, completion, and production operations associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. TEP has notified Garfield County of the proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad and will continue to coordinate with Garfield County regarding planned operations and seasonal maintenance activities along county roads. The existing and proposed lease road from Garfield County Road 244 to the NR 41-3 pad will be maintained by TEP, per existing surface use agreement or access road Rights-of-Way agreement, in a manner that minimizes fugitive dust during all phases of development. The following describes the existing surface conditions, the anticipated usage of the existing/proposed roads, and the mitigation measures proposed to minimize and / or mitigate fugitive dust. Page 3 of 5 1. Soil Types: Soils in the project area are described in Table 1, Soil Types within Project Area. Please see the Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) Map Unit Description attached to the Form 2A for more details on each of the soil types within the project area listed below. Table 1, Soil Types within Project Area Map Unit Soil Series Additional Information Project Components 57 57—Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes Potts: Mesas, valley sides; Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Ildefonso: Valley sides, mesas; Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale NR 41-3 Pad, Existing and Proposed Access Road, Proposed Pipeline Corridor, NR 334-1 Support Pad 21 21—Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes Cushman: Breaks, mountainsides; Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Lazear: Mountainsides; Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Proposed Access Road, Proposed Pipeline Corridor, Existing Federal Rulison 8 Pad, and NR 334-1 Pad 34 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Ildefonson: Breaks, valley sides, alluvial fans; Mixed alluvium derived from basalt Proposed Access Road and Proposed Pipeline Corridor. 55 55—Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Potts: Mesas, valley sides; Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Proposed Access Road and Proposed Pipeline Corridor 3 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Arvada: Fans, terraces; Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Existing Federal Rulison 8 Frac Pad and Proposed Pipeline Corridor 67 67—Torriorthents- Rock outcrop complex, steep Torriorthents: Mountainsides; Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Rock outcrop complex: Mountainsides Proposed Pipeline Corridor 2. Speed Limits: The speed limit for the existing access road to the NR 41-3 pad is twenty (20) miles per hour. TEP has implemented speed restrictions for all lease roads and requires that all TEP employees and contractors adhere to these posted speed restrictions. 3. Total Soil Disturbance: The total project disturbance of the NR 41-3 OGDP, including the proposed Oil and Gas Location, proposed access road, and the proposed pipeline corridor, is approximately 46.404-acres. The total surface disturbance including all existing support locations is approximately 52.764-acres. Please see the Plan of Development attached to the Form 2A for a detailed breakdown of the project disturbance by project component. 4. Paved Access: The existing and proposed access roads to the NR 41-3 pad are not and will not be paved. 5. Anticipated Truck Trips: During each phase of development, TEP or its contractors will utilize semi-trucks to haul heavy equipment to the location and will utilize heavy duty pickup trucks to transport personnel and other lightweight materials to the Oil and Gas Location. Please see Table 2, Anticipated Truck Trips, for a breakdown of the anticipated truck trips. Page 4 of 5 Table 2, Anticipated Truck Trips Development Phase Number of Semi- Trucks Number of Pickup Trucks Total Truck Trips Construction 201 480 681 Drilling (V1 & V2) 1,857 5,460 7,317 Completions (V1 & V2) 1,755 3,700 5,455 Interim Reclamation 17 60 77 Production1 116 350 466 Total 3,946 10,050 13,996 1Production truck trips are a one year estimate. Truck trips will decrease over the life of the wells based on well performance 6. Fugitive Dust Suppression During Windy Conditions: During dry and windy weather conditions the following dust suppression methods will be utilized: a. During wind events in excess of 13 miles per hour, TEP’s construction contractors will apply fresh water from an approved fresh water source to the disturbance area of the pad, road, or pipeline corridor to minimize or mitigate propagation of fugitive dust. Accessibility and worker safety will be considered prior to application. b. During sustained high wind event over 20 miles per hour, TEP construction contractors may temporarily suspend work to minimize potential for migration of fugitive dust, ensure worker safety, and to minimize impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife. 7. Best Management Practices: The following Best Management Practices will be utilized during development of the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location to minimize or mitigate fugitive dust: a. Pad / Road Construction: Fresh water will be periodically applied to disturbance areas during construction to minimize fugitive dust. b. Fresh water will be used to minimize fugitive dust during construction, drilling, completion, and production operations. c. TEP will not use produced water or other process fluids for dust suppression. d. Construction During High Wind: Contractor will monitor wind conditions during site construction. During wind events in excess of 13 miles per hour, TEP construction contractors will apply freshwater from an approved source to the disturbance area of the pad, road, or pipeline corridor to minimize or mitigate propagation of fugitive dust. Accessibility and worker safety will be considered prior to application. During periods of sustained high winds over 20 miles per hour, TEP’s construction contractors may temporarily suspend work to minimize potential for migration of fugitive dust, ensure worker safety, and to minimize impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife. e. Road Surfacing: The existing and proposed lease road will be spot graveled during site construction to ensure there is sufficient gravel on the road to minimize fugitive dust. f. Speed Restrictions: TEP has implemented speed restrictions on all lease roads and requires all TEP employees and contractors to adhere to all posted speed restrictions. The speed limit for the existing and proposed access road is twenty (20) miles per hour, unless otherwise posted. g. Road Maintenance: During long-term production operations, TEP will conduct annual inspections of the existing road and will perform maintenance actions as necessary to ensure road integrity and minimize fugitive dust. Road maintenance actions may include, Page 5 of 5 but are not limited to, regrading, spot graveling, storm water control maintenance, and application of magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and / or fresh water. h. Site Visitation: TEP will utilize telemetry equipment to minimize well site visitation, when possible, to reduce fugitive dust from vehicles traveling the dirt / gravel roads. i. Soil Management: Topsoil and stockpiled soils will be stabilized through either tackifiers, seeding practices, or erosion control blankets. Table of Contents 201 Transportation Plan/Traffic Assessment – Rule 304.c.(6) Table of Contents 232 Operations Safety Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(7) Operations Safety Management Plan – 304.c.(7) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 3 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC (“TEP”) has prepared the following Operations Safety Management Plan as an attachment to the NR 41-3 Form 2A to address the requirements under the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 602.d, which requires operators to establish and maintain a written operations safety management program to address change management and pre-startup safety procedures for all new and existing Oil and Gas Locations. TEP strives to conduct all operations in a safe and orderly manner to eliminate and/or minimize the potential for injury, accidents, spills, or any potential impacts to public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. This Operations Safety Management Plan details the key elements of TEP’s change management program and the pre-startup safety review for changes made to any new or existing Oil and Gas Location. OPERATIONS SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Purpose The purpose of this Operations Safety Management document is to describe how the company will identify and attempt to prevent potential threats to public health, safety, welfare, and the environment from changes made at designated locations and facilities. Scope The scope for the Operations Safety Management Program is a proactive plan, execution, and documentation on proposed new equipment and proposed significant modifications to existing equipment as applicable in the regulations. Best management industry practices will be used to ensure safe systems and conditions. Program The objective of the Operations Safety Management Program is to communicate the identification and mitigation of known risks during the design process and subsequently, the implementation process at designated locations and facilities. As part of the process, two means are used to capture this communication process: 1. Pre-Start Up Safety Review (PSSR) Appendix A – describes how the safety and technical review inspection is conducted prior to startup of any new or modified equipment or process at a location or facility. 2. Management of Change (MOC) Appendix B – describes how an operator records changes to technology, equipment, and procedure; and changes to facilities that affect a process. Implementation The PSSR and/or MOC process(es) will be determined and initiated by Engineering or Production Staff, with support from the Safety Department. The design process will be reviewed as the project develops. Prior to startup, the finalized plan will be reviewed, and an onsite walkthrough will be conducted. The checklist(s), with associated action items will be documented. Documentation and Communication Checklists and other associated documents will be stored in the company shared drive. Page 3 of 3 Record Keeping All documentation of the proposed change to equipment or facilities at a site will be kept on record on TEP’s internal servers for a period of no less than five (5) years. Upon formal written request by the ECMC, TEP will provide documentation of the specific change, as outlined above, to the ECMC within thirty (30) days of the request. APPENDIX A NR 41-3 PAD PRE-START UP SAFETY REVIEW (PSSR) Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) Date: 09/02/2022 Rev.: 2 Page 1 of 1 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) document is to establish and maintain a program to identify and mitigate risks to workers, environment, and property before startup and to comply with applicable regulations. 2.0 Scope A Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) will be administered by personnel in the Operations Department (e.g., Superintendents, Supervisors, Field Technicians, Measurement Technicians) with assistance from the Safety Department and will address the elements outlined in the regulations. PSSRs will be conducted on newly installed and significantly modified equipment as applicable in the regulations. 3.0 Program The objective of the PSSR program is to assure that the following items have been adequately addressed and are in place prior to start-up of any new or significantly modified facility or process: 3.1. Construction, equipment, and modifications are in accordance with the design specifications and applicable codes. 3.2. Necessary safety, operating, maintenance and emergency procedures are in place and are adequate. 3.3. All safety and operability recommendations have been addressed and actions necessary for startup have been completed. 3.4. The training of each employee involved in the operating process has been completed. 4.0 Implementation A walk-through inspection of newly installed or significantly modified equipment will be conducted prior to introducing fluids (e.g. natural gas, oil, condensate, water) to the equipment. The inspection may be conducted by a team of qualified personnel or a Subject Matter Expert (SME) designated by the Facility Supervisor or Superintendent. The intent of the inspection is to ensure that all equipment is properly installed and all safety equipment is functioning prior to startup. 5.0 Documentation A PSSR Checklist will be used to document the inspection. This document and any other associated documents will be stored in the company shared drive. Risk Safety Management PSSR checklist Basic scope of work: 1. Process Vessels and Piping ☐ Piping/vessels have been reviewed and approved by the Facilities Engineering Group ☐ All pipe fittings are connected and tightened according to manufacturer specifications ☐ All tubing fittings are connected and tightened according to manufacturer specifications 2. Instrumentation & Electrical ☐ I&E equipment has been reviewed and approved by the Facilities Engineering Group ☐ I&E equipment has been connected to a power source ☐ I&E equipment is functioning properly ☐ All equipment properly bonded and grounded 3. Operability & Training ☐ Access to all valves/instruments, etc. is adequate for operation, isolation, and maintenance ☐ All gauges, meters, etc. are accessible and easy to read ☐ Platforms and ladders provide safe access to instruments, valves, PSVs, etc. ☐ Sample points/stations are easily accessible and oriented properly ☐ All necessary operating procedures have been written/updated ☐ Proper training/notification of personnel has been conducted ☐ Rotating equipment has been checked for lubrication, alignment, and rotation ☐ Guards, barriers, platforms, and openings installed ☐ Necessary integrity tests have been performed on equipment (hydro, air, etc.) ☐ P&IDs validated as-built, if available. ☐ Screens, orifices, filter elements, catalysts, vessel internals in place ☐ Construction/test blinds removed, flushing and draining complete, flanges checked for gaskets ☐ PSVs set properly (block valves car sealed open) ☐ Piping and equipment insulated, as needed ☐ Valves bull-plugged, as needed ☐ Area cleared of excess equipment 4. Safety & Environmental ☐ Working area is level/even, clear of debris, and free of slip hazards ☐ Area lighting is adequate for tasks required ☐ Tank vapor combustion equipment is functioning properly ☐ Storage tank spill containment is adequate and free of damage ☐ Stormwater BMPs are in place and free of damage ☐ All applicable signage is in place and legible ☐ HazCom inventory updated including new SDS procurement and training, if necessary Date: Location: Risk Safety Management PSSR Action Items Actions to be completed prior to startup (PTS): Action to be Completed Prior to Start‐Up Responsible Person Target Date Complete ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Actions to be completed after startup (AS): Action to be Completed After Start‐Up Responsible Person Target Date Complete ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ APPENDIX B NR 41-3 PAD MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE (MOC) Management of Change (MOC) Program Date: 09/02/2022 Rev.: 2 Page 1 of 2 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this Management of Change document is to establish and maintain a program to identify, mitigate, and communicate risks to workers, environment, and property for associated changes and to comply with applicable regulations. 2.0 Scope A change review, also known as a Management of Change (MOC) form will be administered by personnel in the Engineering Department and/or the Operations Department with assistance from the Safety Department and will identify and mitigate known risks. An MOC will be conducted on proposed new added equipment and proposed significant modifications to existing equipment as applicable in the regulations. 3.0 Program This Management of Change Program is in place to assure that the following items have been adequately addressed prior to installing new added equipment or significantly modifying existing equipment, procedures, and processes: 3.1. The technical basis for the proposed change and reasons why the change is needed (if there are significant impacts if the change is not implemented, this may be added to the justification for change(s)). 3.2. Potential impacts on existing facilities and equipment to include process chemicals, technology, and processes 3.3. Required modifications or additions to operating procedures 3.4. Potential impacts on worker safety and health 3.5. Potential impacts on the environment 4.0 Implementation A meeting will be conducted to thoroughly review proposed changes to ensure that all equipment is properly designed prior to construction. The meeting participants may include, but are not limited to, Subject Matter Experts (SME) from the Operations Department, Engineering Department, Measurement Department, and the Environment Health & Safety Department. The level at which an employee will be allowed to approve changes will be determined by the MOC initiator by using the approval matrix box. In addition, a Pre-Startup Safety Review (PSSR) may be conducted prior to startup of the new or modified equipment, if required. Management of Change (MOC) Program Date: 09/02/2022 Rev.: 2 Page 2 of 2 5.0 Documentation and Communication Completion of the change review occurs when the MOC meeting is conducted and action items associated with the MOC form are closed. These documents will be stored for a period of three years. Documents can be provided to a third party within five business days. Records are updated periodically until closure of the MOC when all approved changes will be sent to the MOC distribution list and the final document is stored in the shared drive. Table of Contents 243 Emergency Response Plan – Rule 304.c.(8) Emergency Response Plan – 304.c.(8) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 8 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has developed the following Emergency Response Plan (“ERP”) to help Company Personnel quickly evaluate and effectively manage incidents and limit consequences related to operations at the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location. Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) permitting requires operators to submit an ERP under Rule 304.c.(8). This Plan utilizes an Incident Command System/Unified Command System (ICS/UCS) structure to assist in the management of major incidents. A summary of TEP’s comprehensive ERP is below and organized as listed in Table 1. TEP’s basin wide ERP is compliant with the requirements of ECMC Rule 602.j and is available upon request. Table 1, Required Content for the Emergency Response Plan 1 Local response agency and contact 2 Date the plan was finalized and approved by the local response agency 3 Directions to the location 4 Location ingress and egress 5 Legal description 6 Operator emergency contact information 7 Mutual aid agencies 8 Local and mutual aid agency staffing 9 Site setting 10 Location layout 11 Equipment and stored material 12 Sensitive areas 13 Potential impacts, prevention, and mitigation 14 Response equipment 15 Health and safety action levels 16 Training coordinated with local responders 1. Local Response Agency and Contact Table 2, Local Response Agency and Contacts Agency Contact Contact Information Garfield County Sheriff’s Office Chris Bornholdt Emergency Operations Commander/Manager Emergency 911 Office Phone 970-945-0453 2. Date the Plan was Finalized and Approved by the Local Response Agency TEP’s field wide emergency response plan was coordinated with the local emergency response manager, Chris Bornhodt, and approved on April 6, 2021. 3. Direction to the Location Beginning at the West Rifle Exit (Exit 87) head northeast on Highway 6 approximately 2.64 miles, turn left onto Highway 13 and proceed for approximately 1.23 miles, turn left onto Garfield County Road 244 and proceed for approximately 0.29 miles past Fravert Reservoir to the intersection with a dirt/gravel road (lease Page 3 of 8 road with large metal gate), turn left onto the lease road and proceed through two steel gates for approximately 2.42 miles, continue past the NR 334-1 pad and follow the access road for approximately 2.25 miles the NR 41-3 pad. Location Coordinates Latitude: 39.561906 Longitude: -107.866390 4. Location Ingress and Egress The existing / proposed access road to the NR 41-3 pad will provide ingress and egress to the Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road between Garfield County Road 244 and the existing NR 334-1 pad will undergo minor road maintenance actions to ensure sufficient access to accommodate vehicle traffic. 5. Legal Description Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Section 3: Lot 1 Garfield County, Colorado 6. Operator Emergency Contact Information Table 3, Operator Emergency Contact Information Role Contact Contact Information Operations Chuck W. Smith, Supervisor Eric DeKam, Superintendent 970-216-8703 970-263-2723 EHS/Safety Laura Lancaster, Health & Safety Manager Kevin McDermott, Safety Spvsr. Delbert Dowling, Safety Spc. 970-248-6845 970-309-1195 970-589-5736 Land Bryan Hotard, Landman 970-361-2006 7. Mutual Aid Agencies Table 4, Mutual Aid Agencies Agency Contact Contact Information Colorado River Fire Rescue District Leif Sackett, Chief Colorado River Fire Rescue Emergency 911 Non-Emergency 970-625-8095 Rifle Office Phone 970-625-1243 8. Staffing of Local and Mutual Agencies The Garfield County Sheriff’s Office is under the authority of Sheriff Lou Vallario. Under the Sheriff and Garfield County government, the Garfield County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) outlines how the county government complies with and implements the requirement of the Colorado Division of Emergency Management to protect the lives and property of the citizens of the county. The county EOP serves as a bridge between the Local Municipal Emergency Operations Plan and the State of Colorado Emergency Operations Plan. The EOC Manager coordinates with multiple agencies, including fire protection districts in support of emergency response and management. Page 4 of 8 9. Site Setting The NR 41-3 OGDP is located in the vicinity of existing oil and gas infrastructure in rural Garfield County, Colorado. There is one (1) active Oil and Gas Location within one (1) mile of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 pad is located on private surface owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. Garfield County has a zoning designation of Resource Lands for the property. The current land use for this property is considered rangeland / non-crop land. The property in the immediate vicinity of the Oil and Gas Location is primarily used for cattle grazing but is also periodically used for recreation, including hunting. 10. Location Layout The proposed 12.705-acre NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to support drilling, completion, and long-term production operations of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. The long-term disturbance of the production pad following interim reclamation will be approximately 1.958-acres. Please see the Layout Drawing included as an attachment to the Form 2A for additional site details. 11. Equipment and Stored Materials TEP will install wellhead telemetry and other wellhead specific equipment on the NR 41-3 pad to support production of the proposed wells. TEP will also install production facilities, including separators, a tank, and Enclosed Combustion Devices (“ECD”), on the NR 41-3 pad to effectively produce the proposed wells. Forty-two (42) separators (10 quad separators, and 2 low pressure separators) will be installed along the northwest side of the pad within a one hundred forty-four foot (144’) long by thirty-foot (30’) wide area and a forty-one foot (41’) long by thirty foot (30’) wide area. One (1) eighty-barrel (200bbl) blowdown tank will be temporary installed south of the proposed separators within a twenty-four foot (24’) by twenty-four foot (24’) lined steel containment structure and will be moved southeast after completions of the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells to reduce the pads footprint during interim reclamation. The tank battery will be installed with a minimum of seventy- five feet (75’) setback from the proposed separators, wellheads, and ECD. One (1) ECD will be installed on the pad next to the low-pressure separators, seventy-five-feet (75’) north of the proposed blowdown tank to control emissions. Table 5, Production Equipment Details Pad Name Equipment Description Equipment Count Capacity Status ECMC Class NR 41-3 Pad Wells (Total) 39 NA Proposed Major Equipment Quad Separators 10 NA Proposed Major Equipment Low Pressure Separator 2 NA Proposed Major Equipment Air Compressor / Generator Set 1 NA Proposed Major Equipment Blowdown Tanks 1 200bbl Proposed Other Permanent Equip. IA Receiver 1 1000gal Proposed Major Equipment Enclosed Combustion Devices 1 NA Proposed Major Equipment Chemical Pumps 4 NA Proposed Other Permanent Equip. Chemical Tank 4 500gal Proposed Other Permanent Equip. Chemical Tank 1 135gal Proposed Other Permanent Equip. Knockout Pot 1 6.4mmscfd Proposed Other Permanent Equip. NR 334-1 Pad Single Separator 1 NA Existing Major Equipment Condensate Tanks 7 500bbl Proposed Major Equipment Produced Water Tank 1 80bbl Existing Major Equipment Enclosed Combustion Device 2 NA Proposed Major Equipment To support production operations, TEP will upgrade the NR 334-1 pad tank battery for storage of condensate produced from the proposed wells. Seven (7) five-hundred-barrel (500bbl) condensate Page 5 of 8 tanks and one (1) eighty-barrel (80bbl) produced water tank will be installed within a thirty-four-foot (34’) by seventy-four-foot (74’) lined containment structure. Production facilities will be installed on the location prior to commencement of drilling operations. Please see Table 5, Production Equipment Details, for a list of the production facilities proposed for the NR 41-3 pad. Please see the Interim Reclamation Layout and Facility Layout Drawing attached to the Form 2A for the proposed configuration of facilities on this location. 12. Sensitive Area The NR 41-3 pad is located in Garfield County, Colorado in the vicinity of existing oil and gas well pads and infrastructure. There are no residential buildings within 2,000 feet of the Oil and Gas Location, and there are no day care centers, or schools within 1-mile of the Oil and Gas Location. The disturbance boundary of the proposed Oil and Gas Location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. On September 15, 2023, TEP conducted a pre-application consultation meeting with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”) to discuss the proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad and the potential impacts to wildlife as a result of construction operations of the proposed facility as well as drilling and completion operations. During the pre-application consultation meeting, CPW agreed that the proposed timing for operations, April 2025 through October 2025 for Visit 1 and October 2026 through August 2027 for Visit 2, would be acceptable for this application based the Best Management Practice and Compensatory Mitigation described in the Wildlife Plan. Applicable Best Management Practices have been included in the Wildlife Plan attached to the Form 2A. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located approximately 497 feet south of the nearest dry intermittent drainage, Yellow Slide Gulch. There is one (1) additional unnamed intermittent drainage located within 0.5-miles of the Oil and Gas Location. Stormwater control measures will be implemented around the perimeter of the location to minimize the potential for off-site migration of sediment and potential spills or releases. The location is located outside of the 100-year flood plain. NR 41-3 pad is located greater than 15 stream miles from the nearest active down gradient Public Water Supply Intake. There are no GUDI wells, Type III Aquifer Wells, or ECMC Rule 411 Buffer Zones within 0.5-mile of the Oil and Gas Location. The NR 41- 3 pad is not designated as being in a sensitive area. 13. Potential Impacts, Prevention, and Mitigation The proposed NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location will be constructed to provide the necessary working surface to support safe and efficient working conditions for all TEP employees and contractors during every phase of development, including drilling, completions, and production operations of the thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. Prior to commencement of construction activities, TEP will hold a pre-construction meeting with contractors to review proposed site construction and installation of stormwater control measures, and conditions of approval included in the approved permits and associate Rights-of-Ways. The site will be staked for construction prior to the preconstruction meeting. Staking will identify the boundaries of the proposed site to protect existing vegetation in areas that should not be disturbed. Vehicular traffic will be minimized as much as possible to reduce nuisance dust and prevent soil erosion, any trash generated during the project will be disposed of properly at a commercial disposal facility, and any chemicals used will be kept to a minimum. No cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated in the development of the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location and associated facilities for air resources, public health, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife Page 6 of 8 resources, soil resources, or public welfare. A description of the potential impacts, prevention and mitigation are outlined in the Cumulative Impact Plan and other plans attached to the Form 2A. 14. Response Equipment Occasionally, spills of production fluids may occur during oil and gas operations (drilling, completion, and production) that result in localized impacts to soils on or near the well pad. TEP will stage a spill response trailers at the existing Webster 399 Compressor Station (Loc ID: 465894), located in the NW¼SE¼ of Section 21, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., and at the TEP Operations Center, located north of Parachute, CO, which will have supplies available for immediate response to spills or releases during operation on the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location. Well telemetry equipment will be installed to minimize site visitation through remote monitoring of production operations and aid in proactive response to well operation. 15. Health and Safety Action Levels Incident Classification: TEP uses a tiered system of classification for incidents in rising levels of serious impact. Incidents are classified as:  Near Miss (does not require use of the Emergency Response Plan)  Minor Event  Significant Event  Serious Event  Major Event Purpose: Emergency response management describes the tactical actions taken to directly mitigate an emergency and protect human life, health, environment, and/or property from the physical impact of an event. The TEP ERP specifically applies to E&P Production located in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties. The ERP includes details on how to:  Categorize the incident's impact on an increasing scale  Create a safer environment for the facility  Isolate the area/facility  Establish evacuation routes and meeting locations  Identify medical and rescue responsibilities for trained employees  Establish methods for reporting fires and other emergency events  Provide labor, materials, and equipment  Identify emergency shutdown procedures for affected equipment  Handle hazardous substances  Establish and maintain adequate notification and communication with governmental agencies (fire, police, public officials, etc.) Scope: The procedures outlined in the ERP were developed under the assumption that local fire protection and emergency response agencies will respond to emergencies at the TEP site when notified and will assist to the extent of their respective capabilities. Page 7 of 8 The ERP provides procedures for communication with employees, governmental agencies, and the public during emergencies to assure an effective response during an emergency. The plan can be followed when responding to various incidents/events, including but not limited to the following: (a) Natural disasters and severe weather conditions including:  Floods  Damaging storms (tornadoes, hurricanes)  Earthquakes  Weather extremes (cold, blizzards, heat)  Lightning  Wildfires (b) Disruption to normal operations:  Hazardous material / chemical releases from stationery or mobile sources  Unscheduled valve closure or safety equipment shutdown, or any unscheduled emergency shutdown  Major accidents involving TEP vehicles or equipment owned by contractors  Bomb threats or other security events  Threats against employees or TEP facilities  Fatalities or multiple hospitalizations involving employees, contractors, or members of the public  Disturbances on TEP property  Damage to TEP property that interferes with the performance of normal business  Disruption of service to customers (scheduled or unscheduled) (c) Catastrophic failure and/or damage:  Major fire  Major environmental release  Significant destruction of a facility Health and Safety: The ERP reflects TEP’s health and safety policies and procedures. When the site/facility, or a portion of the facility, is involved in an emergency event, Company Personnel shall take the appropriate action to safeguard human life and protect the public, the environment and surrounding property, and to maintain or restore operations if possible. Field personnel must immediately communicate information about any emergency event to their supervisor. The supervisor will immediately initiate appropriate notification procedures. In the event a supervisor cannot be reached, field personnel will initiate necessary notifications. 16. Training Coordinated with Local Responders TEP is a member of the Garfield County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and the Garfield County Public Safety Council (PSC). Both groups provide a forum to discuss current oil and gas issues and concerns. Oil and gas emergency response plans are periodically reviewed. In addition, historical industrial accidents are routinely reviewed and discussed. National Incident Management System (NIMS) training has been provided through the LEPC. Page 8 of 8 Table of Contents 252 Waste Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(11) Waste Management Plan – 304.c.(11) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location May 2023 Page 2 of 14 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has developed the following Waste Management Plan to address Exploration and Production (“E&P”) and other wastes related to its proposed operations on the proposed NR 41-3 Pad. This plan provides an overview of methods TEP will use for managing waste materials as required by Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 304.c.(11) and Rule 905.a.(4). E&P waste is not regulated (i.e., exempt) as hazardous waste by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR 261) or by the ECMC. The ECMC regulates E&P waste in the State of Colorado. Both agencies publish a list of E&P exempt waste on their websites. To qualify as an E&P waste, the waste must be generated during the drilling, completion, or production operations. This waste must be managed (treated, stored, transported, and disposed of) in accordance with ECMC, County and municipal regulations, and land use codes and ordinances. Non-E&P Waste are those that are not generated as part of Oil and Gas downhole operations and are generally classified as non-hazardous or hazardous. This waste must be managed in accordance with Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) regulations, and County and Local landfill or waste disposal facility requirements. The following describes the general practices and procedures TEP will use to manage the identified waste streams to be generated during development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. SITE DESCRIPTION The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“NR 41-3 OGDP”) is a 564.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of a new access road, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private and Federal minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to a 12.705-acre footprint to support drilling and completion operations of the proposed directional wells. The long-term disturbance, or the disturbance required for long-term production operations, attributed to the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. All the proposed disturbance will be located on private property. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length and will be constructed to follow closely to the exiting two-track leading to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Page 3 of 14 The proposed access road will be constructed between the existing NR 334-1 pad and the proposed NR 41- 3 pad generally following the existing two-track. Construction of the proposed access road will create approximately 25.766-acres of surface disturbance, of which approximately 22.544-acres will be considered new surface disturbance and 3.222-acres will be considered existing disturbance of the existing two-track. The long-term disturbance of the proposed access road is approximately 6.906-acres. The proposed surface disturbance associated with the proposed access road construction will be located on private surface and Federal lands. The proposed pipeline corridors associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres would be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads), approximately 6.220-acres would be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way), and approximately 1.388-acres would be considered new disturbance. The long-term disturbance would be attributed to the proposed pipeline following reclamation of the pipeline Right-of-Way will be approximately 0.325-acres (i.e. existing access road). The proposed pipeline corridor will be located on private surface and Federal lands; however, the proposed pipeline disturbance acreage described above excludes surface disturbance that overlaps with the proposed access road. Therefore, the disturbance acreages are located entirely on private surface. The existing NR 334-1 pad will be utilized to support storage and measurement of condensate produced from the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 and the existing wells on the NR 334-1 pad. The existing production pad, approximately 0.497-acres will be expanded to a 0.560-acre footprint to support installation and operation of production equipment. All ground disturbing activities will be within the boundaries of the existing Oil and Gas Location and will be located entirely on private property. The existing 4.872-acres Federal Rulison 8 frac pad will be utilized to support remote well completion operations associated with the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reclaimed back to the current production pad footprint, approximately 0.642-acres, after well completion operations associated on the NR 41-3 pad have been completed. TEP would also need to install temporary surface pipelines between NR 41-3 pad and the Federal Rulison 8 pad to support remote well completion operations. No ground disturbance activities are planned during installation or removal of the proposed temporary surface pipelines. The total surface disturbance associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP is approximately 52.764-acres, which would be located on private and Federal surface and includes construction of the NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, the installation of the proposed gas, water, and condensate pipelines, reconstruction of the Federal Rulison 8 pad, reconstruction of the NR 334-1 pad, and the existing RWF 34- 12 pad. Of the 52.764-acres of disturbance, 16.298-acres will be within areas of existing disturbance or areas previously disturbed by development activities. Approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of the total disturbance acreage will be on lands previously disturbed. The long-term disturbance, or disturbance remaining after interim reclamation, including support locations, will be approximately 11.005-acres (excluded sections of the existing road not undergoing upgrades). Please see the Plan of Development attached to the Form 2A for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage for all project components associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP. Page 4 of 14 DEVELOPMENT PHASE AND POTENTIAL WASTE STREAMS Development of the proposed Oil and Gas Location and the proposed natural gas wells will generally occur in the following order of operations: 1) Construction operations; 2) Drilling operations; 3) Well completion operations; 4) Flowback operations; 5) Production operations; 6) Interim reclamation activities; 7) Spill response and remediation; 8) Plugging and abandonment; and 9) Final site reclamation The potential waste streams identified for operations at the NR 41-3 pad are listed in Table 1, Potential Waste Streams by Operations Phase. This table identifies the types of waste streams likely to be generated during development of the proposed wells and the operational phase when the waste is likely to be generated. Table 1, Potential Waste Streams by Operations Phase. Potential Waste Streams Operational Phase Description Drilling Fluids Drilling Operations Water-based circulating fluid/mud used in drilling operations to clean and condition the hole and to counterbalance formation pressure. Drill Cuttings Drilling Operations Drill cuttings, and small quantities of cured cement in the shoe track, generated by drilling into the subsurface geological formations. Excess Cement Drilling Operations Excess cement circulated to surface to protect groundwater and comply with ECMC Rule 408.i.(2) when conductor /surface casing is set. Frac Sand Completions Returned frac sand following completion operations. Produced Water Completion, Flowback, and Production Produced water utilized during well completion operations and returned fluid during flowback and production. Contaminated Soils All Phases Soils contaminated at any phase of development. Sewage All Phases Sewage generated while location is occupied during construction, drilling, completion, flowback, and potentially production activities. Solid Waste / Trash All Phases Solid waste materials produced during any phase of development at the oil and gas location. TYPES OF WASTES AND DISPOSAL METHODS Drilling Fluids Management Water-based bentonitic drilling fluids will be utilized during drilling operations on the proposed Oil and Gas Location and are classified as E&P waste. During drilling operations water-based drilling fluids are necessary to ensure proper well control and to return cuttings generated during construction of the well Page 5 of 14 back to the surface. Drilling fluids are pumped down hole and returned up the annulus and processed through a closed loop drilling fluid system, which separates liquids and solids. Drilling fluids will be re-used throughout the drilling process on the Oil and Gas Location. Once drilling operations are complete, drilling fluids will be processed through solids control and dewatering equipment on the Oil and Gas Location to reduce volume and weight of the drilling fluid. The processed drilling fluid is then stored in tanks and recycled for future drilling operations. Approximately one thousand barrels (1,000bbls) of drilling fluids could be recycled for future drilling operations following completion of drilling operations. Drill Cuttings Management Drill cuttings generated during drilling operations on the NR 41-3 pad will be managed within cuttings trench along the southeast and southwest side of the Oil and Gas Location. The cuttings trench will be on average approximately five hundred and twenty feet (520’) in length by one hundred feet (100’) in width, and a depth of nineteen feet (19’). Drill cuttings volumes are estimated at five-hundred eighty cubic yards (580cy) per well, with a total drill cuttings volume of twenty-two thousand six hundred twenty cubic yards (22,620cy). The cuttings trench has been designed with a maximum capacity of twenty-thousand five hundred ninety cubic yards (20,590cy). Water-based, bentonitic drill cuttings from the NR 41-3 well pad will be temporarily managed as Oily Waste per ECMC Rule 905.g.(1).C, until the cuttings have been treated on-site to demonstrate compliance with Table 915.1 Subject to Surface Owner approval (and prior Director approval), drill cuttings that demonstrate compliance with Table 915-1, may be permanently stored in the onsite Cuttings Trench or utilized for beneficial reuse per ECMC Rule 905.g.(2) with an approved Form 27. Any excess cuttings remaining after interim reclamation will be hauled to an approved commercial disposal facility as noted in Table 4. The cuttings trench will be constructed with a two-and-one-half foot (2.5’) high perimeter berm along the north and west side of the cuttings trench to ensure containment of drill cuttings. A wildlife escape ramp will be constructed within the cuttings trench to ensure wildlife can easily get out of the trench if entry occurs. Please see the Layout Drawings attached to the Form 2A for additional details on the proposed cuttings trench. Protocol for Managing Cuttings As water-based, bentonitic drill cuttings are circulated to the surface, they will be temporarily placed into a high-walled, heavy-duty, metal storage bin that is located off the rig’s drying shaker assembly. As needed, sawdust (or another acceptable, inert fill material) may be mixed with the cuttings during this phase to moderate and reduce the moisture content of the cuttings. Once dried cuttings are collected in the 3-sided bin(s), the drill cuttings will be placed inside the onsite Cuttings Trench. The moisture content of the drill cuttings is kept as low as practicable to prevent accumulation of liquids within the cuttings trench. In cases where weather conditions, safety concerns, or operational constraints require, drill cuttings may be transported via truck to an approved third-party commercial disposal facility, or an approved TEP E&P Centralized Waste Management Facility (CWMF), in accordance with ECMC rules for treatment and final disposal. TEP estimates that approximately 22,620cy of drilling cuttings will be generated during drilling operations. Drilling cuttings will be mixed with clean fill materials and tested for compliance with Table 915-1 standards. TEP estimates that up to 1 cy of clean fill materials may be needed for every 1 cy of drill cuttings Page 6 of 14 to bring the drill cuttings into compliance with Table 915-1 standards. The maximum estimation for the total volume of mixed drill cuttings is forty-five thousand two hundred and forty cubic yards (45,240cy). Assuming a 1:1 mixing ratio, this could result in approximately twenty-four thousand six hundred fifty cubic yards (24,650cy) of mixed drilling cuttings above the design capacity of the cuttings trench. Any excess drill cuttings that exceed the capacity of the cuttings trench will either be hauled to an approved third-party disposal facility or utilized for beneficial reuse in recontouring during reclamation, if the cuttings meet Table 915-1 or are within background limits in the footnotes listed in Table 915-1. Please see the Reclamation Plan, attached to the Form 2A, for additional details regarding site reclamation, including Appendix A, Interim Reclamation Layout Drawing, which depicts the final placement of mixed drill cuttings. The transportation of drill cuttings (E&P Waste) will be conducted in compliance with Rule 905.b, E&P Waste Transportation. TEP does not anticipate additional impacts in this NR 41-3 OGDP that would result from hauling excess drill cuttings to the offsite disposal. Onsite treatment of this Oily Waste per Rule 905.e.(1).B. prevents additional emissions from diesel vehicles that results from hauling. It also allows TEP to minimize traffic on public roads, as well as minimize the use of freshwater resources to mitigate and suppress dust. Sampling Protocol The ECMC Guidance Document for Rule 905.g – Drill Cuttings, states that an operator may propose a reduced sampling frequency for drill cuttings provided they have been previously sampled and characterized from wells drilled in the same formations in the same field. Further, the Guidance Document states that if cuttings are being generated from multi-well pads, the Operator can propose / designate samples from one well to represent additional wells on the pad if wells are being drilled in the same formation. In compliance with the ECMC Guidance Document for Rule 905.g – Drill Cuttings, all thirty-nine (39) wells drilled from the NR 41-3 well pad are being drilled from the same geologic formations and horizons and all drill cuttings are expected to contain identical chemical and physical properties. Therefore, TEP is proposing to collect cuttings samples from the first well drilled at this location to demonstrate compliance with Table 915-1. Drill cuttings from this initial well will be segregated and mixed / blended at an estimated 1:1 ratio with clean fill materials. As described above, each well is expected to yield approximately five hundred eighty cubic yards (580cy) of drill cuttings, and after being mixed with clean fill at the 1:1 ratio, the total blended volume will be approximately one thousand one hundred sixty cubic yards (1,160cy). For sampling purposes, this volume of blended material will be divided into 4 quadrants and a discrete sample will be collected from each quadrant, which will result in four (4) individual samples being collected from the first well bore. Samples from each quadrant will be analyzed for the complete list of contaminants included in Table 915-1. All sampling and analysis will be conducted in compliance with Rule 915.e.(2). Analytical results from this initial well sampling will be considered representative of all other wells being drilled from this location. If the resulting analytical data indicates that the blended cuttings comply with Table 915-1 standards, this initial well will be representative of all remaining wells to be drilled from this location, and all subsequent drill cuttings will be mixed / blended with clean fill at the same 1:1 ratio. If the resulting analytical data indicates that the blended cuttings do not comply with Table 915-1 standards, the ratio of clean-fill to be mixed with cuttings will be incrementally increased until it can be demonstrated that the mixture complies with Table 915-1 standards. In addition to sampling the initial well from various depths, TEP also collects cuttings samples from various quadrants and depths of the cuttings trench prior to final closure of the trench. Drill cuttings within the Page 7 of 14 cuttings trench are mixed and blended in a systematic approach in preparation of burial and final pit closure. Drill cuttings are mixed / blended in distinct quadrants / sections within the trench, and confirmation samples are then collected at multiple depths within each quadrant / section to ensure that the materials within the trench have been thoroughly and completely mixed. Similar to the process for sampling the initial well described above, if the resulting analytical data from the confirmation samples indicate that the blended cuttings do not comply with Table 915-1 standards, the ratio of clean fill to be mixed with cuttings will be incrementally increased until it can be demonstrated that the mixture complies with Table 915-1 standards. This confirmation sampling approach is used to provide an accurate profile of the cuttings within the trench; to ensure that the samples collected are representative of the entire volume of the cuttings within the trench; and to demonstrate compliance with Table 915-1 standards. This approach for management and sampling of drill cuttings complies with the ECMC Guidance Document for Rule 905.g – Drill Cuttings since all wells to be drilled at the NR 41-3 well pad will be drilled from the same geologic formations and will have the same surface, intermediate, and production zones. Regarding the requirement for Soil Suitability for Reclamation (Rule 915.b), TEP is providing a detailed Reclamation Plan that describes the revegetation techniques, site stabilization practices, and site-specific data that will be applicable to the reclamation of the cuttings trench. If after treatment / blending with clean fill, any of the cuttings trench materials contain elevated inorganics (pH, EC, SAR, boron), TEP will discuss and evaluate the data with ECMC staff on a case-by-case basis. Final Disposition of Waste: Once the water-based bentonitic drilling cuttings meet the requirements of Table 915-1 as determined upon sampling and analysis, the drill cuttings will be managed and disposed of pursuant to Rule 905.g.(2) Drill Cuttings. Drill cuttings generated from the NR 41-3 pad will be buried in accordance with Rule 905.g.(2).E., subject to Surface Owner approval, and prior to Director approval of a Form 27, in a Cuttings Trench. The treated drill cuttings may also serve as fill material to allow for natural contouring during reclamation of the site. Pending Director approval of the Form 27, TEP will use salvaged topsoil as coverage in accordance with Rule 1003.e.(2) Revegetation of non-crop lands. “All segregated soil horizons removed from non-crop lands shall be replaced to their original relative positions and contour as near as practicable to achieve erosion control and long-term stability and shall be tilled adequately in order to establish a proper seedbed.” The cuttings trench will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography per the NR 41-3 Reclamation Plan, which is attached to the Form 2A. As required by Rule 905.g.(2).E, TEP will submit a Form 27 for Director approval for final cuttings burial during interim reclamation. Per the NR 41-3 Reclamation Plan, Interim Reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad will begin within six (6) months following completion of drilling and well completion operations. A working area (production pad) must be maintained around each wellhead and production equipment to ensure site accessibility and safe working conditions during long-term production operations. Excess Cement Wellbore cement that is returned to surface during cementing operations of the surface casing and conductor sections will be diverted to, and accumulated in, an open top bin on location. Cement E&P Waste will be Page 8 of 14 managed to comply with ECMC Rule 905.b.(1). This cement waste stream, defined as Excess Cement on Table 1, will subsequently be transported for final disposal to an appropriate third-party disposal facility (Table 4). Cement Washout Non-hazardous excess cement waste, called “cement washout”, will be managed separately on location in an open top bin. This cement waste stream, defined as Cement Washout on Table 1, will subsequently be transported as solid waste via truck to an approved disposal facility in accordance with ECMC rules for final disposal. TEP will comply with all storage, treatment, and disposal requirements in the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission’s (SHWC) Solid Waste Regulations, as incorporated by reference in Rule 901.b.(3).C. Frac Sand & Filter Socks Returned stimulation fluids generated during flowback operations are processed through two (2) four (4) phase separators to remove gas, water, condensate, and sand. Water will be reused during future well completion operations on the NR 41-3 pad or transported via pipelines as described in the Produced Water section below. Frac sand will be managed within a forty-foot (40’) by forty-foot (40’) earthen containment cell with two and one-half foot (2.5’) high earthen berms surrounding all sides of the containment cell. This frac sand containment cell will be located on pad within the pad perimeter berm. Once flowback operations are complete, returned frac sand will be hauled off-site to an approved Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility or third-party commercial disposal facility. Spent filter socks generated during the completion / flowback process are collected and stored separately from garbage / trash. The filters will be sampled and profiled for disposal at an approved third-party commercial disposal facility that is permitted and authorized to accept waste filter socks for disposal. Please see the Waste Handling Table (Table 5) below for additional details. Produced Water Produced water (water produced from the wells after the wells are turned over to production) will be transported through the proposed one (1) six-inch (6”) produced water pipeline to the tie-in point on the existing RWF 34-12 pad tank battery (ECMC Location ID: 324259). Water will then be transported via existing water pipelines to one of the following TEP-operated Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities for treatment, recycling, or disposal. Produced water will be treated with biocide at the water management facility. Produced water will also be treated with biocide prior to disposal if necessary. Produced water is then disposed of through (1) natural evaporation at the evaporation ponds, (2) delivered and injected into one of the approved TEP-operated underground injection control (“UIC”) facilities, (3) re-used in hydraulic fracturing operations, or (4) hauled to an approved third party, commercial disposal facility as described below. Natural Evaporation Ponds Produced water that has been collected and treated at any of the various Centralized E&P waste management facilities is stored in large, lined, engineered evaporation storage ponds that have been permitted and constructed to comply with ECMC Rule 907, Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities, Rule 909 Pits – Construction and Operation, and Rule 910 Pit Lining Requirements and Specifications. These water storage ponds are purposefully designed with a large surface area to maximize evaporation of the produced water. Exposure to the sun, warm temperatures, and wind effectively evaporate water from Page 9 of 14 the ponds and return that water to the atmosphere and ultimately to the hydrologic cycle. The arid climate of western Colorado is an ideal location for use of natural evaporation ponds as the annual evaporation rate typically is 3 – 4 times the annual precipitation rate for the area. Table 2, Existing E&P Waste Management Facilities Facility Name Location ECMC Location ID ECMC Facility ID Spruce Creek 14-4-794 SWSW Section 4 T7S R94W 427810 441099 Smith Gulch 31-32-796 NWNW Section 32 T7S R96W 430110 446561 KP 32-17 Completions Pit SWNE Section 17 T6S R91W 323844 418807 Parachute E&P Waste Management Facility SWSW Section 36 T6S R96W -- 149015 Rulison E&P Waste Management Facility NWSW Section 20 T6S R94W -- 149006 Mautz Ranch E&P Waste Fac. SENW Section 19 T2S R98W 422672 444993 Underground Injection Control Facilities Disposal of produced water at permitted underground injection control facilities is another viable option for disposal of excess produced water. Currently, TEP owns and operates 38 UIC injection wells (see Table 3) that are used for produced water disposal as needed. These UIC disposal wells / facilities are a critical component of TEP’s water management process as they help to maintain the balance between the total volume of production water generated, and the volume of water that is re-used / recycled or otherwise evaporated. All UIC facilities have been permitted per the ECMC Rule 800 series. Table 3, Approved UIC Facilities Well Name Location UIC Facility Number Ownership API Circle B Land 33A-35-692 NWSE-S35-T6S-R92W 159277 Fee 05-045-18493 GGU Roderick NENW-S31-T6S-R91W 159176 Fee 05-045-13803 Scott 41D-36-692 NENE-S36-T6S-R92W 159159 Fee 05-045-11169 Specialty 13A-28 NWSW-S28-T6S-R92W 159212 Fed 05-045-14054 KP SWD 9-12D NESE-S8-T6S-R91W 159301 Fee 05-045-18532 PWD Federal 21-6 SWSE-S21-T6S-R91W 159479 Fed 05-045-21277 GM 14-36 Lot 4-S36-T6S-R96W 159262 Fee 05-045-07501 GM 239-36 NESW-S36-T6S-R96W 159369 Fee 05-045-14693 GM 523-36 NESW-S36-T6S-R96W 159266 Fee 05-045-13979 GM 923-1D SWNE-S1-T7S-R96W 159295 Fee 05-045-18424 GM 931-1D SWNE-S1-T7S-R96W 159297 Fee 05-045-18425 GM 943-1D SWNE-S1-T7S-R96W 159296 Fee 05-045-18426 Fed 299-23-1 SESW-S23-T2S-R99W 159478 Fed 05-103-10488 Fed 299-23-2 NESE-S23-T2S-R99W 159452 Fed 05-103-10490 Fed 299-26-1 SWNW-S26-T2S-R99W 160001 Fed 05-103-10364 Fed 299-26-2 NWNW-S26-T2S-R99W 159413 Fed 05-103-10538 Fed 299-27-5 SWNE-S27-T2S-R99W 159317 Fed 05-103-10624 Fed 299-27-6 NENW-S27-T2S-R99W 159396 Fed 05-103-10644 Page 10 of 14 Well Name Location UIC Facility Number Ownership API RG 41-16-397 NWNE-S16-T3S-R97W 159410 Fed 05-103-11517 RMV 215-21 NESW-S21-T6S-R94W 159388 Fee 05-045-07465 RWF 434-21 SWSE-S21-T6S-R94W 159386 Fee 05-045-10469 RWF 623-21 NESW-S21-T6S-R94W 159387 Fee 05-045-10389 RWF 911-28D SESW-S21-T6S-R94W 159447 Fee 05-045-22176 RWF 933-19D SWNW-S20-T6S-R94W 159462 Fed 05-045-22333 SG 334-32 NWSE-S32-T7S-R96W 159971 Fee 05-045-18442 SG 914-32D NESE-S32-T7S-R96W 159981 Fee 05-045-18533 SG 922-32D SENW-S32-T7S-R96W 159960 Fee 05-045-22654 SG 924-29D NWNE-S32-T7S-R96W 159974 Fed 05-045-23023 B19-N NWNE-S32-T7S-R96W 159220 Fee 05-103-11000 BAT 23CWI-24-07-96 NESW-S24-T7S-R96W 159457 Fee 05-045-22313 CSF #1-10W (Speakman) NESW-S10-T7S-R91W 159150 Fed 05-045-06273 Tompkins 41 AWI-08-07-95 SESE-S5-T7S-R95W 160006 Fee 05-045-22551 Valley Farms D3 NENW-S15-T6S-R92W 159299 Fee 05-045-12082 Valley Farms F4 NWSW-S14-T6S-R92W 159298 Fee 05-045-14287 Watson Ranch B 24AWI-17-07-95 SESW-S17-T7S-R95W 159983 Fee 05-045-22801 DOE 1-W-27 Lot 5-S27-T6S-R95W 159432 Fed 05-045-06584 DOE 2-W-27 Lot 8-S27-T6S-R95W 159432 Fed 05-045-06585 DOE 2-W-29 Lot 8-S29-T6S-R95W 159418 Fed 05-045-06588 Re-use/Recycle in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Re-use and recycling of produced water is an effective and efficient use of produced water as it precludes the use and consumption of freshwater resources. As produced water is generated from existing wells, the water is collected / transported to one of the Centralized E&P waste management facilities for further treatment and potential re-use / recycling during hydraulic fracturing operations. The “finished” water from the treatment facility has been treated to remove any residual hydrocarbon content that was not separated at the well-head. After treatment, the treated water may then be “re-used / recycled” during hydraulic fracturing operations where the water is pumped from a Centralized E&P waste management facility to a series of remote storage ponds where the water is staged and ultimately re-used / recycled for hydraulic fracturing operations. Hydraulic fracturing operations are a highly water intensive activity and re-using / recycling produced water serves to protect and reserve freshwater resources. Third Party Disposal Facilities Third party disposal facilities are an option available to TEP for management and disposal of produced water. However, because this option requires trucking to a distant commercial disposal facility, this is typically considered to be a labor-intensive option, is not cost effective for TEP, and therefore, is not a preferred option. There are six Third-Party, commercial disposal facilities that are locally / regionally available to TEP operations (see Table 4). Typically, TEP would only use a third-party commercial disposal facility for produced water disposal if our existing water treatment facilities were full (at maximum capacity) and/or TEP’s permitted injection wells were incapacitated (not available) for some reason. Page 11 of 14 Table 4, Approved Third Party Disposal Facilities Facility Name Location Permit No. OWL SWD Operating LLC Services SE Sec 8, T20S, R24E Grand County, UT Grand County Council Resolution 2798 Harley Dome #1 SWD 43-019-31622 Sec. 10-9S-25E UIC-358-1 Greenleaf Environmental Services 15655 45 ½ Road Debeque, CO 81630 Mesa County CUP Resolution MCM 2012-044 APCD Permit – 02ME0577 CDPHE-HMWMD – SW / MES BLA / 2.2 ECDC Environmental Landfill 1111 West Highway 123 East Carbon, UT 84520 Class V Landfill Permit #9422R1 White River Dome (Owned by RNI/DHI) Colorado disposal site White River City Rio Blanco County, CO Intersection of CR 5 and Hwy 64 CDPHE Solid Waste Permit: SW-RBL.PIC 2.3 APCD Permit- 07RB0987 PBR Disposal SWSW Section 2, T3S, R98W Rio Blanco County Air Construction Permit. 09RB0921 Rio Blanco County SUP Resolution 2007-42 (07/13/09) Contaminated Soils Occasionally, spills of production fluids may occur during oil and gas operations that result in localized impacts to soils on or near the well pad. All spills are immediately investigated by TEP Environmental and Operations personnel. Impacted soils are assessed to determine if they exceed regulatory cleanup standards and require removal, treatment, or disposal. Characterizing potentially contaminated soils is accomplished either by field-screening the impacted soils to determine relative hydrocarbon concentrations, and/or by collecting samples of the impacted soils and sending the samples to an approved commercial lab for analysis per Table 915-1 constituents. All contaminated soils exceeding regulatory cleanup standards are excavated and managed / disposed of appropriately. If a spill incident is subject to agency reporting requirements, the appropriate agencies are notified within the regulatory timelines. Impacted soils that exceed applicable cleanup standards are excavated and taken to an off-site commercial disposal facility (see Table 4) that is authorized to accept that type of waste. Sewage Chemical toilets (i.e., porta potties) will be provided on site for personnel use during construction, drilling, and completions operations. Porta potties will be emptied weekly by an approved sanitary waste contractor and hauled to an approved sanitary waste disposal facility. Please see Table 5, Waste Handling Summary, for additional details. Garbage All garbage and trash (i.e., solid, non-hazardous wastes) will be stored in enclosed bear-proof trash containers. Disposal of garbage and trash will occur approximately once per week during drilling and completions operations. All garbage and trash will be transported to a permitted solid waste landfill within one (1) week following termination of drilling or completion operations. Garbage or trash will not be disposed of on-location. The well site and access road will be kept free of trash and debris during long-term Page 12 of 14 production operations. No hazardous substances or hazardous wastes are anticipated to be generated during construction, drilling, and completions operations. Such materials are strictly prohibited for disposal at a solid waste landfill. Please see Table 5, Waste Handling Summary, for additional details. RECORD KEEPING TEP will comply with ECMC Rule 905.b.(3), Waste Generator Requirement, which states that operators that generates E&P Waste that is transported off-site will maintain records of invoices, bills, or tickets for a minimum of five (5) years including the following information: 1. The date of the transport; 2. The identity of the waste generator; 3. The identity of the waste transporter; 4. The location of the waste pickup site; 5. The type and volume of waste; and 6. The name and location of the treatment or disposal site. Records will be maintained in compliance with ECMC Rule 206, Recordkeeping and Access to Records. Records will be maintained at TEP’s main field office in Parachute, CO. TEP will maintain facility inspection forms, maintenance documentation, analytical sample data, storm water management and weed control documentation, operational data, and any other information relative to the operation of this facility. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1) TEP will properly characterize and dispose of all waste streams at facilities approved for acceptance of each waste stream. 2) TEP will properly characterize and dispose of all waste at the appropriate specific landfill/waste disposal location that allows for acceptance of the particular waste stream. 3) No offsite disposal of cuttings to another Oil and Gas Location shall occur without prior approval of an amended Waste Management Plan specifying disposal location and waste characterization method; commercial disposal of drill cuttings and drilling fluids will only require the operator to maintain documentation (manifests, bills of lading) of drill cuttings and drilling fluids disposal; the operator will implement measures (covers, misting) in trucks to reduce dust and particulate matter (PM) emissions during transport of water-based muds, solids, and drill cuttings materials from the well pad location. 4) A closed loop drilling system will be employed. 5) The moisture content of any water/bentonite-based drilling mud (WBM) generated cuttings will be minimized through good engineering practices and mechanical processes to prevent the accumulation of liquids greater than de minimis amounts. 6) All cuttings generated during drilling will be managed within the proposed cuttings trench prior to disposition. 7) Solids control and separation equipment will be utilized to separate WBM-generated cuttings solids from liquids (water/bentonite drilling mud). 8) In the event that the drill cuttings analytically demonstrate constituents above able 915-1 standards, the cuttings will be remediated prior to interim reclamation activities to levels below all applicable standards of Table 915-1 or are within background limits; No liners will be used or disposed of in the cuttings trench. 9) Any trash generated during the project will be disposed of properly at a commercial disposal facility. Page 13 of 14 SUMMARY As described above, development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will produce waste fluids and materials which will be managed in accordance with all Federal, State, and local guidelines. Table 5, Waste Handling Summary, shows a detailed summary of the waste streams involved in development of the proposed wells. Page 14 of 14 Table 5, Waste Handling Summary Waste Type Waste Classification Waste Content Description Waste per Well Total Waste Disposal Frequency Containment Description Disposal Type Disposal Location Drill Cuttings E&P Waste Water-based Bentonitic Drill Cuttings 580cy 22,620cy One Time Only Cuttings Trench On-site Disposal Private / O&G Location Water-based Drilling Fluids E&P Waste Water-based Bentonitic Drilling Fluids NA 1,000bbls One Time Only Tanks Recycle Private / TEP E&P CWMF Excess Cement E&P Waste Excess cement generated from setting surface casing and conductors. 4cy 156cy As needed 3-sided bin or Open Top Tank Haul to an Approved Commercial E&P Waste Facility Commercial Cement Washout Non-hazardous Solid Waste Cement washout from cleaning equipment and lines 0.1cy 3.9cy As needed 3-sided bin or Open Top Tank Haul to Commercial Facility Commercial Sewage Non-hazardous Solid Waste Sewage 200bbl NA Weekly Chemical toilets or enclosed sewer system Haul to Commercial Facility Commercial Garbage Non-hazardous Solid Waste Garbage/Trash 4000lb NA Weekly Enclosed trash containers Haul to Commercial Facility Commercial Flowback - Frac Sand E&P Waste Frac Sand 100+lbs 3,900+lbs As needed Earthen berm containment on pad Haul to an Approved Commercial Facility Commercial Produced Water E&P Waste Produced water after well is turned over to production. The volume reported is not accurate nor known at this time. 100+bbls NA Weekly Water is piped into existing infrastructure Recycled/Off-Lease Injection/Commercial Facility Private / TEP E&P CWMF or Injection Facility Contaminated Soils E&P Waste Contaminated soils from spill or release of produced water or condensate. NA NA As Needed Excavation and direct placement into dump trucks or temporary storage bins Haul to approved disposal facility Private or Commercial Contaminated Soils Hazardous Waste or Substance Contaminated soils from spill or release of diesel fuel or chemicals. NA NA As needed Excavation and direct placement into dump trucks or temporary storage bins Haul to approved disposal facility Commercial Table of Contents 267 Topsoil Protection Plan – Rule 304.c.(14) Topsoil Protection Plan – 304.c.(14) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location September 14, 2023 Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................1 SITE INVESTIGATION .........................................................................................................4 TOTAL AVAILABLE TOPSOIL TO BE SALVAGED ..........................................................8 SITE PREPARATION AND STABILIZATION ................................................................... 14 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................. 14 Soil Horizon Separation ..................................................................................................... 14 Topsoil Protection ............................................................................................................. 14 Topsoil Redistribution for Pad ........................................................................................... 14 Topsoil Redistribution for Linear Features ......................................................................... 14 Description of BMPs for Short- and Long- Term Stabilization of Topsoil Stockpiles ................ 15 Rule 1002. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 15 BMPs for Short-Term Stabilization ....................................................................................... 15 Certification Statement .............................................................................................................. 17 Certification Statement: ......................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A: Topsoil Descriptions and Photographs of Soil Pits ................................................ 18 Appendix A-A: Soil Sample Analysis.................................................................................... 56 Appendix B: Scaled Diagram Showing Topsoil Stockpile Locations ......................................... 58 Appendix C: Proposed Seed mix ............................................................................................... 59 Appendix D: Weed Control Plan ............................................................................................... 61 Tables Table 1. NRCS Soil Map Units, Vegetation Communities, and Disturbance Features within the Development Area ......................................................................................................................3 Table 2. NRCS Soil Map Unit Descriptions................................................................................5 Table 3. Total Available Topsoil to be Salvaged and Average Topsoil Depth .............................8 Table 4. Soil Samples for Lab Analysis .................................................................................... 56 Table 5. Laboratory Results...................................................................................................... 57 Figures Figure 1. Overall Map of Development Area ..............................................................................7 Figure 2. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (NR 41 -3 Pad, Road, Pipeline)............................................................................................................................9 Figure 3. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (Pipeline ROW) ................................................................................................................................................. 13 TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 1 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has developed the following Topsoil Protection Plan to address compliance with federal, state, and local requirements regarding topsoil management and preservation during development of the NR 41-3 pad and construction of associated access roads and pipeline corridors. Proper management of topsoil from the Oil and Gas Location during initial site construction is necessary to ensure topsoil is preserved for site reclamation following completion of construction of the proposed access road and pipeline corridor, and well development on the proposed NR 41- 3 well pad, as well as to ensure adequate organic material for re-establishment of desirable vegetation is available at reclamation (restoring the land as nearly as practicable to its condition prior to commencement of drilling and production operations). All topsoil management will be in accordance with Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC) Rule 304.C.(14), Rule 1002.b., and Rule 1002.c. SITE DESCRIPTION The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“NR 41-3 OGDP”) is a 563.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of a new access road, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee lease and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to a 12.705-acres footprint to support drilling and completion operations of the proposed directional wells. The long-term disturbance, or the disturbance required for long-term production operations, attributed to the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length and will be constructed to follow closely to the existing two-track road leading to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road will be constructed to a 25.766-acre footprint to provide TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 2 access to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The long-term disturbance attributed to the proposed access road will be approximately 6.906-acres. In support of the NR 41-3 pad development, TEP will utilize three (3) existing Oil and Gas Locations. The existing Federal Rulison 8 pad (ECMC Loc ID: 311534) will be utilized as a remote support facility during completion operations, the existing NR 334-1 pad (ECMC Loc ID: 324372 / aka. MOSS-66S94W/1SWSE) will be utilized as a centralized condensate storage facility, and the existing RWF 34-12 pad (ECMC Loc ID: 324259) will be utilized as a centralized produced water storage and transfer facility. The existing 4.872-acre Federal Rulison 8 pad will be utilized to support remote well completion operations associated with the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reclaimed back to the current production pad footprint (0.642- acres) after well completion operations associated with the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad have finished. The existing 0.497-acre NR 334-1 pad will be utilized to support storage of condensate produced long-term from production of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The NR 334-1 pad will be partially reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location for the installation of new production facilities. The existing tank battery will be reconstructed to support installation and operation of the proposed condensate tanks and emissions control devices. In addition, the existing separator for the existing well on the NR 334 -1 will be relocated to maintain setback requirements. The existing 0.614-acre RWF 34-12 pad will be utilized to support storage of produced water during long-term production operations of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. No changes are proposed to the existing RWF 34-12 pad. The proposed pipeline corridors associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres would be considered existing disturbance (i.e. existing roads), approximately 6.220-acres would be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way), and approximately 1.388-acres would be considered new surface disturbance. The long-term disturbance attributed to the proposed pipeline following reclamation of the pipeline Right-of-Way will be approximately 0.325-acres (i.e. existing access road). TEP would also need to install temporary surface pipelines between the NR 41-3 pad and the Federal Rulison 8 pad to support remote well completion operations. No ground disturbance activities are planned during installation or removal of the proposed temporary surface pipelines. The total surface disturbance associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP and the associated support facilities is approximately 52.764-acres, and includes the construction of the NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, installation of the proposed gas, water, and condensate pipelines, the reconstruction of the Federal Rulison 8 to support remote well completion operations, and the reconstruction of the NR 334-1 pad tank battery for condensate storage. Of TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 3 the 52.764-acres of disturbance, 16.298-acres will be within areas of existing disturbance or areas previously disturbed by development activities. Approximately 31 percent (31%) of the total disturbance remaining after interim reclamation including support locations, will be approximately 11.005-acres. Please see the Plan of Development attached to the Form 2A for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage for all project components associated with the NR 41- 3 OGDP. Table 1 summarized the NRCS Soil Map Units, vegetation communities, and disturbance areas found within the development area. Table 1. NRCS Soil Map Units, Vegetation Communities, and Disturbance Features within the Development Area Operator TEP Rocky Mountain LLC Project Development Area NR 41-3 Location T6S R94W, NENE Section 3 Pad T6S R94W, Section 1, 2, 3, and 12 Pipeline/Road Total Area of Development Area 52.764 acres Features in Development Area* NR 41-3 Pad NR 41-3 Road NR 41-3 Pipeline Existing Vegetation Communities Sagebrush Shrubland and Juniper Woodland NRCS Soil Map Units 3- Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 21- Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 34- Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 55- Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 57- Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 67- Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep Development Area NR 41-3 Pad NR 41-3 Pipeline NR 41-3 Road Acreage 12.705 7.933 25.766 Vegetation Communities Shrubland and Woodland Shrubland and Woodland Shrubland and Woodland NRCS Soil Map Unit # Rifle Area, CO (CO683) 57 3, 21, 24, 34, 55, 57, 67 21, 34, 57 # of Soil Points Sampled 7 20 18 Operator ID 96850 Reclamation Manager Contact Heather Foor Environmental Specialist- Reclamation 1058 CR 215 Parachute, CO 81635 970-623-8984 *A section of the pipeline corridor overlaps with the entire road corridor. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 4 SITE INVESTIGATION EcoPoint, Inc. (EcoPoint) was contracted by TEP to conduct the topsoil evaluation of the NR 41- 3 Development Area. EcoPoint conducted soil fieldwork on June 7, 8, 9, and 12, 2023. EcoPoint reviewed the NRCS Soil Map Units from CO683 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties present in the Development Area, the size of the pad, pipeline, and road, and number of soil map units, to determine the number of soil test pits to sample based on ECMC Table 1, Rule 304.C.(14) Topsoil Protection Plan Guidance Document. EcoPoint sampled some additional soil test pits due to length, topography, and overlap of features. Figure 1 shows an overall map of the Development Area. Table 2 shows a summary of the NRCS Soil Map Unit Descriptions in the Development Area. Forty-five soil test pits were hand dug until a soil limiting factor was found, often rocks or heavy clay content. Ten soil test pits were dug to 24-36 inches with a front hoe. The soil test pits were evaluated to determine topsoil depth, soil horizons, and soil thickness within each pit. Pits were described using Munsell color, texture, structure type, depths of roots, organic content present (at what depth), density and gravel content, and a soil limiting factor. The vegetation community and top three dominant species were also noted. Figure 1 is an overall map of the OGDP and show the NRCS Soil Map Units, soil pit locations, and those pits with lab analysis. Appendix A shows the topsoil descriptions and photographs of each pit, separated by planned disturbance feature. The vegetation communities present in NR 41-3 Development Area are Juniper Woodland with inclusions of Sagebrush Shrubland. Juniper Woodland community is dominated by Juniperous monosperma (juniper), Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), Symphoricarpos albus (common snowberry), Pinus edulis (pinyon pine), and Cercocarpus montanus (mountain mahogany). The dominant understory of the Juniper Woodland includes Achillea millefolium (common yarrow), Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread), Opuntia polycacntha (plains prickly pear), and Calochortus nuttallii (sego lily). The Sagebrush Shrubland is dominated by big sagebrush, needle and thread grass, Indian ricegrass, sego lily, prickly pear cactus, and Sphaeralcea coccinea (scarlet globemallow). Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) a Colorado List B Noxious Weed is also found within the Development Area. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 5 Table 2. NRCS Soil Map Unit Descriptions 3- Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 21- Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 34- Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 55- Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 57- Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 67- Torriorthents- Rock outcrop complex, steep Landform Terraces, fans Breaks, mountainsides Breaks, valley sides, alluvial fans Mesas, benches, valley sides Mesas, valley sides Mountainsides Parent material Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Mixed alluvium derived from basalt Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical Profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H1 - 0 to 3 inches: stony loam H2 - 3 to 6 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 6 to 17 inches: loam H4 - 17 to 32 inches: very gravelly loam H5 - 32 to 36 inches: weathered bedrock H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: very stony loam H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock Slope (dominant) 1 to 6 percent 15 to 30 percent 25 to 45 percent 3 to 6 percent 3 to 12 percent 15 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature More than 80 inches 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches 4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Depth to water table More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 6 Table 2 NRCS Soil Map Unit Descriptions Continued 3- Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 21- Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 34- Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 55- Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 57- Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 67- Torriorthents- Rock outcrop complex, steep Ecological site R034BY006UT — Alkali Flat (Greasewood) R034BY306UT — Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) & R034BY322UT — Upland Shallow Loam (TwoNeedle Pinyon / Utah Juniper) R034BY330UT — Upland Stony Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) R048AY306UT — Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) R048AY306UT — Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) R034BY330UT — Upland Stony Loam (PinyonUtah Juniper) None TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 7 Figure 1. Overall Map of Development Area TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 8 TOTAL AVAILABLE TOPSOIL TO BE SALVAGED The pad, road, and pipeline had varying average topsoil depths, ranging between 6 and 24 inches. An inverse distance weighted (IDW) tool in ArcGIS was used to calculate topsoil volume within the estimated Topsoil Removal Areas for the NR 41-3 pad, access road, and pipeline ROW. The Topsoil Removal Area for the pad excludes topsoil stockpile areas and the pipeline ROW area excludes the pipeline ROW overlying the proposed access road. The Topsoil Removal Area for the Access Road includes only areas within Top of Cut/Toe of Fill area. Figures 2-6 show the distribution of soil test pit locations/depths, NRCS soil map units, and proposed disturbance areas. Table 3 shows the average topsoil inches present and estimated salvageable topsoil present. Table 3. Total Available Topsoil to be Salvaged and Average Topsoil Depth Area (acres) Topsoil Removal Area* (acres) Average TS Depth (inches) (Soil sample points) Average TS Depth (inches) (IDW analysis) Volume (cu.ya.) NR 41-3Pad 12.705 11.003 12.7 12.1 17909 Access Road 25.766 9.771 11 10.2 13400 Pipeline ROW 7.933 4.939 10.5 9.5 6120 *Excludes areas of existing disturbance or areas used to stockpile. Topsoil will be stripped to a depth of topsoil as mapped; topsoil depths are greater than six inches (per ECMC 304.c.(14) guideline). The topsoil will be stockpiled at the locations indicated in Appendix A Construction Plans. Topsoil will be segregated from all subsurface materials disturbed during the well pad expansion and no topsoil will be used for building the location or left in place and covered by subsoil in a cut and fill situation. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 9 Figure 2. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (NR 41-3 Pad, Road, Pipeline) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 10 Figure 3. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 11 Figure 4. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 12 Figure 5. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (road/pipeline ROW) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 13 Figure 6. NRCS Soil Types and Soil Sampling Locations in Development Area (Pipeline ROW) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 14 SITE PREPARATION AND STABILIZATION Site Preparation Prior to separation and storage of the topsoil horizon, woody vegetation will be mulched, and stormwater control measures properly installed to control erosion and sedimentation during precipitation events. The facility’s Stormwater Management Plan (attached to Form 2A) includes details on stormwater control measures planned for use. Soil Horizon Separation When separating soil horizons, TEP’s excavation contractor will segregate each horizon based upon noted changes in physical characteristics, such as organic content, color, texture, density, or consistency. The average topsoil depth for the pad is 12.1 inches, for the pipeline ROW is 9.5 inches, and the road ROW is 10.2 inches. Soil will be stockpiled at the locations indicated on the survey drawings in Appendix B. During construction at the existing well pad location, TEP’s excavation contractor will strip the topsoil horizon. Topsoil will be segregated from other subsurface materials disturbed during well pad construction activities and no topsoil will be used for building the location or left in place and covered by subsoil in a cut and fill situation. Topsoil Protection To the extent feasible, stockpiled soils will be protected from degradation due to contamination, compaction, and from wind and water erosion during drilling and production operations. Surface roughening, temporary seeding and mulching, erosion control blankets, or soil binders will be used as needed, and best management practices implemented, to prevent weed establishment and to maintain soil microbial activity. To control sedimentation, wattles will be properly installed around the base of topsoil stockpiles and a metal sign (11” x 17”) with the wording “Topsoil Stockpile” will be placed on the pad / access roadside of the stockpile area (per Rule 407). Upon completion of well pad construction activities, hydro-mulch/seed and seed/mulch will be applied to topsoil stockpiles to stabilize soils and promote the growth of desirable plants until interim reclamation can be completed. T he seedmix to be used is found in Appendix B. Topsoil Redistribution for Pad When E & P operations and recontouring of the site are complete (as described in the Reclamation Plan (Form 2A), topsoil will be moved from the stockpile area and placed over the facility’s cut and fill slopes. Following the uniform placement of topsoil over cut and fill slopes, hydro-mulch/seed will be applied to stabilize soils to promote the growth of desirable vegetation. The facility’s Reclamation Plan provides specific details about the materials and methods to be used for reclamation of the stockpile area. Topsoil Redistribution for Linear Features When construction activities associated with the proposed linear features have been completed, topsoil will be moved from the topsoil stockpile areas and placed over the linear features. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 15 Following the uniform placement of topsoil over cut and fill slopes, hydro-mulch/seed will be applied to stabilize soils to promote the growth of desirable vegetation. The Reclamation Plan attached to the Form 2A provides specific details. Description of BMPs for Short- and Long- Term Stabilization of Topsoil Stockpiles Rule 1002. Introduction During construction activities topsoil stockpiles may be formed with soils removed from and segregated for roads, pipelines, well pads, and other TEP facilities. The preserved soils will be used to re-contour disturbed surfaces or for reclamation/restoration of disturbed areas that will utilize vegetation as final stabilization. Stockpiles will be protected from degradation due to contamination, compaction, and, to the extent practicable, from wind and water erosion during drilling and production operations. Best management practices (BMPs) to prevent weed establishment and to maintain soil microbial activity will be implemented. BMPs for Short-Term Stabilization Proper stockpile construction (e.g., away from drainages, with 2:1 slo pes, proper heights, and control measures downgradient) and management should help to preserve the chemical and biological integrity of topsoil. According to site conditions, the following BMPs may be used to stabilize topsoil stockpiles in the initial phase of construction. ● Protection from Contamination: based on changes in physical characteristics (e.g., organic content, color, texture, density, or consistency), soil horizons will be segregated and stockpiled separately; stockpiles of different soil types will be separated by compacted earthen berms, sediment control logs, straw bale barriers, etc.; and stockpile surfaces will be stabilized to control for erosion and sedimentation. ● Protection from Compaction: topsoil stockpiles will be indicated on site with signage; stockpiles will be placed in areas away from vehicle and equipment traffic; and when stockpiling, compaction will be minimized by limiting the number of equipment passes, limiting stockpile height, and using vegetation. ● Protection from Wind Erosion: surface roughening, applying hydro-seed/mulch, using soil tackifier, covering stockpiles with rolled erosion control products, etc. ● Protection from Water Erosion: surface roughening, applying hydro-seed/mulch, using soil tackifier, covering stockpiles with rolled erosion control products, etc. ● Weed Establishment Prevention: TEP uses cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls to prevent the establishment of weeds. TEP’s complete Weed Control plan is included in Requirement 12 below. BMPs for Long-Term Stabilization Final reclamation: When drilling, completion operations and recontouring of the site are complete (as described in the Reclamation Plan), all topsoil will be moved from the stockpile area and placed over the facility’s cut and fill slopes to ensure long term topsoil health including protection from erosion, prevention of weed establishment, and maintenance of soil microbial TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 16 activity. The following BMPs will be used after topsoil placement is complete on cut and fill slopes. ● The seedbed will be prepared on all topsoiled areas to alleviate compaction and minimize the potential for erosion. ● Topsoiled areas will be planted with desirable species, or a seed mixture provided by the Surface Owner for the location(s). ● Protection from Wind and Water Erosion: topsoiled areas will be covered with certified weed free mulch at an application rate specified by the product’s manufacturer, or a specification sheet that follows good engineering practices. ● Weed Establishment Prevention: TEP uses cultural, mechanical, biological, and chemical controls to prevent the establishment of weeds. TEP’s complete Weed Control plan is included in Appendix D. Seed Mix: refer to Appendix C. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 17 Certification Statement Certification Statement: “I hereby certify that this Topsoil Protection Plan was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 304.c.(14) of the Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission.” Preparer’s Name/Certifications: Cindy Adams / Senior Environmental Scientist / TECS Preparer’s Signature: Date: September 14, 2023 TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 18 Appendix A: Topsoil Descriptions and Photographs of Soil Pits TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 19 NR 41-3 Pad Soil Pit Location Latitude Longitude NRCS Soil Map Unit # NRCS Soil Map Unit Name Topsoil Depth (inches) NR12 39.5630403°N 107.8671286°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 12 NR13 39.5625608°N 107.8676685°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 16 NR14 39.5618261°N 107.8673410°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 6 NR15 39.5621700°N 107.8667703°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 12 NR17 39.5608321°N 107.8655458°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR18 39.5613007°N 107.8652624°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 14 NR20 39.5617696°N 107.8653041°W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 20+ TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 20 Soil Pit Location NR12 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0 - 12 12 -16 Organic Content 0-1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/3 10YR 5/4 Texture Silty Clay Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present 12 inches - Density and Strong density Moderate density Gravel Content 0% gravel 10% rocks (2-3 inches in size and small gravel) Soil Limiting Factor Clay, with some rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 21 Soil Pit Location NR13 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-7 7-16 16-18 Organic Content 0-1 Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/3 Texture Silty Clay Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present 15 inches 15 inches Density Grade Strong Moderate Gravel Content 0% 10%, 1” and larger rocks. Soil Limiting Factor Rock at bottom of hole TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 22 Soil Pit Location NR14 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 21-30 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 6 6-8 Organic Content - - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/2 Texture Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present 6 inches - Density Grade Strong Moderate Gravel Content 0% 50% Soil Limiting Factor Sandstone TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 23 Soil Pit Location NR15 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 12 12 – 14 Organic Content - - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2 Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Granular Roots Present 12 inches Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content 3% 10%, Small to large rocks- 0.25- 2 inches Soil Limiting Factor Rocks and high clay content TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 24 Soil Pit Location NR17 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 8 8 – 17 Organic Content 0 – 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/3 Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Granular Roots Present 9 inches Density Grade Moderate Moderate Gravel Content 1% 1% Soil Limiting Factor Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 25 Soil Pit Location NR18 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad, Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20 % Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0 – 14 14-24 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/3 10YR 4/3 Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 11 Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content (%) 1% 1% Soil Limiting Factor Heave clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 26 Soil Pit Location NR20 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pad Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20 % Landscape Position Toeslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0 – 13 13 – 20+ Organic Content - - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/2 10YR 3/2 Texture Clay Loam Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Granular Roots Present 14 inches Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content 0% 2% Soil Limiting Factor Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 27 NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Soil Pit Location Latitude Longitude NRCS Soil Map Unit # NRCS Soil Map Unit Name Topsoil Depth (inches) NR6* 39.549012590131N 107.842702538409W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 9 NR9* 39.553889846515N 107.846433916820W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 15 NR11* 39.555939739571N 107.846588019835W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR18** 39.561294508525N 107.865251622765W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 14 NR22* 39.559263975425N 107.857993096063W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 13 NR23* 39.558775256234N 107.855581151552W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR24* 39.558129841216N 107.852407690987W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR31* 39.556569340022N 107.848484877645W 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 8 NR32* 39.556234790987N 107.847345655152W 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 11 NR33 39.546835723102N 107.832271691046W 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 20 NR34 39.536024208165N 107.840137357199W 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes. Reclamation 4 NR35 39.544707509940N 107.831128674283W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 8 NR40 39.536365957999N 107.832586091787W 67 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep 9 NR41 39.534484991061N 107.833264225578W 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 10 NR42 39.535421141446N 107.837124074294W 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 6 NR43 39.538387640611N 107.832437375485W 67 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep 8 NR44 39.539109857590N 107.832376841539W 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 8 NR45 39.541898557257N 107.832397308420W 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 9 NR46 39.542479823799N 107.832068891541W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 10 NR48* (NR 6 CA/LB) 39.547508168084N 107.836807633287W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 24 *Also within the NR 41-3 Road ROW, **Also on the Pad, see the photo in the pad section. TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 28 Soil Pit Location NR6* Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5 % Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon B horizon Depth(s) (inches) 0 – 5 5-9 9-24 Organic Content 0-1 - - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 10YR 5/3 10YR 6/3 Texture Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Sandy Loam Structure Type Blocky (angular) Granular Granular Roots Present (inches) 14 14 14 Density Grade - - - Gravel Content - 10%, rocks 1-2 inches 50%, rocks 3+ inches Soil Limiting Factor Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 29 Soil Pit Location NR9 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10 % Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon B horizon Depth(s) (inches) 0 – 8 8-15 15-20 Organic Content 0-2 - - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 6/3 Texture Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Sandy Loam Structure Type Blocky (angular) Blocky (angular) Blocky (angular) Roots Present (inches) 12 12 Density Grade - - - Gravel Content (%) 0% 15% 20% Soil Limiting Factor Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 30 Soil Pit Location NR11 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10 % Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 8 8-18 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 3/2 7.5YR 4/4 Texture Silt Loam Sandy Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 15 15 Density Grade Gravel Content (%) 0% 0% Soil Limiting Factor Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 31 Soil Pit Location NR22 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0-11 11-18 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/4 7.5YR 5/4 Texture Clay Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 16 16 Density Grade Strong Moderate Gravel Content (%) 1% 25% Soil Limiting Factor Clay/Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 32 Soil Pit Location NR23 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 11 11-24 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/4 Texture Sandy Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 11 11 Density Grade Weak Weak Gravel Content (%) 5% 25% Soil Limiting Factor Clay/Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 33 Soil Pit Location NR24 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5 % Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-8 8-17 Organic Content 0 - 2 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/3 10YR 5/3 Texture Clay Loam Sandy Loam Structure Type Granular Granular Roots Present (inches) 12 12 Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content (%) 10% 60% Soil Limiting Factor Rocks (1”-5”) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 34 Soil Pit Location NR31 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-8 8-24 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 5/3 70% 7.5YR 7/1 30% Texture Silty Clay Loam Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 14 14 Density Grade Moderate Strong Gravel Content (%) 1% 1% Soil Limiting Factor Clay- compacted soil w/ caco3 present TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 35 Soil Pit Location NR32 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0 – 8 8-18 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 5/4 Texture Silty Clay Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 15 15 Density Grade Strong Strong Gravel Content (%) 0% 1% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 36 Soil Pit Location NR33 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Grassland Slope 0-5 % Landscape Position Summit Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon B horizon Depth(s) (inches) 0 – 8 8-14 14-20 Organic Content 0-1 - - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 5/4 Texture Silty Clay Clay Clay Structure Type Blocky (angular) Blocky (angular) Blocky (angular) Roots Present (inches) 11 11 Density Grade Strong Strong Strong Gravel Content (%) 0% 0% 0% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 37 Soil Pit Location NR34 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Grassland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Toeslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0-4 4-10 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/4 Texture Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 3 3 Density Grade Moderate Moderate Gravel Content (%) 10% 25% Soil Limiting Factor Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 38 Soil Pit Location NR35 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Woodland Slope 6-10% Landscape Position Summit Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon B horizon Depth(s) (inches) 0-5 5-8 8-10 Organic Content 0-1 - - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/3 10YR 6/3 Texture Loam Clay Sandy Clay Loam Structure Type Granular Blocky (angular) Granular Roots Present (inches) 6 6 Density Grade Weak Strong Weak Gravel Content (%) 20% 10% 20% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay and Rocks 3”-5” TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 39 Soil Pit Location NR40 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 31-40% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0 – 10 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 10YR 5/4 Texture Sandy Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 4 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 80% Soil Limiting Factor Oil Shale Rock TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 40 Soil Pit Location NR41 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Toeslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0 – 8 8-14 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 5/3 Texture Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 12 12 Density Grade Weak Weak Gravel Content (%) 1% 15% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay and Rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 41 Soil Pit Location NR42 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Footslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0-6 6-10 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/4 Texture Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 4 Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content (%) 0% 0% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 42 Soil Pit Location NR43 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 31-40% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0-8 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 5/3 Texture Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky subangular Roots Present (inches) 4 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 50% Soil Limiting Factor Rocky TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 43 Soil Pit Location NR44 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0 – 8 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 Texture Sandy Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 4 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 10% Soil Limiting Factor Oil Shale Rock TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 44 Soil Pit Location NR45 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0-9 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 3/3 Texture Sandy Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 5 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 1% Soil Limiting Factor Compact soil TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 45 Soil Pit Location NR46 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 6-10% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0-10 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 6/4 Texture Sandy Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Roots Present (inches) 5 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 10% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Soil and Rocky TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 46 Soil Pit Location NR48 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW and Road ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5 % Landscape Position Summit Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) (inches) 0-2 2-18 Organic Content 0 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 3/2 7.5YR 4/3 Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky (angular) Blocky (angular) Roots Present (inches) 18 18 Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content (%) 0 0% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay at 18+ inches TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 47 NR 41-3 Road ROW Soil Pit Location Latitude Longitude NRCS Soil Map Unit # NRCS Soil Map Unit Name Topsoil Depth (inches) NR6* 39.549012590131N 107.842702538409W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 9 NR7 39.550248773287N 107.844577204171W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 17 NR8 39.551907441619N 107.845935618981W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 9 NR9* 39.553889846515N 107.846433916820W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 15 NR10 39.555355172507N 107.845626036735W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 11 NR11* 39.555939739571N 107.846588019835W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR16 39.559466127747N 107.861649012968W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 7 NR18* 39.561294508525N 107.865251622765W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 14 NR19 39.559563777722N 107.860946190995W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR21 39.560168704693N 107.863666547723W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 6 NR22* 39.559263975425N 107.857993096063W 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 13 NR23* 39.558775256234N 107.855581151552W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR24* 39.558129841216N 107.852407690987W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 8 NR30 39.557385318311N 107.848779753069W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 7 NR31* 39.556569340022N 107.848484877645W 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 8 NR32* 39.556234790987N 107.847345655152W 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 11 NR47 39.548007557684N 107.837886132356W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 16 NR48* 39.547508168084N 107.836807633287W 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 24 *Also within the NR 41-3 Pipeline ROW, tables/photos are in the section above TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 48 Soil Pit Location NR7 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20% Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon Depth(s) 0-17 Organic Content 0 - 1 Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/4 Texture Loamy Sand Structure Type Granular Roots Present (inches) 12 Density Grade Weak Gravel Content (%) 10% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay Comments Biotic Crust present at the surface TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 49 Soil Pit Location NR8 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-7 7-13 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 5/3 Texture Silty Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 9 9 Density Grade Moderate Moderate Gravel Content (%) 0% 0% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 50 Soil Pit Location NR10 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0-11 11-17 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/4 7.5YR 4/2 Texture Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 13 13 Density Grade Moderate Weak Gravel Content (%) 2% 5%, with 2% CaCO3 Soil Limiting Factor Heavy clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 51 Soil Pit Location NR16 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 21-30% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-7 7-14 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 5/6 10YR 4/3 Texture Silty Clay Loam Sandy Clay Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 9 9 Density Grade Moderate Strong Gravel Content (%) 2% 5% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 52 Soil Pit Location NR19 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 6-10% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon AB horizon Depth(s) 0-8 8-17 Organic Content 0 - 1 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/3 Texture Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 10 10 Density Grade Weak Moderate Gravel Content (%) 0% 1% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay w/ rocks TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 53 Soil Pit Location NR21 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Juniper Woodland Slope 11-20% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-6 6-10 Organic Content 0 - 1.5 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 3/3 10YR 3/3 Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 7 7 Density Grade Moderate Moderate Gravel Content (%) 1% 50% Soil Limiting Factor Rocky 1”-3” in size and rocks got larger as the hole got deeper TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 54 Soil Pit Location NR30 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 11-20% Landscape Position Sideslope Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-7 7-28 Organic Content 0 - 3 - Munsell Color(s) 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/4 Texture Sandy Clay Loam Sandy Loam Structure Type Granular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 13 13 Density Grade Weak Weak Gravel Content (%) 10% 40%, lots of small rocks present with rocks increasing in size at greater depth Soil Limiting Factor Rocky 1”- 5” (likely sandstone) TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 55 Soil Pit Location NR47 Planned Disturbance Area NR 41-3 Road ROW Vegetation Community Shrubland Slope 0-5% Landscape Position Shoulder Horizon(s) A horizon B horizon Depth(s) 0-9 9-16 Organic Content 0 - Munsell Color(s) 7.5YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/3 Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Structure Type Blocky angular Blocky Angular Roots Present (inches) 12 12 Density Grade Moderate Moderate Gravel Content (%) 0% 0% Soil Limiting Factor Compact Clay TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 56 Appendix A-A: Soil Sample Analysis Soil samples, at least two per NRCS soil map unit for that feature were sent to Stukenholtz Laboratory in Idaho. Soil analytics for the following agronomic properties were assessed: SAR, EC, ESP%, CEC, pH, % organic matter, NO3- Nitrate-nitrogen, NH4- Ammonium nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, zinc, iron, manganese, Cu, Chloride, % calcium carbonate equivalent, texture, and boron. Table 4 shows the Soil Pit Name, Feature Name, Soil Depth (Type), and Soil Map Unit that were analyzed. Table 5 shows the laboratory results. All soil sampled showed soils were suitable for reclamation based on ECMC table 915-1- EC (<4mmhos/cm), SAR (<6), pH (6-8.3), and Boron (2mg/l). The EC ranged between 0.3 and 1.0 and SAR ranged between 0.74 and 0.15. The pH ranged between 7 and 8.3. Boron ranged between 1.26 and 0.28. Table 4. Soil Samples for Lab Analysis Sample ID Soil Depth Feature Name NRCS Soil Map Unit # NR 6 0-5 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 21 NR 6 5-9 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 21 NR 7 0-17 NR 41-3 Road 21 NR8 0-8 NR 41-3 Road 21 NR11 0-8, 8-18 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 57 NR12 0-12 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR13 0-7, 7-16 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR15 0-12 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR 16 0-7 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR17 0-8 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR 18 0-14 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR20 0-13, 13-20 NR 41-3 Pad 57 NR21 0-6 NR 41-3 Road 57 NR 22 (NP) 0-11 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 21 NR 24 ca 0-8 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 57 NR 30 0-7 NR 41-3 Road 57 NR31 0-8 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 34 NP 32 0-11 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 34 NR33 0-10, 10-20 NR 41-3 Pipeline 55 NR 40 0-9 NR 41-3 Pipeline 67 NR 41 0-10 NR 41-3 Pipeline 3 NR 42 0-6 NR 41-3 Pipeline 3 NR 43 0-8 NR 41-3 Pipeline 67 NR 44 0-8 NR 41-3 Pipeline 55 NR48 0-2, 2-18 NR 41-3 Road / NR 41-3 Pipeline 57 TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 57 Table 5. Laboratory Results TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 58 Appendix B: Scaled Diagram Showing Topsoil Stockpile Locations K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 59 Appendix C: Proposed Seed mix TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 60 Pinyon-Juniper Woodland or Wyoming Sagebrush Shrubland (12-16 inches precipitation) Common Name Species Name Variety Seeds per Pound PLS lbs/acre Plant Two of the Following Grasses (15% of Mix Each, 30% Total) Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Colorado/Utah source, or Anatone, Goldar 140,000 2.8 Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Colorado/Utah source, or Nezpar, Paloma, Rimrock 141,000 2.8 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda “sandbergii” UP* Colorado-Sims Mesa or High Mesa 882,000 0.3 And One of the Following Grasses (15% of Mix Each, 15% Total) Thickspike Wheatgrass (coarser soil) Elymus lanceolatus Bannock, Critana, Schwendimar 154,000 2.5 Western Wheatgrass (finer soil) Pascopyrum smithii UP* or Colorado/Utah source or Arriba, Recovery, Rodan, Rosana 110,000 3.6 And Three of the Following Grasses (10% of Mix Each, 30% Total) Blue Grama Chondrosum gracile Colorado/Utah source, or Alma, Bad River, Hachita 825,000 0.3 Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides Colorado/Utah source, State Bridge, or Fish Creek, Toe Jam Creek, Wapiti 192,000 1.4 Muttongrass Poa fendleriana Colorado/Utah source preferred 890,000 0.3 Needle-and-Thread Hesperostipa comata Colorado/Utah source preferred 115,000 2.2 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus San Luis 159,000 1.6 And Two of the Following Shrubs/Subshrubs (7.5% of Mix Each, 15% Total) Shadscale Saltbush Atriplex confertifolia Colorado/Utah source, or Rincon, Snake River, Wytana 60,000 3.3 Sticky-flowered Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Colorado/Utah source preferred 782,000 0.25 Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata Colorado/Utah source preferred 123,000 1.6 And Four of the Following Forbs/Subshrubs (2.5% of Mix Each, 10% Total) Common Name Scientific Name PLS lbs/acre Common Name Scientific Name PLS lbs/acre Arrowleaf Balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata 1.2 Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 0.13 Blanket-flower Gaillardia aristata 0.5 Silvery Lupine Lupinus argenteus 3.6 Bluestem Penstemon Penstemon cyanocaulis 0.1 Sulphur Buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum* 0.3 Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae 0.04 Tapertip Hawks- beard Crepis acuminata 0.08 Hairy Golden-aster Heterotheca villosa 0.1 Thickleaf Penstemon Penstemon pachyphyllus 0.3 Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii 0.4 Utah Sweetvetch Hedysaurum boreale 1.4 Scarlet Gilia Ipomopsis aggregata 0.18 Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.02 TEP NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Area Topsoil Protection Plan 61 Appendix D: Weed Control Plan Terra Energy Partners, Rocky Mountain LLC Noxious Weed Management Plan Noxious weed infestations may occur on lands that fall within Terra Energy Partners, LLC (TEP) lease boundaries. These areas include well pads, lease roads, disturbed sites, reclaimed sites, as well as some undisturbed areas. In order to minimize impacts that may result from the presence of noxious weeds, improve reclamation success, and ensure good land stewardship, TEP has adopted the following Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan. The Weed management plan is designed to bring TEP into compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (C.R.S. Title 35, Article 5.5), Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Act, the Rio Blanco County Noxious Weed Management Plan, and the BLM Gold Book. Weed Management activities will primarily focus on the Colorado Noxious Weed List and the Rio Blanco County Noxious Weed List (see list below). TEP’s Integrated Weed Management plan will focus four key components of weed management.  Prevention  Inventory and Mapping  Weed Control  Monitoring Prevention - Prevention is a key component of the TEP weed management program. TEP addresses prevention in the planning, development, and operations phases of field development. TEP tries to avoid or limit ground disturbance activities when practical. If ground disturbing activities cannot be avoided, TEP tries to plan development that will avoid identified weed infestation or areas where weed establishment may be more optimal if this is practical to operations. If ground disturbing activities do occur, TEP uses temporary or permanent seed mixes that help to develop healthy stands of vegetation that can be self sustaining and deter the establishment of invasive species. Inventory and Mapping – TEP uses various means to inventory noxious weeds that fall within its lease boundaries. First, members of TEP Environmental staff are trained in weed identification and note noxious weed occurrences when they are completing field work. Second, the environmental staff works to educate field operations staff to identify weed infestations so that they can also document infestations and inform environmental staff where those infestations occur. If operations personnel are unsure of a suspected infestation, they contact the Environmental staff, and the suspected infestation is then investigated before it is documented. Third, TEP hires a Certified Weed Applicator to do its bare ground and noxious weed spraying. While the Applicator is conducting their annual spraying activities they are required to GPS infestations they find and treat for a company inventory and also for annual reporting. Lastly, many of the lands that TEP operates on are also used for livestock grazing or agricultural purposes and TEP works with the lessees to document weed infestations that the lessees may identify. Weed Control – TEP uses an Integrated Weed Management Approach for the control of identified noxious weed infestations. This is made up of four control methods. These include Cultural, Mechanical, Biological, and Chemical.  Cultural – Cultural control is the use of management practices that will help to favor the growth of desirable species over undesirable species. This establishment is accomplished by using appropriate seed mixes that reflect the surrounding area or species that have been developed and are approved for rapid stabilization of a site. Purchased seed and mulch is certified weed free to decrease the opportunity for noxious weed species to be introduced into disturbed sites.  Mechanical – Mechanical controls methods most often used by TEP include the following. Mowing, tillage, and hand pulling. However, because mechanical methods tend to be fairly labor intensive and cost prohibitive, it is not typically a preferred method but can be used in sensitive areas or areas where topography or other environmental factors may be considered prohibitive.  Biological - Biological Control Methods are the release of organisms that are known to be effective in controlling specific weed species. This method may be chosen if there is a heavy infestation of a specific species on a site. TEP will consult with the Colorado Department of Agriculture Insectary located in Palisade, Colorado when exploring control options. The BLM will also be consulted if this method is being considered on federally controlled lands.  Chemical – Chemical control is the use of herbicides to control weed populations. This is the primary weed control method used by TEP. TEP annually contracts a Certified Commercial applicator to apply herbicides on lease acreage. Both bare ground and noxious weed applications occur throughout spring, summer, and fall. TEP encourages the use of spot spray application on lease land to ensure vegetation diversity components are maintained. Broadcast applications are only used if a weed infestation is extremely heavy and has created a monoculture in the infested area. The use of appropriate PPE, pesticide storage, pesticide handling, spray mixtures and application rates will occur on TEP lease acreage. Monitoring – Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated will be inspected over time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The sites will be monitored until the infestations are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. These inspections will be used to prioritize future weed control efforts. GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common Name Scientific Name Colorado Listed  Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B  Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B  Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitalis A  Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides B  Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B  Common burdock Arctium minus C  Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B  Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B  Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa B  Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B  Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica B  Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris B  Hoary cress/White top Cardaria draba B  Saltcedar Tamarix parviflora B  Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima B  Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucantheum B  Jointed Goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical B  Chicory Cichorium intybus C  Musk thistle Carduus nutans B  Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria A  Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia B RIO BLANCO COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST  Black henbane Hyoscyamus Niger B  Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B  Common burdock Arctium minus C  Common mullein Verbascum thapsus C  Dalmatian toadflax Linaria genistifolia ssp.dalmatica B  Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B  Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C  Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus C  Hoary cress/White top Cardaria draba B  Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B  Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B  Musk thistle Carduus nutans B  Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B  Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides B  Russian knapweed Centaurea repens B  Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium and tauricum B  Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa B  Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris B Table of Contents 339 Stormwater Management Plan – Rule 304.c.(15) Stormwater Management Plan – 304.c.(15) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location May 2023 Page 2 of 12 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has developed the following Stormwater Management Plan as required by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 304.c.(15) describing the general practices and procedures TEP’s stormwater management program employs during the development of an Oil and Gas Location. Additionally, this plan provides site specific stormwater management control measures that will be employed during development of the NR 41-3 pad to ensure compliance with ECMC, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”), and Federal regulations. TEP has developed a Field Wide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) in compliance with the CDPHE’s Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) and to ensure conformance to the stormwater management standards under ECMC Rule 1002.f. The SWMP will identify possible pollutant sources that may contribute pollutants to stormwater and identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that, when implemented, will reduce, or eliminate any possible water quality impacts. TEP has also developed a field wide Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PC-SWMP) as required by ECMC Rule 1002.f.(3) to ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented on all subject Oil and Gas Locations under its management where the Construction Storm Water permit issued by CDPHE has been terminated. The PC-SWMP identifies possible pollutant sources that may contribute pollutants to stormwater during the post-construction and reclamation phases of operations, and describes BMPs to control stormwater runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion, transport of sediment offsite, transport of pollutants offsite, or degradation of site conditions. Upon request by the ECMC or the Director, TEP will provide the SWMP and / or PC-SWMP for review. TEP is proposing to drill, complete, and operate thirty-nine (39) directional natural gas wells from the proposed NR 41-3 pad located on private surface owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private minerals. The NR 41-3 pad is a new Oil and Gas Location, located on land zoned as Resource Lands and is classified as non-crop, rangeland within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to accommodate the development of the thirty-nine (39) new proposed directional wells. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will also require the construction of four (4) new pipelines, one (1) to support gas gathering operations, one (1) to support transport of produced water, and two (2) to support the transport of condensate. The existing NR 334-1 pad (ECMC Loc ID: 324372) will be utilized for storage and measurement of condensate prior to market sale. The Federal Rulison 8 pad (ECMC Loc ID: 311534) will be utilized as a remote support facility during well completion operations associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. Development Phases: Each phase of development requires the implementation and maintenance of both structural and non-structural stormwater management control measures used by TEP to effectively minimize site erosion and sediment transport. The following outlines the typical development phases which are described in greater detail below. 1) Pre-Construction Phase 2) Construction Phase (pad, road upgrades, and pipeline) 3) Interim Reclamation Phase 4) Final Reclamation Phase Page 3 of 12 Please see Appendix A, NR 41-3 Drill Pad Stormwater Management Erosion Control Plan, which depict preliminary site-specific stormwater control measures planned for installation at the NR 41-3 pad during both initial construction and interim reclamation of the Oil and Gas Location. SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INFORMATION The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location that will be constructed to a 12.705-acre footprint to support drilling and completion operations of thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. The long-term disturbance of the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. Approximately 10.747-acres of the Oil and Gas Location will be reclaimed following completion of well construction. Soils: The National Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) identifies the dominate soil types within the boundary of the NR 41-3 pad as the Potts-Ildefonso complex. The Potts soil type is associated with alluvium derived from basalt and / or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The typical profile to a depth of 4 inches is defined as loam, 4-28 inches defined as clay loam, and 28-60 inches defined as loam. The Ildefonso soil type is associated with alluvium derived from basalt and / or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The typical profile to a depth of 8 inches is defined as stony loam and 8-60 inches is defined as very stony loam. The NRCS reports that these soils are classified, under the Uniform Soils Classification System, as inorganic clay (CL). These soils have a reported hydrologic group rating of C, having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. The infiltration rate is listed as low to moderately high to high ranging from 0.20 to 6.00 inches per hour. The NRCS lists the Flood Frequency Class for the facility location as “None”. “None” means that flooding is not probable, and the chance of flooding is nearly zero percent in any year. NRCS reports that the Erosion factor K (whole soil) of 0.37 for the site, or moderately susceptible to erosion by water. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Stormwater BMPs will be implemented to control soil erosion. Vegetation Description: The primary vegetation communities within the project area includes pinyon/juniper woodlands Gambel oak stands, Wyoming sagebrush shrublands, and desert shrublands. A comprehensive list of common plant species within the project area can be found in the Biological Survey attached to the Form 2A. As part of the Biological Survey for the NR 41-3 pad, a vegetation assessment was completed for the reference area. The vegetation assessment determined that the percent cover for pre- disturbance conditions is approximately 84%. Please see the vegetation assessment included in the NR 41- 3 Biological Survey Report attached to the Form 2A for additional details. Weed Infestations: WestWater Engineering (“WestWater”) conducted a biological survey at the NR 41-3 pad during the 2023 growing season, which included a survey for weeds within the project area. The NR 41-3 vegetation report has been attached to the Form 2A documenting the findings. Non-Stormwater Discharges: Non-stormwater discharges are limited to the application of fresh water along the existing access road and well pad for dust mitigation. Excavation activities associated with the proposed activities are not expected to impact groundwater. However, ground water encountered during excavation will be addressed in accordance with Federal and State regulations. Receiving Water: There are two (2) intermittent streams located within 2,640 feet of the proposed working pad surface of the NR 41-3 pad. Yellow Slide Gulch is an intermittent stream located 497 feet northeast of Page 4 of 12 the proposed working pad surface. Yellow Slide Gulch eventually connects to Hubbard Gulch approximately 14,500 feet east of the Oil and Gas Location. Hubbard Gulch is an intermittent stream that eventually discharges into Rifle Creek, which discharges into the Colorado River. One other unnamed intermittent stream is located approximately 2,164 feet south of the working pad surface. This intermittent stream is topographically isolated from the Oil and Gas Location. Stormwater control measures described below will minimize the potential for impacts to surface water features. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROL MEASURES Potential Pollution Sources and Locations: Stormwater management control measures will be implemented to minimize the potential for pollution. The following potential pollution source have been identified as part of planned activities on the NR 41-3 pad: 1) Transport of chemicals and materials, including loading and unloading operations Spill prevention during loading and unloading is outlined in TEP’s Piceance Basin Spill Prevention and Response Plan (“SPRP”) and Integrated Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (“SPCC”) Plan. TEP complies with applicable DOT requirements when transporting chemicals and materials to Oil and Gas Locations. 2) Vehicle/equipment fueling Equipment is only fueled in designated fueling areas. Proper storage and transport of fuels is described below. 3) Outdoor storage activities, including those for chemicals and additives Material or chemicals brought to or produced on the Oil and Gas Location will be handled properly using good housekeeping practices. TEP’s SPCC and SPRP plans address storage and handling procedures including guidelines for materials handling, storage container labeling, elevation, sealing, covering, securing, and secondary containment, as described below. 4) Produced water and drilling fluids storage Guidelines for storing produced water, drilling fluids, fuels, and chemicals include the following.  All containers will be clearly labeled.  Dry materials will be stored on pallets and covered when not in use to avoid contact with precipitation, stormwater, and wind.  Potentially hazardous liquid materials in buckets, drums or tanks will be stored within secondary containment, such as soil berms, steel containers or bermed visqueen, to capture accidental spills or leaks. Drums will be kept off the ground within secondary containment and stored under cover, if needed. The berms shall be constructed such that they are sufficiently impervious to prevent the material from being released beyond the confines of the containment system.  Fuel tanks will be stored within secondary containment.  Container lids will be securely fastened.  In the event of a spill, procedures outlined in TEP’s SPRP will be followed. Persons trained in handling spills will be available.  Spill clean-up and containment materials (absorbent, shovels, etc.) will be readily accessible. Spills will be immediately cleaned up and contaminated materials will be properly stored on site until they can be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Page 5 of 12  Storage areas and containers will be monitored for leaks and repaired or replaced as necessary. Storage areas will be inspected regularly, and any minor spills or leaks will be cleaned up immediately.  As necessary, covers and stormwater diversion structures will be utilized to minimize contact of precipitation and stormwater runoff with materials and wastes with potential to result in discharges causing pollution of surface waters.  TEP’s SPRP will be readily available at the field office as a reference to assist in responding to spills at locations where materials are stored or handled.  Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and product labels will be available as per TEP’s Hazard Communications (HazCom) program.  Employees will have proper training in materials handling, spill prevention and response. 5) Outdoor processing activities and machinery A variety of operating equipment will be utilized at the Oil and Gas Location for production, storage and transmission purposes. Equipment is inspected regularly to ensure it is operating properly and that no fluid leaks or spills are evident. Any leaks or problems with equipment will be identified and repaired immediately. Leaked or spilled fluids will be cleaned up promptly in accordance with TEP’s Spill Response Plan (SPRP). Routine equipment maintenance will be performed on-site. Any waste product from maintenance will be containerized and transported off site for proper disposal or recycling. There will be no major equipment overhauls conducted on site. Equipment will be transported off site for major overhauls. 6) Significant dust or particulate generating processes Dust generation may occur from site construction, vehicle traffic, and high winds. Dust suppression will be performed on an as needed basis to minimize the potential for fugitive dust. Please see the Dust Mitigation Plan attached to the Form 2A for specific details on dust suppression methods. 7) Erosion and vehicle tracking from well pads, road surfaces, and pipelines; To prevent vehicle tracking, stabilized construction entrances may be utilized as necessary to prevent tracked mud and dust from leaving a disturbed area. The use of stabilized construction entrances removes mud and sediment from the vehicle's wheels and offsite transport of soil is reduced. Control measures will be established during site construction to prevent erosion and transport of sediment off the Oil and Gas Location. Control measures will include structural items such as diversion ditches, wattles, strawbales, sediment traps, water bars, and matting, as well as non-structural items such as timing of ground disturbance activities and dust control measures. Guidelines regarding the selection, installation or implementation, and maintenance of control measures are detailed in TEP’s Stormwater Manual. 8) Waste disposal practices Proper waste handling practices will be implemented at the Oil and Gas Location. All materials no longer needed for operations will be removed from the site and re-used or disposed of properly. Wastes will be temporarily stored in sealed containers and regularly collected and disposed of at off-site, suitable facilities. Regular disposal for garbage, rubbish, construction wastes, and sanitary waste will be maintained during operations. Please see the Waste Management Plan attached to the Form 2A for additional details on waste disposal practices. Page 6 of 12 9) Leaks and spills Leaks and spills will be handled according to TEP’s SPCC Plan and SPRP. Appropriate TEP personnel are trained on the requirements of these plans during new hire training and then annually thereafter during employment. If a spill occurs, contractors are instructed to notify their TEP point of contact immediately. If the spill or leak can be safely stopped, employees or contractors should do so. The spill should be contained and resources for spill cleanup employed as described in the SPRP. In case of a liquid leak or spill, such as produced water or hydrocarbon product, containment strategies will be implemented to control the release. Containment strategies include, but are not limited to, utilization of spill kits, creation of diversion ditches and containment berms, installation of check dams or headgates, and removal of free liquid by vacuum truck. Contaminated soils and materials will be land farmed within bermed areas on site or will be properly stored in sealed containers until removed for proper disposal. In case of a dry material spill or leak, the affected soil will be land farmed within bermed areas on site, if appropriate, or removed and temporarily stored in a sealed container until removed for proper disposal. If a spill occurs, prompt cleanup is required to minimize any commingling of materials with stormwater runoff. 10) Ground-disturbing maintenance activities. If ground disturbing maintenance activities are necessary, activities will be evaluated by TEP personnel to determine the following: First, whether the scope of activities merits returning to coverage under the CDPHE Construction Stormwater Permit, or if the activities can occur under the Post-Construction Stormwater Plan; and second, whether additional control measures need to be implemented to prevent erosion before, during, or after the maintenance activities. Control measures will be selected and implemented based on the guidelines provided in TEP’s Stormwater Manual. Pollution Prevention: Structural and non-structural control measures will be implemented at the Oil and Gas Location to control stormwater and sediment erosion. The following outlines the planned structural and non-structural control measures slated for use at the Oil and Gas Location: 1) Structural Control Measures: a. Wattles b. Culvert Inlet and Outlet Protection c. Sediment Catchment Basins d. Diversion Ditches 2) Non-structural Control Measures: a. Minimizing surface disturbance by utilization of off-site support facilities b. Surface Roughening c. Seeding and Mulching d. Proper scheduling of construction activities Erosion Controls: The Oil and Gas Location and proposed / existing access road will be unpaved. To prevent erosion from unpaved surfaces, TEP will apply gravel in sufficient quantities to minimize erosion potential. Hydro-mulch will be applied to the cut and fill slopes of the Oil and Gas Location and the associated stockpiles following site construction to minimize erosion potential. Once interim reclamation of the Oil and Gas Location is complete, seed and mulch will be applied to the reclaimed cut and fill slopes. Vehicle Tracking Control: Construction sites may use vehicle tracking controls to mitigate the transport of mud/sediment adhering to vehicle tires prior to leaving the site and entering the adjacent asphalt and/or Page 7 of 12 public roadways, or areas where vehicle tracking occurs shall have measures in place that contain or filter flows in order to prevent the bypass of flows without treatment. If needed, access roads may be stabilized with base course or gravel to reduce erosion, and street sweeping will be utilized to removed tracked sediment on paved roads, when necessary. Management of Waste Materials: Locations will be maintained in a clean and orderly fashion to minimize the potential for spills, leaks, stormwater contamination, and safety hazards. Housekeeping will consist of neat and orderly storage of materials and containerized fluids. Waste will be temporarily stored in sealed containers and regularly collected and disposed of at approved off-site disposal facilities. Contractors and employees will maintain, as necessary, an equipment storage (lay down) or staging area for equipment and materials storage at each site. These areas will be maintained with good housekeeping and will be inspected regularly for spills, leaks, and potential contamination . Construction trash and debris (i.e., non-hazardous solid waste) will be collected in containers and hauled off-site for disposal at an approved disposal facility. Sanitary waste will be containerized in portable toilets or other storage tanks with waste materials regularly pumped and transported off-site for disposal at approved facilities. Drill cuttings will be managed on location within a bermed cuttings trench. Stormwater run-on that enters the cuttings trench will be pumped out and properly disposed. Drill cuttings will be sampled for compliance with Table 915-1 and will be buried on location within the cuttings trench / cut slope of the Oil and Gas Location. Please see the Waste Management Plan attached to the Form 2A for additional details on drill cuttings management. SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION AND STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES The NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to accommodate the development of the thirty-nine (39) new proposed natural gas wells. Site-specific stormwater control measures are depicted on Appendix A, NR 41-3 Drill Pad Stormwater Management Erosion Control Plan, and includes diversion ditches, sediment basins, wattles, and application of mulch and gravel. Additional stormwater control measures may be considered during site construction. The existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will continue to be used to access the Oil and Gas Location. The proposed / existing access road / lease road is approximately 4.67 miles in length. Construction of a new access road (approximately 11,880 feet) will be required for development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road will be constructed from the existing lease road near the existing NR 334-1 pad to the Oil and Gas Location generally following an existing two-track. The access road would be surfaced with six-inches (6”) of three-quarter inch (3/4”) gravel or another surfacing materials approved by the surface owner. Please see Appendix A, NR 41-3 Drill Pad Stormwater Management Erosion Control Plan, for additional details on stormwater control measures planned for implementation along the proposed access road. To support natural gas production from the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad, TEP will install one (1) eight-inch (8”) coated steel natural gas pipeline (approx. 17,897 feet) from the proposed separator on the NR 41-3 pad to the existing eight-inch (8”) natural gas pipeline tie-in point, located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The proposed natural gas pipeline will be installed southeast of the pad following the proposed / existing access road to the NR 334-1 pad where it will deviate cross country following an existing pipeline corridor across private property owned by Clough Sheep Page 8 of 12 Company LLC, to the proposed tie-in with to the existing eight-inch (8”) natural gas pipeline. A valve set will be installed at the tie-in location to support pipeline maintenance activities. TEP will install one (1) six-inch (6”) Flexpipe produced water pipelines (approx. 18,832 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the tie-in point with TEP’s existing tank battery on the RWF 34-12 located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP will also install two (2) two-inch (2”) coated steel condensate lines (approx. 12,028 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the tie-in point to the proposed tank battery upgrade located on the NR 334-1 pad in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The proposed condensate lines will be installed following the proposed / existing access road. The proposed off-location pipelines will be installed within a fifty-foot (50’) pipeline Right-of-Way located on private property and BLM. An additional fifteen-foot (15’) of temporary workspace will be added to the pipeline Right-of-Way near the approach to the Oil and Gas Location due to steeper slopes. Prior to initial pad construction, TEP will have the proposed pad location and pipeline corridors staked for construction and will hold a pre-construction onsite with the excavation and stormwater contractors to review proposed site construction. TEP’s stormwater management contractor will review the preliminary erosion control plan and determine if any additional control measures are needed. Any new control measures implemented because of this review or requested by the surface owner will be documented as required by Federal and/or State regulations. TEP’s stormwater contractor will then oversee the installation of stormwater control measures (i.e. wattles, straw bales, etc.) along the outer perimeter of the proposed disturbance boundary. TEP’s construction contractor will then begin removal of existing vegetation within the disturbance footprint by hydro-axing or brush hogging the trees or larger bushes within the project disturbance boundary. Stormwater control measures, such as wattles, sediment traps, and diversion ditches, will then be installed along the perimeter of the site prior to pad excavation. Topsoil within the pad disturbance footprint will then be stripped and stockpiled both northwest and southeast of the proposed pad location adjacent to the access road and northwest of the proposed pad location. Topsoil will be stripped to a depth of approximately twelve inches (12”) and segregated from all other subsurface materials for use during reclamation. Wattles will be placed around the perimeter of the topsoil stockpile to prevent offsite migration of organic materials. Excavation of the pad will then commence and will be constructed based on the Layout Drawings included as an attachment to the Form 2A. A perimeter berm will be constructed around the fill side of the pad location and around the cuttings trench. A drive over berm will be constructed at the pad entrances. The area beneath the proposed rig footprint, approximately forty feet (40’) from the proposed cellar, will be compacted to ensure stability of the rig during drilling operations. The pad working surface will be bladed level and graveled. The proposed production equipment and on-location flowlines will also be installed. The cut and fill slopes and topsoil stockpile will be hydro-mulched following completion of pad construction to minimize the potential for site degradation during the initial drilling and well completion phase of the project. Interim reclamation of the Oil and Gas Location will occur following completion of well construction. Stormwater control measures will be implemented during interim reclamation and will include diversion ditches, sediment traps, surfacing materials (as needed), and application of seed and mulch. Additional control measures may be implemented as needed to prevent off-site migration of sediment and pollutants. Page 9 of 12 Stormwater control measures planned for interim reclamation are depicted on Appendix A, NR 41-3 Drill Pad Stormwater Management Erosion Control Plan. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Oil and gas operations generally require major ground disturbing activities which may include construction of oil and / or natural gas well pads, access roads, natural gas pipelines, produced water pipelines or off- location flowlines, compressor stations, centralized exploration and production waste management facilities, and other support facilities. All construction activities will follow standard construction and engineering protocols and procedures, and the appropriate stormwater runoff, erosion, and sediment control measures will be used to minimize the impact of earth ground disturbing activities. The following sections describe the relationship between the phases of construction and the implementation and maintenance of both structural and non-structural stormwater management control measures used by TEP to effectively minimize site erosion and sediment transport. Pre-construction Phase Preliminary site assessments are made for site planning and management (e.g., well pad dimensions, access roads, pipeline routes, etc.) and to determine needed site-specific control measures, pre-construction vegetative cover, existing drainages/outfalls, soil types, and other site-specific considerations prior to site excavation. These features are incorporated into site specific stormwater plans and are used to develop, implement, maintain, and update/revise the SWMP. Prior to initial construction activities or ground disturbance, stormwater control measures shall be implemented at construction sites to control erosion (i.e., sequencing of construction activities, surface roughening etc.) and sediment (i.e., stabilized construction entrances, temporary berms, diversion ditches, etc.), and to protect existing vegetation outside the perimeter of the construction site. Construction Phase Upon completion of pre-construction site assessments and related SWMP management (i.e., development, implementation, maintenance, updates/revisions), construction activities are scheduled or phased to control erosion and sediment and all potential pollutant sources at project sites, and to protect existing vegetation. Construction activities for the exploration and production of natural gas typically follow this general order of operation: 1) Installation of perimeter sediment control measures around the proposed site disturbance including material stockpiles to ensure adequate protection for surface waters and / or wetland areas adjacent to, or downgradient of the construction site (i.e. well pad, access road, pipeline corridor, utilities); 2) Preservation of existing vegetation adjacent to construction activities, or where feasible; 3) Clearing and grubbing of site vegetation; 4) Preserving topsoil by stripping and placing topsoil within designated areas along the perimeter of the construction site; 5) Site construction includes excavation of cut and fill slope of the proposed access road and well pad, excavation of pipeline right-of-way, installation of utility lines and site facilities, and other ground disturbance activities; 6) Implementation of interior erosion and sediment control measures as described in the SWMP (i.e. diversion ditches, sediment traps, mulching, wattles, riprap, culverts, etc.); 7) Development of oil and natural gas wells through planned drilling and completion operations; 8) Installation and operation of production facilities (if not completed before D&C operations); Page 10 of 12 9) Stormwater control measure management and reporting, including daily or bi-weekly inspection depending on phase of construction. Interim Reclamation Disturbed areas affected by construction, drilling, completion, and/or production operations not required for long-term production operations will be temporarily stabilized after construction is complete. Interim reclamation will be initiated for areas of well pad surfaces, access roads, pipelines, etc. not needed for long- term production operations. Surfaces required for the operation of production facilities will be maintained until wells are no longer productive (approximately 30 years). The following measures may be used for interim reclamation to control stormwater runoff, minimize erosion and the transport of sediment off-site, and to control site degradation: 1) Managing debris and waste materials (i.e., well completion and drilling materials, drill pipe, excess materials and equipment, etc.) in accordance with TEP guidelines and regulatory requirements; 2) Closing drilling pits, cuttings trenches, and / or management areas per ECMC regulations and re- contouring disturbances to eliminate the potential for stormwater ponding; 3) Grading the construction site to reduce the working pad surface to approximately one-quarter (¼) of an acre or the area required for long-term production operations; 4) Cross-ripping disturbed areas compacted by oil and gas operations which are no longer needed following completion of such operations to alleviate compaction; 5) Stabilizing unpaved access roads with base course or gravel to minimize erosion, and implementing permanent erosion control measures (e.g., permanent vegetation, erosion control blanket, retaining walls, etc.) for adjacent slopes or ditches; 6) Installing water bars and supplemental control measures on slopes greater than 20%, as needed; 7) Installing rock check dams, or equivalent structures, in drainage channels susceptible to erosion; 8) Seeding ripped or harrowed ground disturbances with an appropriate seed mix and using stockpiled topsoil for areas of the site that will utilize vegetative final stabilization measures; and 9) Monthly inspection schedule for < 70% pre-disturbance vegetation cover. Annual inspection schedule for ≥ 70% pre-disturbance vegetation cover. When construction of well pads, pipelines, access roads, and other production facilities are complete, interim reclamation activities will be initiated. Sites located on cropland will be reclaimed in accordance with ECMC regulations and private landowner requirements. All other sites will be reclaimed in the interim using measures described above, taking into consideration the natural landscape of the surrounding undisturbed area, disturbed surface slopes, and the proximity of the site to drainages and surface waters. Please see the Reclamation Plan attached to the Form 2A for further details on site reclamation. Final Reclamation TEP’s final reclamation phase of construction aligns with industry and regulatory standards and regulations for reclaiming lands affected by oil and natural gas construction activities and operations. Structural and/or non-structural control measures will be implemented to effectively minimize erosion, sediment transport, and the release of other pollutants at the completion of final reclamation construction activities. Final reclamation of disturbed surfaces at sites may be accomplished with the following sequence of construction activities: 1) Plugging and abandoning of wells which are no longer producing; 2) Removal of any remaining production equipment, pipeline riser, and debris from the site, and backfilling remaining pits and boreholes used for production operations; Page 11 of 12 3) Recontouring the site to approximate pre-construction contours as practicable, per ECMC regulations, landowner agreements, or land management agency requirements; 4) Closing, grading, and re-contouring access roads, and removing culverts; 5) Alleviating compaction where necessary per ECMC requirements; 6) Replacing stockpiled topsoil over the site and preparing the surface for seeding by disking or ripping; and 7) Application of approved seed mix using appropriate application method (hydro-seed, drill seed, or broadcast seed), and covering with mulch to prevent sediment erosion and promoting growth of desirable vegetation. Sediment and erosion control measures at the site will be maintained or modified as needed until final reclamation of disturbed areas has been completed. Site-specific maps shall be updated to reflect field conditions post-construction. Restoration control measures, including vegetation, have been designed and will be installed as permanent features. When the surface of the land has been restored (as nearly as practicable) to its condition at the commencement of construction activities all temporary non-biodegradable control measures shall be removed from the site. INSPECTION AND MAINTENEANCE All TEP internal site inspections are conducted in accordance with State Permit regulations and represent the minimum inspection schedule for construction sites in the Piceance Fields (at least once every 14 calendar days). More frequent inspections are often conducted on active construction sites in accordance with project needs and communication with TEP’s SWMP Administrator, Construction Superintendent, and onsite contractors. Internal inspections are conducted by a TEP appointed third party Qualified Stormwater Manager (QSM). At a minimum, the following shall be evaluated during each inspection for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants leaving construction site boundaries; entering a stormwater drainage system; or discharging to State waters: 1) construction site perimeter; 2) all disturbed areas; 3) designated haul routes; 4) material and waste storage areas exposed to precipitation; 5) locations where stormwater has the potential to discharge off-site; and 6) locations where vehicles exit the site. All erosion and sediment control measures identified at the site are evaluated to ensure that they are maintained and operating correctly. Inspection Requirements: 1) Visually verify whether all implemented control measures (CMs) are in effective operational condition and are working as designed in their specifications to minimize pollutant discharges. 2) Determine if there are new potential sources of pollutants. 3) Assess the adequacy of CMs at the site to identify areas requiring new or modified control measures to minimize pollutant discharges. 4) Identify all areas of non–compliance with the Permit requirements and, if necessary, implement corrective action/work order. Page 12 of 12 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following Best Management Practices for stormwater management will be utilized during development of the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location: 1) Stormwater control measures will be in place during all phases of development to control stormwater run-on / runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion, transportation of sediment offsite, and site degradation. 2) Stormwater control measures will include perimeter controls and site degradation control measures; these will include a minimum 1.5-foot compacted earthen perimeter berm around the entire working pad surface and around the cuttings trench near the southeast side of the well pad; topsoil will be stockpiled near the northwest and the southeast ends of the location within the disturbance area and segregated from all subsurface material; there will be a system of exterior diversion ditches around the entire Oil and Gas Location; these diversion ditches will be fitted with rocked check dams and will discharge into sediment catchment basins along the perimeter of the Oil and Gas Location; site degradation control measures will include grading, slope stabilization (seeding, mulching, surface roughening of the topsoil stockpile), straw wattles along the toe of all fill slopes, and the use of gravel and road base materials for surfacing; wattles will be placed around the entire perimeter of the topsoil stockpile to minimize potential for loss of organic materials. 3) Outlet protection should be used when a conveyance discharges onto a disturbed area where there is potential for accelerated erosion due to concentrated flow; 4) TEP will conduct stormwater inspections immediately after storm events; 5) Bi-weekly inspection of the pad and stormwater control measures (berms, ditches, sediment basins), and the cuttings trench (berms and precipitation buildup). When necessary, precipitation within the cuttings trench will be pumped out and sent into the TEP proposed produced water management system for disposal. 6) Documentation / Stormwater Management Plan – if it is infeasible to install or repair a control measure immediately after discovering a deficiency, TEP will document and keep on record in the stormwater management plan: (a) a description of why it is infeasible to initiate the installation or repair immediately; and (b) a schedule for installing or repairing the control measure and returning it to an effective operating condition as soon as possible. 7) A post-construction stormwater program will be developed for the facility as required per Rule 1002.f.(3). Stormwater control is also addressed under a field-wide Stormwater Management Plan. APPENDIX A NR 41-3 PAD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EROSION CONTROL PLAN Table of Contents 363 Reclamation Plan – Rule 304.c.(16) Reclamation Plan – 304.c.(16) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location May 2023 Page 2 of 10 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has prepared the following Reclamation Plan as required by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 304.c.(16). This reclamation plan describes the methods TEP will use during interim reclamation and final reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad in compliance with Federal, State, and Local reclamation standards. TEP also operates under a field wide Surface Reclamation Plan for Oil and Gas Operations which provides additional guidance on surface reclamation methods and best management practices that are applicable for the majority of sites operated by TEP. This reclamation plan addresses two phases of site reclamation – interim reclamation, and final reclamation. Interim reclamation occurs once well construction and/or facility construction is complete. The area surrounding the wellhead and production facilities not required for long-term production operations is recontoured and stabilized to prevent soil erosion and to promote growth of desirable vegetation. The primary objective of interim reclamation is to establish a self-sustaining, vigorous, diverse, native (or otherwise approved) plant community sufficient to minimize visual impacts, provide forage for wildlife, stabilize soils, and impede growth of noxious weeds. Final reclamation occurs once all existing wells on an Oil and Gas Location have been plugged and abandoned and the location is no longer needed for ongoing production operations. The primary objectives of final reclamation are to return the land to pre-disturbance condition by recontouring the site where necessary, re-establishing hydrologic systems, and establishing self-sustaining native (or otherwise approved) plant communities. SITE DESCRIPTION The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“NR 41-3 OGDP”) is a 564.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of a new access road, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private and Federal minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to a 12.705-acre footprint to support drilling and completion operations of the proposed directional wells. The long-term disturbance, or the disturbance required for long-term production operations, attributed to the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. All the proposed disturbance will be located on private property. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Page 3 of 10 Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length and will be constructed to follow closely to the existing two-track leading to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road will be constructed between the existing NR 334-1 pad and the proposed NR 41- 3 pad generally following the existing two-track. Construction of the proposed access road will create approximately 25.766-acres of surface disturbance, of which approximately 22.544-acres will be considered new surface disturbance and 3.222-acres will be considered existing disturbance of the existing two-track. The long-term disturbance of the proposed access road is approximately 6.906-acres. The proposed surface disturbance associated with the proposed access road construction will be located on private surface and Federal lands. The proposed pipeline corridors associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres would be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads), approximately 6.220-acres would be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way), and approximately 1.388-acres would be considered new disturbance. The long-term disturbance would be attributed to the proposed pipeline following reclamation of the pipeline Right-of-Way will be approximately 0.325-acres (i.e. existing access road). The proposed pipeline corridor will be located on private surface and Federal lands; however, the proposed pipeline disturbance acreage described above excludes surface disturbance that overlaps with the proposed access road. Therefore, the disturbance acreages described above for the pipeline corridor are located entirely on private surface. The existing NR 334-1 pad will be utilized to support storage and measurement of condensate produced from the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 and the existing wells on the NR 334-1 pad. The existing production pad, approximately 0.497-acres will be expanded to a 0.560-acre footprint to support installation and operation of production equipment. All ground disturbing activities will be within the boundaries of the existing Oil and Gas Location and will be located entirely on private property. The existing 4.872-acres Federal Rulison 8 frac pad will be utilized to support remote well completion operations associated with the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reclaimed back to the current production pad footprint, approximately 0.642-acres, after well completion operations associated on the NR 41-3 pad have been completed. TEP would also need to install temporary surface pipelines between NR 41-3 pad and the Federal Rulison 8 pad to support remote well completion operations. No ground disturbance activities are planned during installation or removal of the proposed temporary surface pipelines. The total surface disturbance associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP is approximately 52.764-acres, which would be located on private and Federal surface and includes construction of the NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, the installation of the proposed gas, water, and condensate pipelines, reconstruction of the Federal Rulison 8 pad, reconstruction of the NR 334-1 pad, and the existing RWF 34- 12 pad. Of the 52.764-acres of disturbance, 16.298-acres will be within areas of existing disturbance or areas previously disturbed by development activities. Approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of the total disturbance acreage will be on lands previously disturbed. The long-term disturbance, or disturbance remaining after interim reclamation, including support locations, will be approximately 11.005-acres (excluded sections of the existing road not undergoing upgrades). Please see the Plan of Development attached to the Form 2A for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage for all project components associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP. Page 4 of 10 SOILS DESCRIPTION The National Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) identifies the dominate soil types within the boundary of the NR 41-3 pad as the Potts-Ildefonso complex. The Potts soil type is associated with alluvium derived from basalt and / or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The typical profile to a depth of 4 inches is defined as loam, 4-28 inches defined as clay loam, and 28-60 inches defined as loam. The Ildefonso soil type is associated with alluvium derived from basalt and / or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The typical profile to a depth of 8 inches is defined as stony loam and 8-60 inches is defined as very stony loam. The NRCS reports that these soils are classified, under the Uniform Soils Classification System, as inorganic clay (CL). These soils have a reported hydrologic group rating of C, having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. The infiltration rate is listed as low to moderately high to high ranging from 0.20 to 6.00 inches per hour. The NRCS lists the Flood Frequency Class for the facility location as “None”. “None” means that flooding is not probable, and the chance of flooding is nearly zero percent in any year. NRCS reports that the Erosion factor K (whole soil) of 0.37 for the site, or moderately susceptible to erosion by water. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Stormwater BMPs will be implemented to control soil erosion. PRE-DISTURBANCE VEGETATION COMPOSITION WestWater Engineering, Inc (“WestWater”) prepared a Biological Resources Report in June 2023 to identify any potential impacts to environmental resources within the project area. WestWater completed a desktop review and field level surveys within the project area to determine the potential occurrence of biological resources. Information gathered and evaluated included literature reviews, information and mapping provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) online mapping information, results of field surveys, and WestWater’s knowledge of the general area based on previous nearby surveys. The primary vegetation communities within the project area includes pinyon/juniper woodlands Gambel oak stands, Wyoming sagebrush shrublands, and desert shrublands. A comprehensive list of common plant species within the project area can be found in the Biological Resources Report attached to the Form 2A. A vegetation assessment was completed for NR 41-3 pad by West Water Engineering, Inc. (“WestWater”) in July 2023. This assessment provides additional details regarding vegetation communities located within the project area. The vegetation assessment was completed for the reference area and determined that the percent cover for pre-disturbance conditions is approximately 84%. WestWater also completed a special status species plant survey within the vicinity of the project area in June of 2023 to assess the presence of Federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive plant species. Please see the NR 41-3 Biological Survey Report attached to the Form 2A for details regarding the vegetation assessment and survey results. IDENTIFICATION OF REFERENCE AREA AND VEGETATION COMPOSITION Reference area locations correspond to the pre-disturbance vegetation communities found on the pad site are chosen in areas that experience the same environmental conditions and are not expected to be disturbed. The reference area is used to set goals for reclamation success. The proposed NR 41-3 pad reference site is located at Lat.: 39.56295/ Long.: -107.868337 west of the proposed Oil and Gas Location within an area Page 5 of 10 with the same soil type, Potts-Ildefonso complex. WestWater prepared a Biological Resources Report in August 2023 assessing potential impacts to environmental resources within the project area. A comprehensive list of common plant species within the project area can be found in the Biological Resources Report attached to the Form 2A. WestWater completed a vegetation assessment, which identified a list of plant species found along the reference transect within the reference area. The Reference Area Map and Pictures have been attached to the Form 2A. Please see the Biological Resources Report attached to the Form 2A for additional details. KNOWN WEED INFESTATIONS WestWater Engineering (“WestWater”) conducted a biological survey which included a survey for weeds within the project area. WestWater identified several noxious weed infestations within the project area including State Listed B and C noxious weeds. Please see the Biological Survey Report attached to the Form 2A for additional detail on noxious weeds, including a list of the noxious weed observed within the project area. GATHERING LINES Development of the NR 41-3 pad involves the installation and operation of new natural gas, produced water, and condensate gathering pipelines. Installation of the proposed off-location pipelines include one (1) eight- inch (8”) coated steel natural gas gathering pipeline, one (1) six-inch (6”) FlexPipe produced water pipeline, and two (2) two-inch (2”) coated steel condensate pipelines. Installation of the proposed pipelines will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres would be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads) and approximately 6.220-acres would be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way). The new disturbance associated with the installation of the proposed pipelines will be approximately 1.388-acres. The long-term disturbance attributed is approximately 0.325-acres (i.e. existing road). Cleanup and reclamation of the pipeline corridor(s) will occur immediately following completion of the pipeline installations. Cleanup of the construction workspace and any temporary use areas would be performed by removing any construction debris and by performing final grading to the original / pre- disturbance contour. Erosion control measures would be installed, and seeding would be performed in accordance with ECMC requirements. TEP will employ drill, broadcast, or hydroseed methods to ensure proper seed placement. Drill seeding is preferred and will be used wherever soil characteristics and slope allows for effective operation of a rangeland seed drill. Drill seeding will be performed perpendicular to contour. Seed will be placed in direct contact with the soil at an average depth of 0.5 inches, covered with soil, and firmed to eliminate air pockets around the seeds. Broadcast seeding will be employed only in areas where drill seeding is unsafe or physically impossible. Seed will be applied uniformly over disturbed areas with manually operated cyclone- bucket spreaders, mechanical spreaders, or blowers. Broadcast application rates will be twice that of drill rates. The seed will be uniformly raked or dragged to incorporate seed to a sufficient seeding depth. TEP will incorporate the gathering line ROW into its existing weed management plan. ACCESS ROAD Proposed and existing private lease roads from Garfield County Road 244 will be utilized for construction, drilling, well completion, and production operations for the NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road will need to be constructed to accommodate the traffic to the NR 41-3 pad. The majority of the access road will follow an existing two track to the proposed location. Construction of this new road will create 25.766- acres of surface disturbance. Of the 25.766-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 3.222-acres would be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads) and approximately 22.544-acres would be considered new disturbance. The long-term disturbance attributed to the proposed access road is Page 6 of 10 approximately 6.906-acres. In addition, minor road maintenance will be performed (if needed) along the existing lease roads prior to construction. Stormwater controls along the existing access roads and the proposed NR 41-3 road will be evaluated during construction to ensure they are functioning properly. Additional controls may be evaluated with the surface owners during construction and implemented, as necessary. Interim reclamation of the constructed access road will begin following completion of construction of the proposed driving surface of the access road. Preserved topsoil windrowed along the uphill or downhill side of the access road corridor will be placed back over the cut and fill slope of the access road. Any boulders larger than twenty-four inches in diameter exposed on the cut and fill slope will be removed prior to reseeding. Once placement of topsoil is complete, hydro-mulch / seed will be applied to the cut and fill slopes of the access road to stabilize topsoil and promote establishment of desirable vegetation. REMOVAL OF DRILLING, COMPLETION EQUIPMENT, AND ALL ASSOCIATED DEBRIS AND WASTE MATERIALS All drilling, flowback, and well completion equipment will be removed from the Oil and Gas Location upon completion of the proposed operations. Any materials, debris, and non-exploration and production waste materials will be removed for the Oil and Gas Location and recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. All guy line anchors left buried for future use will be identified by a marker no less than four feet (4’) in height and not greater than one foot (1’) east of the guy line anchor, as required by ECMC rule. MANAGEMENT OF WASTE MATERIALS Construction, drilling, and completion operations generate waste streams that will be managed, recycled, and/or disposed in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. All potential waste streams are described in detail in the Waste Management Plan attached to the Form 2A, which includes a detailed description the process and procedures for drill cuttings sampling and onsite disposal. Drill cuttings that meet Table 915-1 standards or are within background limits in the footnotes listed in Table 915-1, will be disposed of within the onsite cuttings trench. Any excess drill cuttings that exceed the capacity of the cuttings trench will either be hauled to an approved third-party disposal facility or utilized for beneficial reuse in recontouring during reclamation. Please see Appendix A, Reclamation Layout Drawings, which depicts the final placement of mixed drill cuttings. INTERIM RECLAMATION AREAS Interim reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad will begin within six (6) months following completion of drilling and well completion operations of the second drilling visit. A working area (production pad) must be maintained around each wellhead and production equipment to ensure site accessibility and safe working conditions during long-term production operations. Of the 12.705-acres of total site disturbance, approximately 1.958-acres (production pad) will be left un-reclaimed for long-term production operations. The disturbed areas surrounding the production pad will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography. Final grading of back-fill and cut slopes is necessary to prevent erosion and encourage re-establishment of desirable vegetation. Please see Appendix A, Reclamation Layout Drawings, for additional site-specific details. COMPACTION ALLEVIATION Compaction alleviation is a necessary component of site reclamation as soil compaction can reduce water infiltration and may hinder the ability of seed to penetrate the soil following germination. All compacted portions of the pad, roads, and pipeline route, not required for long term production operations, will be Page 7 of 10 ripped to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) when subsurface conditions permit. If the seed bed has begun to crust over or seal, the seed bed will be prepared by disking or some other mechanical means sufficient to allow penetration of the seed into the soil. RECONTOURING The disturbed areas of the Oil and Gas Location surrounding the production pad will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography. Final grading of back-fill and cut slopes is necessary to prevent erosion and encourage re-establishment of desirable vegetation. Any existing drainage disturbed during pad construction will be re-established where appropriate. Prior to seeding, topsoil will be spread to a uniform depth to promote the establishment of desirable vegetation. Soil samples may be collected once re-contouring and topsoil redistribution has occurred to determine if any soil amendments are needed. Please see Appendix A, Reclamation Layout Drawings, for additional details. RE-ESTABLISH AND STABILIZE DRAINAGE FEATURES Stormwater control measures will be maintained and/or re-established to ensure soil stabilization at the Oil and Gas Location. Perimeter controls such as diversion ditches, sediment traps, application of seed and mulch, as well as other BMPs, will be utilized to ensure proper management of stormwater following interim reclamation. Stormwater control features will be established at the NR 41-3 pad to ensure proper management and discharge of stormwater during weather events. Stormwater control measures are described in detail in the Stormwater Management Plan attached to the Form 2A. ESTABLISH DESIRED SELF-PERPETUATING PLANT COMMUNITY The NR 41-3 pad is located on private surface owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC. The seed mix provided in Table 1 is planned for use at the NR 41-3 pad and will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the proposed production pad. This seed mix will also be utilized for the proposed access road and pipeline corridor associated with the proposed Oil and Gas Location. Generally, slopes steeper than 2:1 will be hydroseeded and slopes shallower than 2:1 will be drill seeded. Seeding will occur during an appropriate time of year to ensure the best possible results for plant growth. The rate of application of the seed mix is listed in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. The seed mix will be certified and there will be no primary or secondary noxious weeds in the seed mixture. SEEDBED PREPARATION AND SEEDING Prior to seeding, topsoil will be spread to a uniform depth to promote the establishment of desirable vegetation. Soil samples may be collected once re-contouring and topsoil redistribution has occurred to determine if any soil amendments are needed. Recommendations regarding seed mix and/or soil amendments will be reviewed with TEP’s reclamation consultant prior to application. All compacted portions of the pad, roads, and pipeline corridor, not required for long term production operations, will be ripped to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) when subsurface conditions permit. If the seed bed has begun to crust over or seal, the seed bed will be prepared by disking or some other mechanical means sufficient to allow penetration of the seed into the soil. In addition, broadcast seed should be covered by using a harrow, drag bar, or chain. Generally, slopes steeper than 2:1 will be hydroseeded and slopes shallower than 2:1 will be drill seeded. Drill seeding will occur on contour with a depth no greater than one-half inch (0.5”). Seeding will occur during the appropriate time of year to ensure the best possible results for plant growth. Seeding typically occurs immediately after reclamation activities while the soil is loose; however, seeding may be delayed due to high temperatures and dry conditions. The seed mix Page 8 of 10 proposed for use at the NR 41-3 pad is provided in Table 1, which includes the rate of application listed in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. The seed mix will be certified and there will be no primary or secondary noxious weeds in the seed mixture. Table 1. Proposed Seed Mix Pinyon-Juniper Woodland or Wyoming Sagebrush Shrubland (12-16 inches precipitation) Common Name Species Name Variety Seeds per Pound PLS lbs/acre Plant Two of the Following Grasses (15% of Mix Each, 30% Total) Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Colorado/Utah source, or Anatone, Goldar 140,000 2.8 Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Colorado/Utah source, or Nezpar, Paloma, Rimrock 141,000 2.8 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda “sandbergii” UP* Colorado-Sims Mesa or High Mesa 882,000 0.3 And One of the Following Grasses (15% of Mix Each, 15% Total) Thickspike Wheatgrass (coarser soil) Elymus lanceolatus Bannock, Critana, Schwendimar 154,000 2.5 Western Wheatgrass (finer soil) Pascopyrum smithii UP* or Colorado/Utah source or Arriba, Recovery, Rodan, Rosana 110,000 3.6 And Three of the Following Grasses (10% of Mix Each, 30% Total) Blue Grama Chondrosum gracile Colorado/Utah source, or Alma, Bad River, Hachita 825,000 0.3 Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides Colorado/Utah source, State Bridge, or Fish Creek, Toe Jam Creek, Wapiti 192,000 1.4 Muttongrass Poa fendleriana Colorado/Utah source preferred 890,000 0.3 Needle-and-Thread Hesperostipa comata Colorado/Utah source preferred 115,000 2.2 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus San Luis 159,000 1.6 And Two of the Following Shrubs/Subshrubs (7.5% of Mix Each, 15% Total) Shadscale Saltbush Atriplex confertifolia Colorado/Utah source, or Rincon, Snake River, Wytana 60,000 3.3 Sticky-flowered Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Colorado/Utah source preferred 782,000 0.25 Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata Colorado/Utah source preferred 123,000 1.6 And Four of the Following Forbs/Subshrubs (2.5% of Mix Each, 10% Total) Common Name Scientific Name PLS lbs/acre Common Name Scientific Name PLS lbs/acre Arrowleaf Balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata 1.2 Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 0.13 Blanket-flower Gaillardia aristata 0.5 Silvery Lupine Lupinus argenteus 3.6 Bluestem Penstemon Penstemon cyanocaulis 0.1 Sulphur Buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum* 0.3 Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae 0.04 Tapertip Hawks- beard Crepis acuminata 0.08 Hairy Golden-aster Heterotheca villosa 0.1 Thickleaf Penstemon Penstemon pachyphyllus 0.3 Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii 0.4 Utah Sweetvetch Hedysaurum boreale 1.4 Scarlet Gilia Ipomopsis aggregata 0.18 Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.02 Page 9 of 10 Hydro-mulch will be applied to the reclaimed area to minimize the potential for soil erosion and to provide protection for the seed prior to germination. Proper reshaping of slopes, placement of soils and earthwork, and other site design characteristics provide for site stabilization. Re-establishment of desirable plant communities provides the best means for ensuring long-term site stability. FENCING TEP does not plan to fence this Oil and Gas Location. Cattle grazing does occur in the vicinity of the Oil and Gas Location, which could result in potential impacts to reclamation success. If it is determined that cattle are limiting reclamation success, TEP will evaluate installation of a permitter fence to limit grazing access to the Oil and Gas Location. Other options that would be considered include deferred grazing and additional application of seed. In the event a fence is installed around this Oil and Gas Location, TEP will use a CPW approved wildlife friendly fence design to minimize the potential for wildlife entanglement. MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS TEP will implement a weed management program to ensure the Oil and Gas Location is free of undesirable plant species designated to be noxious weeds as required by ECMC Rule 1003.f. Weed control measures will be conducted in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, C.R.S. §35-5.5-115 and the current rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Field personnel will monitor the Oil and Gas Location for noxious weeds and notify the Environmental Specialist, and a certified weed sprayer will be dispatched to inspect the site and take action to treat the noxious weeds if present. RECLAMATION MONITORING, INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPORTING Permanent vegetative cover will be considered successful when the basal cover of desirable perennial species is at least 80 percent of the basal cover of the undisturbed site or, of a reference area, or, if available, of the potential basal cover as defined in the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Range/Ecological Site(s), or similar, for the area. Reclamation success standards are detailed in TEP’s field wide Surface Reclamation Plan. INTERIM RECLAMATION COMPLETION NOTICE TEP will comply with the Interim Reclamation Completion Notice as required per ECMC Rule 1003.e.(3) by submitting a Sundry Notice, Form 4, describing interim reclamation procedures and any associated mitigation measures performed, any changes, if applicable in the landowner’s designated final land use, and the required photos. FINAL RECLAMATION OF OIL AND GAS LOCATION AND ACCESS ROAD Final Reclamation of the pad location will occur once the facility is no longer necessary for production operations and following final abandonment of all existing wells drilled from the Oil and Gas Location. Upon completion of approved plugging and abandonment of the wells, all casing will be cut-off at the base of the cellar or [a minimum of] three feet (3’) below final restored ground level (whichever is deeper). The well bore will then be covered with a metal plate at least 1/4-inch-thick and welded in place, or a four-inch (4”) pipe, ten feet (10’) in length, four feet (4’) above ground and embedded in cement. The well location and identity shall be permanently inscribed. A weep hole shall be left if a metal plate is welded in place. All plugging and abandonment operations will be completed as required by ECMC Rule 434. Any production equipment on location will be removed and any pipelines that are associated with the plugged wells will be decommissioned/abandoned per ECMC 1100 Series rules. If pipelines are abandoned Page 10 of 10 in place, pipeline risers will be cut off and capped at a minimum of three-feet (3’) below final grade. The disturbed areas surrounding the well location will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography. Final grading of cut and fill slopes will be done to prevent erosion and encourage establishment of desirable vegetation. Any existing drainages disturbed and not re-established during interim reclamation will be re-established during final reclamation. Final reclamation, including recontouring, topsoil placement, compaction alleviation, seed application, weed management, and reclamation monitoring, will generally follow the practices described above. Final reclamation of the access road will not be required per the surface use agreement between TEP and the surface owner. The proposed access road follows an existing two-track, which currently provides the surface owner access to the northern edge of the property and to the adjacent BLM property. To maintain the surface owner’s current access to the property, TEP has agreed to leave the improved access road in place following final reclamation of the Oil and Gas Location. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1) The Oil and Gas Location will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography during site reclamation. All subsoil and topsoil separated and segregated during site construction will be replaced to a uniform depth during reclamation recontouring operations. 2) The Oil and Gas Location will be reseeded by drill, broadcast, or hydroseed methods. Drill seeding will be utilized wherever soil characteristics and slope allow for effective operation of a rangeland seed drill. 3) TEP will use a seed mix approved by the surface owner. 4) Erosion controls will be implemented per the Stormwater Management Plan included in the Form 2A for this location and will be inspected and maintained as required by Federal, State, and Local regulations. 5) Noxious weeds, which may be introduced due to soil disturbance during reclamation, will be treated in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. 6) Site reclamation will occur within six (6) months following well completion operations. 7) The areas identified to be interim reclaimed will be re-contoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography during site reclamation; all topsoil will be moved from the stockpile area and placed over the facility’s cut and fill slopes to a uniform depth to ensure long term topsoil health including protection from erosion, prevention of weed establishment, and maintaining soil microbial activity until final reclamation; 8) The seed bed will be prepared on all topsoiled areas to alleviate compaction and minimize the potential for erosion; 9) Topsoiled areas will be planted with desirable species or a seed mixture provided by the Surface Owner for this particular location; APPENDIX A NR 41-3 PAD RECLAMATION LAYOUT DRAWINGS PLAN VIEW & CROSS SECTION K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g K: \ 2 0 1 7 T E R R A \ N R 4 1 - 3 \ N R 4 1 - 3 C o n s t r . d w g Existing Two-Track Trail 6 7 2 0 6730 6740 6750 6760 6770 6780 6710 6 6 9 0 6700 6660 6670 6640 6650 6630 6 6 2 0 6 6 1 0 6600 6590 6 5 8 0 6590 6600 6 6 1 0 6620 6630 6640 6650 6660 6670 6680 6690 6700 6710 6570 Maintain Access to Existing Two-Track Trail Oil & Gas Location Oil & Gas Location Existing Access Road B L M C L O U G H Plugged and Abandoned Wells Section 3 T. 6 S., R. 94 W. Contour Interval: 2' NR 41-3 Pad CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT DATE: PROJECT: DFT: SCALE:TEP Rocky Mountain LLC136 East Third Street Rifle, Colorado 81650 Ph. (970) 625-1330 Fax (970) 625-2773 1" = 100' 4/29/24 TEP Valley cs GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 INCH = FEET 0 50 100 100 NR 4 1 - 3 F i n a l R ec l a m a t i o n . d w g 4 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 4 1 6 : 0 8 : 4 0 ℄ Construction Proposed Surface Matching Pre-Construction Grades Existing Ground Oil & Gas Location Section A Section B Oil & Gas Location Oil & Gas Location Existing Ground Oil & Gas Location 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 66506650 66756675 67006700 6625 6625 Interim Reclaim Surface 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 65756575 66006600 66256625 66506650 66756675 67006700 67256725 67506750 67756775 6550 6550 Proposed Surface Matching Pre-Construction Grades Interim Reclaim Surface Clough NR 422-2-694 P&A Well (See Wellhead Detail Sheet for Well Names) Plugged & Abandoned Wells (See Wellhead Detail Sheet for Well Names) Two-Track Trail Section 3 T. 6 S., R. 94 W. SCALE: Horiz.: 1" = 100' Vert. : 1" = 50' NR 41-3 Pad FINAL RECLAIMATION CROSS SECTIONS DATE: PROJECT: DFT: SCALE:TEP Rocky Mountain LLC136 East Third Street Rifle, Colorado 81650 Ph. (970) 625-1330 Fax (970) 625-2773 As Noted 4/29/24 TEP Valley cs NR 4 1 - 3 F i n a l R ec l a m a t i o n . d w g 4 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 4 0 7 : 2 2 : 5 3 Table of Contents 379 Wildlife Plan – Rule 304.c.(17) Wildlife Plan – 304.c.(17) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 15 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) has prepared the following Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the NR 41-3 pad per the requirements of Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) Rule 1201.b. This plan includes a summary of identified sensitive wildlife habitat and resources within the project area, including Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”) High Priority Habitat (HPH), compliance with the applicable operating requirements under Rule 1202, and compensatory mitigation proposed to off- set impacts to wildlife resources as required by Rule 1203. This Wildlife Mitigation Plan provides specific details on steps taken to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse impacts to sensitive wildlife resources, including vegetation communities and surface water features. Pre-application consultation with CPW occurred during the planning process to review potential impacts to wildlife resources, identify appropriate best management practices for implementation at the Oil and Gas Location, and identify direct / indirect compensatory mitigation. OIL AND GAS LOCATION DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“NR 41-3 OGDP”) is a 564.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of the access road following the existing two-track, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company, LLC, which overlies private minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is classified as non- crop land, rangeland, and resource lands. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location would be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee lease and adjacent Federal lease COC- 073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to 12.705-acres footprint to support drilling and completion operations of the proposed directional wells. Of the 12.705-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.171-acres will be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing two-track) and approximately 12.534-acres will be new disturbance attributed to construction of the Oil and Gas Location. The long-term disturbance, or the disturbance required for long-term production operations, attributed to the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. The proposed disturbance of the Oil and Gas Location will be located entirely on private and property. A proposed access road will be constructed between the existing NR 334-1 pad and the proposed NR 41-3 pad generally following an existing two-track. The proposed access road will be constructed to a 25.766- acre footprint providing ingress and egress to the Oil and Gas Location. Of the 25.766-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 3.222-acres would be considered existing disturbance (i.e. existing two-track) and 22.544-acres will be considered new surface disturbance. The long-term disturbance attributed to the proposed access road will be 6.906-acres. The proposed access road will be primarily located on private surface, with a small section of the access road located on Federal surface (approximately 3,972 feet). The existing access road will undergo minor road maintenance actions during site construction. Page 3 of 15 The proposed pipeline corridors will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933- acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres will be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads), approximately 6.220-acres will be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way), and approximately 1.388-acres will be considered new surface disturbance. The long-term disturbance attributed to the proposed pipeline following reclamation of the pipeline corridor will be 0.325-acres. The proposed pipeline corridor will be located on private surface and Federal lands; however, the proposed pipeline disturbance acreage described above excludes surface disturbance that overlaps with the proposed access road. The existing NR 334-1 pad will be utilized to support storage and measurement of condensate produced from the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 and the existing wells on the NR 334-1 pad. The existing production pad, approximately 0.497-acres will be expanded to a 0.560-acre footprint to support installation and operation of production equipment. All ground disturbing activities will be within the boundaries of the existing Oil and Gas Location and will be located entirely on private property. The existing 4.872-acres Federal Rulison 8 frac pad will be utilized to support remote well completion operations associated with the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reclaimed back to the current production pad footprint, approximately 0.642-acres, after well completion operations associated on the NR 41-3 pad have been completed. The total surface disturbance associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP is approximately 52.764-acres, which would be located on private and Federal surface and includes construction of the NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, the installation of the proposed gas, water, and condensate pipelines, reconstruction of the Federal Rulison 8 pad, partial reconstruction of the NR 334-1 pad, and the existing RWF 34-12 pad. Of the 52.764-acres of disturbance, 16.298-acres will be within areas of existing disturbance or areas previously disturbed by development activities. Approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of the total disturbance acreage will be on lands previously disturbed. The long-term disturbance, or disturbance remaining after interim reclamation, including support locations, will be approximately 11.005- acres. Table 1, Disturbance Calculations, provided a detailed breakdown of the project disturbance acreages. Table 1, Disturbance Calculation Project Component Short-Term Disturbance (acres) Long-Term Disturbance (acres) Total Disturbance (acres) New Disturbance (acres) HPH Disturbance (acres) NR 41-3 Pad 10.747 1.958 12.705 12.534 12.705 Proposed Access Road 18.860 6.906 25.766 22.544 25.766 Proposed Pipeline Corridor 7.608 0.325 7.933 1.388 7.933 Federal Rulison 8 Pad 4.230 0.642 4.872 0 4.872 NR 334-1 Pad 0.314 0.560 0.874 0 0.874 Total 41.759 10.391 52.150 36.466 52.150 *RWF 34-12 has been omitted from this table since no construction related activities would occur at this Oil and Gas Location During initial site planning, TEP reviewed the High Priority Habitat (“HPH”) layers listed under Rule 1202.c and 1202.d to determine if there are any wildlife related impacts associated with development of the NR 41-3 pad. The proposed Oil and Gas Location is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area (ECMC Rule 1202.d.(3)) and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters (ECMC Rule 1202.c.(1).S. The NR 41-3 pad is located approximately 4,637 feet (0.88-miles) from the Mule Deer Severe Winter Range (ECMC Page 4 of 15 Rule 1202.d.(3)). Both the proposed access road and pipeline corridor will be located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas, Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters, and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range. Vegetation Description: The primary vegetation communities within the project area includes pinyon/juniper woodlands Gambel oak stands, Wyoming sagebrush shrublands, and desert shrublands. A comprehensive list of common plant species within the project area can be found in the Biological Survey attached to the Form 2A. As part of the Biological Survey for the NR 41-3 pad, a vegetation assessment was completed for the reference area. The vegetation assessment determined that the percent cover for pre- disturbance conditions is approximately 84%. Please see the vegetation assessment included in the NR 41- 3 Biological Survey Report attached to the Form 2A for additional details. Surface Water Features: There are two (2) intermittent streams located within 2,640 feet of the proposed working pad surface of the NR 41-3 pad. Yellow Slide Gulch is an intermittent stream located 497 feet northeast of the proposed working pad surface. Yellow Slide Gulch eventually connects to Hubbard Gulch approximately 14,500 feet east of the Oil and Gas Location. Hubbard Gulch is an intermittent stream that eventually discharges into Rifle Creek, which discharges into the Colorado River. One other unnamed intermittent stream is located approximately 2,164 feet south of the working pad surface. This intermittent stream is topographically isolated from the Oil and Gas Location. There are no surface water features located immediately downgradient of the Oil and Gas Location. High Priority Habitats: The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within the perimeter of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch. The majority of the Oil and Gas Location, including the proposed wells and production facilities, will be located outside the 500-foot Aquatic Sportfish Management Water buffer. Only a small portion of the working pad surface and fill slope would be located within the 500-foot buffer. Stormwater control measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to aquatic sportfish downstream of the Oil and Gas Location. Proposed stormwater control measures include diversion ditches, sediment traps, outflow protections, onsite berming, and soil stabilization methods to minimize the potential for soil erosion. Furthermore, TEP is proposing to minimize operations at this location by conducting remote frac operations from the Federal Rulison 8 pad located outside the aquatic HPH buffers. Additionally, TEP is proposing to remove all fluids via pipeline to further minimize the potential for downstream impacts. Produced water will be transported via pipeline to the existing tank battery on the RWF 34-12 pad and condensate will be transported via pipeline to a proposed tank battery on the existing NR 334-1 pad. Please see the Stormwater Management Plan attached to the Form 2A for additional information on stormwater control measures planned for implementation at this Oil and Gas Location. The NR 41-3 pad is also located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area. These HPH boundaries cover large swaths of northwestern Colorado. Avoidance of this HPH is unlikely especially since the adjacent Bureau of Land Management property is within the Wildlife Security No Surface Occupancy Area, further limiting potential alternative. Development of a large multi-well pad centralizes Oil and Gas Operations to a single location minimizing impacts to mule deer. Additionally, installation of produced water and condensate pipeline and utilizing other existing Oil and Gas Location to support operations minimizes the required footprint for proposed operations and minimizes long-term activities at the NR 41- 3 pad. The proposed access road, pipeline corridor, existing NR 334-1, existing Federal Rulison 8, and existing RWF 34-12 pad are all located to some extent within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range. Collocation of the proposed access road and proposed pipeline and utilizing existing Page 5 of 15 pipeline corridors ultimately minimize the amount of surface disturbance required for development. Utilizing existing Oil and Gas Locations further minimizes direct and indirect impacts to mule deer. Alternative Location Analysis: The NR 41-3 pad is located within HPH; therefore, an Alternative Location Analysis (“ALA”) is required pursuant to Rule 304.b.(2).B.viii. TEP prepared the Alternative Location Analysis and provided the report to CPW for their review. During the pre-application consultation meeting, TEP reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the four (4) alternative locations evaluated. Based on the results of the evaluation TEP and CPW agreed that the NR 41-3 is the best location for development of the target minerals and minimize impacts to wildlife. Please see the Alternative Location Analysis attached to the Form 2A for additional details. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND SCHEDULE Development of the NR 41-3 pad is contingent upon approval of all applicable State and local permits. Table 2, Preliminary Development Schedule, provides an estimated timeline for each phase of development, including construction, drilling, completion, and interim reclamation. Development of the NR 41-3 pad may be accelerated or delayed based on market conditions and company constraints. Table 2, Preliminary Development Schedule1 Visit Development Phase Start Date End Date Duration (days) Visit 1 Construction Aug-24 Nov-24 120 Drilling April-25 Aug-25 140 Completions May-25 Oct-25 126 Visit 2 Drilling Oct-26 Feb-27 133 Completions2 Mar-27 Aug-27 126 Interim Reclamation Sep-27 Oct-27 60 1Preliminary development schedule only; actual development timeframes may vary. 2Simultainious operations are NOT proposed for this OGL for visit 2 As shown in Table 2, Preliminary Development Schedule, TEP would schedule construction activities for the Summer / Fall of 2024 avoiding CPW’s recommended mule deer winter timing limitation (December 1 – April 30 annually). TEP will be conducting winter drilling and completions operations under this schedule. Drilling operations for the first visit would begin in April 2025 at the end of the mule deer winter timing limitation. Drilling and completion operations for the second visit would occur over winter months. TEP will make best efforts to begin drilling operations prior to the winter timing limitation and would have continuous operations throughout winter months. A Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation from December 1st through April 30th annually will be applied to the BLM Rights-of-Way grants associated with the project. Assuming modifications to the development schedule do not occur, TEP will submit an exception request to BLM in the Winter of 2025 requesting approval to conduct operations during the Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation. TEP, CPW, and BLM have also agreed to an additional compensatory mitigation fee applicable to winter operations, which is further detailed in the Compensatory Mitigation Section below. OPERATING REQUIREMENTS Rule 1202.a. Operating Requirements – Statewide The following outlines the operating requirements pursuant to Rule 1202.a and a description of how TEP plans to implement measures to ensure compliance with the rule when applicable: Page 6 of 15 1. In black bear habitat, Operators will install and utilize bear-proof dumpsters and trash receptacles for food-related trash at all facilities that generate trash. TEP will install and utilize bear proof dumpsters and trash receptacles for food- related trash at all facilities that generate trash. 2. Operators will disinfect water suction hoses and water transportation tanks withdrawing from or discharging into surface waters (other than contained pits) used previously in another river, intermittent or perennial stream, lake, pond, or wetland and discard rinse water in an approved disposal facility. Disinfection practices will be repeated prior to completing work and before moving to the next water body. During operations associated with the development of the proposed Oil and Gas Location, freshwater trucks used to support construction, drilling, completion, and production operations will be cleaned by spraying and soaking the tank cavity and all suction hoses with water greater than 140° Fahrenheit for at least ten (10) minutes when the tank and/or hoses have been used previously in another river, intermittent or perennial stream, lake, pond, or wetland. During drilling operations TEP will only utilize trucks assigned directly to the rig. All suction hoses associated with the water source will remain in place throughout the duration of drilling operations. Any hoses switched out will be cleaned using the same guidelines mentioned above. 3. At new and existing Oil and Gas Locations, Operators will not situate new staging, refueling, or chemical storage areas within 500 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (“OHWM”) of any river, perennial or intermittent stream, lake, pond, or wetland. The northern corner of the NR 41-3 pad is located within 500 feet of the OHWM of Yellow Slide Gulch, an intermittent stream. TEP will ensure that all staging, refueling, or chemical storage areas are more than 500 feet from the OHWM of the intermittent stream. 4. To prevent access by wildlife, including birds and bats, Operators will fence and net or install other CPW-approved exclusion devices on new drilling pits, production pits, and other pits associated with Oil and Gas Operations that are intended to contain fluids. There are no drilling pits, production pits, or other pits associated with planned operations on this Oil and Gas Location. 5. For trenches that are left open for more than 5 consecutive days during construction of pipelines regulated pursuant to the Commission’s 1100 Series Rules, Operators will install wildlife escape ramps at a minimum of one ramp per ¼ mile of trench. TEP will install wildlife escape ramps at a minimum of one ramp per ¼ mile of trench if any trench is left open for more than 5 consecutive days as required by ECMC regulations. 6. When conducting interim and final reclamation pursuant to Rules 1003 and 1004, Operators will use CPW-recommended seed mixes for reclamation when consistent with the Surface Owner’s approval and any local soil conservation district requirements. TEP will ensure a CPW recommended seed mix is used for interim and final reclamation when approved by the surface owner. Page 7 of 15 7. Operators will use CPW-recommended fence designs when consistent with the Surface Owner’s approval and any Relevant Local Government requirements. TEP is not planning to install a perimeter fence at this Oil and Gas Location. However, if fencing is required to establish a successful reclamation, TEP will utilize a CPW recommended fence design. 8. Operators will conduct all vegetation removal necessary for Oil and Gas Operations outside of the nesting season for migratory birds (April 1 to August 31). For any vegetation removal that must be scheduled between April 1 to August 31, Operators may implement appropriate hazing or other exclusion measures prior to April 1 to avoid take of migratory birds. If hazing or other exclusion measures are not implemented, Operators will conduct pre-construction nesting migratory bird surveys within the approved disturbance area prior to any vegetation removal during the nesting season. If active nests are located, Operators will provide work zone buffers around active nests. As mentioned in the Plan of Development, attached to the Form 2A, TEP has tentatively scheduled construction of the NR 41-3 pad to begin in August 2024 during the migratory bird season. Since vegetation removal is scheduled during the migratory bird nesting season, TEP will either implement hazing prior to April 1st, or a pre-construction migratory bird survey will be conducted during the nesting season to determine if nesting migratory birds are present within the project area. If any active nests are located, TEP will provide work zone buffers around those active nests as allowed under Rule 1202.a.(8). 9. Operators will treat drilling pits, production pits, and any other pit associated with Oil and Gas Operations containing water that provides a medium for breeding mosquitoes with Bti (Bacillus thuringiensis v. israelensis) or take other effective action to control mosquito larvae that may spread West Nile virus to wildlife resources. Such treatment will be conducted in a manner which will not adversely affect aquatic wildlife resources. There are no drilling pits, production pits, or any other pits planned for construction on this Oil and Gas Location. 10. Operators will employ the following minimum Best Management Practices on new Oil and Gas Locations with a working pad surface located between 500 feet and 1000 feet hydraulically upgradient from a High Priority Habitat identified in Rule 1202.c.(1).Q–S: a. Contain Flowback and Stimulation Fluids in Tanks that are placed on a Working Pad Surface in an area with downgradient perimeter berming. Development of the NR 41-3 pad will include construction of a perimeter berm around the entire working pad surface of the Oil and Gas Location. Additionally, a drive over berm will be constructed at the entrance to the Oil and Gas Location. Downgradient stormwater control measures will also be implemented around the perimeter of the Oil and Gas Location. b. Construct lined berms or other lined containment devices pursuant to Rule 603.o around any new crude oil, condensate, and produced water storage Tanks that are installed after January 15, 2021. Page 8 of 15 All produced water and condensate will be transported off-site via pipeline to centralized storage facilities. However, one (1) two hundred barrel (200bbl) blowdown tank will be installed on location. The tank will be installed within a lined steel secondary containment structure designed to meet the requirements of ECMC Rule 603.o. c. Inspect the Oil and Location on a daily basis, unless the approved Form 2A provides for different inspection frequency or alternative method of compliance. TEP is requesting a modified inspection frequency for this Oil and Gas Location. Inspection at this location will occur daily for the first 6 – 9 months of production operations. Inspection frequency will then drop to once per week (minimum) for the remaining life of the wells. This modification to the inspection frequency is necessary to minimize potential impacts to mule deer. Daily inspection would increase the level of long-term activity at the Oil and Gas Location. TEP will be implementing remote monitoring on all wells and production facilities at this Oil and Gas Location, along with remote shut-in capabilities, to minimize site visitation and potential impacts to mule deer. CPW was amenable to the modified inspection frequency during the pre-application consultation meeting. Please see Appendix A, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Pre- application Consultation, for a detailed summary of CPW consultation. d. Maintain adequate Spill response equipment at the Oil and Gas Location during drilling and completion operations. Spill response equipment will be provided on site during drilling and completion operations. Additional spill response equipment will be staged at a nearby location that can be accessed quickly if needed during drilling and completion operations as well as during long-term production operations. e. Not construct or utilize any Pits, except that Operators may continue to utilize existing Pits that were properly permitted, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance prior to January 15, 2021. There are no drilling pits, production pits, or any other pits planned for construction on this Oil and Gas Location. Rule 1202.b. Operating Requirements – Flowline Installation As stated in Rule 1202.b, “operators will bore, rather than trench, flowline and utility crossings of perennial streams identified as aquatic High Priority Habitat unless the Operator obtains a signed waiver from CPW and the Director or Commission approves a Form 4 or Form 2A documenting the relief. When installing culverts or bridges, such structures will not impact or prevent the passage of fish unless otherwise directed by CPW.” The proposed natural gas gathering pipeline, produced water pipeline, and condensate pipelines will not cross perennial streams; therefore, the proposed project complies with Rule 1202.b. Page 9 of 15 Rule 1202.c. Operating Requirements – No Surface Occupancy As stated in Rule 1202.c., “Except as specified pursuant to Rule 1202.c.(2), Operators will not conduct any new ground disturbance and Well work, including access road and pad construction, drilling and completion activities, and Flowline/utility corridor clearing and installation activities in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.c.(1).” New ground disturbance activities for the NR 41-3 OGDP will be limited to construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, and installation of the proposed pipeline corridor, all of which are located within Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters (ECMC Rule 1202.c.(1).S). During pre-application consultation with CPW, TEP requested a waiver pursuant to Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii and has committed to adherence to the following best management practices listed under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb, as described below. 1) Contain Flowback and Stimulation Fluids in Tanks that are placed on a Working Pad Surface in an area with downgradient perimeter berming. The NR 41-3 pad will include construction of a perimeter berm around the entire working pad surface of the Oil and Gas Location. Additionally, a drive over berm will be constructed at the entrance to the Oil and Gas Location. 2) Construct lined berms or other lined containment devices pursuant to Rule 603.o around any new crude oil, condensate, and produced water storage Tanks that are installed after January 15, 2021. All produced water and condensate will be transported off-site via pipeline to centralized storage facilities. However, one (1) two hundred barrel (200bbl) blowdown tank will be installed on location to support maintenance activities at the Oil and Gas Location. The tank will be installed within a lined steel secondary containment structure designed to meet the requirements of ECMC Rule 603.o. 3) Inspect the Oil and Location on a daily basis, unless the approved Form 2A provides for different inspection frequency or alternative method of compliance. TEP is requesting a modified inspection frequency for this Oil and Gas Location. Inspection at this location will occur daily for the first 6 – 9 months of production operations. Inspection frequency will then drop to once per week (minimum) for the remaining life of the wells. This modification to the inspection frequency is necessary to minimize potential impacts to mule deer. Daily inspection would increase the level of long-term activity at the Oil and Gas Location. TEP will be implementing remote monitoring on all wells and production facilities at this Oil and Gas Location, along with remote shut-in capabilities, to minimize site visitation and potential impacts to mule deer. CPW was amenable to the modified inspection frequency during the pre-application consultation meeting. Please see Appendix A, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Pre-application Consultation, for a detailed summary of CPW consultation. 4) Maintain adequate Spill response equipment at the Oil and Gas Location during drilling and completion operations. Page 10 of 15 Spill response equipment will be provided on site during drilling and completion operations. Additional spill response equipment will be staged at a nearby location that can be accessed quickly if needed during drilling and completion operations as well as during long-term production operations. 5) Not construct or utilize any Pits, except that Operators may continue to utilize existing Pits that were properly permitted, constructed, operated, and maintained in compliance prior to January 15, 2021. There are no drilling pits, production pits, or any other pits planned for construction on this Oil and Gas Location. Please see Appendix B, CPW Email Correspondence, confirming the waiver to Rule 1202.c.(1).S., and CPW acceptance of the modified inspection frequency for this Oil and Gas Location. Rule 1202.d. Operating Requirements – HPH Density Limits As stated in Rule 1202.d., “All Oil and Gas Development Plans submitted after January 15, 2021, including amendments to previously-approved Form 2As, that cause the density of Oil and Gas Locations to exceed 1 per square mile in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.d require a CPW-approved Wildlife Mitigation Plan pursuant to Rule 1201.b or other CPW-approved conservation plan and compensatory mitigation for Wildlife Resources pursuant to Rule 1203.” As mentioned above, the NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas (ECMC Rule 1203.d.(3)). The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location that will be constructed to support the development of thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells. The proposed Oil and Gas Location is within 1.12-miles of two (2) active Oil and Gas Locations. Development of the NR 41-3 pad would cause the density of Oil and Gas Locations to exceed 1 per square mile. Please see Table 3, O&G Locations with 1.12 Miles of the OGL, for a list of the Oil and Gas Locations within 1.12 Miles of the NR 41-3 pad. Table 3, O&G Locations within 1.12 Miles of OGL Pad Name ECMC Loc ID CLOUGH/NR 23-3 422211 FEDERAL-66S94W/11NWNW 335613 TEP has consulted with CPW regarding impacts to mule deer from the proposed operations and has committed to completing compensatory mitigation as described in the Compensatory Mitigation section below. CPW CONSULTATION Consultation with the Surface Owner and CPW is required for the NR 41-3 pad per Rule 309.e. Table 4, CPW Consultation Triggers, presents TEP’s evaluation of the consultation triggers pursuant to Rule 309.e.(2). TEP conducted a pre-application consultation meeting with CPW September 15, 2023, to discuss the proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad and the potential impacts to wildlife, as a result of construction and operations of the Oil and Gas Location. Since the pad and associated access road and pipeline corridor are located within Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters, Mule Deer Winter Page 11 of 15 Concentration Area, and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range, the pre-application consultation meeting with CPW was necessary to ensure TEP’s planned operation would be protective of these species and to discuss compensatory mitigation to off-set impacts to these species. Please see Appendix A, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Pre-application Consultation, for a detailed summary of CPW consultation. Table 4, CPW Consultation Triggers Rule Reference Description Applicable 309.e.(2).A A proposed Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or Pipeline corridor falls within High Priority Habitat, a State Park, or a State Wildlife Area; Yes 309.e.(2).B A proposed Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or Pipeline corridor falls within federally designated critical habitat or an area with a known occurrence for a federal or Colorado threatened or endangered species; No 309.e.(2).C A proposed Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or Pipeline corridor falls within an existing conservation easement established wholly or partly for wildlife habitat; No 309.e.(2).D CPW requests consultation or because consultation is necessary to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect, or cumulative Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources from a Form 2A, Oil and Gas Development Plan, CAP, or other matter where consultation is not otherwise required. No 309.e.(2).E The Operator seeks a variance pursuant to Rule 502 from a provision in the Commission’s 1200 Series Rules, or from wildlife-specific conditions of approval or Best Management Practices approved on a Form 2A. No 309.e.(2).F The Director determines that consultation would assist the Director in determining whether to recommend approving or denying an Oil and Gas Development Plan or CAP. -- CPW Waivers Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish: During the pre-application consultation meeting with CPW, TEP requested and obtained a waiver to Rule 1202.c.(1).S pursuant to Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii to conduct new ground disturbance and well work for the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 pad is located within 500 feet of Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Per Rule 1202.c., “[o]perators will not conduct any new ground disturbance and Well work, including access road and pad construction, drilling and completion activities, and Flowline/utility corridor clearing and installation activities in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.c.(1).” However, under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii, “CPW may waive the application of, and the Director may grant an exception to Rule 1202.c.(1).S”, if the operator commits to the listed Best Management Practices. TEP will adhere to all Best Management Practices listed under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb, except for Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb.3 requiring daily inspection of the Oil and Gas Location. TEP requests approval to modify the inspection frequency such that it is consistent with the Rule 1202.a.(10).C waiver request mentioned above. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION As described above, the proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within a Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area, which is HPH listed under ECMC Rule 1202.d. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 1203.a, the operator is required to complete compensatory mitigation to mitigate direct and indirect impacts. Page 12 of 15 As described in Rule 1203.a., direct impacts are impacts to wildlife that are “unavoidable and occur from direct mortality or displacement during construction activities and habitat conversion to industrial facilities”. Indirect impacts are described as “impacts to wildlife [that] occur over time from the cumulative functional habitat loss from fragmentation and modified habitat use as development density increases”. To fulfill the obligation to complete compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect impacts, operators have three (3) options including: 1) Complete a mitigation project approved by CPW and the Director pursuant to Rule 1203.b; 2) Pay a habitat mitigation fee to CPW pursuant to Rule 1203.c. and 1203.d; or 3) Receive approval of an exception to the mitigation requirements by CPW and the Director. Through the pre-application consultation process with CPW and to ensure compliance with Rule 1203.a, TEP has agreed to pay the habitat mitigation fees associated with direct and indirect impacts to mule deer from the construction and long-term operation of the proposed wells at the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Furthermore, TEP has agreed to pay an additional fee to offset impacts associated with winter operations. As an alternative to payment of the compensatory mitigation fees listed in Table 6, Compensatory Mitigation Fees, TEP and CPW have agreed to evaluate potential mitigation projects within the northwest region of Colorado that could be used to off-set direct and indirect impacts to mule deer. If TEP and CPW agree to a compensatory mitigation project(s), TEP will submit a sundry to amend this Wildlife Mitigation Plan detailing the relevant plan components described under Rule 1203.b.(1). To ensure the Director has adequate time to review the revised mitigation plan, TEP will submit the sundry a minimum of 30 days prior to the payment due date described in ECMC Rule 1203.c., or 60 days prior to submittal of the Form 42 – Notice of Construction. Rule 1203.c Direct Impact Habitat Mitigation Fee Development of the NR 41-3 pad includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location, construction of the proposed access road, and installation of the proposed natural gas, produced water, and condensate pipelines. Implementation of the proposed development plan would result in 46.404-acres of disturbance within Mule Deer Winter Concentration and/or Sever Winter Range. The direct impact habitat mitigation fee for disturbance acreage greater than 10.99-acres is determined based on site specific conditions and consultation with CPW. CPW assessed the direct impact fee at $5,295 per acre for long- term disturbance and $735 per acre for short-term disturbance. The direct impact habitat mitigation fee for short-term and long-term disturbance totals $48,656 and $27,353 respectively. The total direct impact fee for the NR 41-3 pad is $76,008.79. Please see Table 5, Direct Impact Mitigation Fee, for further information. Table 5, Direct Impact Mitigation Fee Project Component Short-Term Disturbance Long-term Disturbance Total Disturbance Short-term Direct Impact Fee ($735/Acre) Long-term Direct Impact Fee ($5,295/Acre) Total Direct Impact Fee NR 41-3 Pad 10.747 1.958 12.705 $7,899.05 $10,367.61 $76,008.79 Proposed Road 18.86 6.906 25.766 $13,862.10 $36,567.27 Proposed Pipeline 7.608 0.325 7.933 $5,591.88 $1,720.88 Total 37.215 9.189 46.404 $27,353.03 $48,655.76 Page 13 of 15 Rule 1203.c Indirect Impact Habitat Mitigation Fee CPW utilized the big game rapid assessment form to evaluate indirect impacts to mule deer. Development of the NR 41-3 pad is estimated to affect approximately 62.031-acres through indirect adverse impacts to wildlife resources. This estimate is based on the presence of Mule Deer Winter Concentration and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range, listed under 1202.d. Factors that influence the estimate for this Oil and Gas Location and proposed operations are: forage availability, existing range condition, use of existing infrastructure, amount of existing disturbance (existing pad site and lease roads), estimated timing of project construction activities (pad, road, and pipeline), and best management practices being implemented to reduce traffic/visitation (e.g. remote monitoring, pipeline infrastructure, reduced speed limits, etc.). CPW assessed the indirect impact fee at $735 per acre, which totals $45,592.79. Seasonal Timing Limitation Mitigation Fee TEP recognizes that development activities that occur during the mule deer winter timing limitation (December 1 – April 30) could contribute to an increased level of impacts on mule deer than activities that occur outside this time period. As shown in Table 2 above, TEP is proposing to conduct winter operations during April 2025 for Visit 1 and between December 2026 and April 2027 for Visit 2. This would result in a total of six (6) months of drilling and completions activities occurring during the winter timing limitation. During pre-application consultation, CPW assessed an additional 46.52-acres (75%) of indirect impacts to account for proposed winter operations. CPW assessed the season TL mitigation fee at $735 per acre, which totals $34,192.20. Prior to conducting winter operations associated with Visit 1, TEP will pay $5,698.70 to CPW for those activities scheduled for April 2025. Prior to conducting winter operations associated with Visit 2, TEP will pay the remaining balance of $28,493.50 to CPW for those activities scheduled between December 2026 and April 2027. TEP and CPW agreed to split the payment by drilling visit since development activities associated with Visit 2 are contingent upon results from Visit 1. Since the development schedule could change between the time of application submittal and project execution, TEP has agreed to consult with CPW and BLM prior to conducting winter operations, for both Visit 1 and Visit 2, to ensure the seasonal TL mitigation fee aligns with any changes made to the project schedule. Compensatory Mitigation Summary As required by Rule 1203.c, TEP will pay a direct impact fee of $76,008.79, no less than 30 days prior to submitting the Form 42, Field Operations Notice – Notice of Construction or Major Change pursuant to Rule 405.b. TEP will also pay an indirect impact fee of $45,592.79, which will also be paid 30 days prior to submittal of the Form 42. Payment of the Season Timing Limitation Mitigation Fee will be paid to CPW prior to conducting winter operations and following consultation to ensure the fee aligns with any changes to the development schedule. The Season Timing Limitation Mitigation Fee is $34,192.20, based on the current development schedule. Changes to the fee may occur through consultation with CPW and BLM prior to conducting winter operations. Table 6 below provides a summary of the proposed compensatory mitigation fees that have been assessed by CPW for the NR 41-3 pad. Page 14 of 15 Table 6, Compensatory Mitigation Fees Impact Type Total New Disturbance Fee Assessed per Acre Total Fee Direct Impact Fee 46.404-acres $5295 (LT) / $735 (ST) $76,008.79 Indirect Impact Fee 62.031-acres $735.00 $45,592.79 Seasonal TL Fee Visit 1* 7.753-acres $735.00 $5,698.45 Seasonal TL Fee Visit 2* 38.767-acres $735.00 $28,493.75 Total $155,793.78 *Contingent on results and/or additional consultation; LT = Long-term Disturbance; ST = Short-term Disturbance WILDLIFE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following wildlife Best Management Practices will be employed by TEP during development of NR 41-3 pad: 1) TEP will inform and educate all employees and contractors on wildlife conservation practices, including no harassment or feeding of wildlife. 2) TEP will utilize existing water pipelines to minimize truck traffic to the location and minimize potential impact to wildlife. 3) TEP will minimize direct impacts to wildlife habitat by utilizing existing infrastructure and disturbance corridors whenever possible. 4) Well telemetry equipment will be installed to minimize site visitation through remote monitoring of production operations. 5) During post-development production operations, TEP will make best efforts to minimize operations at this location during winter months (December 1 – April 30) by minimizing operations, when possible, to between 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 6) Spill response equipment will be provided on site during drilling and completion operations. Additional spill response equipment will be staged at a nearby location that can be accessed quickly as needed during drilling and completion operations as well as during long-term production operations. 7) A Pesticide Use Proposal will be approved by the BLM prior to the use of herbicides, and pesticides shall be applied by certified applicators trained in the identification of native milkweeds and forbs. Herbicide shall not be applied to any known special status plant. To reduce impacts to native pollinators, the operator shall avoid the risk of herbicide drift onto non- target plant species by spot-treating target species, limiting herbicide applications to low-wind conditions, and mechanically removing noxious weeds when practicable. Applicators shall take special care to avoid herbicide contact with non-target species when native plants in the treatment area and project vicinity are in bloom. Black Bear BMPs: 1) Wildlife – Avoidance: The operator agrees to report bear conflicts immediately to CPW staff. 2) Wildlife – Avoidance: TEP will install and utilize bear proof dumpsters and trash receptacles for food- related trash at all facilities that generate trash. Raptors / Migratory Birds BMPs: 1) Wildlife – Minimization: Exclusionary devices will be installed to prevent birds and other wildlife from accessing equipment stacks, vents, and openings. Page 15 of 15 2) Wildlife – Avoidance: TEP will conduct vegetation removal activities outside the migratory bird nesting season (April 1 – August 30). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, TEP will implement hazing or other exclusionary measures prior to April 1 to avoid take of migratory birds. Alternatively, TEP may conduct a migratory bird survey prior to vegetation removal as required by ECMC Rule 1202.a.(8) to avoid take of migratory birds. Mule Deer BMPs: 1) Wildlife – Avoidance: The operator agrees to reclaim mule deer and elk habitats with CPW identified native shrubs, grasses, and forbs appropriate to the ecological site disturbed. 2) Wildlife – Minimization: To minimize the potential for wildlife related traffic accidents, TEP has implemented speed restrictions for all lease roads and requires that all TEP employees and contractors adhere to these posted speed restrictions. 3) Wildlife – Minimization: Certified weed-free native seed in seed mixes, except for non-native plants that benefit wildlife will be used. TEP will use certified, weed free grass hay, straw, hay or other mulch materials used for the reseeding and reclamation of disturbed areas. 4) Wildlife – Minimization: Operations involving the use of a drilling rig, workover rig, or fracturing and any equipment used in the drilling, completion or production of a well are subject to and will comply with the Agricultural maximum permissible noise levels described in Rule 423.a.(2).A. of 65 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 60 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 5) Wildlife – Minimization: Site lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, inward, away from the nearby areas where wildlife may be present, and toward operations to avoid glare on nearby roads or wildlife habitat areas. Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters BMPs (1202.a.(10) and 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb): 1) Wildlife – Minimization: Contain Flowback and Stimulation Fluids in Tanks that are placed on a Working Pad Surface in an area with downgradient perimeter berming. 2) Wildlife – Minimization: Construct lined berms or other lined containment devices pursuant to Rule 603.o around any new crude oil, condensate, and produced water storage Tanks that are installed after January 15, 2021. 3) Wildlife – Minimization: Inspect the Oil and Location on a daily basis for the first six to nine months of production operations and weekly for the remaining life of the wells. 4) Wildlife – Minimization: Maintain adequate spill response equipment at the Oil and Gas Location during drilling and completion operations. 5) Wildlife – Minimization: Stormwater control measures will be in place during all phases of development (construction, drilling, completions, interim reclamation, and production) to control stormwater runoff in a manner that minimizes erosion, transportation of sediment offsite, and site degradation and to minimize potential downstream impacts on aquatic sportfish. 6) Wildlife – Minimization: During installation of the proposed pipelines, stormwater control measures will be implemented to avoid and/or minimize potential off-site migration of sediment. Stormwater control measures such as straw bales or straw wattles will be utilized at drainage crossings to avoid or minimize potential sedimentation within aquatic high priority habitat. 7) Wildlife – Minimization: Reclamation of pipeline corridors at drainage crossing will be completed immediately following completion of pipeline installation to minimize potential impacts to aquatic wildlife. APPENDIX A NR 41-3 PAD COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION NR 41-3 PAD COLROAD PARKS AND WILDLIFE PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION SUMMARY TEP conducted a pre-application consultation meeting with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”) to discuss the proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad and the potential impacts to wildlife resources as a result of construction and operation of the Oil and Gas Location. The proposed NR 41-3 pad and associated access road and pipeline corridor are located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area, Mule Deer Severe Winter Range, and or Aquatic Sport Fish Management Waters; therefore, the pre-application consultation meeting with CPW was necessary to ensure TEP’s planned operation would be protective of the species and to discuss options for compensatory mitigation to off-set unavoidable impacts to the species. The pre-application consultation meeting was held on September 15, 2023 and was attended by representatives from TEP, CPW, Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), and Garfield County. The following outlines the primary concerns and discussion topics reviewed during the pre-application consultation meeting: 1) Proposed Development Plan Project Components 2) Alternative Location Analysis 3) Development Schedule 4) Rule 1202.a. Operating Requirements – Statewide a. 1202.a.(8) Migratory Bird Pre-Construction Survey b. 1202.a.(10) Location within 1000’ of Aquatic HPH 5) Rule 1202.b. Operating Requirements – Flowline Installation: No Issues 6) Rule 1202.c. Operating Requirements – No Surface Occupancy: a. Rule 1202.c.(1).S Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters & Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii Waiver 7) Rule 1202.d. Operating Requirements – HPH Density Limits a. Rule 1203.d.(3) Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas 8) CPW Consultation & Waivers a. Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish 9) Compensatory Mitigation for Direct and Indirect Impacts. 10) Noise and Lighting Mitigation Plans 11) Best Management Practices Proposed Development Plan TEP provided a summary of planned construction, drilling, and completion operations associated with development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. This included details regarding the construction of the Oil and Gas Location, construction of the proposed access road, installation of proposed natural gas, produced water, and condensate pipelines, remote support facilities, and temporary surface pipelines. Following review of the proposed development plan TEP and CPW discussed project timing as shown in the Wildlife Plan. TEP is proposing to start construction activities in August 2024 and then completing drilling and well completions operations over a nearly three and one half (3.5) years, including a one-year gap between drilling visit 1 and 2. TEP stated that development activities could occur over winter months, during the Mule Deer Winter Concentration Timing Limitation (December 1 – April 30); however, TEP committed to conducting construction activities winter timing limitation to avoid construction relate impacts. It was also mentioned that the BLM Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation associated with the required access road Right-of-Way (“ROW”) would restrict development activities during the same period of time and would require a Timing Limitation exception prior to allowing winter activities to proceed. However, given the duration of planned activities total avoidance of the timing limitation would not be possible. Alternative Location Analysis During the pre-application consultation meeting, TEP provided a summary of the alternative location analysis prepared for the NR 41-3 pad, which included the evaluation of four (4) alternatives. Three (3) of the four alternatives are within the BLM Wildlife Security No Surface Occupancy boundary. TEP stated that prior attempts to develop within the NSO were rejected by CPW and subsequently BLM; therefore, these three (3) locations would not be preferred. BLM and CPW agreed with TEP’s assessment. Alternative 1 is the only other alternative evaluated. TEP stated that this location would also not be preferred since the location would have more direct impacts within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters and the topography within the area is more challenging for construction. The location would likely be more visible from I-70 and Rifle. CPW agreed and stated that even through the NR 41-3 pad is located slightly further to the west, the relative proximity of Alternative 1 would not have any meaningful reduction in impacts to wildlife, and with additional impact within the aquatic sportfish management waters boundary, Alternative 1 would not be the preferred location. The group agreed that the proposed NR 41-3 pad is the preferred location and would be the most protective to wildlife habitat with the implementation of appropriate best management practices and compensatory mitigation. Rule 1202.a. Operating Requirements – Statewide TEP and CPW reviewed all statewide operating requirements in the context of the NR 41-3 pad. TEP stated that all ECMC Rule 1202.a. operating requirements will be adhered to, with the exception of the inspection frequency requiring daily inspection under Rule 1202.a.(10).C. TEP requested a modified inspection frequency during the meeting, which consisted of daily inspection for the first six to nine months of production operations and then weekly inspection for the remaining life of the wells. TEP stated that remote monitoring and remote shut-in capabilities will be employed at this location to offset the need for daily inspection. CPW was amenable to the modified inspection frequency and stated that the modified inspection frequency minimizes impacts to wildlife from long-term operations by limiting site visitation when possible. TEP also stated that based on the estimate project schedule, vegetation removal may be required during the migratory bird nesting season (April 1 – August 31). TEP stated that if vegetation removal activities are planned during this period, a migratory bird survey will be conducted as required by Rule 1202.a.(8). CPW ask about Rule 1202.a.(3) regarding placement of staging, refueling, and chemical storage within 500 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark of the nearby intermittent stream. TEP stated that only a small portion of the northern most corner of the pad would be located within 500 feet of the nearest intermittent stream and that all staging, refueling, and chemical storage areas would not be place within that boundary. No waiver to are required for any of the ECMC 1202.a. statewide operating requirements. The modified inspection frequency is allowable under Rule 1202.a.(10) if approved under the Form 2A. Rule 1202.b. Operating Requirements – Flowline Installation TEP stated that the development plan for the NR 41-3 pad would not have any impacts to perennial streams; therefore, TEP’s operations would be in compliance with Rule 1202.b. Rule 1202.c. Operating Requirements – HPH NSOs TEP stated that the proposed Oil and Gas Location would be located within Aquatic Sportfish Management Water, which is listed under Rule 1202.c. and prohibits new ground disturbance and Well work. The location would only be partially located within the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters boundary with most of the site disturbance located outside of the boundary. TEP requested a waiver from CPW during the meeting under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii, with implementation of the required Best Management Practices listed under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.ee. TEP stated that the only exception to the BMPs would be for the inspection frequency to ensure that Rule 1202.a.(10).C and Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb.3 are consistently implemented for this location. Following review of the Alternative Location Analysis as mentioned above, CPW agreed that a waiver would be appropriate for this location and stated that a waiver would be approved by CPW upon formal written request. TEP stated that a written request for the waiver would be sent via email once the Wildlife Plan has been finalized. Rule 1202.d. Operating Requirements – HPH Density Limits TEP stated that the Oil and Gas Location will be located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and that there are two (2) existing / active Oil and Gas Location within 1.12-miles of the proposed NR 41- 3 pad. Therefore, the density of Oil and Gas Locations within one square mile of the proposed NR 41-3 pad is greater than one per square mile. Under Rule 1202.d, if the proposed Oil and Gas Location “causes the density…to exceed 1 per square mile in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.d.” an approved Wildlife Mitigation Plan is required and must include compensatory mitigation for Wildlife Resources. TEP stated that the draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan was provided prior to the meeting for review and that further revisions can be made based on input from the meeting. Compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect impacts were discussed in length during the meeting and further review would be required by BLM and CPW. Compensatory Mitigation During the pre-application consultation meeting TEP agreed to pay the direct impact fee and requested that CPW calculate and provide the indirect impact fee associated with planned activities to fully assess project costs. TEP reviewed the proposed disturbance acreages with the group stating that the proposed new disturbance associated with project implementation would be 36.466-acres. CPW stated that since the acreage is over 10.99-acres that they will need to know the acreage of new long-term and short-term disturbance for the project to complete their assessment of the direct impact fee. TEP did not have those acreage available during the meeting but stated that they would be provided shortly after the meeting. The group then discussed indirect impact. CPW stated that they would use the rapid assessment form to quantify the indirect impacts to Mule Deer and would provide the fee assessment to TEP. CPW stated that they would contact the BLM biologist to review the rapid assessment form in further detail. TEP asked CPW if an additional fee would be assessed for winter related impacts to mule deer. CPW stated that an additional 75% fee would be applied for planned winter operations. TEP asked if the additional fee associated within winter activities could be split over two (2) seasons, since there would be two drilling visits. The first visit is scheduled to avoid most of the winter season, except for the month of April, and the second visit is scheduled for continuous operations through the full five (5) month timing limitation. CPW stated that generally they wouldn’t split the fee but since activities will be split over two (2) season that it may be appropriate, especially since activities planned during visit 2 are contingent on the success of visit 1. CPW stated that further discussion internally will be needed to determine the best approach. TEP also asked if the direct and indirect compensatory mitigation fee could be segregated from the fee associated with winter operations. The schedule provided in the application is TEP’s best estimate at this point in time. However, the schedule could be accelerated or delayed based on constraints outside of TEP’s control. Therefore, segregating the fees such that the fee associated with winter impacts could be modified and paid based on an updated schedule prior to conducting winter operations seems more appropriate. CPW agreed the approach is more appropriate given the schedule and multiple visits. However, further discussion internally would be needed before agreeing to this approach. TEP stated that the direct and indirect fee would still be paid as required under ECMC Rule 1203, but the fee associated within winter operations would only be delayed and would be increased or decreased by on the length of time operations would occur during the winter season. TEP, CPW, and BLM discussed the draft Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which provides alignment between the CPW required compensatory mitigation fees and the BLM required winter timing limitation exceptions that would be required as part of this project. BLM and CPW stated that further review and discussions are needed before the agreement is completed and executed. The MOU has no direct impact on the approval of the NR 41-3 project. CPW and TEP also agreed that as an alternative to paying the mitigation fee, a mitigation project could be proposed. If a mitigation project is agreed to by TEP and CPW then the Wildlife Mitigation Plan would be updated, and a Form 4 Sundry would be submitted detailing the project scope and requirements under the 1200 Series Rules. CPW Waiver TEP reviewed the required waiver. TEP stated that the only waiver required for this application is to 1202.c.(1).S pursuant to Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii. CPW agreed to provide the necessary waiver upon formal written request. TEP stated that an email would be sent once the Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been finalized formally requesting the required waiver. Noise and Lighting Mitigation Plan TEP stated during the pre-application meeting that a Lesser Impact Area Exemption (“LIAE”) request will be submitted for the Noise and Lighting Mitigation Plan. TEP asked CPW if they had any concerns regarding this exception request or noise and light in general. CPW stated that a noise and light mitigation plan would not be necessary for their review and that they would be supportive of the LIAE request. CPW stated that a BMP should be included in the Wildlife Plan stating compliance with ECMC noise standards. Additionally, a lighting BMP should be included. TEP stated that both would be added prior to CPW’s final review of the Wildlife Plan. Best Management Practices The group reviewed the proposed BMPs in the draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan. CPW requested two (2) additional BMPs including: 1. Wildlife – Minimization: Operations involving the use of a drilling rig, workover rig, or fracturing and any equipment used in the drilling, completion or production of a well are subject to and will comply with the Agricultural maximum permissible noise levels described in Rule 423.a.(2).A. of 65 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 60 db(A) in the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 2. Wildlife – Minimization: Site lighting shall be shielded and directed downward, inward, away from the nearby areas where wildlife may be present, and toward operations to avoid glare on nearby roads or wildlife habitat areas; BLM also recommended the addition of the following BMP which aligns the BLM’s COA to mitigate potential negative effects on pollinators: 1. A Pesticide Use Proposal will be approved by the BLM prior to the use of herbicides, and pesticides shall be applied by certified applicators trained in the identification of native milkweeds and forbs. Herbicide shall not be applied to any known special status plant. To reduce impacts to native pollinators, the operator shall avoid the risk of herbicide drift onto non-target plant species by spot- treating target species, limiting herbicide applications to low-wind conditions, and mechanically removing noxious weeds when practicable. Applicators shall take special care to avoid herbicide contact with non-target species when native plants in the treatment area and project vicinity are in bloom. APPENDIX B NR 41-3 PAD COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE CORRESPONDENCE SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 1 Adam Tankersley From:Taylor Elm - DNR <taylor.elm@state.co.us> Sent:Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:26 PM To:Adam Tankersley Cc:Jax Nourse Subject:Re: NR 41-3 Pad - Wildlife Mitigation Plans & Waivers Attachments:image001.jpg; CPW On-Site Photos.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Adam, Thank you for sending all of the additional information, and for taking the time to discuss it with CPW and BLM on September 15th. I have reviewed the items that you have requested for this location and provided responses below. If there are additional follow up items that we need to discuss, please reach out and we can set up a time to meet. Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters – Waiver Request CPW has reviewed this request to provide a waiver for new disturbance within 300-500 feet of the 1202.c.(1).S. Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters buffer (Yellow Slide Gulch). During our onsite visit to the NR 41-3 Pad on May 24, 2023, CPW was able to assess the Yellow Slide Gulch waterway in person (onsite photo documentation attached). Based on this in-person review, CPW's lack of data regarding fish presence, and WestWater's aquatic habitat assessment, CPW has concluded that Yellow Slide Gulch does not currently support any populations of sportfish and is unlikely to support a sportfishery in the immediate future. Additionally, CPW supports the best management practices that are being implemented and does not anticipate any adverse impacts to downstream aquatic habitats due to the long distance between the area of disturbance and downstream perennial waterways. CPW approves this waiver request to conduct oil and gas operations between 300 and 500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of this drainage. Furthermore, CPW agrees with the modified facility inspection frequency based on implementation of remote monitoring technology and to minimize overall impacts to the mule deer winter concentration area by reducing traffic to the pad location. Compensatory Mitigation CPW agrees with the compensatory mitigation amounts that have been provided based on our earlier discussions and assessment of indirect impacts to the mule deer high priority habitat. We also agree with the timeline regarding payments of the compensatory mitigation fees based upon greater certainty of the proposed schedule. Noise and Lighting LIAE We appreciate confirmation that noise and light standards outlined in the ECMC's 400 Series regulations will be adhered to, and support the best management practices that we have discussed to minimize noise and light from the proposed development. We do not anticipate adverse impacts to wildlife resources as a result of noise and light, and therefore we do not request any additional noise or light mitigation be included for this application. Wildlife Mitigation Plan 2 CPW has reviewed the provided Wildlife Mitigation Plan and approves of this document. The best management practices and consultation process that occurred for this location is portrayed accurately and we do not have any suggested changes regarding the plan. Please let us know if there are any aspects that change and require an additional review from CPW staff. Again, we appreciate the early consultation and communication regarding this development proposal. Thank you, Taylor Elm Northwest Region Energy Liaison To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. P 970.947.2971 | C 970.986.9767 711 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 taylor.elm@state.co.us | cpw.state.co.us On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:22 PM Adam Tankersley <ATankersley@terraep.com> wrote: Good Afternoon Taylor, Thank you for meeting with TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) on September 15, 2023 to review the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the NR 41-3 pad. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been updated per our discussions and have been attached for your final review and approval. TEP respectfully requests approval of one (1) waiver for this Oil and Gas Location as described below. Rule 1202.c.(1).S – Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters – Waiver Request TEP respectfully requests CPW’s approval of a waiver to Rule 1202.c.(1).S pursuant to Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii to conduct new ground disturbance and well work on the NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 pad is located within 500 feet of Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. Per Rule 1202.c., “[o]perators will not conduct any new ground disturbance and Well work, including access road and pad construction, drilling and completion activities, and Flowline/utility corridor clearing and installation activities in the High Priority Habitats listed in Rule 1202.c.(1).” However, under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii, “CPW may waive the application of and the Director may grant an exception to Rule 1202.c.(1).S” if the operator commits to the listed Best Management Practices. TEP will adhere to all Best Management Practices listed under Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb, except for Rule 309.e.(5).D.ii.bb.3 requiring daily inspection of the Oil and Gas Location. TEP request approval to modify the inspection frequency such that it is consistent with the agree upon modification under Rule 1202.a.(10).C, daily inspections for the first six (6) to nine (9) months and weekly inspections for the remaining life of the wells. Compensatory Mitigation TEP has agreed to pay a total of $155,793.98 in compensatory mitigation fees for direct, indirect, and seasonal TL relief associated with development of the NR 41-3 Pad. The following provides a breakdown of the compensatory mitigation fees along with the estimated payment due date based on the proposed schedule: 3  Direct Impact Fee: $76,008.79 (Prior to Construction; ±July 2024)  Indirect Impact Fee: $45,592.79 (Prior to Construction; ±July 2024)  Seasonal TL Fee Visit 1: $5,689.45 (Prior to Visit 1 Winter Operation; ±March 2025)  Seasonal TL Fee Visit 2: $28,493.75 (Prior to Visit 2 Winter Operation; ±November 2025) The Season Timing Limitation Fees will be paid to CPW prior to conducting winter operations and following further consultation with CPW. As discussed, further consultation may be necessary to ensure the fees aligns with any scheduling changes that may occur after the application has been submitted / approved. As described in the Wildlife Plan, TEP may consult with CPW further regarding compensatory mitigation projects in lieu of payment of the fees listed above. Any project agreed to with CPW would be documented via a revised Wildlife Plan and Sundry to ECMC following consultation with CPW. Noise and Lighting LIAE As part of the Form 2A, TEP will be submitting a Lesser Impact Area Exemption request for the Noise Mitigation Plan and Lighting Mitigation Plan for the NR 41-3 pad. TEP’s evaluation of noise and lighting impacts associated with our proposed operations indicated that the proposed activities would be in compliance with noise standards outlined in Rule 423 and with lighting standards outlined in Rule 424. The NR 41-3 pad is located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters. TEP has included Best Management Practices for noise and lighting in the Wildlife Plan as discussed during the pre-application consultation meeting. There will be no onsite lighting during long-term production operations. Based on the proposed Best Management Practices and Compensatory Mitigation described in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, it is unlikely for noise and/or lighting during pre- production or production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. Attached is the latest draft of the Plan of Development, Wildlife Plan, Wildlife Habitat Drawing, and Lesser Impact Area Exemption request for your review. Please let me know if CPW has any question regarding the waiver request or BMPs listed in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Additionally, please let me know if CPW agrees with TEP assessment on noise and lighting impacts associated with activities planned on the NR 41-3 pad. Thanks, Adam Tankersley | Planning Manager | TEP Rocky Mountain LLC | 1058 CR215 Parachute, CO 81635  (Office) 970-623-8994 |  (Mobile) 970-589-6277 |  ATankersley@terraep.com 4 This message and any related attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify the sender immediately. TEP - NR 41-3 Pad Location CPW On-Site Photos of Yellow Slide Gulch Figure 1: This photo was taken on May 24, 2023 at the intersection of the Yellow Slide Gulch and Garfield County Road 244. The lack of culvert infrastructure at the county road indicates that this waterway infrequently transmits water. The water present during the spring of 2023 is likely due to abnormally heavy snowfall and melt that occurred from the previous winter. Figure 2: This photo was taken just upstream of the previous photo and illustrates the ephemeral nature of this waterway and its lack of riparian vegetation that would be indicative of year-round flows required to support sportfish populations. Table of Contents 407 Water Plan – Rule 304.c.(18) Water Plan – 304.c.(18) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location May 2023 Page 2 of 10 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Water Plan is to provide Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (“ECMC”) with specific information regarding the source and quantity of water that will be used during drilling and completion activities at the NR 41-3 pad. The sources of water to be used, the volumes, and the water take-out points are described in greater detail below. This Water Plan has been prepared in accordance with, and to comply with, ECMC Rule 304.c.(18). SITE DESCRIPTION The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“NR 41-3 OGDP”) is a 564.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of a new access road, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private and Federal minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to a 12.705-acre footprint to support drilling and completion operations of the proposed directional wells. The long-term disturbance, or the disturbance required for long-term production operations, attributed to the NR 41-3 pad will be approximately 1.958-acres. All the proposed disturbance will be located on private property. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length and will be constructed to follow closely to the exiting two-track leading to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road will be constructed between the existing NR 334-1 pad and the proposed NR 41- 3 pad generally following the existing two-track. Construction of the proposed access road will create approximately 25.766-acres of surface disturbance, of which approximately 22.544-acres will be considered new surface disturbance and 3.222-acres will be considered existing disturbance of the existing two-track. The long-term disturbance of the proposed access road is approximately 6.906-acres. The proposed surface disturbance associated with the proposed access road construction will be located on private surface and Federal lands. The proposed pipeline corridors associated with development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad will create approximately 7.933-acres of surface disturbance. Of the 7.933-acres of surface disturbance, approximately 0.325-acres would be considered existing surface disturbance (i.e. existing roads), approximately 6.220-acres would be considered re-disturbance (i.e. reclaimed rights-of-way), and approximately 1.388-acres would be considered new disturbance. The long-term disturbance would be Page 3 of 10 attributed to the proposed pipeline following reclamation of the pipeline Right-of-Way will be approximately 0.325-acres (i.e. existing access road). The proposed pipeline corridor will be located on private surface and Federal lands; however, the proposed pipeline disturbance acreage described above excludes surface disturbance that overlaps with the proposed access road. Therefore, the disturbance acreages are located entirely on private surface. The existing NR 334-1 pad will be utilized to support storage and measurement of condensate produced from the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 and the existing wells on the NR 334-1 pad. The existing production pad, approximately 0.497-acres will be expanded to a 0.560-acre footprint to support installation and operation of production equipment. All ground disturbing activities will be within the boundaries of the existing Oil and Gas Location and will be located entirely on private property. The existing 4.872-acres Federal Rulison 8 frac pad will be utilized to support remote well completion operations associated with the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed within the original footprint of the Oil and Gas Location. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reclaimed back to the current production pad footprint, approximately 0.642-acres, after well completion operations associated on the NR 41-3 pad have been completed. TEP would also need to install temporary surface pipelines between NR 41-3 pad and the Federal Rulison 8 pad to support remote well completion operations. No ground disturbance activities are planned during installation or removal of the proposed temporary surface pipelines. The total surface disturbance associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP is approximately 52.764-acres, which would be located on private and Federal surface and includes construction of the NR 41-3 pad, construction of the proposed access road, the installation of the proposed gas, water, and condensate pipelines, reconstruction of the Federal Rulison 8 pad, reconstruction of the NR 334-1 pad, and the existing RWF 34- 12 pad. Of the 52.764-acres of disturbance, 16.298-acres will be within areas of existing disturbance or areas previously disturbed by development activities. Approximately thirty-one percent (31%) of the total disturbance acreage will be on lands previously disturbed. The long-term disturbance, or disturbance remaining after interim reclamation, including support locations, will be approximately 11.005-acres (excluded sections of the existing road not undergoing upgrades). Please see the Plan of Development attached to the Form 2A for a detailed breakdown of disturbance acreage for all project components associated with the NR 41-3 OGDP. WATER SOURCES AND VOLUMES Dust Control Fresh water will be required for dust control during site construction, drilling and completion operations, and during long-term production operations. The primary fresh water sources to be used for dust control activities will be from the Clough Fresh Water Outtake. Clough Fresh Water Outtake is located along the Colorado River on private property in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Fresh water from the Clough Fresh Water Outtake will be transported by private contract water hauling trucks equipped with 80 bbls tanks. The water hauling trucks will utilize existing State, County, and lease roads and will follow existing truck routes where applicable. The intake on the water pumps at the source locations will be fitted with a quarter- inch (0.25”) mesh screen to prevent impacts to aquatic wildlife in the pond. TEP estimates that approximately 7,800 bbls (200 bbls/well) of fresh water will be used for dust control during construction activities. Page 4 of 10 Dust control measures will be implemented as required per ECMC Rule 427.b-c. Only fresh water (potable or non-potable) will be used to conduct dust suppression activities within 300 feet of the ordinary high- water mark of any water body. On average, TEP estimates that approximately 19,500 bbls (500 bbls/well) of fresh water will be used to control dust during drilling operations. Dust control measures are described in greater detail in the Dust Mitigation Plan attached to the Form 2A. The sources and volumes of fresh water required for drilling operations and dust control activities are summarized in Table 1, Water Source Table below. Drilling Operations Fresh water will be required for drilling operations (surface, intermediate, and production casing). The primary fresh water sources to be used for drilling and dust control activities will be from the Clough Fresh Water Outtake located in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 22, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. All fresh water will be transported by private contract water hauling trucks equipped with 80 bbls tanks. The water hauling trucks will utilize existing State, County, and lease roads, and will follow existing truck routes where applicable. The intake on the water pumps at the source locations will be fitted with a quarter- inch (0.25”) mesh screen to prevent impacts to aquatic wildlife within the water body. TEP estimates that approximately 4,000 bbls/well of fresh water will be used for drilling operations. Well Completions Operations Well completion operations will be conducted utilizing recycled produced water from other producing wells operated by TEP. Recycled produced water will be transported from TEP’s existing water management facilities utilizing TEP’s existing produced water transfer system and stored at the Federal Rulison 8 pad (remote frac pad; ECMC Loc ID# 311534) prior to pumping operations. Fluids for well completion operations will then be pumped from the Federal Rulison 8 remote frac pad to the wells on the NR 41-3 pad via proposed temporary surface steel frac pipelines. The sources and volumes of recycled produced water required for completion activities are summarized below in Table 1, Water Source Table. WATER SOURCING INFORMATION Water to support dust control, drilling, and completion activities as described above will be obtained from the following sources:  Surface Water (Primary Source): Water will be supplied from Clough Fresh Water Outtake, private water rights owned by a private entity.  Surface Water (Secondary Source): Water will be supplied from Airport Land Partners Limited Takeout, private water rights owned by private entity.  Recycled / Produced Water: Water will be provided from produced water supplies that are treated and recycled through existing and proposed water treatment and pipeline infrastructure owned by TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 1058 CR 215, Parachute, CO, 81635. Page 5 of 10 Table 1, Water Source Table Name / Water Source Type Water Source Use Water Take-Out Point Permit Type Transport Method Volume Per Well (bbls) Latitude Longitude Surface Water - Primary Source: Clough Fresh Water Outtake Drilling activities: Surface Casing; Intermediate/ Production Casing; Dust Control 39.50966 -107.86583 Private Contract Trucking 4,700 Surface Water - Primary Source: Airport Land Partners Limited Takeout Drilling activities: Surface Casing; Intermediate/ Production Casing; Dust Control 39.5294 -107.7336 Private Contract Trucking As Needed Recycled / Produced Water: Clough Production Pit Completions/ stimulation 39.52076 -107.88838 Private Contract Pipeline 80,000 REUSE AND RECYCLING PLAN The NR 41-3 OGDP and the thirty-nine (39) proposed wells will benefit from reuse and recycling of produced water during hydraulic fracturing operations. Produced water generated from existing wells operated by TEP will be transported from one of TEP’s existing Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities to the Federal Rulison 8 pad for use during well completion operations. Produced water is collected, transported, and treated at one of TEP’s Centralized Waste Management Facilities. After treatment, recycled water will be transported to the remote frac pad (Federal Rulison 8 Pad) through existing pipeline infrastructure where recycled water will be stored in approximately four (4) Modular Large Volume Tanks (“MLVTs”), each with a working capacity of approximately fifteen-thousand-barrels (15,000 bbls). Fluids for well completion operations will then be pumped from the Federal Rulison 8 remote frac pad into the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad via proposed temporary surface steel frac lines. Produced water, if not re-used or recycled during well completion operation, would otherwise require disposal through the methods described in the Waste Management Plan attached to the Form 2A, which includes (1) natural evaporation, (2) underground injection, (3) re-use/recycling in hydraulic fracturing operations, and/or (4) third party disposal. Reuse and recycling of produced water for well completion operations provides several benefits, including: 1) Decreases freshwater withdrawals from surface water sources, 2) Decreases reliance on injection wells for disposal of production/flowback water, 3) Decreases well completion costs versus alternative sources, 4) Increases operational efficiencies from re-using local supplies of production / flowback water to meet water demands for drilling, completion, and workover activities, 5) Reduces volume of truck traffic, versus alternatives that could involve trucking water from other sources. Page 6 of 10 Proposed Volume TEP is currently planning to utilize approximately 80,000 bbls of produced water per well during well completion operations. With thirty-nine (39) proposed wells, this totals approximately 3.12MM barrels of produced water that will be pumped to the Federal Rulison 8 pad and utilized for hydraulic fracturing operations. The actual volume of water to be pumped during completion operations may vary depending on characteristics of the geologic formations and other factors. Method of Waste Treatment and Storage Treatment of Recycled Produced Water All water delivered to the Federal Rulison 8 pad during well completion operations will generally be preprocessed and recycled produced water from one or more of TEP’s existing Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities. Generally, produced water from these facilities is processed through gun barrels and other separation equipment to remove and minimize the hydrocarbon concentration within the produced water. The produced water is then stored in a pit where it is treated with biocides, when necessary. Storage Tanks Recycled produced water delivered to the Federal Rulison 8 pad for use during well completion operations will be stored in MLVTs prior to being pumped to operations on the proposed wells at the NR 41-3 pad. TEP’s contractor will erect four (4) fifteen-thousand-barrel (15,000 bbls) MLVTs with an individual working capacity of fourteen thousand barrels (14,000 bbls). The total capacity of the four (4) MLVTs is sixty thousand barrels (60,000 bbls) with a total working capacity of fifty-six thousand barrels (56,000 bbls). The MLVT is comprised of a ridged steel frame structure bolted together to form a cylindrical shell with an internal synthetic liner secured to the steel frame. Each tank is fifty-four point six feet (54.6’) in diameter and thirty-six feet (36’) high. Containment System Each MLVT includes a synthetic liner installed within the steel frame shell, which will serve as the primary containment for recycled produced water stored at the Federal Rulison 8 pad during well completion operations. A secondary containment structure will be erected along the west side of the pad to provide one hundred and fifty percent (150%) containment of the largest tank. The secondary containment structure will be comprised of a Muscle Wall containment structure with an interior liner. The Muscle Wall is a portable, low-density polyethylene hollow plastic four-foot (4’) high barrier, which interlocks to provide a ridged containment structure. Each section of Muscle Wall is six foot (6’) in length. Approximately 136 sections of Muscle Wall will be required to form the containment structure. The interior liner will be a minimum sixty millimeters (60mil) reinforced polyethylene liner, which will be attached to the Muscle Wall using straps and clips as specified by the manufacture. The Federal Rulison 8 pad will be reconstructed with a minimum one- and one-half feet (1.5’) high pad perimeter earthen berm which will be constructed utilizing excavated subsurface material. The compacted pad perimeter berm will be the tertiary containment for the proposed MLVTs providing approximately thirty-five thousand barrels (35,000 bbls) of capacity in the event of a spill or release. This equates to approximately three hundred fifty percent (350%) containment of the largest tank. Page 7 of 10 Please see the Preliminary Well Completion and Stimulation Layout Drawing in the Layout Drawing package attached to the Form 2A for a depiction of the preliminary layout of the proposed completions equipment on the Federal Rulison 8 pad. Containment Calculation The total working capacity of the four (4) MLVTs is approximately fifty-six thousand barrels (56,000bbls). The total working volume of the largest tank within the secondary containment structure will be fourteen thousand barrels (14,000bbls). Per ECMC Rule 603.o.(1), “[o]perators will design secondary containment structures to be sufficiently sized to contain at least 150% of the volume of the largest single [t]ank within the containment”. The total required holding capacity of the secondary containment must be a minimum of twenty-one thousand barrels (21,000bbls) plus tank displacement. With the displacement factored in for the additional five tanks, secondary containment should be: 150% of Largest Tank + (((π x r2 x containment high) x oil barrel conversion) x add’l tanks) 1.5 x 15,000bbls + (((π x 27.252 x 4’) x 0.17811) x 3) Total Secondary Containment = 25,986 bbls The proposed Muscle Wall secondary containment will be approximately two hundred and seventy feet (270’) in length by one hundred and thirty-eight feet (138’) in width by four feet (4’) in height. The secondary containment will have a total capacity of approximately 26,546 bbls. A minimum one- and one-half foot (1.5’) high earthen perimeter berm will be used for tertiary containment. The tertiary containment is estimated to contain approximately 35,000 bbls, equating to approximately three hundred and fifty percent (350%) of the largest tank volume. Produced Water Quality and Quality Assurance Produced water delivered to the Federal Rulison 8 pad for storage in the proposed MLVTs will be pre- treated at one of TEP’s existing water management facilities. Produced water is generally processed through gun barrels and other hydrocarbon separating equipment to minimize the hydrocarbon content within the produced water. TEP does not use any of the chemicals identified in Table 437-1 as additives in any of our completion fluids. There are trace concentrations of some organic compounds (e.g., Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene, etc.), but these are naturally occurring chemicals found within the formation water that is collected and treated. TEP complies with ECMC Rule 437.b, which does not prevent operators from recycling or reusing produced water that has naturally occurring trace amounts of the chemicals listed in Table 437-1. TEP also complies with Rule 437.c, which allows for the use of those chemical constituents at either the Table 915- 1 standard, or the unconcentrated naturally occurring background level, whichever is greater. Please see Table 2, Recycled Produced Water – Table 437-1 Concentrations for detailed water sampling results. Flowback water may be stored in the proposed tanks following completion of initial well completion operations. All flowback water will go through a four-phase separator to separate gas, water, condensate, and sand that may return from the well following well completion prior to storage in the MLVTs. Flowback water processed and stored in the MLVTs will be pumped back into TEP’s water management system during flowback operations. Page 8 of 10 Table 2, Recycled Produced Water - Table 437-1 Concentrations Water Quality Sampling Results Data Summary - Table 437-1 Rulison Centralized E&P Waste Management Facility Facility ID: 149006 Date: October 8, 2021 Chemical Name Units Analytic Method Result Qual RL MDL DF Table 915-1 Levels Metals Arsenic MG/L 6010C 0.0055 U 0.01 0.0055 1 Cadmium MG/L 6010C 0.00243 U 0.005 0.00243 1 Chromium MG/L 6010C 0.000916 J, B 0.01 0.000811 1 Lead MG/L 6010C 0.00237 U 0.01 0.00237 1 Mercury MG/L 7470A 0.0000263 U 0.0002 2.63E-05 1 Volatile Organic Compounds Benzene UG/L SW8260C 0.13 U 1 0.13 1 5 Ethylbenzene UG/L SW8260C 0.5 U 1 0.5 1 700 m-Xylene & p-Xylene UG/L SW8260C 0.63 U 5 0.63 1 o-Xylene UG/L SW8260C 0.6 U 5 0.6 1 Xylenes, Total UG/L SW8260C 1.6 U 10 1.6 1 1400 to 10000 2-Ethylhexanol UG/L SW8260C 200 U 200 200 1 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene UG/L SW8260C 0.56 U 1 0.56 1 67 1,4-Dioxane UG/L SW8260C 200 U 400 200 1 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds N,N-dimethylformamide UG/L SW8270D 1.13 J*_ 20.4 0.815 2 Method 8015D - Glycols - Direct Injection (GC/FID) 2-Butoxyethanol UG/L SW8015D 5 U 5 5 1 Method 8015D - Nonhalogenated Organic Compounds - Direct Injection (GC/FID) 1-Butanol UG/L SW8015D 2.77 U 5 2.77 1 Field Parameters Water temp, field deg C YSI 556 18.6 pH, field s.u. YSI 556 7.15 Specific cond., field uS/cm YSI 556 34276 Conductivity, field uS/cm YSI 556 --- DO saturation, field % YSI 556 154.1 DO, field mg/L YSI 556 --- ORP, field mv YSI 556 8.8 Turbidity, field ntu Micro TPI 47.05 Discharge cfs NA Color nu Light Brown Odor nu Low Effervescense nu None Page 9 of 10 Field Parameters (cont.) Sediment nu None Bubbles nu None VOA Headspace nu None Table 437-1 Compounds Not Analyzed 2-mercaptoethanol benzene, 1,1’-oxybis-,tetrapropylene derivatives, sulfonated sodium salts (BOTS) butylglycidyl ether Quaternary ammonium compounds, dicoco alkyldimethyl chlorides (QAC) Bis hexamethylene tiamine penta methylene phosphonic acid (BMPA) Diethylenetriamine penta (methylene-phosphonic acid) (DMPA) FD&C blue no. 1 Tetrakis (triethanolaminato) Notes: U = not detected at the method detection limit; J = result between RL and MDL, estimated; H = hold time exceeded; NM = not measured; AV = result averaged; VAR = variable; *_ LCS and/or LCSD is outside of acceptable limit, low biased; --- = no standard for this parameter; SS = Suspended solids Proposed Timeline for Reuse and Recycling Produced water will be utilized during well completion operations on the NR 41-3 pad, which is scheduled to occur between May 2025 and October 2025 for Visit 1 and March 2027 and August 2027 for Visit 2. Anticipated Method of Transport Currently produced water is transported from existing Oil and Gas Location to TEP’s existing Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities via existing pipelines when existing pipelines are available. Produced water from other Oil and Gas Locations that do not have existing water pipeline infrastructure are transported via truck to existing facilities closest to the source location. Water collected and stored at existing Centralized E&P Waste Management Facilities will then be transported via pipeline to Federal Rulison 8 pad for temporary storage prior to well completion operations. When well completion operations begin, produced water will be pumped through the four (4) proposed four-and one-half inch (4.5”) temporary surface steel frac lines from the Federal Rulison 8 pad to the well or well(s) being completed at the NR 41-3 pad. Final Disposition of the Waste Produced water will be utilized during well stimulation operations for the proposed wells by pumping the produced water downhole to stimulate the target formation. Any produced water that is returned during flowback operations will be reused and recycled at the Federal Rulison 8 pad for completion of the remaining wells. Following well completion operations, flowback / produced water will be handled as described in the Produced Water section of the Waste Management Plan, which has been attached to the Form 2A. RATIONALE FOR USING FRESH WATER Drilling Operations: Fresh water (non-potable) is required for drilling operations to ensure that consistent drilling mud densities and compositions are achieved. Generally, recycled produced water contains Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and chloride concentrations that are too high, and therefore unsuitable for use when drilling through shallow, fresh-water aquifers. Page 10 of 10 Completion Operations: TEP is using recycled produced water for completion activities which is by far the most water-intensive aspect of well development. Fresh water will not be used for well completion operations. Dust Control: Many of the access roads in this area run parallel to or are near surface water features (i.e. Yellow Slide Gulch). Fresh water, or other approved dust suppressants (i.e. magnesium chloride), will be utilized when and where appropriate to minimize dust during each phase of development. SITE SPECIFIC BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES The following Best Management Practices will be utilized during development of the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location: 1. Recycled produced water will be utilized for well completion operations minimizing the amount of fresh water required for development of the proposed wells. 2. TEP will use pipelines to transport water for hydraulic fracturing to and from location. 3. TEP will recycle or beneficially reuse flowback and produced water for use downhole. 4. Only fresh water (potable or non-potable) will be used to conduct dust suppression activities within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of any water body classified as High Priority Habitat per ECMC Rule 1202.c.(1).Q-S. Table of Contents 418 Cumulative Impacts Plan – Rule 304.c.(19) Edge Environmental, Inc. Cumulative Impacts Plan for the TEP Rocky Mountain LLC NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan Prepared by Edge Environmental, Inc. 203 South Devinney Street Golden, CO 80401 303-988-8844 May 2024 1 Edge Environmental, Inc. INTRODUCTION Edge Environmental, Inc. (Edge) was asked by TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (TEP) to prepare a Cumulative Impacts Plan pursuant to Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission’s (ECMC’s) Rule 304.c.(19). This plan documents how the Operator (TEP) would address cumulative impacts to resources identified pursuant to Rule 303.a.(5). This Cumulative Impacts Plan for the NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (OGDP) was prepared based on the preliminary Oil and Gas Location Assessment (Form 2A) and Cumulative Impacts Data Identification (Form 2B) documentation provided by TEP. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is proposed is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The 39 proposed wells planned for development on this location would be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee lease and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad would be constructed to accommodate development of the 39 proposed directional wells. The proposed/existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) would be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length. In support of NR 41-3 pad development, TEP would utilize three existing Oil and Gas Locations. The existing Federal Rulison 8 pad would be utilized as a remote support facility during completion operations, the existing NR 334-1 pad would be utilized as a centralized condensate storage facility, and the RWF 34-12 pad would be utilized as a centralized production water storage and pumping facility during production operations. The existing Federal Rulison 8 pad (ECMC Loc ID #311534), would be reconstructed within the existing limit of disturbance to support temporary placement and operations of well completion equipment and Minion Tanks (aka Modular Large Volume Tanks). The Federal Rulison 8 pad is located on private surface, owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, in Lot 13 of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The existing NR 334-1 pad (ECMC Loc ID # 324372; aka Moss-66S94W/1SWSE) would be utilized to support storage of condensate produced during long-term production of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The existing tank battery would be reconstructed to support installation and operation of additional tanks. The NR 334-1 pad is located on private surface, owned by Bradley and Winette Moss, in SW¼SE¼ of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6 th P.M. The existing RWF 34-12 pad (ECMC Loc ID #324259) would be utilized as a centralized produced water storage and pumping facility during long-term production of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad. The existing production facilities on the RWF 34-12 pad are sufficient to support the proposed activities. No additional construction or facility upgrades are required. The RWF 34-12 pad is located on private surface, owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, in SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. 2 Edge Environmental, Inc. To support production operations on the NR 41-3 pad, TEP would install one 8-inch steel natural gas pipeline (approximately 17,897 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the existing 8-inch natural gas pipeline tie-in point, operated by TEP, located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP would also install one 6-inch FlexPipe/Coreline produced water pipeline (approximately 18,832 feet) from the proposed separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the existing tank battery on the RWF 34-12 pad located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. In addition, TEP would install two 2-inch coated steel condensate pipelines (approximately 12,028 feet each) from the proposed low-pressure separators on the NR 41-3 pad to the proposed tank battery on the NR 334-1 pad located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP would install several on-location pipelines to support onsite production operations. Well completion operations associated with the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad would be conducted remotely from the existing Federal Rulison 8 pad. Water would be transported to the Federal Rulison 8 pad via existing water pipeline infrastructure and through two 10-inch temporary surface water pipelines (approximately 1,174 feet each). TEP would install five 4.5-inch steel temporary surface frac lines (approximately 19,843 feet each) from the Federal Rulison 8 frac pad to the NR 41-3 pad to support remote well completion and flowback operations. Recycled produced water would be pumped from existing TEP operated water management facilities to the NR 41-3 pad during well completion operations. All well completions operations would be performed utilizing six ,000 HHP dual electric hydraulic frac pumps powered by a series of 2.5 MegaWatt (MW) leaning-burning natural gas power generators to stimulate the wells. The use of this technology during well completion operations greatly reduces emissions in comparison to traditional diesel equipment and eliminates the use of fuel trucks during stimulations. The reduced emissions from the use of natural gas generators have been factored in to reduce Pre-Production Pollutant Emissions from the NR 41-3 OGDP in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Construction activities for the NR 41-3 pad and the associated support facilities are scheduled to begin in August 2024 and are expected to take approximately 120 days to complete. Drilling operations for the first 20 of 39 proposed directional wells would begin in April 2025. Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 140 days and should be completed in August 2025. Well completion operations are expected to take approximately 126 days and should be completed in October 2025. For the second visit the last 19 of 39 proposed directional wells would begin in October 2026. Drilling operations for this visit are expected to take approximately 133 days and should be completed in February 2027. Completion operations for the second visit would start March 2027 after drilling operations are complete. Completion operations are expected to take 126 days and should be completed in August 2027. Interim reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad would start in September 2027 and be completed in October 2027, within 6 months following completion of well construction and stimulation activities. Site reclamation is dependent on weather conditions and project scheduling. Development may be accelerated or delayed based on market conditions and company constraints. 3 Edge Environmental, Inc. SUMMARY OF RESOURCE IMPACTS Air Resources Air emissions produced during the pre-production and production phases of development have been evaluated based on the scale and scope of the proposed development plan for the following pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O). A quantitative evaluation of the incremental increase in pollutants has been estimated for the entire proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad. The emissions estimate includes both stationary and mobile sources of emissions during all pre-production activities, that could occur over the April 2025 through October 2025 development period for the first 20 of 39 proposed directional wells (see Table 1), and during the second visit (October 2026 through August 2027), when the remaining 19 of 39 proposed wells would be developed (Table 2). Table 3 provides a summary of the total emissions from both stationary and mobile sources of emissions during all pre-production activities. In addition, both stationary and mobile sources of emissions for the first full year of production based on all proposed wells and equipment (see Table 4). Diesel vehicle miles for various project activities have also been estimated (see Table 5). Table 1 Year 2025 Pre-Production Pollutant Emissions (tons) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component NOx CO VOCs CH4 C2H6 CO2 N2O Process heaters or boilers 0.90 0.75 0.05 0.02 0.03 1,176.68 0.02 Storage tanks - - - - - 0.55 - Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 45.10 44.26 8.75 38.75 5.71 10,642.29 - Drill mud - - 0.79 -- - - - Flowback or completions - - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - Total 46.00 45.01 9.59 38.77 5.74 11,819.52 0.02 Table 2 Year 2027 Pre-Production Pollutant Emissions (tons) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component NOx CO VOCs CH4 C2H6 CO2 N2O Process heaters or boilers 0.85 0.72 0.05 0.02 0.03 1022.85 0.02 Storage tanks - - - - - 0.49 - Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 42.85 42.04 8.31 36.82 5.43 10,110.18 - Drill mud - 0.75 -- - - - Flowback or completions - - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - Total 43.70 42.76 9.11 36.84 5.46 11,133.03 0.02 4 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 3 Total Pre-Production Pollutant Emissions (tons) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component NOx CO VOCs CH4 C2H6 CO2 N2O Process heaters or boilers 1.75 1.47 0.10 0.04 0.06 2,099.53 0.04 Storage tanks - - - - - 1.04 - Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 87.95 86.30 17.07 75.57 11.14 20,752.47 - Drill mud - 1.54 -- - - - Flowback or completions - - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - Total 89.70 87.77 18.71 75.61 11.20 22,853.04 0.04 Table 4 One Year Production Pollutant Emissions (tons) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component NOx CO VOCs CH4 C2H6 CO2 N2O Stationary engines or turbines - - - - - - - Process heaters or boilers 4.51 3.79 0.25 0.10 0.14 5,410.29 <0.01 Storage tanks 0.43 1.97 2.15 2.01 0.97 545.29 0.01 Dehydration units - - - - - - - Pneumatic pumps - - - - - - - Pneumatic controllers - - - - - - - Separators - - - - - - - Fugitives - - 0.26 1.72 0.23 0.01 - Venting or blowdown - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines - - - - - - - Loadout 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.02 16.36 <0.01 Well Bradenhead - - - - - - - Well maintenance - - 0.99 6.62 0.90 0.02 - Total 4.95 5.82 3.70 10.50 2.28 5,971.98 0.01 Table 5 Diesel Vehicle Miles for the NR 41-3 OGDP Activity Miles Construction 1,864 Drilling 17,233 Completions 12,481 Interim reclamation 158 Production (1st year only) 1,076 Total 32,812 5 Edge Environmental, Inc. The maximum total criteria pollutant emissions (NOx, CO, and VOCs) for the NR 41-3 OGDP for approximately 2 years of pre-production activities and 1 year of production activities are estimated as: 94.7, 93.6, and 22.4 tons, respectively. In comparison to conventional diesel pumps, these maximum total NOx, CO, and VOC emissions have been reduced overall from those submitted in the original application which were 250.1, 208.7 and 25.4 tons of NOx, CO, and VOC emissions, respectively. In fact, developing the same location and well count using a conventional diesel frac fleet would have emitted 243.5, 195.1, and 13.3 tons of NOx, CO, and VOC emissions, respectively, compared to the development NOx, CO, and VOC emissions using conventional diesel pumps (243.5, 195.1, and 13.3 tons, respectively). Using methane, CH4 to power electric pumps reduces development NOx emissions by 63.2%. Project emissions of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O from pre-production and production activities are quantified in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). GHGs have various capacities to trap heat in the atmosphere, which are known as global warming potentials (GWPs). GWPs are related to different time intervals to fully account for the ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation (heat) over their atmospheric lifetimes. Carbon dioxide has a GWP of 1, so for the purposes of the analysis, a GHG GWP is generally standardized to a CO2e, or the equivalent amount of CO2 mass the GHG would represent. Methane has a current estimated GWP between 28 (gas alone) and 36 (with climate feedbacks). N2O has a GWP of 298. The total pre-production and production GHG emissions (sum of CH4, CO2, and N2O emissions reported as CO2e in units of million metric tons [MMT]) are estimated as 0.029 MMT (or 31,940.7 US Tons of CO2e). Overall, the CO2e GHG emissions have been reduced by an estimated 21.6% compared to an estimated 0.037 MMT (or 40,732.1 US Tons of CO2e) submitted in the original application with diesel frac equipment. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Upper Beaver Creek Project (BLM 2022). As part of the air quality assessment performed for the EA, an air emissions inventory was compiled that included the proposed development of 18 wells on the nearby Honea 19-05 well pad, and 21 wells on the nearby South Leverich 13-09 well pad. The emissions inventory includes criteria pollutant emissions (NOx, CO, and VOCs) and greenhouse emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) from pre-production and production activities. Air quality modeling was performed using project NOx emissions to estimate 1-hour NO 2 concentrations at nearby residences in the vicinity of the well pads. Model impacts were estimated to be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). This model was also conducted prior to the implementation of electric frac equipment. In addition, as part of air quality assessment performed for a BLM EA of a larger nearby TEP Balzac Gulch project (BLM 2017b), CO and NOx emissions from pre-production and production operations were quantified. The total annual CO and NOx emissions, 58.57 and 52.7 tpy respectively, are of similar magnitude to the level of maximum project emissions that could occur in any year, presented above (CO – 45.01 tpy and NOx – 46.00 tpy for year 2025 pre-production emissions). Air quality modeling was performed to estimate near-field impacts of CO and NO2 concentrations from project activities. Predicted CO and NO2 concentrations were estimated to be below the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS. Therefore, based on the analyses performed for the Upper Beaver Creek and Balzac Gulch projects, it is estimated that the CO and NOx emissions resulting from the development of the NR 41-3 pad and the drilling of 39 natural gas wells from the well pad would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of the CO and NO2 ambient air quality standards. 6 Edge Environmental, Inc. Cumulative Impacts The Colorado Air Resource Management Modeling Study – version 2.0 (CARMMS) (BLM 2017a) can be used to estimate reasonably foreseeable future near-field air quality conditions for the area surrounding the proposed project. The CARMMS analysis included cumulative air emissions for year 2015 and future year emissions of NOx and VOCs from increased total (Federal and non- Federal) oil and gas development/operations through year 2025 (post-2015) in the area surrounding the proposed project, which includes the NR 41-3 OGDP NO x and VOC emissions. CARMMS analysis predicted that the contributions of cumulative air quality from Federal and non- Federal project-specific maximum potential annual emissions (full development plus one full year of production occurring in the same year) would be below the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS for 1-hour ozone and 1-hour NO2 concentrations. The CARMMS analysis did not include any analyses for CO, however as described above, the CO emissions for the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b) were analyzed and the impacts in the vicinity of the project were estimated to be well below applicable NAAQS and CAAQS. No adverse project impacts to air resources are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and production (long-term) operations for the NR 41-3 OGDP. Adverse cumulative impacts are not expected as a result of project implementation. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of the electric frac pumps, best management practices (BMPs) and the Dust Mitigation Plan provided in the Form 2A, as well as the implementation of an Air Monitoring Program as required by CDPHE avoids and minimizes project impacts to air resources and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Electric Hydraulic Fracturing As noted above, TEP is committed to reducing pre-production emissions by utilizing 5000 HHP electric frac pumps powered by ultra-leaning burning natural gas generators to stimulate the wells in this OGDP. The fuel source for these 2.5 MW generators is TEP’s own processed field gas, which eliminates the carbon footprint of diesel processing and transportation from completion operations. TEP would utilize this technology to generate up to 15 MW on power onsite at the fuel source with field gas that has a methane number (%methane level in fuel) greater than 90% by volume. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no project or cumulative adverse impacts to air resources are anticipated from the development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. 7 Edge Environmental, Inc. Public Health A quantitative evaluation of the incremental increase in total hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) emissions (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, and methanol) and for specific HAPs emissions with known health impacts were estimated for the entire proposed development plan for the NR 41-3 pad. The emissions estimate includes both stationary and mobile sources of emissions during all pre-production activities, that could occur over the April 2025 through October 2025 development period for the first 20 of 39 proposed directional wells (see Table 6), and during the second visit (October 2026 through August 2027), when the remaining 19 of 39 proposed wells would be developed (Table 7). Table 8 provides a summary of the total emissions from both stationary and mobile sources of emissions during all pre-production activities. In addition, the estimates include both stationary and mobile sources of emissions for the first full year of production based on all proposed wells and equipment (see Table 9). The estimated number of vehicle trips is listed in Table 10. Qualitative Evaluation of Potential Acute or Chronic, Short- or Long-Term Incremental Impacts Pre-Production. As part of an air quality assessment performed for the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), individual HAP emissions from pre-production operations were quantified. The total HAPs emissions (0.20 tpy) include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde emissions of 0.08, 0.04, 0.0005, 0.02, 0.04, and 0.007 tpy, respectively. These HAP emissions are of similar magnitude to the maximum annual NR 41-3 OGDP pre-production HAP emissions (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) presented above for project year 2025 (0.05, 0.06, 0.04, 0.02, 0.09, and 2.99 tpy, respectively). Impacts from pre-production HAP emissions were not estimated or analyzed as part of the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), given that the emissions from pre-production activities are from short- term activities and do not occur over the lifetime of the project. Also, these HAP emissions are less than those which could occur from production activities. As part of the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b) impacts from production HAP (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) emissions in the vicinity of the well pads were analyzed and the potential maximum acute (short-term; 1-hour) and long-term (annual) HAP concentrations were estimated to be well below applicable health thresholds for these HAPs. Therefore, it is estimated the HAP emissions resulting from the development of the NR 41-3 well pad and drilling of 39 natural gas wells would not cause or contribute to any potential acute or chronic, short-or long-term incremental impacts to public health. 8 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 6 Year 2025 Pre-Production Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions (lbs) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes n-Hexane 2,2,4- Trimethylp entane Hydrogen sulfide Formaldehyde Methanol Total HAPs Process heaters or boilers - - - - - - - 1.35 - 1.35 Storage tanks 0.04 - - - 0.05 - - - - 0.09 Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 94.45 65.49 4.45 34.41 124.30 - - 5969.72 - 6,292.82 Drill mud - 57.46 77.79 2.99 57.46 - - - 57.46 253.14 Flowback or completions - - - 0 - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - - - - Total 94.49 122.95 82.23 37.39 181.80 - - 5,971.07 57.46 6,547.39 Table 7 Year 2027 Pre-Production Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions (lbs) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes n-Hexane 2,2,4- Trimethylp entane Hydrogen sulfide Formaldehyde Methanol Total HAPs Process heaters or boilers - - - - - - - 1.28 - 1.28 Storage tanks 0.04 - - - 0.04 - - - - 0.08 Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 89.73 62.22 4.22 32.69 118.08 - - 5,671.24 - 5,978.18 Drill mud - 54.58 73.90 2.84 54.58 - - - 54.58 240.49 Flowback or completions - - - - - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - - - - Total 89.77 116.80 78.12 35.52 172.71 - - 5,672.52 54.58 6,220.02 9 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 8 Total Pre-Production Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions (lbs) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes n-Hexane 2,2,4- Trimethylp entane Hydrogen sulfide Formaldehyde Methanol Total HAPs Process heaters or boilers - - - - - - - 2.62 - 2.62 Storage tanks 0.08 - - - 0.09 - - - - 0.17 Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines 184.18 127.71 8.67 67.09 242.38 - - 11,640.96 - 12,271.00 Drill mud - 112.04 151.68 5.82 112.04 - - - 112.04 493.63 Flowback or completions - - - - - - - - - - Loadout - - - - - - - - - - Total 184.26 239.75 160.35 72.92 354.51 - - 11,643.59 112.04 12,767.42 10 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 9 One Year Production Hazardous Air Pollutants Emissions (lbs) for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component Benzene Toluene Ethyl benzene Xylenes n-Hexane 2,2,4- Trimethylp entane Hydrogen sulfide Formaldehyde Methanol Total HAPs Stationary engines or turbines - - - - - - - - - - Process heaters or boilers - - - - - - - 6.76 - 6.76 Storage tanks 24.00 - - - 90.00 - - - - 114.00 Dehydration units - - - - - - - - - - Pneumatic pumps - - - - - - - - - - Pneumatic controllers - - - - - - - - - - Separators - - - - - - - - - - Fugitives 2.48 - - - 7.24 - - - - 9.72 Venting or blowdowns - - - - - - - - - - Combustion control devices - - - - - - - - - - Non-road internal combustion engines - - - - - - - - - - Loadout 1.00 - - - 2.00 - - - - 3.00 Well Bradenhead - - - - - - - - - - Well maintenance 10.16 15.47 0.29 65.84 7.48 - - - 106.01 Total 37.64 15.47 - 0.29 165.08 7.48 - 6.76 - 239.49 11 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 10 Estimate Number of Vehicle Trips for the NR 41-3 OGDP Activity Vehicle Trips (monthly) Vehicle Trips (total/annual) Construction 170 681 Drilling 804 7,317 Completions 601 5,045 Interim reclamation 77 77 Production 39 466 Total 1,691 13,586 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, hydrogen sulfide, and methanol HAP emissions from pre-production activities were estimated and are shown in Tables 7, 8, and 9. These emissions are estimated as 0.0, 0.0, and 0.03 tpy, respectively. Although these HAPs were not specifically modeled in the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), the emissions levels are less than the project benzene emissions (which were modeled). Given that the applicable short-term (1-hour) and long-term (annual) health thresholds for these HAPs are above the levels applicable to benzene, it is estimated the short-term and long-term concentrations for these HAPs would be well below applicable health thresholds. Production. As part of an air quality assessment performed for the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), individual HAP emissions from production operations were quantified. The total HAPs emissions, 1.01 tpy include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde emissions of 0.16, 0.23, 0.01, 0.09, 0.48, and 0.04 tpy, respectively. These HAP emissions are of similar magnitude to the level of project production HAP emissions (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) presented above in Table 9 (0.02, 0.01, 0.0001, 0.004, 0.08, and 0.004 tpy, respectively). As part of the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), impacts from production HAP emissions (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) in the vicinity of the well pads were analyzed and the potential maximum acute (short-term; 1-hour) and long-term (annual) HAP concentrations were estimated to be well below applicable health thresholds for these HAPs. In addition, long-term exposures to emissions of suspected carcinogens (benzene, ethylbenzene, and formaldehyde) were evaluated based on estimates of the increased latent cancer risk over a 70-year lifetime. The estimated cancer risk from these HAPs was shown to be below acceptable cancer risk levels. Therefore, it is estimated the HAP emission resulting from the production activities from 39 natural gas wells on the NR 41-3 OGDP pad would not cause or contribute to any potential acute or chronic, short-or long-term incremental impacts to public health. 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, hydrogen sulfide, and methanol HAP emissions from production activities were estimated and are shown in Table 9. These emissions are estimated as 0.004, 0.0, and 0.0 tpy, respectively. Although these HAPs were not specifically modeled in the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b), the emissions levels are less than the project benzene emissions (which were modeled). Given that the applicable short-term (1-hour) and long-term (annual) health thresholds for these HAPs are above the levels applicable to benzene, it is estimated that the short-term and long-term concentrations for these HAPs would be well below applicable health thresholds. 12 Edge Environmental, Inc. Cumulative Impacts No applicable cumulative (regional) HAP modeling analyses are available for the area to estimate cumulative HAP impacts. However, as described above, the HAP emissions for the Balzac Gulch EA (BLM 2017b) are comparable to the NR 41-3 OGDP HAP emissions. Impacts from the Balzac Gulch HAP emissions (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) in the vicinity of the well pads were analyzed and the potential maximum acute (short-term; 1- hour) and long-term (annual) HAP concentrations were estimated to be well below applicable health thresholds for these HAPs. In addition, long-term exposures to emissions of suspected carcinogens (benzene, ethylbenzene, and formaldehyde) were evaluated based on estimates of the increased latent cancer risk over a 70-year lifetime. The estimated cancer risk from these HAPs was shown to be below acceptable cancer risk levels. Therefore, no adverse project impacts to public health are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and production (long-term) operations for the NR 41-3 OGDP. Adverse cumulative impacts are not expected as a result of project implementation. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of BMPs included in the Form 2A and the Dust Mitigation Plan attached to the Form 2A, as well as the implementation of an Air Monitoring Program as required by CDPHE, avoids and minimizes project impacts to public health and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no project or cumulative adverse impacts to public health are anticipated from the development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. Water Resources The total planned on-location storage volumes of condensate, produced water, and chemicals are listed in Table 11. TEP would follow measures described in the Waste Management Plan – Form 2A such as identification and cleanup of localized spills and excavation of any impacted soils to avoid and minimize impacts resulting from spills. Table 11 Planned On-Location Storage Volumes for the NR 41-3 OGDP Material Stored Number of Tanks Individual Capacity Total Capacity Oil 0 400 barrels 0 Condensate 0 500 barrels 0 Produced water 0 500 barrels 0 Blowdown/vent tank 1 300 barrels 300 barrels0 Chemicals 4 500 gallons 48 barrels Chemicals 1 135 gallons 3 barrels Total 6 -- 351 barrels 13 Edge Environmental, Inc. The Hydrology Map – Form 2A shows the presence and distance to surface water and groundwater features (see Table 12). The nearest surface water body (including drainages, wetlands, and springs) is an intermittent stream occurring in the flow-line of Yellow Slide Gulch located 497 feet 24° NE and downgradient of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The next closest, and only other water body within the 0.5-mile buffer of the well pad, is an unnamed intermittent stream located 2,164 feet 207o SW of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Surface water pollution potential for the nearest intermittent stream is limited due to the lack of defined depression-focused flow paths from the pad. The travel distance for overland sheet flow to this water body limits the potential for water quality impacts from a potential pad release. Site grading on the downgradient side of the pad would provide erosion control measures minimizing potential fluid migration off site. BMPs would be installed during site construction which would eliminate preferential pathways for offsite depression flow using earthen berms and diversion ditches. All newly constructed BMPs would be closely monitored and maintained to ensure complete on-site containment of a potential release. Table 12 Distance to Nearest Downgradient Surface Waters and Public Water Systems for the NR 41-3 OGDP Description Distance (feet) Direction Baseline Condition Riparian Corridor >5,280 N No Riparian Corridor Wetlands >5,280 NE No Potential Wetland within 1-mile of WPS Surface Waters of the State 497 NE Nearest Intermittent Stream Public Water System Intake >5,280 N No PWS intakes within 1 mile of WPS Additional Information Sensitive Area Yes NE Proximity to Yellow Slide Gulch (intermittent stream) located approximately 497 feet 24o NE of the Oil and Gas Location Estimated Depth to Ground Water >100 Feet Evaluation of the potential impacts to the Public Water System Intake within 5,280 feet of the WPS None; No PWS intakes within 1 mile of WPS TEP has implemented and maintains a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), which is a basin wide emergency spill response plan as required by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) as administered by the EPA. This plan describes measures implemented by TEP to prevent discharges from occurring and response measures to mitigate the impacts of a potential discharge. TEP has also implemented and maintains a Drilling and Workover Facilities Integrated Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan, as required by 40 CFR Part 112.10, which describes measures to prevent spills and releases during drilling, completions, and workover operations. The working pad surface (WPS) of the NR 41-3 pad is not within 2,640 feet of a Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI) well, a Type III Well as defined by Rule 411.b.(1).B and 411.b.(1).D, or a surface water feature segment that is 15 miles or less upstream from a Public Water System intake. TEP overlaid the available GUDI well and Type III Well data 14 Edge Environmental, Inc. from the ECMC to determine if the proposed operations would be within 2,640 feet of these wells. Additionally, TEP identified the Public Water System intake locations downstream of the NR 41- 3 pad and determined that all proposed operations would not fall within 15 stream miles of an active Public Water System intake. State Engineers Office and USGS records were reviewed indicating there are not any wells located within the 0.5-mile pad buffer of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Depth to shallow groundwater residing in the local flow system is probably greater than 100 feet below the pad. Based on Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil properties and qualities for Potts-Ildefonso complex mapped soil unit depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. The absence of aquatic vegetation and woody phreatophytes supports the notion that shallow groundwater does not occur in the immediate vicinity of the pad. The use of fresh water would be limited to that used for drilling and for dust control. Water use would be reduced by recycling produced water. It is estimated that 7,800 barrels of fresh water would be required for construction. It is estimated that 4,500 barrels of fresh water would be required to drill a single well (175,500 barrels for 39 wells) and that 80,000 barrels of recycled produced water would be required for completion of a single well (3,120,000 for 39 wells). Fresh water would be transported by truck from the Clough Fresh Water Outtake located along the Colorado River on Clough Sheep Company LLC property southwest of the West Rifle exit. Water trucks would utilize existing State, County, and lease roads and would follow existing truck routes where applicable. Water for well completion would be sourced from treated and recycled produced water. Estimated water usage is listed in Table 13. A total of 94 percent of the water used for drilling and completion would be recycled. Table 13 Drilling and Completion Estimated Water Usage for the NR 41-3 OGDP Type Volume (barrels) Surface water 183,300 Groundwater 0 Recycled water (produced water) 3,120,000 Recycled water (non-produced water) 0 Unspecified source 0 Total 3,303,300 Percentage recycled 94 Due to the presence of the intermittent stream located less than 500 feet (497 feet) from the proposed NR 41-3 location, the project location is considered a sensitive area; however, the potential for impacts to surface water is deemed to be low if properly mitigated with control measures implemented when constructing the well pad. Potential impacts to groundwater resources at the site are deemed to be low based on the site hydrogeology. Cumulative Impacts No adverse impacts to water resources are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and production (long-term) operations for the NR 41-3 OGDP. Adverse cumulative impacts are not expected as a result of project implementation. 15 Edge Environmental, Inc. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of the measures described above and those included in the Stormwater Management Plan (Form 2A) to avoid and minimize project impacts to water resources would also avoid and minimize cumulative impacts and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no project or cumulative adverse impacts to water resources are anticipated from development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Resources and Ecosystems TEP prepared a Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Form 2A) for the NR 41-3 pad per the requirements of ECMC Rule 1201.b. The plan includes a summary of identified sensitive wildlife habitat and resources within the Project area including High Priority Habitat (HPH) compliance with the applicable operating requirements under Rule 1202, and compensatory mitigation proposed to off-set impacts to wildlife resources as required by Rule 1203. Per ECMC Rule 309.e.(2).A, consultation is required if a “proposed Oil and Gas Location or associated new access road, utility, or Pipeline corridor falls within High Priority Habitat…”. TEP held a pre-application consultation meeting with Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) to discuss potential impacts associated with facility installation and the existing access. The pre-application consultation meeting with CPW was necessary to ensure TEP’s planned operation would be protective of wildlife and to discuss BMPs that TEP would implement to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wildlife (see Appendix A of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan – Form 2A for a detailed summary of CPW consultation). The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located within the perimeter of the Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters HPH boundary associated with Yellow Slide Gulch. The majority of the Oil and Gas Location, including the proposed wells and production facilities, would be located outside the 500- foot Aquatic Sportfish Management Water buffer. Only a small portion of the working pad surface and fill slope would be located within the 500-foot buffer (see Table 14 and Wildlife Habitat Drawing – Form 2A). Stormwater control measures would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to aquatic sportfish downstream of the Oil and Gas Location. Proposed stormwater control measures include diversion ditches, sediment traps, outflow protections, onsite berming, and soil stabilization methods to minimize the potential for soil erosion. Furthermore, TEP is proposing to minimize operations at this location by conducting remote frac operations from the Federal Rulison 8 pad located outside the aquatic HPH buffers. Additionally, TEP is proposing to remove all fluids via pipeline to further minimize the potential for downstream impacts. Produced water would be transported via pipeline to the existing tank battery on the RWF 34-12 pad and condensate would be transported via pipeline to a proposed tank battery on the existing NR 334- 1 pad. Table 14 High Priority Habitats within 1 Mile of NR 41-3 Working Pad Surface Type Distance (feet) from WPS HPH Disturbed (acres) Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters 0 1.378 Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area 0 12.705 Mule Deer Severe Winter Range 4,637 0 16 Edge Environmental, Inc. The NR 41-3 pad is also located within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area (see Table 14 and wildlife Habitat Drawing – Form 2A). The Oil and Gas Location is 4,637 feet from Mule Deer Severe Winter Range. These HPH boundaries cover large swaths of northwestern Colorado. Avoidance of this HPH is unlikely because the adjacent BLM property is within the Wildlife Security No Surface Occupancy Area, further limiting potential alternative. Development of a large multi- well pad centralizes Oil and Gas Operations to a single location minimizing impacts to mule deer. Additionally, installation of produced water and condensate pipelines, and utilizing other existing Oil and Gas Locations to support operations, minimizes the required footprint for proposed operations and minimizes long-term activities associated with the NR 41-3 pad. The proposed access road, pipeline corridor, existing NR 334-1, existing Federal Rulison 8, and existing RWF 34-12 pad are all located to some extent within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area and Mule Deer Severe Winter Range. Collocation of the proposed access road and proposed pipelines, and utilizing existing pipeline corridors, ultimately minimizes the amount of surface disturbance required for development. Utilizing existing Oil and Gas Locations further minimizes direct and indirect impacts to mule deer. TEP would schedule construction activities for the Fall of 2024 avoiding CPW’s recommended mule deer winter timing limitation (December 1 – April 30 annually). TEP would be conducting winter drilling and completions operations under this schedule. Drilling operations for the first visit would begin in April 2025 at the end of the mule deer winter timing limitation. Drilling and completion operations for the second visit would occur over winter months. TEP would make its best efforts to begin drilling operations prior to the winter timing limitation, and would have continuous operations throughout winter months. A Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation from December 1st through April 30th annually would be applied to the BLM Rights-of-Way grants associated with the project. Assuming modifications to the development schedule do not occur, TEP would submit an exception request to BLM in the Winter of 2025 requesting approval to conduct operations during the Big Game Winter Range Timing Limitation. A subsequent exception request would be submitted in the Fall of 2026 for the second drilling visit. Through the pre-application consultation process with CPW, and to ensure compliance with Rule 1203.a, TEP has agreed to pay the habitat mitigation fees associated with direct and indirect impacts to mule deer from the construction and long-term operation of the proposed wells at the proposed NR 41-3 pad. As an alternative to payment of the compensatory mitigation fees, TEP and CPW have agreed to evaluate potential mitigation projects within the northwest region of Colorado that could be used to off-set direct and indirect impacts to mule deer (see Wildlife Mitigation Plan – Form 2A for additional information regarding compensatory mitigation). The NR 41-3 pad is located within Non-Crop Land – Rangeland. When applying a 1-mile buffer to the proposed Oil and Gas Location there are approximately 2,235 acres of existing rangeland. The Project area has already been developed for installation of natural gas well pads, pipelines, and roads. These areas of previous disturbance have been reseeded with both native and non- native perennial grass species and forbs. After well development is complete, TEP would reclaim the area surrounding the wellhead and production facilities not required for long-term production operations. The area would be reclaimed using species and methods described in TEP's Reclamation Plan – Form 2A. Reclamation would occur within 6 months following completion of well construction. Construction and Interim Reclamation disturbance acreages are show in Table 15. 17 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 15 Disturbance by Component for the NR 41-3 OGDP Component Total Disturbance (acres) Total Short-Term (acres) Total Long-Term (acres) NR 41-3 pad 12.705 10.747 1.958 Access Road 25.766 18.860 6.906 8-inch gas pipeline 7.933 7.608 0.325 4-inch water pipelines 2-inch condensate pipelines Total 46.404 37.215 9.189 The loss of mature mountain shrubs would be long-term but these species are common throughout the region, and the loss would be negligible at both a Project and regional level. Gradual re-establishment of a portion of the affected shrubland is likely following reclamation. TEP has designed the Project to incorporate existing infrastructure to minimize impacts to the ecosystem and wildlife that rely on available habitats in the vicinity surrounding the proposed NR 41-3 pad. As a result of incorporating existing infrastructure into the development plan, impacts to existing wildlife habitat would be minimal, and impacts on wildlife would be reduced compared to less developed or undeveloped areas because some habituation of the animals to oil and gas operation and other human activities would be expected (see Wildlife Plan – Form 2A for detailed BMPs proposed to minimize impacts to wildlife). To minimize traffic during operations, TEP would install buried natural gas and produced water pipelines. As mentioned above, disturbance associated with pipeline construction would be promptly revegetated with native species consistent with CPW’s recommended seed mix when the pipeline is completed (see Reclamation Plan – Form 2A). TEP would utilize remote telemetry equipment to minimize well site visitation reducing the vehicles traveling on dirt/gravel roads. When feasible, TEP would limit post-development operations to daylight hours when wildlife activity is minimal. To minimize the potential for wildlife related traffic accidents, TEP would implement speed restrictions for all roads and would require that all TEP employees and contractors adhere to posted speed limits. TEP has scheduled reconstruction of the NR 41-3 pad and installation of infrastructure during August of 2024 outside the migratory nesting season for migratory birds (April 1 to August 31). However, if construction operations are accelerated or delayed into the migratory bird nesting season, TEP would either implement hazing prior to April 1st, or a pre-construction migratory bird survey would be conducted during the nesting season to determine if nesting migratory birds are present within the Project area. If any active nests are located, TEP would provide work zone buffers around those active nests as allowed under Rule 1202.a.(8). TEP would implement a weed management program to minimize the potential spread and infestation of invasive, non-native plants within areas used for construction of the NR 41-3 pad and installation of infrastructure that could degrade wildlife habitat and out-compete native vegetation. This includes control or reduction of invasive weeds and non-native populations that have been established in the NR 41-3 OGDP prior to development, as well as invasive plant species that may be introduced during Project development and reclamation activities. Interim and final reclamation of disturbed areas would use seed mixes that are certified to be weed-free. Reclamation would be monitored annually until reclamation is successful, and if noxious weeds are documented, a certified weed sprayer would be dispatched to inspect the site and take action to treat the noxious weeds. These measures would minimize impacts on existing vegetation 18 Edge Environmental, Inc. communities within the Project area as well as maintain native vegetation for the continued use of wildlife in the Project area. Cumulative Impacts No adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife resources and ecosystems are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and production (long-term) operations for the NR 41-3 OGDP. Adverse cumulative impacts are not expected as a result of Project implementation. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of the measures described above, and those included in the Wildlife Plan (Form 2A) and the Reclamation Plan (Form 2A) to avoid and minimize Project impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife resources and ecosystems, would also avoid and minimize cumulative impacts and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no Project or cumulative adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife resources and ecosystems are anticipated from the development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. Soil Resources It is estimated that 12.705 acres of Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes would be disturbed during construction of the NR 41-3 pad. After drilling and completion, 10.747 acres would be reclaimed leaving 1.958 acres disturbed during long-term production. Various soil types would be disturbed during installation of infrastructure totaling 33.699 acres (see Table 16). After drilling and completion, 26.468 acres would be reclaimed leaving 7.231 acres disturbed during long-term production. The NR 41-3 OGDP has been designed to disturb the minimum area possible while maintaining safety standards. Table 16 Soil Types Disturbed by Construction of the NR 41-3 OGDP Map Unit Number Soil Type NR 41-3 Pad (acres) Access/Utilities (acres) 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.000 2.186 21 Cushman-Lazear stony loams, 15 to 65 percent slopes 0.000 9.447 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 0.000 0.996 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 0.000 3.497 57 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 12.705 16.441 67 Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep 0.000 1.132 Total 12.705 33.699 TEP has prepared and would follow their Topsoil Protection Plan (Form 2A) to address compliance with Federal, State, and local requirements regarding topsoil management and preservation. TEP has also prepared and would follow a Reclamation Plan (Form 2A). Proper management of topsoil during initial site construction would ensure topsoil is preserved for site reclamation following construction and to ensure adequate organic material is available for re- 19 Edge Environmental, Inc. establishment of desirable vegetation at reclamation. During re-construction of the NR 41-3 pad and installation of the proposed pipeline infrastructure, topsoil stripped during initial construction of these Project components would be managed according to use and duration of development. Prior to separation and storage of the topsoil horizon top from the well pad facility and pipeline corridor, woody vegetation would be mulched and stormwater control measures properly installed to control erosion and sedimentation during precipitation events (see Stormwater Management Plan – Form 2A). When separating soil horizons, TEP would segregate each horizon based upon noted changes in physical characteristics, such as organic content, color, texture, density, or consistency. To the extent feasible, stockpiled soils would be protected from degradation due to contamination, compaction, and from wind and water erosion during drilling and production operations. Surface roughening, temporary seeding and mulching, erosion control blankets, or soil binders would be used as needed, and best management practices implemented, to prevent weed establishment and to maintain soil microbial activity. During construction of the NR 41-3 pad, the topsoil horizon within the pad disturbance footprint would be stripped and stockpiled both northwest and southeast of the proposed pad location. The topsoil volume disturbed for the constructed well pad is estimated at 17,909 cubic yards. Topsoil would be stripped to a depth of approximately 12 inches and segregated from all other subsurface materials. Wattles would be placed around the base of the topsoil stockpile to control sedimentation and a metal sign would be placed on the pad side of the stockpile. During construction of the proposed access road, the topsoil horizon between the top of cut and toe of fill would be stripped and stockpiled along the uphill and/or downhill side of the proposed access road. The topsoil volume disturbed for access road construction is estimated at 13,400 cubic yards. When access road construction is complete stripped topsoil would be uniformly replaced across the cut and fill slopes. During construction of the pipeline infrastructure, the topsoil horizon would be stripped within the construction right-of-way width and placed along the downhill side. Topsoil would be segregated from subsurface materials. The topsoil volume disturbed for pipeline installation is estimated at 6,120 cubic yards. When construction is complete and the pipeline right-of-way has been re- contoured to pre-construction slopes, stripped topsoil would be uniformly replaced across the disturbance. Cumulative Impacts No adverse impacts to soil resources are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and production (long-term) operations for the NR 41-3 OGDP. Adverse cumulative impacts to soil resources are not expected as a result of Project implementation. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of the measures described above, and the measures included in the Topsoil Protection Plan (Form 2A) and Reclamation Plan (Form 2A) to avoid and minimize Project impacts to soil resources would also avoid and minimize cumulative impacts and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no Project or cumulative adverse impacts to soil resources are anticipated from development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. 20 Edge Environmental, Inc. Public Welfare This section considers a qualitative evaluation of incremental adverse impacts to public welfare (noise, light, odor, dust, and recreation and scenic values) as a result of pre-production operations (short-term) and production operations (long-term) of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. Pre-production activities associated with construction of the NR 41-3 pad include construction, drilling, and completion operations and installation of pipeline infrastructure. Production activities associated with the constructed NR 41-3 pad include standard well and facility maintenance operations and inspection activities. During initial site planning of the oil and gas location, TEP evaluated receptors for noise, light, and odor where members of the public or wildlife resources may be located and impacted from the proposed activities. These receptors include public roads, railroads, building units, residential building units, high occupancy building units, school property or facilities, designated outdoor activity areas, childcare centers, disproportionately impacted communities, trails, and wildlife habitat. As provided in the Cultural Distance section of the Form 2A and in Table 17 below, no residential building units are located within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 WPS. Table 17 Building Units from the Edge of the NR 41-3 Working Pad Surface Type Number Residential building units (0 to 2,000 feet) 0 Residential building units (2,001 to 5,280 feet) 0 Non-school and non-childcare center high occupancy building units (0 to 2,000 feet) 0 Non-school and non-childcare center high occupancy building units (2,000 to 5,280 feet) 0 School facilities (0 to 2,000 feet) 0 School facilities (2,000 to 5,280 feet) 0 Childcare centers (0 to 2,000 feet) 0 Childcare centers (2,000 to 5,280 feet) 0 Noise. Pre-production (short-term) activities are typically shorter in nature and emit a higher noise level than long-term production operations. Noise from these activities could have impacts on surrounding receptors if located within close proximity of the proposed WPS. No residential or other building units are located within 2,000 feet of the NR 41-3 location and the nearest residential or other building units are more than 1 mile from the location (see Table 17); therefore, noise impacts to members of the public are expected to be minimal during pre- production operations (short-term) and production operations (long-term). Because no residential building units are present within 1 mile, it is unlikely for noise generated during pre-production or production operations to adversely impact members of the public (see Cultural Distance Map – Form 2A). TEP reviewed HPH within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The pad location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area HPH. TEP is proposing to begin construction operations in August of 2024 outside of the Winter Timing Limitation for mule deer; however, planned drilling and completions operations are scheduled within the winter timing limitation. The location is in relatively close proximity to existing oil and gas operations; however, the pad is somewhat isolated given the topography in the area. During consultation with CPW, TEP and CPW discussed noise related impacts to mule deer from development of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. TEP stated that noise levels from drilling operations on the NR 41-3 pad would be compliant with the noise 21 Edge Environmental, Inc. standards under ECMC rules. Additionally, TEP would be conducting remote frac operations to further reduce impacts to mule deer (including noise related impacts). TEP would be paying a habitat mitigation fee to CPW to offset impacts to mule deer due to direct and indirect impacts associated with development activities, including winter operations. Based on this evaluation it is unlikely for noise during pre-production or production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. CPW agreed that a noise mitigation plan would not be necessary for this location based on the siting condition and operational compliance with noise standards (see Wildlife Mitigation Plan - Form 2A). CPW informed TEP that noise impacts to wildlife are not anticipated for this Oil and Gas Location. Cumulative Adverse cumulative noise impacts to members of the public and wildlife are not expected given that noise impacts from the Project are expected to be nonexistent or minimal. Light. Pre-production activities are typically shorter in nature and require sufficient lighting to ensure the safety of employees and contractors. All lighting used during the pre-production phase of development would be directed downward and inward towards the operation to minimize light pollution in the vicinity of the location. Lighting from these activities could have minimal impacts on surrounding receptors if located within close proximity of the proposed WPS. During planning of the NR 41-3 pad, TEP determined through on-site surveys and review of available aerial imagery that there are no residential building units within 2,000 feet of the proposed WPS. The nearest residential building unit is located over 1 mile from the WPS. Because no residential building units are present within 2,000 feet it is unlikely for on-site lighting generated during pre-production operations to adversely impact members of the public (see Cultural Distance Map – Form 2A). TEP reviewed HPH within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The pad location is within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area HPH. TEP is proposing to begin construction operations in August of 2024 outside of the Winter Timing Limitation for mule deer; however, planned drilling and completions operations are scheduled within the winter timing limitation. The location is in relatively close proximity to existing oil and gas operations; however, the pad is somewhat isolated given the topography in the area. During consultation with CPW, TEP and CPW discussed lighting related impacts to mule deer from development of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. TEP stated that lighting from drilling operations on the NR 41-3 pad would be compliant with the lighting standards under ECMC rules. Additionally, TEP would be conducting remote frac operations to further reduce impacts to mule deer (including lighting related impacts). TEP would be paying a habitat mitigation fee to CPW to offset impacts to mule deer due to direct and indirect impacts associated with development activities, including winter operations. All lighting fixtures would be directed downward and inward to minimize light pollution from planned activities. Based on this evaluation it is unlikely for lighting during pre-production operations to adversely affect wildlife resources. TEP is not currently planning to have any onsite lighting during long-term production operations and does not anticipate conducting any nighttime well maintenance operations requiring temporary lights. Therefore, light impacts to members of the public and wildlife resources are expected to be nonexistent during production operations (long-term). 22 Edge Environmental, Inc. CPW agreed that a light mitigation plan would not be necessary for this location based on the site conditions and operational compliance with lighting standards (see Wildlife Mitigation Plan - Form 2A). CPW informed TEP that lighting impacts are not anticipated for this Oil and Gas Location. Cumulative Adverse cumulative light impacts are not expected given that light impacts from the Project are expected to be nonexistent or minimal. Odor. Pre-production and production activities have the potential to generate odors. During planning of the NR 41-3 OGDP, TEP determined through on-site surveys and review of available aerial imagery that there are no residential building units within 2,000 feet of the proposed WPS. The nearest residential building unit is located more than 1 mile from the WPS of the Oil and Gas Location. Because no residential building units are present within 2,000 feet, it is unlikely for odor generated during pre-production operations (short-term) or production operations (long-term) to adversely affect members of the public (see Cultural Distance Map – Form 2A). Cumulative Adverse cumulative odor impacts are expected to be nonexistent or minimal given that odor impacts from the Project are expected to be minimal. Dust. TEP has prepared a Dust Mitigation Plan as required by ECMC Rule 304.c.(5) based on the requirements outlined in ECMC Rule 427. Fugitive dust is created during construction and from vehicular travel on dirt or gravel roads. Table 10 provides a list of the estimated vehicle trips during construction and operation. Fugitive dust can also be propagated from disturbed areas during high wind events. TEP would implement the BMPs outlined in the Dust Mitigation Plan including application of fresh water during construction, application of fresh water on road surfaces, and speed restriction. With implementation of the measures outlined in the Dust Mitigation Plan (Form 2A) and described above, no adverse impacts related to dust are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and operation (long-term) of the NR 41-3 OGDP. Cumulative The existing unpaved access road is used to access other existing oil and gas locations within the area. The BMPs in the Dust Mitigation Plan (Form 2A) would be applied to the proposed Oil and Gas Location, proposed pipeline corridor, and existing access roads. Adverse cumulative dust related impacts are expected to be minimal with proper implementation of the BMPs included in the Dust Mitigation Plan (Form 2A). Recreation and Scenic Values. No State Parks, State Trust Lands, or State Wildlife Areas exist within 1 mile of the NR 41-3 pad. Additionally, there are no Designated Outdoor Activity Areas within 1 mile of the NR 41-3 location. No trails exist within 1 mile of the NR 41-3 pad. 23 Edge Environmental, Inc. A visual analysis was conducted for the proposed NR 41-3 OGDP which indicated that implementation of the proposed NR 41-3 OGDP and associated access road would have no significant impacts to visual resources (ELEV8 2023); however, additional mitigation measures were offered to reduce the degree of contrast. Those measures include minimizing vegetation clearing beyond the planned limits of disturbance and painting all surface operating equipment to blend with the surrounding pinyon-juniper cover. No adverse impacts to Recreation and Scenic Values are anticipated as a result of construction (short-term) and operation (long-term) of the NR 41-3 OGDP. Cumulative Impacts No adverse Project or cumulative impacts to recreation and scenic values are expected as a result of Project implementation. Specific Measures Taken to Avoid or Minimize Cumulative Adverse Impacts Implementation of the measures in the Dust Mitigation Plan (Form 2A) to avoid and minimize Project impacts to public welfare would also avoid and minimize cumulative impacts and therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are expected. Measures to Mitigate or Offset Cumulative Adverse Impacts As mentioned above, no Project or cumulative adverse impacts to public welfare are anticipated from the development of the NR 41-3 OGDP and therefore, no mitigation or offsets are proposed. SURROUNDING OIL AND GAS IMPACTS This section provides a baseline evaluation of the existing landscape level impacts within the area surrounding the proposed NR 41-3 well pad. The pad location is in an area of the Piceance Basin with existing Oil and Gas operations. This information is required per ECMC Rule 303.a.(5).C and is necessary when evaluating cumulative impacts. The information provided below gives context to existing and proposed activities within the vicinity of the NR 41-3 OGDP. There is one active oil and gas location within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 WPS as listed in Table 18. The total disturbance acreage for the active Oil and Gas Location is 15.24 acres. Table 18 Existing Oil and Gas Locations within 1 Mile of the NR 41-3 Working Pad Surface O&G Location Name Operator ECMC Location ID Status Source Disturbance (Acres) NR 23-3 TEP 422211 Active/Built ECMC Permit 15.24 Total 15.24 There are a total of 50 active producing oil and natural gas wells and 2 plugged and abandoned wells within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 WPS as shown in Table 19. TEP reviewed the ECMC database to compile a list of the existing and/or permitted wells within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 pad. 24 Edge Environmental, Inc. Table 19 Existing/Proposed Wells within 1 Mile of the NR 41-3 Working Pad Surface Well Status Count Active 50 Permitted but not drilled 0 Proposed 0 Plugged and abandoned 2 Total 52 Permitted onsite storage capacity within 1 mile of the proposed NR 41-3 WPS includes 7 condensate tanks, 1 produced water tanks, and 1 pit (Table 20). Existing onsite storage capacity within 1 mile of the NR 41-3 WPS includes 7 condensate tanks and 1 produced water tank (Table 20). The total count of tank storage is estimated based on TEP’s review of ECMC location files and field observation. As described above, there are existing landscape level impacts associated with oil and gas development present on the landscape within the vicinity of the NR 41-3 OGDP. No adverse impacts to resources are expected from the NR 41-3 OGDP. Table 20 Permitted/Existing Storage Capacity within 1 Mile of the NR 41-3 Working Pad Surface Storage Count Source of Count Permitted onsite storage capacity (oil) 0 ECMC Permitted onsite storage capacity (condensate) 7 ECMC Permitted onsite storage capacity (water) 1 ECMC Permitted onsite storage capacity (pits) 1 ECMC Existing onsite storage capacity (oil) 0 FO/Inspect Existing onsite storage capacity (condensate) 7 FO/Inspect Existing onsite storage capacity (water) 1 FO/Inspect Existing onsite storage capacity (pits) 0 FO/Inspect FO=Field Observations OTHER INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS Per ECMC Rule 303.a.(5).D, the operator is required to identify existing industrial facilities within 1 mile of the proposed oil and gas location. During review of this location no industrial facilities were identified within 1 mile of the NR 41-3 pad. The NR 41-3 OGDP is in a remote area of Garfield County, Colorado with oil and gas development. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS The NR 41-3 OGDP does not include any proposed direct incremental beneficial impacts associated with the development of the proposed wells on the NR 41-3 pad, as summarized in Table 21, Beneficial Impacts List (respective Form 2B for the NR 41-3 pad). However, there are indirect beneficial impacts associated with the development of the proposed location which 25 Edge Environmental, Inc. include broader benefits to the community and the environment. A qualitative evaluation of beneficial impacts to the local community and to the environment is provided below. Table 21 Beneficial Impacts List for the NR 41-3 OGDP Total number of existing wells that are planned to be plugged and abandoned as part of this Oil and Gas Development Plan (OGDP). 0 Estimated number of truck trips that are planned to be avoided from the above- mentioned facility closures and equipment upgrades (on an annual basis). 0 Total number of existing locations that are planned to be closed and undergo final reclamation as part of this OGDP. 0 Total number of Oil Tanks planned to be removed from existing locations through the approval of this OGDP. 0 Total number of acres that are planned to be reclaimed through the closing of existing locations. 0 Total number of Condensate Tanks planned to be removed from existing locations through the approval of this OGDP. 0 Total number of existing pits that are planned to be closed and undergo final reclamation as part of this OGDP. 0 Total number of Produced Water Tanks planned to be removed from existing locations through the approval of this OGDP: 0 Beneficial Impacts to Surrounding Community The communities of Rifle and Parachute would benefit most notably from the employment and tax revenues generated by the proposed development plan. In addition to the direct jobs created by the Project, the development plan would support jobs in local businesses that support the Project and its employees, including retail trade, lodging, and eating establishments, construction, real estate, and other services. Taxes paid by TEP on production would support infrastructure and community services in Rifle and across the county. In Garfield County ad valorem (property) taxes on production fund local governments; education and health care facilities; and fire protection, water conservation, and sanitation services including the City of Rifle, Garfield School District No. Re-2, Rifle Downtown Development District, Grand River Hospital, West Divide Water Conservancy District, Rifle Branch of the Garfield County Public Library District, and Colorado River Fire Rescue. In addition to ad valorem taxes, Rifle and other Garfield County residents would receive a portion of state severance taxes paid on production in the OGDP through services provided. Severance tax on oil and gas production in Colorado is progressive, starting at 2% and increasing with sales volume. Half of severance taxes paid to the state is returned to local governments impacted by oil, gas, and mineral production. While production-based taxes would produce the greatest benefits to local governments, Garfield County and the City of Rifle would also receive tax revenues from property taxes paid on physical assets and sales and use taxes paid on equipment purchases associated with the development plan. 26 Edge Environmental, Inc. Beneficial Impacts to Surrounding Wildlife and Ecosystems A detailed discussion of the benefits to surrounding wildlife and ecosystem is included above under the section titled “Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Resources and Ecosystems.” As discussed above, TEP would minimize impacts to wildlife and surrounding ecosystems by using existing infrastructure, recycling produced water thereby reducing truck trips, installation of buried pipelines, coordination with CPW, ground clearing outside of migratory bird habitat restrictions, and implementation of a weed management program. In addition, TEP has agreed to pay the habitat mitigation fees associated with direct and indirect impacts to mule deer from the construction and long-term operation of the proposed wells at the NR 41-3 pad. As an alternative to payment of the compensatory mitigation fees, TEP and CPW have agreed to evaluate potential mitigation projects within the northwest region of Colorado that could be used to off-set direct and indirect impacts to mule deer (see Wildlife Mitigation Plan – Form 2A for additional information regarding compensatory mitigation). REFERENCES Bureau of Land Management. 2017a. Colorado Air Resource Management Modeling Study (CARMMS), 2025 CAMx Modeling Results for the High, Low, and Medium Oil and Gas Development Scenarios. CARMMS 2.0 Final Report. Prepared by Ramboll Environmental. Accessed online at: https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/soil- air-water/air/colorado. _____. 2017b. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Balzac Gulch – Phase I Oil and Gas Master Development Plan Project, DOI-BLM-CO-N040-2017-0093-EAB2015. BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office. September 2017. _____. 2022. Environmental Assessment for the TEP Rocky Mountain LLC Upper Beaver Creek Project: Existing Honea 19-05 and South Leverich 13-09 Pads, DOI-BLM-CO-G020-2022- 0053-EA. BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office. June 2022. ELEV8 Inc. Visual Assessment Report for Terra Energy Partners NR 41-3 Pad and Access Road. October 1, 2023. Table of Contents 446 Geologic Hazard Plan – Rule 304.c.(21) Geologic Hazard Plan – 304.c.(21) NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Location New Location October 2023 Page 2 of 3 INTRODUCTION This document was prepared to address the requirements of Sections 304.b.(7).I. and 304.c.(21), of the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commissions (ECMC) rules, effective January 15, 2021. TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) is proposing to construct the NR 41-3 pad (new Oil and Gas Location) to drill thirty-nine (39) proposed natural gas wells and place necessary production equipment. ECMC Rule 304.b.(7).I. requires the Operator to submit a map identifying any geologic hazards within a 1-mile radius of the proposed working pad surface. For any identified geologic hazard that extends beyond the 1-mile radius, a second map scaled to show the extent of that hazard in relation to the proposed Oil and Gas Location shall be submitted. If the Operator identifies any Geologic Hazards pursuant to Rule 304.b.(7).I, the Operator will submit a Geologic Hazard plan per Rule 304.c.(21) describing proposed mitigation measures. This report summarizes the investigation into potential geologic hazards associated with the proposed NR 41-3 well pad. The purpose of the study was to review available geologic maps and reports, Colorado Geologic Survey mapping, Garfield County’s 2017 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and data from a National Resource Conservation Service’s (“NRCS”) Customized Soil report. The NR 41-3 pad will be located at an elevation of 6,658 feet MSL in Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, of the 6th P.M., in Garfield County, Colorado. The site sits between the Roan Plateau, 2.16 miles to the Northwest, and the Colorado River, approximately 3.42 miles to the South. The Roan Plateau rises to the Northwest to an elevation of approximately 9,250 feet, while to Colorado River to the South is at an elevation of approximately of 5,280 feet. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Terra Energy Partners (TEP) has employed the services of Geotechnical Engineering Group (GEG) to provide a third-party evaluation of Geologic Hazards associated with our proposed NR 41-3 pad. I have reviewed the attached documents and references prepared by GEG and found them to be complete and accurate. The ECMC references the Colorado Revise Statue (C.R.S.) § 24-65.1-103(8) definition of Geologic Hazard. C.R.S. 24-65.1-103(8) states: “Geologic Hazard” means a geologic phenomenon which is so adverse to past, current, or foreseeable construction or land use as to constitute a significant hazard to public health and safety or to property. The term includes but is not limited to: 1. Radioactivity: Radon is not expected to represent a geologic hazard at this pad. 2. Seismic Considerations: Seismic activity is not expected to be a concern at this site. (CGS) 3. Ground subsidence: Ground subsidence is not a geologic hazard at this site. (NCRS) 4. Landslides: Landslides are not a geologic hazard at this site. (GARCO & CGS) 5. Avalanches: The Pad site has a Low avalanche probability. (GARCO) 6. Rockfalls: Rockfall is not a geologic hazard at this site. (GARCO) 7. Floods: Flooding hazards are not a geologic hazard at this site (GARCO) 8. Mudflows: Mudflow and debris fans are not a geologic hazard at this site. (GARCO) 9. Corrosive/Expansive Soil and Rock: Soil hazards are not expected to be a hazard at this site. 10. Slopes: Slope hazards are not a concern for this site. Page 3 of 3 ECMC GEOLOGIC HAZARD REQUIREMENTS Rule 304.b.(7).I Geologic Hazard Map: A map identifying any Geologic Hazards within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Working Pad Surface. For any identified Geologic Hazard that extends beyond the 1-mile radius, a second map scaled to show the extent of that Hazard in relation to the proposed Oil and Gas Location. •TEP has prepared one map showing the pad site in relation to all Geologic hazards within a 1- mile radius. Additionally, GEG’s report includes maps of the geologic hazards identified within the project area, including ancient landslide debris identified at the project site. o Exhibit GH-1 shows a 1-mile radius around the proposed working pad surface. o Appendix A includes the GEG’s Geologic Hazard Investigation report for the NR 41-3 pad. •A second map was not necessary since the entire ancient landslide is visible on the first map. Rule 304.c.(21) Geologic Hazard Plan: If the Operator identifies any Geologic Hazards pursuant to Rule 304.b.(7).I, the Operator will submit a Geologic Hazard plan describing proposed mitigation measures. o Neither GEG nor TEP found any risk of Geologic Hazard(s) CONCLUSION Based on the Geotechnical Investigation completed by GEG and TEP’s preliminary review of published geologic data, information obtained from the Colorado Geological Survey and Garfield County, along with NRCS soils data, it is TEP’s opinion that there are no geologic hazards that would pose a significant risk to the proposed Oil and Gas Operations or the Oil and Gas Location. REFERENCES GARCO: JEO Consulting Group Inc, and Garfield County, Colorado 2022 Garfield County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update NRCS: National Resources Conservation Service (2022). Web Soil Survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx CGS: Colorado Geological Survey, (2021) Hazards. https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/hazards/ USGS: John R. Donnell, Warren E. Yeend, and Marjorie C. Smith, 1989, Geologic map of the North Mamm Peak Quadragle, Garfield County, Colorado CERTIFICATION I, Stephen Sunnenberg, certify that I am a Professional Geologist, having met the educational requirements and professional work experience required by C.R.S. § 23-41-208(b). I certify that the Geologic Hazard Plan described herein is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and complete. __________________________________ ______________________ Stephen Sunnenberg Date Professional Geologist 10/9/2023 Legend Lot 1 of Section 3, T6S, R94W 6th P.M. N: 1638241.8 E: 2332904.3 Garfield County, Colorado Source: USGS Base Map with Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Dataset (COGCC GIS) Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Areas NR 41-3 Pad Site 1 Mile Radius North Scale 0’5280’2640’ Exhibit GH-1: Geologic Hazards Map NR 41-3 Pad Terra Energy Partners, LLC 3050 Post Oak, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77056 During review of potential Geologic Hazards in the vicinity of the NR 41-3 pad, a historic landslide area was identified through review of data from the Colorado Geological Survey Landslide Inventory Mapping System. However, upon further review it was determined that the landslide area poses minimal or no risk to the proposed Oil and Gas Operations or Location. Please see the Geologic Hazard Plan attached to the Form 2A for additional details. I, Stephen Sunnenberg, certify that I am a Professional Geologist, having met the educational requirements and professional work experience required by C.R.S. § 23-41-208(b). I have reviewed information pertaining to this Oil and Gas Location and the surrounding area and have identified no Geologic Hazards within one mile radius of the Oil and Gas Location. __________________________________ __________________ Stephen Sunnenberg Date Professional Geologist 10/9/2023 APPENDIX A PROPOSED NR 41-3 PAD GEOLOGICAL HAZARD INVESTIGATION 9-11-2023 Table of Contents 490 Biological Survey Report BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC NR 41-3 PROJECT Cover Photo: View of habitat conditions within the project area. Prepared for: TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC 1058 County Road 215 Parachute, Colorado Prepared by: August 2023 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 32 August 2023 1.0 INTRODUCTION TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC (TEP) requested that WestWater Engineering (WestWater) conduct biological surveys for their proposed NR 41-3 Project, which consists of the construction of a new well pad and the expansion and reoccupation of two existing well pads, as well as associated gas pipelines, water pipelines, frac lines, and access roads. The proposed project is located in Garfield County, CO on both privately owned lands and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado River Valley Field Office (CRVFO). Legal locations of the proposed project are as follows: Sections 1, 2, 3, and 12, Township 6 South, Range 94 West (Figure 1). Biological surveys were conducted between June 14 and June 23, 2023 within the survey boundaries as indicated on Figure 1. The vegetation assessment was conducted in July of 2023. The objectives of the surveys were to document the following natural resources and biological attributes: • Identify and map areas where sensitive and rare plant and animal species occur; • Identify and map areas of suitable and potential habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species; • Locate raptor (bird of prey) nest sites and identify potential raptor habitat and use areas; • Identify species of vegetation, including noxious weeds, and generally characterize habitats within the proposed project boundaries; • Perform vegetation assessments and establish reference areas; • Identify Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) occurrence, nest sites, and habitat; and • Identify aquatic habitat areas, including potential Corps of Engineers jurisdictional areas (i.e. wetlands and potential Waters of the U.S. crossings) and Waters of the State. 2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 2.1 Current Land Use The current land use in the project area is primarily non-cropland – rangeland. According to the Garfield County zoning map, this area has been classified as rural (Garfield County 2023). The project would not be located within 1-mile of any designated critical habitat areas, conservation easements, conservation resources lands, wild and scenic areas, State Parks, State Trust Lands, or State Wildlife Areas. 2.2 Terrain Access to the proposed project is available via Garfield County Road 244 west of Rifle, CO and private lease roads to the west. Terrain surrounding the proposed project area includes gently sloping benches separated by steep-sloped gulches containing intermittent waterways that flow generally to the southeast towards Rifle Creek. Elevations at the project site range from approximately 5,350 to 6,500 feet. The surrounding slopes vary from sparsely to well vegetated, depending on aspect. Some cliffs and rocky outcrops greater than 50 feet in height are present immediately southwest of the project area. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 32 August 2023 2.4 Vegetation Vegetation communities in the survey area are composed primarily of pinyon/juniper woodlands, Gambel oak stands, Wyoming sagebrush shrublands, desert shrublands on south-facing slopes, and reclaimed well pads and pipeline rights-of-way (ROWs). Reclaimed areas are concentrated in the southern end of the survey area, while denser pinyon-juniper woodlands are concentrated towards the north end. Disturbances in the area include multiple well pads, pipeline ROWs, oil & gas lease roads, and two-track ranch roads. Pinyon-Juniper woodlands: At upper elevations, mixed pinyon and juniper trees and Gambel oak occur with mountain shrub understory including mountain mahogany, serviceberry, snowberry, and antelope bitterbrush. North-facing slopes host denser stands of mixed mountain mahogany and serviceberry. Lower elevations were primarily comprised of juniper woodlands with understory/openings composed of black and Wyoming sagebrush and desert shrubland species such as shadscale, and mormon tea. Gambel oak: At upper elevations and along the drainages, mature Gambel oak trees occur, with intermixed mountain shrub species including mountain mahogany, serviceberry, and snowberry. Wyoming sagebrush shrublands: Found mostly in lower elevation flats and parklands, some former sagebrush shrublands were historically treated and are now dominated by annual grasses. Areas that had not been treated include other shrubs such as snakeweed, shadscale saltbush and grasses such as Sandberg bluegrass and needle and thread. Desert shrublands: Desert shrublands primarily occur at lower elevations and on steep, rocky, open hillsides. Common species within the desert shrublands include Parry’s rabbitbrush, siltbush, basindaisy, shadscale, greasewood, and black sagebrush. Reclaimed areas: Roadsides and reclaimed pads and pipelines were seeded with mixed grasses including western wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, and bluebunch wheatgrass, as well as some shrub species, including fourwing saltbush, rubber rabbitbrush, and snakeweed. Weedy annual grasses and annual forbs are also common in these areas, including cheatgrass, bulbous bluegrass, annual wheatgrass, redstem filaree, and cutleaf vipergrass. A list of common plant species occurring within the survey area is included as Appendix A. 3.0 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT 3.1 Sampling Methods The vegetation sampling protocol used involves a modified “line point-intercept method” based on the National Park Service Fire Monitoring Handbook (USDI National Park Service 2003) and Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosystems, Volume 1: Core Methods (Herrick et al 2015). The line point-intercept method uses the contact of a point to measure cover. The theory behind this method is that if an infinite number of points are placed in a two-dimensional area, the exact cover of a plant species can be determined by counting the number of points that intersect that species. One reference transect was established near the proposed well pad in a similar vegetation community. The following techniques were used to collect the sample data: WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 32 August 2023 potential roosts would be directly affected. No bats were observed, but no bat specific surveys were conducted. Birds: Numerous species of migratory birds, including species listed as BCC, likely nest in various habitats in the survey area. BCC and sensitive species that have potential to occur in the project area include Brewer’s Sparrow, Broad-tailed Hummingbird, and Cassin’s Finch. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is dependent upon multi-layered riparian vegetation for movement corridors, foraging, nesting, and post-breeding dispersal for adults (USFWS 2014). In western Colorado, they occur within old-growth riparian woodlands with dense understories and canopies (Wickersham 2016). There is no suitable breeding habitat for the cuckoo within ½ mile of the proposed project. Fish: The Colorado River is located downstream of the project area which provides suitable habitat for several sensitive and federally threatened and endangered fish species. Colorado River federally listed fishes and other sensitive fish species and their habitats could be impacted by project development related to water use, increase in sediment to waterways, and contamination from spills. Amphibians/Reptiles: Northern leopard frogs have the potential to occur within the project area within perennial waters. In Colorado, Great Basin spadefoot are found in pinyon/juniper woodlands, sagebrush, and semi-desert shrublands where they utilize permanent and temporary water sources for breeding. It is possible that the species could occur near the project area along intermittent/perennial water sources. There is potential that increased sedimentation to waterways as a result of construction activities related to this project and contamination to surface or groundwater from any spills could impact these species. The midget faded rattlesnake is listed by the BLM CRVFO as a sensitive species, and occurs occasionally in the vicinity of the project area (Hammerson 1999). Midget faded rattlesnakes may den communally or individually in a variety of habitat features that offer insulation and security, including deep crevices in rocky outcroppings and rodent dens. A midget faded rattlesnake was observed during surveys for this project. Insects: The monarch butterfly is currently a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS announced in December of 2020 that the species warrants listing but has been precluded by higher priority actions at this time (USFWS 2020). Monarch butterflies occur throughout North America along a variety of habitats including rangelands, farms, riparian areas, deserts, prairies, meadows, open forests, woodlands, gardens, and roadsides where milkweed grows (Jepsen, et al. 2015). None were observed during surveys; however, suitable habitat is present in the project area. The silverspot occurs in mountain valleys or near the base of mountains and floodplains where a variety of herbaceous and woody vegetation is available to provide breeding, feeding, and sheltering sites. The silverspot requires the presence of the bog violet (Viola nephrophylla/V. sororia var. affinis), which the larvae feed on exclusively. A known population of the butterfly occurs in Mesa County along Unaweep Canyon, which is greater than 60 miles from the project area. WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 32 August 2023 Silverspots require a sufficient number of individuals in close proximity for breeding and to maintain genetic diversity. It is unlikely that silverspots travel greater than 8 to 10 miles to seek out other individuals to breed with. There needs to be an adequate number of bog violets available along riparian corridors to support colonies and populations of the silverspot in order to be considered suitable habitat for crucial life functions. Stream segments, wetland areas, and riparian habitat that do not contain the bog violet are considered transitional corridors which are valuable for dispersal and genetic connectivity. The silverspot requires contiguous wetland and riparian habitat for dispersal. There is no continuous wetland and riparian habitat between any potential habitat located downstream and the project area. 6.2 Recommendations Mammals: It is unlikely that project development would impact populations of BLM sensitive species of bats due to the availability of foraging and roosting habitat in the surrounding area. Birds: Impacts to migratory bird species can be minimized if surface disturbing construction activities take place outside the nesting season. Nesting season is generally considered to occur from April 1 to July 31 in this area. May 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If vegetation clearing can occur prior to May 1, most affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After late July, most fledging has occurred and brush clearing impacts would be minimized. Fish/Amphibians: Water depletions, if any occur, and stormwater run-off may affect special status aquatic species downstream. Appropriate mitigation for depletions includes measures outlined in the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS for minor water depletions related to the BLM’s fluid minerals program (USFWS 2017). Stormwater management plans and spill prevention and counter control measures should be implemented as appropriate for projects of this nature. Reptiles: Rattlesnakes may den communally or individually in a variety of habitat features that offer insulation and security, including deep crevices in rocky outcroppings and rodent dens. Rock outcrops and crevices near the project area may provide suitable denning habitat for snakes. Construction personnel and surveyors should be educated on snake identification and conflict avoidance in an effort to prevent injury to personnel and mortality to snakes that may be encountered during the project development. Insects: It is recommended that a pollinator friendly seed mix is used during revegetation and reseeding of the proposed disturbance areas. A pollinator friendly seed mix would include a variety of forbs. It is also recommended that herbicide treatments to control weeds within the project area are conducted by certified herbicide applicators trained in the identification of native milkweeds and forbs. 7.0 ELK AND MULE DEER 7.1 Results The NR 41-3 and Federal Rulison 8 fall within the CPW-mapped mule deer winter concentration area, while only the Federal Rulison 8 falls within mule deer severe winter range (Figure 5) (CPW 2023). The project features do not occur within any other areas that are considered High Priority Habitat (HPH) for elk or mule deer by the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management WestWater Engineering Page 23 of 32 August 2023 11.0 REFERENCES Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Colorado State University Herbarium, Brit Press. Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. BLM. 2015a. BLM Colorado State Director’s Sensitive Species List. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado. BLM. 2015b. Colorado River Valley Field Office, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, June 2015. Bureau of Land Management, Silt, Colorado. BLM. 2018. CRVFO Raptor Survey and Report Protocols. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River Valley Field Office. Silt. BLM. 2021. Colorado River Valley Field Office Special Status Plant Species Survey Protocols for Oil and Gas Project. Silt, CO Burt, J., and S. Spackman. 1995. Status Report for Phacelia submutica Howell. Unpublished document #117, Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, 45 pp + maps and figures. CPW. 2023. Colorado Parks and Wildlife All Species Activity Mapping Data. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7. ECMC. 2023. ECMC ArcGIS available online at: https://ecmc.state.co.us/data.html#/cogis CWMA. 2009. A. Doran, S. Anthony, and. C. Shelton. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Tenth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 2011. Mammals of Colorado, Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Garfield County. 2023. Garfield County Land Explorer – GIS Interactive Map. Available online at: https://maps.garfield-county.com/landexplore Grauch, R. I. Soil characteristics of Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia) habitat. Unpublished report, personal communication (as cited in Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 144, p. 45086), U.S. Geological Survey. Hammerson, Geoffrey. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles of Colorado. 2nd edition, University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, S.E. McCord, E.M. Courtright, J.W. Karl, and L.M. Burkett. 2015. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and Savanna Ecosystems, Second Edition, Volume 1: Core Methods. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM. Iverson, G.C. and M.R. Fuller. 1991. Woodland nesting raptor survey techniques. Pp 118-124 in Proc. Midwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C. Jepsen, S., D.F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Ormes, and S.H. Black. 2015. Conservation Status and Ecology of Monarchs in the United States. 36 pp. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. WestWater Engineering Page 24 of 32 August 2023 Kennedy, P. L., and D.W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 249-257. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Ladyman, J. A. R. 2003. Phacelia scopulina (A. Nels) J.T. Howell var. submutica (J.T. Howell) Halse (Debeque phacelia): a technical conservation assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, December 19. Mosher, J.A. and M.R. Fuller. 1996. Surveying woodland hawks with broadcasts of Great Horned Owl vocalization. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24: 531-536. Mosher, J.A., M.R. Fuller, and M. Kopeny. 1990. Surveying woodland raptors by broadcast of conspecific vocalizations. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61:453-461. NRCS. 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Poole, A. (editor). 2023. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RMGTR- 217, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide, Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. USDI, National Park Service. 2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Boise (ID): Fire Management Program Center, National Interagency Fire Center. 274p. USFWS. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Critical Habitat for the Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register (Volume 49, No. 54, March 21, 1994, pp. 13374-13400). USFWS. 2014. Federal Register, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Final Rule, Vol. 79, No. 192, October 3, 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS. 2020. Federal Register, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for the Monarch Butterfly, Vol. 85, No. 243, December 17, 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. WestWater Engineering Page 25 of 32 August 2023 USFWS. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. USFWS. 2023. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), available online at: ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittman. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. WestWater Engineering. 2022. Arco Deep 1-27 Well Pad Location Vegetation Assessment. WestWater Engineering. Grand Junction, CO. September 2022. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 2006. Weeds of the West, Ninth Edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming. Laramie. Wickersham, L.E. (editor). 2016. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Appendix A Bulbous springparsley Cymopterus bulbosus x Sagebrush shrublands Cainville thistle Cirsium calcareum x Wash bottoms Colorado four o’clock Mirabilis multiflora xx Pinyon/Juniper Crispleaf buckwheat Eriogonum corymbosum xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa xx Roadsides, disturbed areas Cushion wild buckwheat Eriogonum ovalifolium xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Cutleaf vipergrass Scorzonera laciniata xx Disturbed areas Desert madwort Alyssum desertorum xx Sagebrush shrublands, disturbed areas Desert paintbrush Castilleja chromosa xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Eastwood’s sandwort Eremogone eastwoodiae xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Engelmann’s fleabane Erigeron engelmannii xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis xxx Disturbed areas Fineleaf hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius xxx Pinyon/Juniper, disturbed areas Fort Wingate milkvetch Astragalus wingatanus x Pinyon/Juniper, Desert shrublands Four Corners rockcress Boechera consanguinea xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Gray aster Eurybia glauca xx Wash bottoms, pinyon/juniper Heartleaf twistflower Streptanthus cordatus xx Pinyon/Juniper Hoary Townsend daisy Townsendia incana xxx Pinyon/Juniper, desert shrublands Hollyleaf clover Trifolium gymnocarpon xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Ives’ fournerved daisy Tetraneuris ivesiana xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Kingcup cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus x Pinyon/Juniper Lesser rushy milkvetch Astragalus convallarius xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Lewis’ flax Linum lewisii xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands, disturbed areas Longleaf buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Long-leaf phlox Phlox longifolia xx Sagebrush shrublands Appendix A Mountain cactus Pediocactus simpsonii xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Mountain pepperweed Lepidium montanum xx Pinyon/Juniper Mountain tansymustard Descurainia incisa xx Pinyon/Juniper Navajo fleabane Erigeron concinnus xx Sagebrush shrublands, desert shrublands Plains prickly pear Opuntia polyacantha xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands, disturbed areas Pointtip twinpod Physaria floribunda xx Rocky hillsides, drainage bottoms Prickly Russian thistle Salsola tragus xxx Disturbed areas Rayless tansyaster Machaeranthera grindelioides xx Pinyon/Juniper, desert shrublands Redstem stork’s bill Erodium cicutarium xx Disturbed areas Rock goldenrod Petradoria pumila xx Pinyon/Juniper Rockcress Arabis sp. xx Pinyon/Juniper Rose heath Chaetopappa ericoides xx Desert shrublands, sagebrush shrublands Roughseed cryptantha Oreocarya flavoculata xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Saltlover Halogeton glomeratus xx Pinyon/Juniper, disturbed areas Scarlet gilia Ipomopsis aggregata xx Pinyon/Juniper Scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea xx Desert shrublands, disturbed areas Sego lily Calochortus nuttallii xx Desert shrublands Sharpleaf twinpod Physaria acutifolia x Pinyon/Juniper, wash bottoms Shortstem lupine Lupinus brevicaulis xxx Pinyon/Juniper Silky cryptantha Cryptantha sericea xx Wash bottoms, desert shrublands Slender wild buckwheat Eriogonum microtheca xx Pinyon/Juniper Spanish bayonet Yucca harrimaniae x Pinyon/Juniper, desert shrublands Spiny phlox Phlox hoodii xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Spreading fleabane Erigeron divergens xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Sulphur-flower buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum x Pinyon/Juniper Tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum xxx Disturbed areas Appendix A Taper-tip onion Allium acuminatum xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Textile onion Allium textile xx Rocky hillsides, desert shrublands Tufted evening primrose Oenothera caespitosa xx Rocky hillsides, desert shrublands Tufted milkvetch Astragalus spatulatus xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Utah sweetvetch Hedysarum boreale xxx Pinyon/Juniper Wavyleaf thistle Cirsium undulatum x Desert Shrublands, roadsides Yellow milkvetch Astragalus flavus x Desert shrublands Shrubs/Trees Alderleaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus montanus xxx Pinyon/Juniper Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata xx Pinyon/Juniper Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata spp. tridentata x Drainage bottoms, sagebrush shrublands Black sagebrush Artemisia nova xxx Pinyon/Juniper, desert shrublands Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Four-winged saltbush Atriplex canescens xxx Desert shrublands, reclaimed areas Gambel oak Quercus gambelii xx Pinyon/juniper woodlands, mountain shrublands Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus xx Desert shrublands Longflower rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus depressus xxx Pinyon/Juniper Mormon tea Ephedra viridis xxx Pinyon/Juniper Parry’s rabbitbrush Ericameria parryi xx Pinyon/Juniper Roundleaf snowberry Symphoricarpos rotundifolius xxx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa xx Reclaimed areas, roadsides Saskatoon serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia xxx Pinyon/Juniper Shadscale saltbush Atriplex confertifolia xx Desert shrublands, reclaimed areas Siltbush Zuckia brandegeei xxx Rocky hillsides, desert shrublands Twoneedle pinyon Pinus edulus xx Pinyon/Juniper Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma xxx Pinyon/Juniper Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata xx Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush shrublands Appendix A Wyoming sagebrush Artemisia ssp. tridentata wyomingensis xxx Sagebrush shrublands, Pinyon/Juniper APPENDIX B REFERENCE AREA PHOTOGRAPHS Section 3 Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC Taken By: West Water Engineering Date Taken: 07/19/2023 NR 41-3 REFERENCE AREA PICTURES Notes: 1) Please see the Reference Area Map for an aerial overview of the reference area 2) Reference Area Location: Lat: 39 56295 / Long: -107 868337 3) Please see the Vegetation Assessment conducted on July 19, 2023 for additional details on the reference area including a list of dominant vegetation within the reference area Reference Area Overhead APPENDIX C RAPTOR NEST PHOTOGRAPHS AND INFORMATION COHA-1 COHA-2 COHA-3 COHA-4 RTHA-1 RTHA-2 RTHA-3 Table of Contents 537 Approved ECMC Form 2C ECMC Operator Number: City: Name of Operator: Address: 96850 TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC 1058 COUNTY ROAD 215 PARACHUTE Zip:State:81635CO Phone: Name: Contact Name and Telephone: Jeff Kirtland (970) 263-2736 Email:jkirtland@terraep.com OPERATOR INFORMATION This OGDP is part of a Comprehensive Area Plan (CAP):No CAP ID#:Comprehensive Area Plan (CAP) Name: Does this Oil and Gas Development Plan include any proposed Oil and Gas Locations where the Working Pad Surface is within 2,000 feet of a Residential Building Unit, High Occupancy Building Unit, or School Facility within a Disproportionately Impacted Community?No Does this Oil and Gas Development Plan include a proposed Oil and Gas Location where any portion of the Oil and Gas Location is within a Disproportionately Impacted Community?No State of Colorado Energy & Carbon Management Commission 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 801, Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 894-2100 Fax: (303) 894 -2109 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION FORM 2C Rev 01/21 Document Number: Date Received: 11/14/2023 403547362 OGDP ID# 487302Per Rule 303, this form and all required components and attachments will be submitted for any Oil and Gas Development Plan. OPERATOR COMMENT AND SUBMITTAL I hereby certify all statements made in this form are, to the best of my knowledge, true, correct, and complete, and that the required components of the Oil and Gas Development Plan have been submitted pursuant to Rule 303.a.(7). X County :Notification Status:RelevantGARFIELD LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION Oil & Gas Development Plan Hearing Application Docket Number: Pending Form 2As associated with this Oil and Gas Development Plan: 231000324 Form 2B (Cumulative Impacts Data Identification) Document #:403547360 2A Doc #Location Name Qtr Qtr Sec Twp Range 403520979 NR 41-3 LOT 1 3 6S 94W < No row provided > List every approved Oil and Gas Location associated with this Oil and Gas Development Plan: Oil & Gas Development Plan Name:NR 41-3 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPONENTS Page 1 of 3Date Run: 7/22/2024 Doc [#403547362] Melissa Luke Title:Print Name: Email:Date:mluke@terraep.com 11/14/2023 Regulatory Specialist Based on the information provided herein, and in conjunction with all associated components, the Director determined this Oil and Gas Development Plan is complete. This completeness determination does not constitute approval or denial of an Oil and Gas Development Plan, nor does it convey any rights to conduct any surface-disturbing activities. This approved Form 2C serves as electronic notice for consultation per Rule 303.d.(2). Contact OGLA Staff for consultation. ECMC Approved:Director of ECMC Date:7/22/2024 Page 2 of 3Date Run: 7/22/2024 Doc [#403547362] User Group Comment Comment Date OGLA This Form 2C, along with the associated Form 2A, Form 2B, and OGDP hearing application have been reviewed for completeness. The Director has determined this OGDP application is complete. 07/22/2024 Total: 1 comment(s) General Comments ATTACHMENT LIST Att Doc Num Name 403547362 Form 02C SUBMITTED 403594613 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP Total Attach: 2 Files Page 3 of 3Date Run: 7/22/2024 Doc [#403547362] Table of Contents 541 Appendix L: CDPHE Rulison Field Stormwater Discharge Permit CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR400000 STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Certification Number: COR404624 This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes: Owner TEP Rocky Mountain LLC Operator TEP Rocky Mountain LLC to discharge stormwater from the facility identified as Rulison Field To the waters of the State of Colorado, including, but not limited to: Colorado River Facility Activity : OilGas Disturbed Acres: 164 acres Facility Located at: See Map In File Uninc 81650 Garfield County Latitude 39.517 Longitude -107.912 Specific Information (if applicable): Certification is issued: 3/27/2024 Certification is effective: 4/1/2024 Expiration date of general permit: 3/31/2029 This certification under the general permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. The certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the COR400000 permit. This certification was approved by: Andrew Sayers-Fay Permits Section Manager Clean Water Program Water Quality Control Division Table of Contents 543 Appendix M: Garfield County Payment Agreement Form Jeff Kirtland 970 312-5643 1058 County Road 215 Parachute CO 81635 jkirtland@terraep.com Jeff Kirtland 11/15/2023 TEP Rocky Mountain LLC ("TEP") Limited Impact Review/Oil and Gas Permit for the Clough NR 41-3 Pad Page 1 of 5 NR 41-3 Proposed Pad Access Plan of Development Introduction The NR 41-3 Oil and Gas Development Plan (“OGDP”) is a 564.195-acre OGDP consisting of 12.705-acres of Surface Lands and 551.49-acres of Mineral Lands located within Lot 1, Lot 2, S½NE¼ of Section 2 and Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94, W½SW¼, W½SE¼, SW¼NE¼ of Section 31, and SW¼NW¼, W½SW¼, SW¼SE¼ of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado. The NR 41-3 OGDP includes the construction of the proposed NR 41-3 pad to support drilling, completion, and production operations for thirty-nine (39) proposed directionally drilled natural gas wells, construction of a new access road, and installation of associated pipeline infrastructure. The NR 41-3 pad is a proposed Oil and Gas Location, located within Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., within Garfield County, Colorado, on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC, which overlies private minerals. The Oil and Gas Location is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the City of Rifle, Colorado. The land on which the pad is located is zoned as Resource Land and is classified as non-crop land, rangeland. The thirty-nine (39) proposed wells planned for development on this location will be directionally drilled into the underlying Fee lease and adjacent Federal lease COC-073070. The proposed NR 41-3 pad will be constructed to accommodate the development of the thirty-nine (39) proposed directional wells. The proposed / existing access road from Garfield County Road 244 will be used to access the proposed Oil and Gas Location. The existing access road is approximately 2.42 miles in length from Garfield County Road 244 (Fravert Reservoir Road) to the proposed access road. The proposed access road to the proposed Oil and Gas Location is approximately 2.25 miles in length. NR 41-3 Proposed Pad Access Plan of Development TEP Rocky Mountain LLC (“TEP”) is requesting a new Right-of-Way (“ROW”) to improve and expand an existing two-track from TEP’s existing access road to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The total distance of the proposed access to the new proposed NR 41-3 pad is +/- 12,100 feet, which +/- 8,127.75 feet is on private surface and +/- 3,972.25 feet is on Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) surface. The proposed access on BLM surface follows an existing two track to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The proposed NR 41-3 pad is located on private land owned by Clough Sheep Company LLC (“Clough”) in Lot 1 of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. TEP intends to drill thirty-nine (39) wells on this new NR 41-3 proposed pad, which thirty- one (31) of the proposed wells will be drilled into the COC-073070 Federal Mineral Lease. The remaining (8) wells will be drilled into a FEE lease that underlies the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The reason for this SF299 and Plan of Development is for access across BLM surface to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The requested expansion of the existing two track ROW width will be to thirty-five feet (35’), which is broken down as twenty feet (20’) feet of traveled surface with two and one-half feet (2.5’) feet on each side for barrow ditches. The extra ten feet (10’) will be utilized for periodic Page 2 of 5 turnouts along the proposed access road. The temporary ROW width for the total disturbance associated with the access road for construction to accommodate cuts and fills and topsoil management will vary from ninety feet (90’) to one hundred and fifteen feet (115’) wide along the proposed access road. The requested term for the ROW will be thirty (30) years. Access The proposed access to the NR 41-3 starts at CR 244 and traverses west across an existing TEP lease road to the existing NR 334-1 TEP pad located in the SW¼SE¼ of Section 1 in Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The access continues to travel west along an existing two track on BLM Surface in the S½SW¼ of Section 1 in Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The two track then crosses back onto Clough in the NW¼SW¼ of Section 1 before the two track crosses back onto BLM surface traveling north in the NE¼SE¼ of Section 2 in Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The proposed access follows the existing two track back onto Clough property to the proposed NR 41-3 pad located in Lot 1 of Section 3 in Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. The proposed access is further depicted on the attached Exhibit “A”. Road Construction (Existing and New Road) Existing Road Existing roads, including private lease roads and public roads, would be utilized during construction, drilling, completions, and production operations of the thirty-nine (39) new proposed directional natural gas wells on the NR 41-3 pad. Existing lease roads would be operated and maintained as summarized below. TEP would be responsible for continuous inspection and maintenance of the existing access roads. TEP would conform to a schedule of preventative maintenance, which at a minimum, provides for the following measures on a biannual basis. Problem areas would be corrected as needed. 1. Road surface grading and application of surfacing materials, as needed. 2. Relief ditch, culvert, and cattle guard cleaning. 3. Erosion control measures for cut and fill slopes and all other disturbed areas. 4. Road closures during periods of excessive soil moisture to prevent rutting caused by vehicular traffic. 5. Road and slope stabilization measures as required. 6. All roads shall be maintained to the standards required for the construction of the road until final abandonment and rehabilitation takes place. Minor road maintenance would be performed along the existing access roads prior to construction. Storm water controls along the access road near the pad would be evaluated during construction to ensure they are functioning properly. Additional controls may be evaluated during construction with the Authorized Officer or surface owners and implemented as necessary. New or Reconstructed Access Roads TEP will construct a new access road over the existing two-track from Clough property across BLM surface to the proposed NR 41-3 pad. The new access road will be required for the Page 3 of 5 development of the thirty-nine (39) new proposed directional natural gas wells on the proposed NR 41-3 FEE pad. The total distance of the proposed new access road over the existing two-track on BLM surface is +/- 3,972.25 feet (0.75 miles) and is further depicted on the attached Exhibit “A”. The proposed new access road will be widened to a twenty foot (20’) wide driving surface with two and one-half feet (2.5’) on either side of the driving surface for stormwater control measures such as barrow ditches, berms, and culvert inlets/outlets. Due to the terrain and the proposed constructed grade, TEP plans to implement turnouts approximately every one thousand feet (1,000’) (or as needed) to keep the road operable for vehicular traffic. At each turnout point, TEP will utilize an extra ten feet (10’) adjacent to the road. The widened access road right-of-way will be thirty-five feet (35’) in width. Storm water controls along the existing access road and proposed two-track would be evaluated during construction to ensure they are functioning properly. Please see the Proposed Access Road Plan & Profile included in the APD for additional details. Clearing, Grading, and Top Soiling Vegetation would be cleared, and the construction workspace graded to provide for a safe and efficient operation of construction equipment and vehicles, and to provide space for storage of subsoil and topsoil. Construction activity and ground disturbance would be limited to approved, staked areas. Trees, if any, would be cut with a chain saw and /or mechanical shears and brush would be generally cut with a hydro-axe or similar equipment. Trees and brush would be cut as close to the ground as possible. Vegetative material would typically be chipped or shredded and incorporated into the topsoil. Stumps that are not shredded or chipped and incorporated into the topsoil would be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Topsoil would be salvaged where required by the BLM and landowners and protected along the pipeline route to facilitate revegetation of the construction workspace after construction is complete. All available topsoil would be removed from the trench line and working side of the workspace. Topsoil would be stockpiled separately from subsoil and would not be used to pad the trench or construct trench breakers. Dry drainages or washes that cross the construction workspace would not be blocked with topsoil or subsoil piles. Topsoil and subsoil would be placed on the banks of the drainage. Gaps would be left periodically in the topsoil and subsoil windrows to avoid ponding and excess diversion of natural runoff during storm events. Interim Reclamation Interim reclamation of the constructed access road will begin following completion of construction of the proposed driving surface of the access road. Preserved topsoil windrowed along the uphill or downhill side of the access road corridor will be placed back over the cut and fill slope of the access road. Any boulders larger than twenty-four inches (24”) in diameter exposed on the cut and fill slope will be removed prior to reseeding. Once placement of topsoil is complete, hydro-mulch / seed will be applied to the cut and fill slopes of the access road to stabilize topsoil and promote establishment of desirable vegetation. Page 4 of 5 Compaction Alleviation Compaction alleviation is a necessary component of reclamation as soil compaction can reduce water infiltration and may hinder the ability of seed to penetrate the soil following germination. All compacted portions of the roads not required for long term production operations, will be ripped to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) when subsurface conditions permit. If the seed bed has begun to crust over or seal, the seed bed will be prepared by disking or some other mechanical means sufficient to allow penetration of the seed into the soil. Establish Desired Self-Perpetuating Plant Community A seed mix approved by BLM will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the proposed driving surface of the proposed access road. Generally, slopes steeper than 2:1 will be hydroseeded and slopes shallower than 2:1 will be drill seeded. Seeding will occur during an appropriate time of year to ensure the best possible results for plant growth. The seed mix will be certified and there will be no primary or secondary noxious weeds in the seed mixture. Seedbed Preparation And Seeding Prior to seeding, topsoil will be spread to a uniform depth to promote the establishment of desirable vegetation. Soil samples may be collected once re-contouring and topsoil redistribution has occurred to determine if any soil amendments are needed. Recommendations regarding seed mix and/or soil amendments will be reviewed with TEP’s reclamation consultant prior to application. All compacted portions of the road, not required for long term production operations, will be ripped to a depth of eighteen inches (18”) when subsurface conditions permit. If the seed bed has begun to crust over or seal, the seed bed will be prepared by disking or some other mechanical means sufficient to allow penetration of the seed into the soil. In addition, broadcast seed should be covered by using a harrow, drag bar, or chain. Generally, slopes steeper than 2:1 will be hydroseeded and slopes shallower than 2:1 will be drill seeded. Drill seeding will occur on contour with a depth no greater than one-half inch (0.5”). Seeding will occur during the appropriate time of year to ensure the best possible results for plant growth. Seeding typically occurs immediately after reclamation activities while the soil is loose; however, seeding may be delayed due to high temperatures and dry conditions. Hydro-mulch will be applied to the reclaimed area to minimize the potential for soil erosion and to provide protection for the seed prior to germination. Proper reshaping of slopes, placement of soils and earthwork, and other site design characteristics provide for site stabilization. Re-establishment of desirable plant communities provides the best means for ensuring long-term site stability. Final Reclamation Final reclamation of the proposed access road on Federal surface (approximately 0.75-miles) will occur immediately following final reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad, unless otherwise agreed to with the BLM. Final reclamation of the proposed access road will include, removal of road surfacing material (gravel), temporary removal of available topsoil along the adjacent cut / fill slopes, re- grading the road as closely as possible to preconstruction conditions, replacement of removed Page 5 of 5 topsoil, and reseeding the disturbance areas. Reclamation of the access road will also include the re-establishment of the existing two-track, which is utilized by the BLM for administrative purposes. Final reclamation, including recontouring, topsoil placement, compaction alleviation, seed application, weed management, and reclamation monitoring, will generally follow the practices described above. Reclamation Monitoring, Inspection, Maintenance, And Reporting Permanent vegetative cover will be considered successful when the basal cover of desirable perennial species is at least eighty percent (80%) of the basal cover of the undisturbed site or, of a reference area, or, if available, of the potential basal cover as defined in the National Resource Conservation Service Range/Ecological Site(s), or similar, for the area. Weed Management TEP will implement a weed management program to ensure the proposed access road is free of undesirable plant species designated to be noxious weeds as required by Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission Rule 1003.f. TEP shall be responsible for controlling all noxious weeds in a timely and effective fashion on the NR 41-3 proposed access. Weed control measures will be conducted in compliance with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, C.R.S. §35-5.5-115 and the current rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of Colorado Noxious Weed Act. Field personnel will monitor the access road for noxious weeds and notify TEP’s Environmental Specialist, and a certified weed sprayer will be dispatched to inspect the site and take action to treat the noxious weeds if present. SF299 Questions 13a.) TEP reviewed all the access routes in and around Section 3 of Township 6 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. to drill the new thirty-nine (39) proposed wells. 13b.) The proposed NR 41-3 pad and access route was selected due to this pad and access route being the best alternative to reach all thirty-nine (39) new proposed directional wells. Additionally, TEP has designed this proposed access route to follow an existing two-track to be the least impactful to the existing surface conditions in the area. 13c.) To develop Federal Minerals and reduce total disturbance on BLM surface as much as possible, the proposed access route on BLM surface was selected as the best candidate. 15.) This project is critical to the prudent and efficient development of Federal Mineral resources from the BLM lease COC-073070 that TEP proposes to develop. 16.) The requested NR 41-3 pad and access will have negligible effects on the population in that area and minimal impact to nearby residential and agriculture development. 17.) The proposed NR 41-3 pad and access will have no impact on groundwater quality or quantity Page 6 of 5 and will likewise not alter any streams or bodies of water. Temporary dust and noise will be considered during operations. If adverse impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be developed to reduce impacts to acceptable levels. 18.) There will be no impact to marine mammals or fish during construction or long-term use of the proposed access road. TEP will utilize BMP’s to protect fish, wildlife, and plant life during the construction, installation, and reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad and access. The only activity after interim reclamation of the NR 41-3 pad and road will be minimal truck and workover activity. Page 7 of 5 Exhibit “A”