FINAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

DOCUMENT FOR THE 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(Volume 1 of 2) 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators

Prepared by 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Laramie, Wyoming 

January 2006 
FINAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR 

THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming

and 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators 

Prepared by 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Laramie, Wyoming 

MAI Project 35982 

January 2006
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project i 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................v 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................4 

1.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ...............................................................................6 

1.3 STUDY TASKS............................................................................................................7 

2.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY .....................................................................................................8 

2.1 PROJECT EMISSIONS................................................................................................8 

2.1.1 Construction Emissions .................................................................................8 

2.1.2 Production Emissions ..................................................................................10 

2.1.3 Total Field Emissions ..................................................................................13 

2.2 REGIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY..................................................................16 

3.0 NEAR-FIELD MODELING ANALYSES.............................................................................19 

3.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................19 

3.2 METEOROLOGY DATA ..........................................................................................20 

3.3 BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS...........................................20 

3.4 CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT...............................................22 

3.4.1 PM10/PM2.5...................................................................................................24 

3.4.2 SO2 ...............................................................................................................26 

3.4.3 NO2 ..............................................................................................................27 

3.4.4 CO................................................................................................................32 

3.4.4 O3 .................................................................................................................32 

3.5 HAP IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................................................34 

4.0 MID-FIELD AND FAR-FIELD ANALYSES .......................................................................41 

4.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................42 

4.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE MODELING SCENARIOS .........................................43 

4.3 METEOROLOGICAL MODEL INPUT AND OPTIONS ........................................46 

4.4 DISPERSION MODEL INPUT AND OPTIONS......................................................48 

4.4.1 Chemical Species..........................................................................................48 

4.4.2 Model Receptors ..........................................................................................49 

4.4.3 Source Parameters........................................................................................49 

4.5 BACKGROUND DATA ............................................................................................57 

4.5.1 Criteria Pollutants ........................................................................................57 

4.5.2 Visibility ......................................................................................................57 

4.5.3 Visibility ......................................................................................................59 

4.5.4 Lake Chemistry............................................................................................59 

4.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................60 

4.6.1 Concentration...............................................................................................62 

4.6.2 Deposition....................................................................................................64 
ii Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.6.3 Sensitive Lakes ............................................................................................65 

4.6.4 Visibility ......................................................................................................66 

5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................73 

APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 

APPENDIX B: PROJECT EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

APPENDIX C: CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

APPENDIX D: REGIONAL COMPRESSION EXISTING AND PROPOSED 

APPENDIX E: CALMET INPUT DATA 

APPENDIX F: MAXIMUM PREDICTED MID-FIELD AND FAR-FIELD IMPACTS 

APPENDIX G: VOLUME II – JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT DRAFT AIR 

QUALITY TSD SUPPLEMENT 

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map 1.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming........................2 

Map 1.2 Air Quality Study Area/Modeling Domain .............................................................3 

Map 2.1 Regional Inventory Area and Included NEPA Project Areas................................17 

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Single-well Construction Emissions Summary for Both Straight and 

Directionally Drilled Wells....................................................................................11 

Table 2.2 Single-Well Production Emissions Summary........................................................12 

Table 2.3 Estimated Jonah Infill Drilling Project Maximum Annual In-field 

Emissions Summary - Construction and Production .............................................14 

Table 2.4 EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel Engine Emissions Standards (g/hp-hr)1 ................15 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project iii 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 2.5 Regional Inventory Summary of Emissions Changes from January 1, 

2001, to June 30, 2003 ...........................................................................................18 

Table 3.1 Near-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 

(Micrograms per Cubic Meter [μg/m3]).................................................................22 

Table 3.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Class II PSD Increments for 

Comparison to Near-Field Analysis Results (μg/m3) ............................................23 

Table 3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10/PM2.5 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project ....................................................................................................................26 

Table 3.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project.................27 

Table 3.5 Maximum Modeled Annual NO2 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project ....................................................................................................................31 

Table 3.6 Maximum Modeled CO Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project .................32 

Table 3.7 Maximum Modeled O3 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project ...................34 

Table 3.8 Maximum Modeled 1-Hour HAP Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project ....................................................................................................................36 

Table 3.9 Maximum Modeled Long-term (Annual) HAP Concentrations, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project .............................................................................................39 

Table 3.10 Long-term Modeled MLE and MEI Cancer Risk Analyses, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project ......................................................................................................40 

Table 4.1 Summary of Maximum Modeled Field-Wide Emissions (tpy), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming.........................................................45 

Table 4.2 Far-field Analysis Background of Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 

(μg/m3

)...................................................................................................................58 

Table 4.3 IMPROVE Background Aerosol Extinction Values .............................................58 

Table 4.4 Far-field Analysis Background of Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 

(μg/m3

)...................................................................................................................59 

Table 4.5 Background ANC Values for Acid Sensitive Lakes..............................................60 

Table 4.6 Modeling Scenarios Analyzed for Project Alternative and Regional 

Emissions, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2004.........61 
iv Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.7 NAAQS, WAAQS, PSD Class I and Class II Increments, and PSD Class I 

and Class II Significance Levels for Comparison to Far-field Analysis 

Results (μg/m3

) ......................................................................................................62 

Table 4.8 FLAG Report Background Extinction Values.......................................................67 

Table 4.9 Monthly f(RH) Factors Factors from Regional Haze Rule Guidance ...................69 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Approximate Single-Well Development Timeline ..................................................9 

Figure 3.1 Wind Rose, Jonah Field, 1999 ...............................................................................21 

Figure 3.2 Near-field Modeling PM10/PM2.5 Source and Receptor Layout ............................24 

Figure 3.3 Near-field Modeling SO2 Source and Receptor Layout ........................................28 

Figure 3.4 Near-field Modeling NOx, CO, and HAPs Source and Receptor Layout..............30 

Figure 3.5 Short-term HAPs Source and Receptor Layout.....................................................37 

Figure 4.1 Mid-field Modeling Receptor Locations ...............................................................50 

Figure 4.2 Far-field Modeling Receptor Locations.................................................................51 

Figure 4.3 Far-field Modeling Area Compressor Locations ...................................................53 

Figure 4.4 Far-field Modeling Project-Specific Point and Area Source Locations ................54 

Figure 4.5 Far-field Modeling Idealization of NEPA Project Areas.......................................55 

Figure 4.6 Far-field Modeling Idealization of County Oil and Gas Well Area Sources.........56 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project v 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

μeq/l Microequivalents per liter 

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

ANC Acid neutralizing capacity 

AQD Air Quality Division 

AQRV Air Quality Related Value 

AQTSD Air Quality Technical Support Document 

ARS Air Resource Specialists 

BACT Best available control technology 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BP BP America Production Company 

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene 

BTNF-MA Bridger-Teton National Forest Management Area 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CDPHE/APCD Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/Air Pollution 

Control Division 

CD/WII Continental Divide/Wamsutter II 

CO Carbon monoxide 

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

DAT Deposition analysis thresholds 

DEM Digital elevation model 

dv Deciview 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EnCana EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FLAG Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup 

FLM Federal Land Managers 

f(RH) Relative humidity factor 

GRI Gas Research Institute 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

HNO3 Nitric acid 

hp Horsepower 

hp-hr Horsepower-hour 

IDEQ Idaho Division of Environment Quality 

IDLH Immediately dangerous to life or health 
vi Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

IOGCC Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

kg/ha-yr Kilograms per hectare per year 

LAC Level of Acceptable Change 

LOP Life of Project 

LULC Land use and land cover 

MEI Maximum exposed individual 

MLE Most likely exposure 

MM5 Mesoscale meteorological model 

N Nitrogen 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NH3 Ammonia 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NO3 Nitrate 

NOI Notice of Installation 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NPS National Park Service 

NSR New Source Review 

NWS National Weather Service 

O3 Ozone 

Operators EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America Production Company, and 

other oil and gas companies 

PAPA Pinedale Anticline Project Area 

P-BACT Presumptive BACT 

PFO Pinedale Field Office 

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size 

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size 

ppb Parts per billion 

ppm Parts per million 

Project Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Protocol Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project vii 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

REL Reference exposure level 

RfC Reference Concentrations for Chronic Inhalation 

RFD Reasonably foreseeable development 

RFFA Reasonably foreseeable future action 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

RT Round trip 

S Sulfur 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SO4 Sulfate 

SWWYTAF Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum 

tpy Tons per year 

TRC TRC Environmental Corporation 

TSP Total suspended particulates 

UDEQ-AQD Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division 

UDNR-DOGM Utah Department of Natural Resources-Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

URF Unit risk factor 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

VMT Vehicle miles traveled 

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDR Well development rate 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 
viii Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 1 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This Air Quality Technical Support Document (AQTSD) was prepared to summarize analyses 

performed to quantify potential air quality impacts from the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project (project) for five project development alternatives selected for inclusion in the project 

environmental impact statement (EIS). These five development alternatives include the No 

Action, Proposed Action, Alternative A, Alternative B, and the Preferred Alternative. The air 

quality analyses for the selected project development alternatives and several other additional 

development alternatives were performed and presented in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming (DEIS) (BLM 2005) and 

summarized in detail in the Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement (AQTSD) (TRC 2004) and the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement (TRC 2005). This 

AQTSD presents a stand-alone document that summarizes the modeling analyses for the selected 

alternatives and incorporates updates and corrections that were identified in comments received 

on the two draft technical support documents. 

The methodologies utilized in the analysis were originally defined in an air quality impact 

assessment protocol (Protocol) prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) (2003) with 

input from the lead agency, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

and project stakeholders including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National 

Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service), and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality - Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD). The 

protocol is included in Appendix A. 

The project's location in west-central Wyoming required the examination of project and 

cumulative source impacts in Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, northeastern Utah, and 

southeastern Idaho within a defined study area (modeling domain) (Maps 1.1 and 1.2). The 
2 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Map 1.1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location, Sublette County, Wyoming. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Map 1.2 Air Quality Study Area/Modeling Domain. 
4 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

analysis area includes the area surrounding the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling project area 

(JIDPA) and all or a portion of the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Popo Agie, Teton, and Washakie 

Wilderness Areas; the Wind River Roadless Area; and Grand Teton and Yellowstone National 

Parks. 

Impacts analyzed include those on air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs) resulting 

from air emissions from: 1) project sources within the JIDPA, 2) non-project state-permitted and 

reasonably foreseeable future action (RFFA) sources within the modeling domain, and 

3) non-project reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) within the modeling domain. The 

project source emissions inventory was performed in accordance with the Protocol and following 

WDEQ-AQD oil and gas inventory guidance (WDEQ-AQD 2001). Portions of the inventory 

were submitted to WDEQ-AQD for review prior to inventory finalization. Non-project sources 

were inventoried as part of a cooperative effort between the BLM Wyoming State Office, the 

project proponents, and the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project proponents. These 

data were obtained for use in the Rawlins and Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

revisions, this project EIS air quality analysis, and the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development 

project EIS air quality analysis. Chapter 2.0 specifically presents an overview of the emissions 

inventories. 

The remainder of this AQTSD describes the project in further detail, provides a description of 

the alternatives evaluated, and presents a list of tasks performed for the study. Descriptions of 

the near-field air quality impact assessment methodology and impacts are provided in Chapter 

3.0, and Chapter 4.0 describes the CALPUFF analyses performed for assessment of near-field 

and in-field, mid-field, and far-field direct and cumulative impacts. 

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana), BP America Production Company (BP), and other oil 

and gas companies (collectively referred to as the Operators) have notified the BLM, Pinedale 

Field Office (PFO), that they propose to continue development of sweet natural gas resources 

located within the JIDPA (see Map 1.1). The JIDPA is generally located in Townships 28 and 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

29 North, Ranges 107 through 109 West, Sublette County, Wyoming. The JIDPA encompasses 

approximately 30,500 acres, of which 28,580 acres are federal surface/federal mineral estate, 

1,280 acres are State of Wyoming surface/mineral estate, and 640 acres are private 

surface/federal mineral estate. 

The Operator Proposed Action for this project would involve the development of up to 3,100 

new natural gas wells on up to 16,200 acres of new surface disturbance. However, additional 

alternatives involving alternate well pad densities and development rates were also analyzed. 

The maximum number of wells would be 3,100, assuming an approximately 5- to 10-acre downhole well spacing throughout the JIDPA. Depending upon the authorized rate of development 

(75 or 250 wells per year), development operations would last from approximately 12.5 to 42 

years, with a total life-of-project (LOP) of approximately 76 to 105 years. The JIDPA is 

currently accessed by existing developed roads. 

Approximately 63-87 days would be required to develop each well (four days to construct the 

well pad and access road, from one to four days for rig-up, generally from 18 to 36 days for 

drilling, 35 days over a 60-day period for completion and testing, from one to four days for 

rig-down, and four days for pipeline construction). The estimated size of each single-well drill 

pad is 3.8 acres, of which approximately 2.9 acres would be reclaimed after the well is 

completed and the gas gathering pipeline is installed. A reserve pit would be constructed at each 

drill site location to hold drilling fluids and cuttings. Non-productive and non-economical wells 

would be reclaimed as soon as practical to appropriate federal, state, or private landowner 

specifications. 

The gas produced within the JIDPA would be transported by existing pipelines from the field. 

To facilitate a complete cumulative impact assessment and since gas compression needs for the 

project cannot reasonably be separated from those necessary for the adjacent Pinedale Anticline 

Project Area (PAPA), future compression requirements for the PAPA are also considered in this 

air quality analysis. Projections of future compression requirements supporting both the JIDPA 

and the PAPA were obtained from pipeline companies currently transporting gas from these 
6 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

areas. This total regional compression estimate was analyzed as part of both the Proposed 

Action and alternatives. 

1.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Five project alternatives were analyzed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) EIS 

for this project. These alternatives are summarized below: 

• the No Action Alternative - no further development; LOP is approximately 63 

years; 

• the Proposed Action - up to 3,100 new wells, a well development rate (WDR) of 

250 wells/year (WDR250), and LOP of 76 years; 

• Alternative A - up to 3,100 new wells, WDR250, and LOP 76 years; 

• Alternative B - up to 3,100 new wells, WDR75, and LOP 105 years; 

• Preferred Alternative - up to 3,100 new wells, WDR250, and LOP 76 years. 

Each of these alternatives was analyzed as part of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project DEIS. 

Modeling analyses for the No Action and Proposed Action alternative and Alternatives A and B 

were summarized in the Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement (AQTSD) (TRC 2004). Modeling analyses for 

several configurations of the Preferred Alternative were summarized in the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, (TRC 2005), which is 

included as Appendix G in Volume II of this AQTSD. The BLM selected modeling analysis for 

the Preferred Alternative for the EIS is defined as the modeling scenario that includes project 

emissions levels equivalent to an 80 percent emission reduction from the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project high emissions configuration assuming a 250WDR. This scenario was analyzed as a 

Preferred Alternative mitigation scenario in the AQTSD supplement. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

1.3 STUDY TASKS 

The following eight tasks were performed for air quality and AQRVs impact assessment: 

1. Project Air Emissions Inventory. Development of an air pollutant emissions inventory 

for the project. 

2. Regional Air Emissions Inventory. Development of an air pollutant emissions 

inventory for other regional sources not represented by background air quality 

measurements, including state-permitted sources, RFFA, and RFD. 

3. Project Near-Field Analysis. Assessment of near-field air quality concentration impacts 

resulting from activities proposed within the JIDPA. 

4. Regional Near-Field Analysis. Assessment of near-field air quality concentration 

impacts resulting from activities proposed within the JIDPA in combination with other 

existing and proposed regional compressor stations. 

5. In-Field Cumulative Analysis. Assessment of concentration impacts within the JIDPA 

resulting from the project and other regional sources inventoried under item 2 above. 

6. Mid-Field Cumulative Analysis. Assessment of mid-field visibility impacts to regional 

communities resulting from the project and other regional sources. 

7. Far-Field Direct Project Impact Analysis. Assessment of far-field air quality 

concentration and AQRV impacts resulting from proposed project activities. 

8. Far-Field Cumulative Impact Analysis. Assessment of far-field air quality 

concentration and AQRV impacts resulting from activities proposed within the JIDPA 

combined with other regional sources inventoried under item 2 above. 
8 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

2.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

2.1 PROJECT EMISSIONS 

Criteria pollutant and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions were inventoried for construction 

activities, production activities, and ancillary facilities. Criteria pollutants included nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). HAPs consisted of n-hexane; benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); and formaldehyde. All emission calculations were completed 

in accordance with WDEQ-AQD oil and gas guidance (WDEQ-AQD 2001) in effect at the time 

the inventory was conducted, stack test data, EPA's AP-42, or other accepted engineering 

methods (see Appendix A, Protocol). Additions to WDEQ-AQD Oil and Gas Production 

Facility Emission Control and Permitting Requirements for the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline 

Gas Fields were approved by the Air Quality Advisory Board on July 28, 2004. The additional 

guidance became effective upon approval and applies to all wells reported to WOGCC after the 

approval date of July 28, 2004. The additional guidance revised emission control requirements 

and permitting process currently utilized under WDEQ-AQD Notice of Intent 

(NOI)/Presumptive Best Available Control Technology (P-BACT) permitting processes. 

Because the project air emissions inventory and dispersion modeling analysis was complete prior 

to the adoption of the guidance referenced above, the revised guidance is not reflected in this 

analysis. Since new emission sources would have to comply with this and any other future 

promulgated emission control guidance, the emission levels and associated impacts presented 

herein are likely overstated. 

2.1.1 Construction Emissions

Construction activities are a source of primarily criteria pollutants. Emissions would occur from 

well pad and resource road construction and traffic, rig-move/drilling and associated traffic, 

completion/testing and associated traffic, pipeline installation and associated traffic, and wind 

erosion during construction activities. A timeline illustrating the duration of construction 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 9 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

activities for a single well is provided in Figure 2.1. Up to 3,100 natural gas wells may be 

developed. Two separate WDRs were examined in this emissions inventory: 75 and 250 wells 

developed per year. The Proposed Action, Alternative A and the Preferred Alternative assume 

250 well per year development rates and Alternative B assumes a WDR of 75 wells per year. 

The 75 WDR provides for a slower pace of development and results in lower annual emission 

rates during the construction phase of the project. 

Figure 2.1 Approximate Single-Well Development Timeline. 

Days 

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 

Activity 

 

Well Pad and Access 

Road Construction 

(4 days) 

 

Rig-move and 

Drilling (22-26 days) 

 

Completion and 

Testing (35 days) 

Pipeline Construction 

(4 days) 

Well pad and resource road emissions would include fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from 

1) construction activities and 2) traffic to and from the construction site. Other criteria pollutant 

emissions would occur from diesel combustion in haul trucks and heavy construction equipment. 

On resource roads, water would be used for fugitive dust control, effecting a control efficiency of 

50%. On collector roads (e.g., Luman Road) magnesium chloride would be used for dust 

control, effecting a control efficiency of 85%. 

After the pad is prepared, rig-move/drilling would begin. Emissions would include fugitives 

from unpaved road travel to and from the drilling site and emissions from diesel drilling engines 

(three total engines). At directionally drilled wells the amount of traffic would increase by 20%, 

and one additional drilling engine (a total of four engines) would be utilized. Emissions from 

well completion and testing would include fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from traffic and 

emissions from diesel haul truck tailpipes. During the completion phase, gas and condensate are 

both vented to the atmosphere and combusted (flared). Emissions from the venting of natural 

29
10 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

gas include HAPs and VOCs. Flaring emissions from the combustion of natural gas and 

condensate include NOx, CO, VOCs, and HAPs. 

Pollutant emissions would also occur from pipeline installation activities, including general 

construction activities, travel to and from the pipeline construction site, and diesel combustion 

from on-site construction equipment. 

Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would occur during well pad, road, and pipeline construction due 

to wind erosion on disturbed areas. 

A summary of single-well construction emissions for both straight and directionally drilled wells 

are shown in Table 2.1. Construction emission calculations are provided in detail, showing all 

emission factors, input parameters, and assumptions, in Appendix B (Project Emissions 

Inventory). 

2.1.2 Production Emissions

Field production equipment and operations would be a source of criteria pollutants and HAPs 

including BTEX, n-hexane, and formaldehyde. Pollutant emission sources during field 

production would include: 

• combustion engine emissions and dust from road travel to and from well sites; 

• diesel combustion emissions from haul trucks; 

• combustion emissions from well site heaters; 

• fugitive HAP/VOC emissions from well site equipment leaks; 

• condensate storage tank flashing and flashing control; 

• glycol dehydrator still vent flashing; 

• wind erosion from well pad disturbed areas; and 

• natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion compressor engines. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 11 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 2.1 Single-well Construction Emissions Summary for Both Straight and Directionally 

Drilled Wells. 

Well Pad and Access 

Road Construction1 Rig Move1 and Drilling

Completion and 

Testing Pipeline Construction1 Totals 

 Pollutant (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (lb/hr) (tons/well) (tons/well)

Emissions for one straight well (19 days of drilling 

NOx 12.232 0.23 10.873 2.49 0.35 0.10 7.814 0.067 2.89 

CO 3.762

 0.07 3.763 1.47 0.45 0.13 3.034 0.024 1.69 

SO2 1.462

 0.03 0.313 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.744 0.007 0.11 

PM10 10.762 0.21 3.113

 0.80 6.56 1.95 4.884 0.073 3.03 

PM2.5 3.522 0.07 0.933

 0.23 1.00 0.30 1.524 0.019 0.61 

VOC 0.902

 0.02 1.223 0.28 0.17 57.62 0.764 0.007 57.92 

 

Emissions for one directional well (23 days of drilling) 

NOx 12.235 0.23 16.276 3.73 0.357 0.10 7.817 0.067 4.12 

CO 3.765

 0.07 7.896 2.19 0.457 0.13 3.037 0.024 2.41 

SO2 1.465

 0.03 0.386 0.11 0.017 0.00 0.747 0.007 0.15 

PM10 10.765

 0.21 3.286 1.00 6.567 1.95 4.887 0.073 3.23 

PM2.5 3.525

 0.07 1.076 0.31 1.007 0.30 1.527 0.019 0.69 

VOC 0.905

 0.02 2.436 0.42 0.177 57.62 0.767 0.007 58.06 

 

1 Emission rates persist for less than 24-hours per day. 2 Sum of well pad construction, road construction, well pad and road construction traffic, and construction heavy equipment 

 tailpipe emissions, and these activities are conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously over the operating period. 3

 Sum of straight drilling traffic, straight drilling engines, and straight drilling heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, and these activities are 

conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously over the operating period. 4 Sum of pipeline construction, pipeline construction traffic, and pipeline heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, and these activities are 

conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously over the operating period. 5

 Well pad and access road construction emissions for one directionally drilled well are equal to emissions for one straight drilled well. 6

 Sum of directional drilling traffic, directional drilling engines, and directional drilling heavy equipment tailpipe emissions, and these 

activities are conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously over the operating period. 7

 Completion and testing emissions and pipeline construction emissions are the same for straight and directional wells. 

Fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur from road travel and wind erosion from well 

pad disturbances. Criteria pollutant emissions would occur from diesel combustion in haul 

trucks traveling in the field during production. 

Heaters required at each well site include an indirect heater, a dehydrator reboiler heater, and a 

separator heater. Stack testing was performed for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and CO on these 

heaters, by Operators in 2003, to obtain an accurate estimate of these emissions from these 
12 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

sources. These stack test emissions were used throughout this air quality analysis. Heater 

emissions for all other pollutants were calculated using AP-42. 

HAPs and VOC emissions would occur from fugitive equipment leaks (i.e., valves, flanges, 

connections, pump seals, and opened lines). Condensate storage tank flashing and glycol 

dehydrator still vent flashing emissions also would include VOC/HAP emissions. HAP and 

VOC emissions would decrease over the life of an individual well due to declines in condensate 

production. Emissions from these sources were provided by Operators. 

Total production emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs occurring from a single well are 

presented in Table 2.2. Production emission calculations are provided in detail, in Appendix B, 

showing all emission factors, input parameters, and assumptions. 

Table 2.2 Single-Well Production Emissions Summary. 

Pollutant 

Traffic Emissions 1 

(tpy) 

Production Emissions 2 

(tpy) 

Total Emissions 

(tpy) 

NOx 0.008 0.045 0.053 

CO 0.011 0.43 0.44 

SO2 0.0002 0.00 0.0002 

PM10 0.30 0.009 0.31 

PM2.5 0.045 0.009 0.053 

VOC 0.004 10.13 10.13 

Benzene -- 1.20 1.20 

Toluene -- 2.47 2.47 

Ethylbenzene -- 0.11 0.11 

Xylene -- 1.31 1.31 

n-hexane -- 0.13 0.13 

1

 Includes emissions from all traffic associated with full-field production. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions calculations 

assume 20 wells can be visited per day. Light trucks/pickups emissions on primary access roads (see 

Table B.2.1) are adjusted to assume 20 wells can be visited per day. 2

 Includes emissions from indirect heater, separator heater, dehydrator heater, and dehydrator flashing, and 

fugitive HAP/VOC. Assumes 25% of the dehydrators have BTEX control, the remaining 75% of the 

dehydrators have a pump limit (limits the amount of glycol that is re-circulated in the dehydration unit), and 

that 50% of condensate storage tanks have VOC controls. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 13 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

2.1.3 Total Field Emissions

Conservative estimates of maximum potential annual emissions in the JIDPA under the Proposed 

Action and each alternative are shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.4 presents the EPA nonroad engine 

emissions regulations and their implementation dates. These regulations are structured as a 

tiered progression phase in (Tier standards), by horsepower rating, over several years and apply 

to new engines, including drilling engines, built during these years. The Tier 1 standards were 

phased in from 1996 to 2000. Tier 2 standards take effect from 2001 to 2006, Tier 3 standards 

(for smaller engines only) apply from 2006 to 2008, and Tier 4 standards will be phased in from 

2008 to 2015. Table 2.4 presents the emissions standards for Tiers 1 through 3, which would be 

most representative of the drill rig engines used for the project. Maximum potential annual 

emissions assume construction and production occurring simultaneously in the field and include 

one year of maximum construction emissions plus one year of production at maximum emission 

rates. These emissions are assumed to occur along during the last full year of project 

development (i.e., project-year 12 to 13 of the Proposed Action, Alternative A, and the Preferred 

Alternative [approximately 2017] or project-year 41 to 42 of Alternative B). The Tier emissions 

standards assumed for the drilling rig engines used in estimating potential emissions for the 

Proposed Action and each alternative are provided in Table 2.3. Production VOC and HAP 

emissions from wells incorporate production declines over time based on annual field production 

estimates from typical wells in the JIDPA, as provided by Operators. These field production 

decline estimates are provided in Appendix B, Table 2.23. 

Construction emissions were based on well construction, drilling, drilling traffic, completion 

traffic, and completion flaring. Well construction emissions were based on the number of wells 

constructed per year and the type of well constructed. Drilling, drilling traffic, completion 

traffic, and completion flaring were based on the number of wells developed per year. 

Completion flaring operations were assumed to occur at 20% of the wells under construction. 

For alternatives with both directional and straight wells, a proportional split between straight and 

directional wells was used to determine the number of straight and directional drilling rigs. 
14 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 2.3 Estimated Jonah Infill Drilling Project Maximum Annual In-field Emissions 

Summary - Construction and Production. 

Alternative 

Annual 

Development 

Rate Pollutant 

Annual 

Construction 

Emissions1 

(tpy)

Total 

Proposed 

Wells 

Total 

Producing 

Wells 

Annual 

Production 

Emissions2 

(tpy)

Total Annual 

Emissions

(tpy) 

250 NOx 701.8 3,100 2,850 580.2 1,282.0 

 CO 396.5 3,604.7 4,001.2 

Alternative A/Proposed Action 

(100% straight)3

 SO2 26.3 0.0 26.3 

 PM10 368.3 871.1 1,239.4 

 PM2.5 93.3 153.6 246.9 

 VOC 2,955.7 11,121.8 14,077.5 

 HAPs 232.9 3,376.7 3,609.6 

Alternative B 75 NOx 285.9 3,100 3,025 615.9 901.8 

(100% directional)4

 CO 167.6 3,826.0 3,993.6 

 SO2 8.8 0.0 8.8 

 PM10 109.4 924.5 1,033.9 

 PM2.5 28.8 163.0 191.8 

 VOC 895.9 4,482.6 5,378.5 

 HAPs 69.9 1,390.8 1,460.7 

Preferred Alternative 250 NOx 580.6 3,100 2,850 116.1 696.7 

(50% straight, 50% CO 432.5 3,604.7 4,037.2 

Directional)5

 SO2 34.1 0.0 34.1 

 PM10 107.1 174.2 281.3 

 PM2.5 97.4 30.7 128.1 

 VOC 2,962.7 11,121.8 14,084.5 

 HAPs 232.9 3,376.7 3609.6 

1

 Includes emissions from well pad and access road construction and associated traffic (see Tables B.1.1, B.1.2, B.1.3, and 

B.1.4), rig moving and drilling and associated traffic (see Tables B.1.10, B.1.11, and B.1.12). 2

 Includes emissions from indirect heater (see Table B.2.3), separator heater (see Table B.2.4), dehydrator heater (see Table 

B.2.4), dehydrator flashing (see table B.2.6), fugitive HAP/VOC (see Table B.2.7), and traffic associated with full-field 

production (see Tables B.2.1 and B.2.2). Assumes 50% of condensate storage tanks are controlled and 50% are 

uncontrolled, and 25% of the dehydrators have BTEX control, and the remaining 75% have a pump limit (limits the amount 

of glycol that is re-circulated in the dehydration unit). 3

 Assumes emissions include 250 drilling operations occurring during the year including 125 rigs with Tier 1 emission levels 

(see Table B.1.8) and 125 rigs with Tier 2 emission levels (see Table B.1.9). Emissions also include 50 completion flares 

(see Table B.1.12) operating during the year. 4

 Assumes emissions include 75 drilling operations occurring during the year including 37 rigs with Tier 1 emission levels 

(see Table B.1.8) and 37 rigs with Tier 2 emission levels (see Table B.1.9). Emissions also include 15 completion flares 

(see Table B.1.12) operating during the year. 5

 Assumes 20% of NOx, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from 250 drilling operations (50% straight, 50% directional) 

occurring during the year including 200 rigs with AP-42 (Tier 0) emission levels (see Tables B.1.7 and B.1.22) and 50 rigs 

with Tier 1 emission levels (see Tables B.1.8 and B.1.23), 50 completion flares (see Table B.1.12) operating during the year 

and from associated annual production (see Appendix G). 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 15 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 2.4 EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel Engine Emissions Standards (g/hp-hr)1. 

Engine Power Tier Year CO HC2

 NMHC3+NOx NOx PM4

Tier 1 1996 8.5 1.0 -- 6.9 0.4 

175 <= hp < 300 Tier 2 2003 2.6 -- 4.9 -- 0.15 

Tier 3 2006 2.6 -- 3.0 -- * 

Tier 1 1996 8.5 1.0 -- 6.9 0.4 

300 <= hp < 600 Tier 2 2001 2.6 -- 4.8 -- 0.15 

Tier 3 2006 2.6 -- 3.0 -- * 

Tier 1 1996 8.5 1.0 -- 6.9 0.4 

600 <= hp < 750 Tier 2 2002 2.6 -- 4.8 -- 0.15 

Tier 3 2006 2.6 -- 3.0 -- * 

Tier 1 2000 8.5 1.0 -- 6.9 0.4 hp >= 750 Tier 2 2006 2.6 -- 6.4 -- 0.15 

* - Not adopted, engines must meet Tier 2 PM standard. 

1

 Data taken from www.diselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html (9-15-2005), EPA emissions standards for nonroad diesel 

engines are published in 40 C.F.R. Part 89. 2

 Total hydrocarbons 

3

 Non-methane hydrocarbons 

4

 Total particulate matter 

Production emissions were calculated based on the total number of producing wells in the field. 

Total producing wells were equal to the difference in number of wells proposed and the number 

of wells constructed per year. Annual emissions estimates for each project alternative for each 

year of field development are provided in Appendix B, Tables B.2.24 – B.2.26. 
16 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

2.2 REGIONAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

An emissions inventory of industrial sources within the JIDPA cumulative modeling domain was 

prepared for use in the cumulative air quality analysis. The modeling domain included portions 

of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho (see Map 1.2). Industrial sources and oil and gas wells 

permitted within a defined time frame (January 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003) through state air 

quality regulatory agencies and state oil and gas permitting agencies were first researched. The 

subset of these sources which had begun operation as of the inventory end-date was classified as 

state-permitted sources, and those not yet in operation were classified as RFFA. Also included 

in the regional inventory were industrial sources proposed under NEPA in the State of Wyoming. 

The developed portions of these projects were assumed to be either included in monitored 

ambient background or included in the state-permitted source inventory. The undeveloped 

portions of projects proposed under NEPA were classified as RFD. In accordance with 

definitions agreed upon by BLM, EPA, WDEQ-AQD, and USDA Forest Service for use in EIS 

projects, RFD was defined as 1) the NEPA-authorized but not yet developed portions of 

Wyoming NEPA projects, and 2) not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality 

analyses were in progress and for which emissions had been quantified. 

Map 2.1 shows the regional inventory area with NEPA project areas, and a summary of the 

regional inventory is shown in Table 2.5. Values presented in Table 2.5 represent the change in 

emissions between the inventory start-date (January 1, 2001) and the inventory end-date 

(June 30, 2003). 

The regional inventory, including methodologies used to compile the regional source emissions, 

are provided in Appendix C and includes a description of the data collected, the period of record 

for the data collected, inclusion and exclusion methodology, stack parameter processing 

methods, and the state-specific methodologies required due to significant differences in the 

content and completeness of data obtained from each state. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Map 2.1 Regional Inventory Area and Included NEPA Project Areas. 
18 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 2.5 Regional Inventory Summary of Emissions Changes from January 1, 2001 to 

June 30, 2003. 

 Emissions 

State Source Category 

Quantity of 

Sources 

NOx 

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

PM10

(tpy) 

PM2.5

(tpy) 

 Colorado State-permitted1 17 177.1 2.7 64.8 22.6 

 RFFA 0 -- -- -- -- 

 RFD 0 -- -- -- -- 

 Excluded 203 -- -- -- -- 

 

 Idaho State-permitted2 17 568.4 (112.2) 61.6 61.6 

 RFFA 0 -- -- -- -- 

 RFD 0 -- -- -- -- 

 Excluded 37 -- -- -- -- 

 

 Utah State-permitted3

 126 2,619.9 47.1 424.5 424.1 

 RFD 0 -- -- -- -- 

 RFFA 0 -- -- -- -- 

 Excluded 202 -- -- -- -- 

 

 Wyoming State-permitted4

 34 733.5 1.0 8.3 8.3 

 RFFA5 47 486.3 (1,407.0) (1,282.8) (586.6) 

 RFD6 42 3,166.5 56.1 84.0 81.9 

 Excluded 693 -- -- -- -- 

 

 Total State Permitted7 194 4,098.9 (61.4) 559.2 516.6 

 RFFA 47 486.3 (1,407.0) (1,282.8) (586.6) 

 RFD 42 3,166.5 56.1 84.0 81.9 

 Excluded 1,135 -- -- -- -- 

Total Change -- 7,751.7 (1,412.3) (639.6) 11.9 

1

 See Appendix C, Table C.1 

2

 See Appendix C, Table C.3. 

3

 Includes state-permitted oil and gas well emissions. See Appendix C, Tables C.5 and C.9. 4

 Includes state-permitted oil and gas well emissions. See Appendix C, Tables C.7 and C.9. 5

 See Appendix C, Table C.11. 

6

 See Appendix C, Table C.12. 

7

 Includes state-permitted oil and gas well emissions. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 19 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

3.0 NEAR-FIELD MODELING ANALYSES 

3.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY 

A near-field ambient air quality impact analysis was performed to quantify the maximum criteria 

pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, and ozone [O3]) and HAPs (BTEX, n-hexane, and 

formaldehyde) impacts that could occur within and near the JIDPA. These impacts would result 

from emissions associated with project construction and production activities, and are compared 

to applicable ambient air quality standards and significance thresholds. All modeling analyses 

were performed in general accordance with the Protocol presented in Appendix A with input 

from the BLM and members of the air quality stake holders' group, including the EPA, USDA 

Forest Service, and WDEQ-AQD. 

The EPA's proposed guideline dispersion model, AERMOD (version 02222), was used to assess 

near-field impacts of criteria pollutants PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2 and SO2, and to estimate 

short-term and long-term HAP impacts. This version of AERMOD utilizes the PRIME building 

downwash algorithms which are the most recent "state of science" algorithms for modeling 

applications where aerodynamic building downwash is a concern. One year of JIDPA 

meteorology data was used with the AERMOD dispersion model to estimate these pollutant 

impacts. O3 impacts were estimated from a screening methodology developed by Scheffe (1988) 

that utilizes NOx and VOC emissions ratios to calculate O3 concentrations. Various construction 

and production activities were modeled to provide analyses for a complete range of alternatives 

and activities. For each pollutant, the magnitude and duration of emissions from each project 

phase (i.e., construction or production) emissions activity were examined to determine the 

maximum emissions scenario for modeling. 

Modeling analyses were performed to quantify near-field pollutant concentrations within and 

nearby the JIDPA from project-related emissions sources for a range of scenarios to assure that 

the maximum near-field impacts were estimated. Impacts from scenarios considering 3,100 

wells in production and at various well-spacing densities of 5, 10, 20, and 40 acres were 
20 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

modeled. Emissions from directional and straight drilling and construction of alternate well pads 

sizes of 3.8, 7.0, and 10.0 acres were evaluated. 

3.2 METEOROLOGY DATA 

One year of surface meteorological data, collected in the JIDPA from January 1999 through 

January 2000, was used in the analysis. A wind rose for these data is presented in Figure 3.1. 

The JIDPA meteorology data included hourly surface measurements of wind speed, wind 

direction, standard deviation of wind direction [sigma theta], and temperature. These data were 

processed using the AERMET preprocessor to produce a dataset compatible with the AERMOD 

dispersion model. AERMET was used to combine the JIDPA surface measurements with twice 

daily sounding data from Riverton, Wyoming, cloud cover data collected at Big Piney, 

Wyoming, and solar radiation measurements collected at Pinedale, Wyoming. Seasonal values 

for albedo, Bowen ratio and surface roughness length, for land use type “desert shrubland”, were 

selected from tables in the AERMET user’s guide and used in processing the meteorological 

data. 

3.3 BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS 

Background concentration data collected for criteria pollutants at regional monitoring sites were 

added to concentrations modeled in the near-field analysis to establish total pollutant 

concentrations for comparison to ambient air quality standards. The most representative 

monitored regional background concentrations available for criteria pollutants as identified by 

WDEQ-AQD are shown in Table 3.1. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 21 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Figure 3.1 Wind Rose, Jonah Field, 1999. 
22 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 3.1 Near-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations 

(Micrograms per Cubic Meter [μg/m3]). 

Pollutant Averaging Period Measured Background Concentration 

CO1 1-hour 

8-hour 

3,336 

1,381 

NO2

2 Annual 3.4 

O3

3 1-hour 

8-hour 

169 

147 

PM104 24-hour 

Annual 

33 

16 

PM2.54 24-hour 

Annual 

13 

5 

SO2

5 3-hour 

24-hour

Annual 

132 

43 

9 

1 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in the Riley Ridge EIS 

(BLM 1983). 2 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period January-December 2001 

(Air Resource Specialists [ARS] 2002). 3 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period June 10, 1998, through 

December 31, 2001 (ARS 2002). 4 Data collected by WDEQ-AQD at Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Year 2001, second highest 24-hour 

concentrations. These data were determined by WDEQ-AQD to be the most representative co-located PM10 and PM2.5 data 

available. 5 Data collected at LaBarge Study Area, Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek Site 1982-1983. 

3.4 CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

The near-field criteria pollutant impact assessment was performed to estimate maximum 

potential impacts of PM10, PM2.5, NO2, SO2, CO, and O3 from project emissions sources 

including well site and compressor station emissions. Maximum predicted concentrations in the 

vicinity of project emissions sources were compared with the Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (WAAQS), National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and applicable 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II increments shown in Table 3.2. This 

NEPA analysis compared potential air quality impacts from project alternatives to applicable 

ambient air quality standards and PSD increments. The comparisons to the PSD Class I and II 

increments are intended to evaluate a threshold of concern for potential impacts, and does not 

represent a regulatory PSD increment comparison. Such a regulatory analysis is the 

responsibility of the state air quality agency (under EPA oversight). 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 23 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 3.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Class II PSD Increments for Comparison to 

Near-Field Analysis Results (μg/m3

). 

Pollutant/Averaging Time NAAQS WAAQS PSD Class II Increment1

CO 

 1-hour2 40,000 40,000 --3 

 8-hour2 10,000 10,000 -- 

NO2 

 Annual4

 100 100 25 

O3 

 1-hour 2 235 235 -- 

 8-hour5

 157 157 -- 

PM10 

 24-hour2

 150 150 30 

 Annual4

 50 50 17 

PM2.5 

 24-hour2

 65 656 --

 Annual4 15 156 -- 

SO2 

 3-hour2

 1,300 1,300 512 

 24-hour2

 365 260 91 

 Annual4 80 60 20 

1 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis. 2 No more than one exceedance per year. 3

 -- = No PSD Class II increment has been established for this pollutant. 4 Annual arithmetic mean. 5 Average of annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average. 6 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming. 

The EPA's proposed guideline dispersion model, AERMOD, was used to model the near-field 

concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SO2. AERMOD was run using one year of 

AERMET preprocessed JIDPA meteorology data following all regulatory default switch 

settings. Since PM10/PM2.5 emissions would be greatest during the resource road/well pad 

construction phase of field development, construction emissions sources were modeled to 

determine compliance with the PM10/PM2.5 WAAQS and NAAQS. Similarly, SO2 emissions 

would be greatest from well drilling operations during construction. CO and NOx emissions 

primarily from compressor stations would be greatest during well production. 

O3 impacts were estimated using the screening methodology developed by Scheffe (1988) which 

utilizes NOx and VOC emissions ratios to calculate O3 concentrations. NOx and VOC emissions 

would be greatest during production activities, and these emissions were used to estimate O3

impacts. 
24 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

3.4.1 PM10/PM2.5

Maximum localized PM10/PM2.5 impacts would result from well pad and road construction 

activities and from wind erosion. The impacts would be greatest at and immediately adjacent to 

their source and would decrease rapidly with distance. Three different approximate well pad 

sizes are proposed within the range of project alternatives; 3.8 acres, 7.0 acres, and 10.0 acres. 

Modeling scenarios were developed for each of these well pad sizes, with each scenario 

consisting of a well pad and a 2.5-mi resource road using the emissions estimates provided in 

Section 2.1. Model receptors were placed at 100-m intervals beginning 200 m from the edge of 

the well pad and road. Flat terrain was assumed for each modeling scenario. Figure 3.2 presents 

the configurations used to model each well pad and resource road scenario. Volume sources 

were used to represent emissions from well pads and roads. Hourly emission rate adjustment 

factors were applied to limit construction emissions to daytime hours. AERMOD was used to 

model each scenario 36 times, once at each of 36 10o rotations, to ensure that impacts from all 

directional layout configurations and meteorological conditions were assessed. Wind erosion 

emissions were modeled for all hours where the wind speed exceeded a threshold velocity 

defined by emissions calculations performed using AP-42 Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind 

Erosion (EPA 2004). 

Table 3.3 presents the maximum modeled PM10/PM2.5 concentrations, for each well pad 

scenario. When the maximum modeled concentration was added to representative background 

concentrations, it was demonstrated that PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations for all scenarios comply 

with the WAAQS and NAAQS for PM10 and proposed standards for PM2.5. 

Emissions associated with temporary construction activities do not consume PSD Increment; 

therefore, temporary PM10 emissions from well pad and road construction are excluded from 

increment consumption comparison. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Figure 3.2 Near-field Modeling PM10/PM2.5 Source and Receptor Layout. 
26 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10/PM2.5 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

Scenario Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Direct Modeled

(μg/m3) 

Background

(μg/m3) 

Total Predicted 

(μg/m3) 

WAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3) 

3.8-acre pad PM10 24-Hour 74.1 33 107.1 150 150 

 Annual 3.4 16 19.4 50 50 

 PM2.5 24-Hour 27.0 13 40.0 65 65 

 Annual 1.3 5 6.3 15 15 

 

7-acre pad PM10 24-Hour 94.0 33 127.0 150 150 

 Annual 4.7 16 20.7 50 50 

 PM2.5 24-Hour 31.0 13 44.0 65 65 

 Annual 1.6 5 6.6 15 15 

 

10-acre pad PM10 24-Hour 102.1 33 135.1 150 150 

 Annual 5.6 16 21.6 50 50 

 PM2.5 24-Hour 32.2 13 45.2 65 65 

 Annual 1.8 5 6.8 15 15 

3.4.2 SO2

 

Emissions from construction drilling operations would result in maximum SO2 concentrations of 

all other project phases. Both straight well drilling and directional well drilling are proposed as 

part of the project. Therefore, modeling scenarios were developed that included a drilling rig at 

the center of a pad, with model receptors placed along 100-m intervals, 100 m from the drilling 

engines, for both straight and directional drilling operations. Drilling rigs were modeled as point 

sources, with aerodynamic building downwash from the rig structure. Figure 3.3 illustrates the 

modeling configuration used for drilling rig SO2 emissions. 

AERMOD was used to model drilling rig SO2 emissions for both straight and directional drilling 

operations. The maximum predicted concentrations are provided in Table 3.4. The modeled 

SO2 impacts, when added to representative background concentrations, are below the applicable 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 27 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

standards. As with PM10 construction emissions, emissions from drilling rigs are temporary and 

do not consume SO2 PSD increment and as a result are excluded from increment consumption 

comparison. 

Table 3.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

Scenario Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Direct Modeled

(μg/m3) 

Background

(μg/m3) 

Total Predicted 

(μg/m3) 

WAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3) 

Straight Drilling SO2 3-Hour 103.8 132 235.8 1,300 1,300 

 24-Hour 36.7 43 79.7 260 365 

 Annual 5.2 9 14.2 60 80 

 

Directional Drilling SO2 3-Hour 128.3 132 260.3 1,300 1,300 

 24-Hour 45.3 43 88.3 260 365 

 Annual 6.4 9 15.4 60 80 

3.4.3 NO2 

Emissions from production activities (well site and compression) would result in the maximum 

near-field NO2 concentrations. Analyses were performed to quantify the maximum NO2 impacts 

that could occur within and nearby the JIDPA using the emissions from existing in-field 

compressor station and well emissions, anticipated future compression expansions, and proposed 

project alternatives. Proposed well emissions include those from well site heaters, truck traffic, 

and from a water disposal well engine. Although no increases to compression are proposed as 

part of the project, anticipated future compression expansions were obtained from the gas 

transmission companies that operate within the region and were considered in the modeling 

analyses. Anticipated future compression expansions were provided for the Bird Canyon, 

Falcon, Gobblers Knob, Jonah, Luman, and Paradise compressor stations. Bird Canyon, Falcon, 

Luman, and Jonah are primarily associated with the Jonah Field, whereas Gobblers Knob and 

Paradise are considered part of the Pinedale Anticline Project. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Figure 3.3 Near-field Modeling SO2 Source and Receptor Layout. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 29 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Two modeling analyses were performed to estimate near-field NO2 concentrations. Scenario 1 

utilized compressor emissions from the proposed compressor station expansions within the Jonah 

Field in combination with well emissions from the Proposed Action and alternative expansions 

of 3,100 wells. Scenario 2 utilized the projected compression expansions proposed within the 

Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields, well site heater emissions from 198 wells developed in the 

JIDPA since January 2002, well site emissions from 3,100 proposed wells and an inventory of 

existing regional compressor station emissions provided by the WDEQ-AQD. A WDEQ-AQD 

regional compressor station inventory has historically been required for use in ambient air 

quality compliance demonstrations performed under WDEQ-AQD guidance. The modeled 

impacts from the first analysis are reported as the maximum predicted direct impacts from the 

Proposed Action and alternatives, and results of the second analysis are representative of nearfield cumulative impacts, since they include contributions from additional regional emissions. 

This near-field cumulative analysis is presented to further demonstrate regional compliance with 

ambient air quality standards and comparison to PSD increments. 

Figure 3.4 illustrates all components of modeled Scenarios 1 and 2, above. NOx emissions 

provided in Section 2.1.2 for well site heaters and truck tail pipe emissions were modeled using 

1-km-spaced area sources placed throughout the JIDPA. Emissions scalars were used to adjust 

the heater emissions for seasonal variations. Point sources were used for modeling all 

compressor station emissions and water disposal well emissions. The compressor station 

emissions and modeling parameters utilized in near-field NOx modeling Scenarios 1 and 2 are 

provided in Appendix D. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Figure 3.4 Near-field Modeling NOx, CO, and HAPs Source and Receptor Layout. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 31 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Refined receptor grids were placed around the Bird Canyon, Jonah, and Luman compressor 

stations, which are the largest compressor stations associated with the Jonah Field operations. 

Model receptors were placed at 25-m intervals along the fence lines of these compressor stations 

and at 100-m intervals from the fence lines out to 2 km, and at 1-km intervals between 2 km and 

5 km from the fence lines of the Bird Canyon and Luman compressor stations, and at 1-km 

intervals throughout the JIDPA. AERMAP was used to determine receptor height parameters 

from digital elevation model (DEM) data. Aerodynamic building downwash parameters were 

considered for each compressor station. 

The AERMOD model was used to predict maximum NOx impacts for modeled Scenario 1 (direct 

project impacts) and modeled Scenario 2 (cumulative impacts). The maximum modeled 

concentrations occurred near the Luman compressor station, near the southwest end of the 

JIDPA. Maximum modeled NO2 concentrations were determined by multiplying maximum 

predicted NOx concentrations by 0.75, in accordance with EPA's Tier 2 NOx to NO2 conversion 

method (EPA 2003a). Maximum predicted NO2 concentrations are given in Table 3.5. 

As shown in Table 3.5, direct modeled NO2 concentrations from both project sources and from 

cumulative sources are below the PSD Class II Increment for NO2. In addition, when these NO2

impacts are combined with representative background NO2 concentrations, they are below the 

applicable WAAQS and NAAQS. 

Table 3.5 Maximum Modeled Annual NO2 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

Scenario Pollutant 

Direct 

Modeled

(μg/m3

) 

PSD Class II 

Increment1

(μg/m3) 

Background

(μg/m3) 

Total Predicted 

(μg/m3) 

WAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3) 

Scenario 1, Project 

Alone, 3,100 Wells 

NO2 6.8 25 3.4 10.2 100 100 

Scenario 2, 

Cumulative Sources, 

3,100 Wells 

NO2 18.9 25 3.4 22.3 100 100 

1 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD increment consumption analysis.
32 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

3.4.4 CO

Maximum CO emissions would occur from the same production activities (well site and 

compression) that result in maximum NO2 impacts. The modeling scenarios used to model NO2

impacts were also used to determine maximum CO direct project and cumulative impacts (see 

Figure 3.4). 

AERMOD was used to predict maximum CO impacts for model Scenario 1 (direct project 

impacts) and model Scenario 2 (cumulative impacts). Maximum predicted CO concentrations 

are shown in Table 3.6. As indicated in Table 3.6, maximum modeled CO concentrations, when 

combined with representative background CO concentrations, are below the applicable WAAQS 

and NAAQS. 

Table 3.6 Maximum Modeled CO Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

Scenario Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Direct Modeled

(μg/m3) 

Background

(μg/m3) 

Total Predicted 

μg/m3) 

WAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS

(μg/m3) 

Scenario 1, 1-Hour 425.3 3,336 3,761.3 40,000 40,000 

Project Alone, 

3,100 Wells 

CO 

8-Hour 113.5 1,381 1,494.5 10,000 10,000 

Scenario 2, 1-Hour 459.1 3,336 3,795.1 40,000 40,000 

Cumulative 

Sources, 

3,100 Wells 

CO 

8-Hour 266.0 1,381 1,647.0 10,000 10,000 

3.4.5 O3

O3 is formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical reactions involving ambient 

concentrations of NO2 and VOCs. Because of the complex photochemical reactions necessary to 

form O3, compliance with ambient air quality standards cannot be determined with conventional 

dispersion models. The models that are available for estimating ozone formation are applicable 

for urban areas where high temperature, summertime, stagnant conditions can persist and are 

conducive to ozone formation. In rural southwest Wyoming, these meteorological conditions are 

not typical and therefore an estimation of the ozone formation was made using a nomograph 

developed from the Reactive Plume Model (Scheffe 1988) to predict maximum ozone impacts 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 33 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

for rural areas. This screening methodology utilizes NOx and VOC emissions ratios to estimate 

ozone concentrations. 

NOx and VOC emissions are greatest during production activities and these emissions were used 

to estimate O3 impacts. Emissions from a 1-mi2 "patch" of 128 wells, which is the maximum 

proposed project well density (128 wells per mi2; 5-acre spacing) and the projected maximum 

emissions from the Jonah compressor station were used. This scenario was selected since the 

Jonah station is the largest compressor station and the largest NOx source within the JIDPA. The 

emissions assumed for the Jonah station were 81.3 and 55.2 tons per year (tpy) of NOx and VOC, 

respectively, and these emissions include anticipated future compression expansion. The 

emissions used for the 128 well section were 5.8 tpy NOx and 2,378.7 tpy VOC. The well 

emissions estimates incorporate control assumptions provided from the field operators for wells 

operating in the JIDPA, which estimate that 50 percent of the well site storage tanks have VOC 

control, and that 25 percent of the well site dehydrators have BTEX control and 75 percent are 

controlled with a pump limit (limits the amount of glycol that is re-circulated in the dehydration 

unit). The ratio of total VOC emissions to total NOx emissions is 2,433.9:87.1 or 28.0. At this 

ratio, the estimated maximum potential 1-hour O3 concentration is 0.040 parts per million (ppm) 

or 78.2 micrograms/cubic meter (μg/m3). Using EPA's recommended screening conversion 

factor of 0.7 to convert 1-hour concentrations to 8-hour values (EPA 1977), the predicted 8-hour 

O3 concentration is 54.7 μg/m3. Predicted maximum O3 impacts are summarized in Table 3.7. 

 

The maximum O3 impacts shown in Table 3.7 represent the amount of O3 that could potentially 

form within and nearby the JIDPA as a result of the ratio of direct project emissions of NOx and 

VOC. Direct modeled concentrations shown in Table 3.7 were added to average hourly 

background O3 conditions monitored as part of the Green River Basin Visibility Study (ARS 

2002) during the period June 10, 1998, through December 31, 2001. This value 75.2 μg/m3 is 

slightly higher than the background O3 concentration of 62.6 μg/m3 used in the RPM modeling 

to derive the Scheffe nomograph. The highest, second highest O3 concentrations measured over 

the monitoring period of record, shown in Table 3.1, were not added to the concentrations 

estimated with the Scheffe method since it is overly conservative to add a maximum 

concentration to a screening level estimated concentration. O3 formation is a complex 
34 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

atmospheric chemistry process that varies greatly due to meteorological conditions and the 

presence of ambient atmospheric concentrations of many chemical species. Adding NOx and 

VOC emissions to the ambient air, where some amount of O3 has already formed, is not 

necessarily an indication that the potential for ozone formation has increased. In fact, it could 

decrease, since the ambient background conditions that caused O3 formation have changed, and 

the new mixture of chemical species in the atmosphere may not be conducive to O3 formation. 

In addition, the concentrations shown in Table 3.7 are likely overestimates of the actual O3

impacts that would occur, since the Reactive Plume Model nomograph used to derive these 

estimates was developed using meteorological conditions (high temperatures and stagnant 

conditions) more conducive to forming O3 than the conditions found in southwestern Wyoming. 

Table 3.7 Maximum Modeled O3 Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

Direct Modeled 

(μg/m3) 

GRBVS Average 

1-hour Background 

(μg/m3

) 

Total Predicted

(μg/m3) 

WAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

(μg/m3) 

O3 1-Hour 78.2 75.2 153.4 235 235 

 8-Hour 54.7 75.2 129.9 157 157 

3.5 HAP IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

AERMOD was used to determine HAP impacts in the immediate vicinity of the JIDPA emission 

sources for short-term (acute) exposure assessment and at the nearest residences to the JIDPA for 

calculation of long-term risk. Sources of HAPs include well-site fugitive emissions (BTEX and 

n-hexane), completion flaring and venting (BTEX and n-hexane), and compressor station 

combustion emissions (formaldehyde). Because maximum field-wide annual emissions of HAPs 

occur during the production phase, only HAP emissions from production were analyzed for 

long-term risk assessment. Short-term exposure assessments were performed for production 

HAP emissions using various well densities, and for an individual well construction completion 

(venting and flaring) event. 

Four modeling scenarios were developed for modeling short-term (1-hour) HAPs (BTEX, and 

n-hexane) from well-site fugitive emissions. These scenarios were developed to represent the 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 35 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

complete range of well densities proposed for the Proposed Action and alternatives. The 

scenarios include one-section areas (1 mi2), with wells at 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-acre surface 

spacing. These modeling scenarios represent well densities of 128, 64, 32, and 16 wells per 

section, respectively. The purpose of modeling this range of well densities was to determine the 

maximum HAP short-term (1-hour) impacts that could occur within and near the JIDPA. 

Volume sources were used for modeling the well-site fugitive HAP emissions. The HAP 

emissions for wells with uncontrolled VOC emissions were used. Flat terrain receptors were 

spaced evenly and at a minimum distance of 100 m from a well throughout each section. The 

source and receptor layouts utilized for the short-term HAP modeling are presented in 

Figure 3.5. 

A single scenario was developed for modeling long-term (annual) fugitive HAP emissions. This 

scenario utilized the same 1-km spaced area sources placed throughout the JIDPA that were used 

for modeling NOx emissions from well site heaters (see Section 3.4.3 and Figure 3.4). Fugitive 

HAP model runs were performed for 3,100 wells in production. Field-wide emissions scenarios 

were developed using the individual well emissions provided in Section 2.2, assuming 50% of 

condensate storage tanks are equipped with a control device and 25% of dehydrators are 

equipped with a control device. Receptor grids (3 x 3) using 1-km spacing were placed at the 

nearest residential locations along the New Fork River north of the JIDPA (see Figure 3.4). 

Receptor elevations were determined from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) DEM data using 

AERMAP. 

For modeling formaldehyde emissions from compressor station sources, an analysis similar to 

that performed for NO2 and CO (see Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4) was used. Formaldehyde 

emissions from anticipated future compression expansions at the Bird Canyon, Falcon, Gobblers 

Knob, Jonah, Luman, and Paradise compressor stations were modeled in combination with 

emissions from the WDEQ-AQD inventory of existing regional compressor stations. These 

emissions are provided in Appendix D. Modeled Scenarios 1 and 2 were analyzed as described 

in Section 3.4. The modeling parameters and receptor grids developed for the NOx and CO 

impacts analyses and the receptor grids at the nearest residential locations along the New Fork 

River were utilized for modeling formaldehyde impacts. Long-term impacts are reported for the 
36 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

residential receptor locations. The source and receptor layout for modeling formaldehyde 

impacts is presented in Figure 3.4. 

Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) are defined as concentrations at or below which no adverse 

health effects are expected. Since no RELs are available for ethylbenzene and n-hexane, the 

available Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) values, divided by 10, were used. 

These REL and IDLH values are determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) and were obtained from EPA's Air Toxics Database (EPA 2002). Modeled 

short-term HAP concentrations are compared to REL and IDLH values in Table 3.8. As shown 

in Table 3.8 the maximum predicted short-term HAP impacts within and near the JIDPA would 

be below the REL or IDLH values under all project alternatives. 

Table 3.8 Maximum Modeled 1-Hour HAP Concentrations, Jonah Infill Drilling Project. 

 Direct Modeled Concentration by Modeling Scenario (μg/m3) 

HAP 5-Acre Spacing 10-Acre Spacing 20-Acre Spacing 40-Acre Spacing 

REL or IDLH1

(μg/m3) 

Benzene 996 566 590 309 1,3002

Toluene 1,994 1,132 1,181 619 37,0002

Ethylbenzene 109 62 64 34 35,0003

Xylene 1,085 616 643 337 22,0002

n-Hexane 536 304 317 166 39,0003

 Project Alone Cumulative Sources 

Formaldehyde 22.1 31.9 -- -- 942

1

 EPA (2002). 

2

 Reference Exposure Level 

3

 Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health value divided by 10. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation Figure 3.5 Short-term HAPs Source and Receptor Layout. 
38 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Additional modeling analyses with AERMOD were performed to quantify the maximum shortterm HAP (BTEX and n-hexane) concentrations that could potentially occur from well site 

completion venting and flaring. For wells that require these activities, it is estimated that venting 

operations could last up to 4 hours and flaring could last up to 80 hours. A single volume 

source was used for modeling completion venting and a single point source was used for 

modeling flaring. 100-m spaced receptors beginning at a distance of 100 m from each source 

were used. The results of these modeling analyses indicated that from flaring operations, shortterm HAP concentration would be below the REL or IDLH values. From venting operations 

short-term benzene concentrations could potentially exceed the thresholds within 500 meters of a 

completion venting operation; however, all other HAP concentrations would be below the REL 

or IDLH. 

Long-term (annual) modeled HAP concentrations at the nearest residence are compared to 

Reference Concentrations for Chronic Inhalation (RfCs). A RfC is defined by EPA as the daily 

inhalation concentration at which no long-term adverse health effects are expected. RfCs exist 

for both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects on human health (EPA 2002). The maximum 

predicted annual HAP concentrations at the nearest residential area are compared to the 

corresponding non-carcinogenic RfC in Table 3.9. 

As shown in Table 3.9 the maximum predicted long-term (annual) HAP impacts at the nearest 

residence locations along the New Fork River would be below the RfCs for all alternatives. In 

addition, formaldehyde impacts at the nearest residence are shown to be below the RfC 

thresholds when project source impacts are combined with regional source impacts. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 39 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 3.9 Maximum Modeled Long-term (Annual) HAP Concentrations, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project. 

HAP 

Direct Modeled Concentration at Nearest Residence by 

Modeling Scenario (μg/m3) 

Non-carcinogenic RfC1

(μg/m3) 

Benzene 0.85 30 

Toluene 1.73 400 

Ethylbenzene 0.09 1,000 

Xylene 0.93 430 

n-Hexane 0.35 200 

 Project Alone Cumulative Sources 

Formaldehyde 0.003 0.02 9.8 

1 EPA (2002). 

Long-term exposures to emissions of suspected carcinogens (benzene and formaldehyde) were 

evaluated based on estimates of the increased latent cancer risk over a 70-year lifetime. This 

analysis presents the potential incremental risk from these pollutants, and does not represent a 

total risk analysis. The cancer risks were calculated using the maximum predicted annual 

concentrations and EPA's chronic inhalation unit risk factors (URF) for carcinogenic constituents 

(EPA 2002). Estimated cancer risks were evaluated based on the Superfund National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (EPA 1990a), where a cancer risk range of 1 

x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4 is generally acceptable. Two estimates of cancer risk are presented: 1) a most 

likely exposure (MLE) scenario; and 2) a maximum exposed individual (MEI) scenario. The 

estimated cancer risks are adjusted to account for duration of exposure and time spent at home. 

The adjustment for the MLE scenario is assumed to be 9 years, which corresponds to the mean 

duration that a family remains at a residence (EPA 1993). This duration corresponds to an 

adjustment factor of 9/70 = 0.13. The duration of exposure for the MEI scenario is assumed to 

be 50 years (i.e., the LOP), corresponding to an adjustment factor of 50/70 = 0.71. A second 

adjustment is made for time spent at home versus time spent elsewhere. For the MLE scenario, 

the at-home time fraction is 0.64 (EPA 1993), and it is assumed that during the rest of the day the 
40 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

individual would remain in an area where annual HAP concentrations would be one quarter as 

large as the maximum annual average concentration. Therefore, the final MLE adjustment factor 

is (0.13) x [(0.64 x 1.0) + (0.36 x 0.25)] = 0.0949. The MEI scenario assumes that the individual 

is at home 100% of the time, for a final MEI adjustment factor of (0.71 x 1.0) = 0.71. 

For each constituent, the cancer risk is computed by multiplying the maximum predicted annual 

concentration by the URF and by the overall exposure adjustment factor. The cancer risks for 

both constituents are then summed to provide an estimate of the total inhalation cancer risk. 

The modeled long-term risk from benzene and formaldehyde are shown in Table 3.10. The 

maximum predicted formaldehyde concentration representative of cumulative impacts was used. 

Under the MLE scenario, the estimated cancer risk associated with long-term exposure to 

benzene and formaldehyde is below 1 x 10-6. Under the MEI analyses, the incremental risk for 

formaldehyde is less than 1 x 10-6, and both the incremental risk for benzene and the combined 

incremental risk fall at the lower end of the presumptively acceptable cancer risk range of 1 x 

10-6 to 1 x 10-4 as stated by EPA (EPA 1999). 

Table 3.10 Long-term Modeled MLE and MEI Cancer Risk Analyses, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project. 

Modeling Scenario Analysis HAP Constituent 

Modeled 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) Unit Risk Factor 1/(μg/m3) 

Exposure 

Adjustment Factor Cancer Risk 

3,100 Wells MLE Benzene 0.85 7.8 x 10-6 0.0949 0.63 x 10-6

 Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3 x 10-5 0.0949 0.02 x 10-6

Total Combined 0.6 x 10-6

 

3,100 Wells MEI Benzene 0.85 7.8 x 10-6 0.71 4.73 x 10-6

 Formaldehyde 0.02 1.3 x 10-5 0.71 0.18 x 10-6

Total Combined1 4.9 x 10-6

1

 Total risk is calculated here; however, the additive effects of multiple chemicals are not fully understood and this should be taken into 

account when viewing these results. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 41 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.0 MID-FIELD AND FAR-FIELD ANALYSES 

The purpose of the mid-field and far-field analyses were to quantify potential air quality impacts 

on Class I and Class II areas from air pollutant emissions of NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 expected 

to result from the development of the project. The analyses were performed using the EPA 

CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system to predict air quality impacts from project and regional 

sources at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas and at several mid-field PSD Class II 

areas. The PSD Class I areas and sensitive Class II areas analyzed are shown on Map 1.2 and 

include: 

• the Bridger Wilderness Area (Class I); 

• the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (Class I); 

• the Popo Agie Wilderness Area (Class II); 

• the Wind River Roadless Area (Class II) 

• Grand Teton National Park (Class I); 

• the Teton Wilderness Area (Class I); 

• Yellowstone National Park (Class I); and 

• the Washakie Wilderness Area (Class I). 

Modeled pollutant concentrations at these sensitive areas were compared to applicable WAAQS, 

NAAQS, and PSD Class I and Class II increments, and were used to assess potential impacts to 

AQRVs (i.e., visibility [regional haze] and atmospheric deposition). Note that visibility is 

protected in Class I areas only; Class II areas have no visibility protection and are included here 

only to further define impacts in potentially sensitive areas. In addition, analyses were 

performed for seven lakes designated as acid sensitive located within the sensitive PSD Class I 

and Class II wilderness areas to assess potential lake acidification from atmospheric deposition 

impacts (see Map 1.2). These lakes include: 

• Deep Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area; 

• Black Joe Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area; 

• Hobbs Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area; 

• Upper Frozen Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area; 
42 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

• Lazy Boy Lake in the Bridger Wilderness Area; 

• Ross Lake in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area; and 

• Lower Saddlebag Lake in the Popo Agie Wilderness Area. 

The mid-field analysis assessed direct project and regional source impacts at in-field locations 

within the JIDPA and other mid-field locations defined as Class II areas (regional communities) 

(see Map 1.2), which include the Wyoming communities of: 

• Big Piney; 

• Big Sandy; 

• Boulder; 

• Bronx; 

• Cora; 

• Daniel; 

• Farson; 

• La Barge; 

• Merna; and 

• Pinedale. 

Predicted pollutant impacts at in-field locations were compared to applicable ambient air quality 

standards. At mid-field Wyoming community locations impacts to visibility (regional haze) were 

assessed although these communities are classified as PSD Class II areas where no visibility 

protection exits under local, state, or federal law. 

4.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY 

The EPA-approved CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system (CALMET Version 5.53, Level 

030709, and CALPUFF Version 5.711, Level 030625) was used for the mid-field and far-field 

modeling analyses. The CALMET meteorological model was used to develop wind fields for a 

year of meteorological data (1995) and the CALPUFF dispersion model combined these wind 

fields with project-specific and regional emissions inventories of SO2, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 to 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 43 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

estimate ambient concentrations and AQRV impacts at mid-field and far-field receptor locations. 

The study area is shown in Map 1.2. 

The CALMET and CALPUFF models were utilized in this analysis generally following the 

methods described in the Protocol (Appendix A) and the following guidance sources: 

• Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), 

Part 51, Appendix W (EPA 2003a); 

• Interagency Work Group on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary 

Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts, 

EPA-454/R-98-019, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 

1998 (IWAQM 1998); and 

• Federal Land Managers - Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG), 

Phase I Report, December 2000 (FLAG 2000). 

The CALMET wind fields developed for this analysis follow the CALMET methodologies 

established as part of the Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) for southwest 

Wyoming, and were further enhanced through the use of additional meteorological datasets and 

revised CALMET model code. 

4.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE MODELING SCENARIOS 

Modeling scenarios were developed for the proposed project development scenarios including 

the Proposed Action, Alternative A, Alternative B and the Preferred Alternative. The Proposed 

Action, and Alternatives A and B, and the Preferred Alternative are proposals for 3,100 new 

wells. Development rates considered both straight and directional drilling operations and are 

generally consistent with the proposed project alternatives. 

Maximum field-wide emissions scenarios were determined for each alternative and reflect the 

last year of field development, at the maximum WDR, combined with nearly full-field 

production. 
44 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

An additional field-wide emissions scenario was developed which assumes only full-field 

development (i.e., maximum field-wide productions emissions from 3100 wells). 

The maximum emissions scenarios conservatively assume that both production emissions 

(producing wellsites and operational ancillary equipment including compressor stations) and 

construction emissions (drilling rigs and pit flaring operations) occur simultaneously throughout 

the year. These modeling scenarios assumed the maximum field emissions, which could 

potentially occur concurrently, during a 24-hour (1-day) period. While not specifically proposed 

as a project feature, anticipated future compression expansions for the Bird Canyon, Falcon, 

Jonah, and Luman compressor stations were included in the field-wide emissions scenarios since 

it was known that these stations would require expansion to accommodate the additional natural 

gas production from the project in combination with other regional projects. Future compression 

in the field was assumed to operate at 90% of fully permitted capacity, which compression 

station operators indicated was a reasonable assumption based on field operation expectations. 

The WDR250 case assumed 20 drilling rigs and 3 pit flares operating continuously throughout 

the year and WDR75 assumed 6 drilling rigs and 1 pit flare. 

Development rates considered both straight and directional drilling operations generally 

consistent with the proposed project alternatives. The Proposed Action and Alternative A 

assume all straight drilling. Alternative B assumes all directional drilling, and the Preferred 

Alternative assumes 50% straight drilling and 50% directional drilling. 

The maximum field-wide emissions scenarios are summarized in Table 4.1 for the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives A and B, and the Preferred Alternative. The emissions for these 

scenarios assume continuous operation of drill rigs and completion flaring throughout the year 

and therefore are not comparable to annual field wide emissions estimates provided in Table 2.3 

or in Appendix B. The emissions used to develop these field-wide scenarios are described in 

Chapter 2.0. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 45 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.1 Summary of Maximum Modeled Field-Wide Emissions (tpy), Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming1

. 

Emissions 

Maximum Production 

(3100 wells) 

Proposed Action 

and Alternative A Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative6

Production Emissions 

 Wells1 

 NOx 140.6 129.2 137.2 25.8 

 SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PM10 26.9 24.7 26.3 4.9 

 PM2.5 26.9 24.7 26.3 4.9 

 Traffic2 

 NOx 26.0 23.9 25.4 4.8 

 SO2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 

 PM10 709.2 652.0 692.0 130.4 

 PM2.5 107.8 99.1 105.2 19.8 

 Compression3 

 NOx 211.0 211.0 211.0 42.2 

 SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PM10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PM2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Construction Emissions 

 Well Drilling 

 NOx -- 843.2 313.1 484.3 

 SO2 -- 27.2 10.0 32.4 

 PM10 -- 47.3 17.6 93.0 

 PM2.5 -- 47.3 17.6 93.0 

 Traffic4 

 NOx -- 13.5 4.1 2.7 

 SO2 -- 0.4 0.1 0.1 

 PM10 -- 225.1 67.5 45.0 

 PM2.5 -- 34.5 10.3 6.9 

 Flaring5 

 NOx -- 406.9 135.6 81.4 

 SO2 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PM10 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 PM2.5 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 
46 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.1 (Continued) 

Emissions 

Maximum Production 

(3100 wells) 

Proposed Action 

and Alternative A Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative6

Total Emissions

 

 NOx 377.6 1,627.7 826.4 641.2 

 SO2 0.7 28.3 10.8 32.6 

 PM10 736.1 949.1 803.4 273.4 

 PM2.5 134.1 205.6 159.4 124.7 

1

 Includes emissions from indirect heater, separator heater, and dehydrator heater. 2

 Includes emissions from all traffic associated with full field production. Emissions calculations assume 20 wells can be 

visited per day. 3

 Includes emissions from the following compressor stations: Bird Canyon, Luman, Falcon, and Jonah, and the Jonah water 

disposal well engine. 4

 Includes emissions from all traffic associated with simultaneous drilling operations. 5

 Includes emissions from "completion/testing" flares operating continuously during the year. 6

 Includes emissions from Preferred Alternative Mitigation Analysis (80 % Emissions Reduction Scenario) (see Appendix G, 

Section G-2.3). 

4.3 METEOROLOGICAL MODEL INPUT AND OPTIONS 

CALMET was used to develop wind fields for the study area shown in Map 1.2. Model domain 

extent was selected based on available refined mesoscale meteorological model (MM5) data 

from the SWWYTAF study and the locations of the PSD Class I and sensitive Class II 

Wilderness areas that were selected for air quality analyses. 

The modeling domain was processed to a uniform horizontal grid using 4-km resolution, based 

on a Lambert Conformal Projection defined with a central longitude/latitude at (-108.55°/42.55°) 

and first and second latitude parallels at 30° and 60°. The modeling grid consisted of 116 x 112 

4-km grid cells that cover the project area and all analyzed Class I and sensitive Class II areas. 

The total area of the modeling domain is 288 x 278 mi (464 x 448 km). Ten vertical layers were 

used, with heights of 20, 40, 100, 140, 320, 580, 1,020, 1,480, 2,220, and 2,980 m. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 47 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

The CALMET analysis utilized the MM5 data, (which was processed at a 20-km horizontal 

grid spacing), data from 55 surface meteorological stations and 155 precipitation stations, 

and four upper air meteorological stations to supplement MM5 upper air estimates. USGS 

1:250,000-Scale Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) data, and USGS 1o DEM data were used for 

land use and terrain data in the development of the CALMET wind fields. Listings of the 

surface and upper air meteorological stations, and the precipitation stations that were used in this 

analysis are provided in Appendix E. The CALMET model was run following control switch 

settings that were developed as part of SWWYTAF to develop the one-year (1995) wind field 

data set, with the exception of the IKINE switch setting. The CALMET wind fields were 

developed using the IKINE “kinematic effects” CALMET switch setting option. The switch 

setting was originally selected based on peer review of the SWWYTAF wind fields, which 

indicated that surface wind speeds from CALMET were underestimated. The use of IKINE 

produced better agreement with surface wind observations. In addition, since the JIDPA is 

approximately 30 km from the Bridger Wilderness, the use of terrain was justified as “best 

science” to more appropriately model terrain effects. Subsequent peer review has indicated that 

this switch setting produced unrealistically high wind speeds in layer 2 of the wind field (first 

layer above the surface layer) for various hours during the year. 

The modeling domain extended as far north as possible given the available refined MM5 data. 

The IWAQM guidance for CALMET/CALPUFF recommends that the horizontal domain of the 

model grid extend 50 to 80 km beyond the receptors and sources being modeled, for modeling 

potential recirculation wind flow effects. Because the area of Yellowstone National Park 

included in the modeling is along the boundary of the modeling domain, and the northern 

portions of Grand Teton National Park, and the Teton and Washakie Wilderness Areas are less 

than 50 km from the modeling grid boundary, the recirculation wind patterns may not be 

completely resolved by CALMET in those areas. However, because the direct wind flow 

patterns that could transport potential project and regional source emissions to these areas are 

fully characterized in the modeling domain, any potential impacts from project sources in these 

areas should be fully captured. 
48 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.4 DISPERSION MODEL INPUT AND OPTIONS 

The CALPUFF model was used to model project-specific and regional emissions of NOx, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5. CALPUFF was run using the IWAQM-recommended default control file 

switch settings for all parameters. Chemical transformations were modeled based on the 

MESOPUFF II chemistry mechanism for conversion of SO2 to sulfate (SO4) and NOx to nitric 

acid (HNO3) and nitrate (NO3). Each of these pollutant species was included in the CALPUFF 

model runs. NOx, HNO3, and SO2 were modeled with gaseous deposition, and SO4, NO3, PM10, 

and PM2.5 were modeled using particle deposition. The PM10 emissions input to CALPUFF 

included only the PM10 emissions greater than the PM2.5 (i.e., modeled PM10 = PM10 emission 

rate – PM2.5 emission rate). Total PM10 impacts were determined in the post-processing of 

modeled impacts, as discussed in Section 4.5. 

4.4.1 Chemical Species

The CALPUFF chemistry algorithms require hourly estimates of background O3 and ammonia 

(NH3) concentrations for the conversion of SO2 and NO/NO2 to sulfates and nitrates, 

respectively. Background O3 data, for the meteorology 1995 modeling year, were available for 

six stations within the modeling domain: 

• Pinedale, Wyoming, 

• Centennial, Wyoming, 

• Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, 

• Craters of the Moon National Park, Idaho, 

• Highland, Utah, and 

• Mount Zirkel Visibility Study, Hayden, Colorado. 

Hourly O3 data from these stations was used in the CALPUFF modeling, with a default value of 

44.7 parts per billion (ppb) (7 a.m.-7 p.m. mean) used for missing hours. A background NH3

concentration of 1.0 ppb was used as suggested in the IWAQM guidance for arid lands. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 49 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.4.2 Model Receptors

Input to CALPUFF were model receptors at which the concentration, deposition, and AQRV 

impacts were calculated. Receptors were placed along the boundaries of all Class I and other 

sensitive areas at 2-km spacing, and within the boundaries of these areas on a 4-km Cartesian 

grid. Discrete receptors were placed on a Cartesian grid at 1-km spacing within the JIDPA. 

Individual receptor points were determined for each of the seven acid-sensitive lakes. Grids of at 

least 3 x 3 1-km spaced receptors were used for modeling each of the mid-field Wyoming 

communities. Receptor elevations for all sensitive Class I and Class II areas were determined 

from 1:250,000 scale USGS DEM data. Elevations for the sensitive lake receptors were derived 

from 7.5-minute USGS topographical maps. All model receptors utilized in the mid-field and 

far-field analyses are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. 

4.4.3 Source Parameters

CALPUFF source parameters were determined for all project and regional source emissions of 

NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Project sources were input to CALPUFF using point sources to 

idealize compressor stations, drilling rigs, pit flares, and water disposal well engines. 

Additionally, 148 1-km2 area sources at 1-km spacing were placed throughout the JIDPA to 

idealize well site heater, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion emissions. Locations of Jonah Field 

compressor stations with anticipated future expansions are shown in Figure 4.3. Compressor 

station emissions and modeled parameters are provided in Appendix D. Parameters used in 

modeling the drilling rigs, pit flares, water disposal well, and wind erosion are given in 

Appendix B and illustrated in Figure 4.4. Field-wide emissions from well heaters and traffic for 

each project alternative are summarized in Section 4.2. Monthly emissions scalars were used to 

adjust the heater emissions for seasonal variations. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
52 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Non-project regional emissions were input to CALPUFF using area sources to idealize 

non-compression RFD sources and county-wide well sites, and point sources to idealize 

state-permitted sources, RFD compression sources, and RFFA. The source parameters used in 

modeling all state-permitted and RFFA sources are provided in Appendix C. Non-compression 

RFD emissions were modeled using area sources developed for each proposed field development 

as a "best fit" to the respective project area. The area sources developed for each RFD project 

are shown in Figure 4.5. County-wide well emissions were modeled using area sources 

developed as a “best fit” to the respective county area. The area sources used to model 

county-wide well site emissions are shown in Figure 4.6. Seasonal emission-rate adjustment 

factors were applied to emissions from well site heaters to account for seasonal variations in 

heater use. Source elevations for all RFD and county-wide area sources were determined from 

1:250,000 scale USGS DEM data. 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
54 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

 Figure 4.4 Far-field Modeling Project-Specific Point and Area Source Locations.
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 57 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.5 BACKGROUND DATA 

4.5.1 Criteria Pollutants

Ambient air concentration data collected at monitoring sites in the region provide a measure of 

the background conditions during the most recent available time period. The most representative 

regional monitoring-based background values for criteria pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and 

SO2), as identified by WDEQ-AQD, collected at monitoring sites in Wyoming and northwestern 

Colorado, are summarized in Table 4.2. Although O3 is also a criteria pollutant, it is not utilized 

in the far-field modeling as a background concentration and is therefore excluded from this table. 

Maximum ozone impacts are anticipated to occur within or immediately adjacent to the JIDPA 

and are summarized in Section 3.4.5. The ambient air background concentrations provided in 

Table 4.2 were added to modeled pollutant concentrations (expressed in μg/m3

) to arrive at total 

ambient air quality impacts for comparison to NAAQS and WAAQS. 

4.5.2 Visibility

Background visibility data representative of the study area were collected from IMPROVE 

monitoring sites located at Yellowstone National Park and the Bridger Wilderness Area 

(Table 4.3). Background visibility data were used in combination with modeled pollutant 

impacts to estimate change in visibility conditions (measured as change in light extinction). The 

IMPROVE background visibility data are provided as reconstructed aerosol total extinction data, 

based on the quarterly mean of the 20% cleanest days measured at the Bridger Wilderness Area 

and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites for the historical monitoring period of record 

through December 2002. 
58 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.2 Far-field Analysis Background of Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3). 

Pollutant Averaging Period Measured Background Concentration 

NO2

1 Annual 3.4 

PM102 24-hour

Annual 

33 

16 

PM2.52 24-hour

Annual 

13 

5 

SO2

3 3-hour

24-hour 

Annual

132 

43 

9 

1

 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming during period JanuaryDecember 2001 (ARS 2002). 2

 Data collected by WDEQ-AQD at Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Year 2001. 

3

 Data collected at LaBarge Study Area at the Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek Site 1982-1983. 

Table 4.3 IMPROVE Background Aerosol Extinction Values.1 

IMPROVE Site Quarter 

Hygroscopic 

(Mm-1)

2 

Non-hygroscopic 

(Mm-1)

2 Monitoring Period 

1 0.845 1.666 1989-2002 

2 1.730 3.800 1988-2002 

3 1.902 5.637 1988-2002 

Bridger Wilderness Area 

4 0.915 2.035 1988-2002 

1 1.126 2.973 1988-2002 

2 1.502 4.531 1988-2002 

3 1.811 7.330 1988-2002 

Yellowstone National Park 

4 1.033 2.990 1988-2002 

1

 Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (2003). 

2

 Mm-1 = inverse megameters. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 59 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.5.3 Deposition

Background total sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition data (expressed in kilograms per hectare 

per year [kg/ha-yr]) collected at National Acid Deposition Program (NADP) National Trends 

Network (NTN) and Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) station monitoring 

locations near Pinedale, Wyoming are provided in Table 4.4. These background S and N 

deposition data are added to modeled cumulative (project alternative and regional sources) 

deposition impacts to estimate total S and N deposition impacts. 

Table 4.4 Background N and S Deposition Values (kg/ha-yr). 

Site Location Nitrogen Deposition Sulfur Deposition Year of Monitoring 

Pinedale 1.5 0.75 2002 

4.5.4 Lake Chemistry

The most recent lake chemistry background acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) data were obtained 

for each sensitive lake included in the analysis. The 10th percentile lowest ANC values were 

calculated for each lake following procedures provided by the USDA Forest Service. These 

ANC values and the number of samples used in the calculation of the 10th percentile lowest ANC 

values are provided in Table 4.5. 
60 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.5 Background ANC Values for Acid Sensitive Lakes. 

Wilderness Area Lake 

Latitude 

(Deg-Min-Sec) 

Longitude 

(Deg-Min-Sec)

10th Percentile 

Lowest ANC Value

(μeq/l) 

Number of 

Samples 

Monitoring 

Period 

Bridger Black Joe 42o44'22" 109o10'16" 67.0 61 1984-2003 

Bridger Deep 42o43'10" 109o10'15" 59.9 58 1984-2003 

Bridger Hobbs 43o02'08" 109o40'20" 69.9 65 1984-2003 

Bridger Lazy Boy 43o19'57" 109o43'47" 18.8 1 1997 

Bridger Upper Frozen 42o41'13" 109o09'39" 5.0 6 1997-2003 

Fitzpatrick Ross 43o22'41" 109o39'30" 53.5 44 1988-2003 

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 42o37'24" 108o59'38" 55.5 43 1989-2003 

4.6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

CALPUFF modeling was performed to compute direct project impacts for each of the 

alternatives and for estimating cumulative impacts from potential project and regional sources. 

The alternatives, as described in Section 4.2, include the Proposed Action, Alternatives A and B, 

and the Preferred Alternative. Maximum emissions scenarios for each alternative included the 

last year of field development, at the maximum annual construction activity rate, combined with 

nearly full-field production. An additional full-field development emissions scenario was 

developed for the Proposed Action assuming maximum production emissions. Regional 

emissions inventories of existing state-permitted RFD and RFFA sources, as described in 

Chapter 2.0, were modeled alone to estimate cumulative impacts for the No Action Alternative. 

These regional inventories were modeled in combination with project alternatives to provide 

cumulative impact estimates for each alternative. A total of 9 modeling scenarios were evaluated 

in this analysis. A list of these scenarios is summarized in Table 4.6. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 61 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.6 Modeling Scenarios Analyzed for Project Alternative and Regional Emissions, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1

Modeling 

Scenario 

Source Impacts 

Evaluated Project Alternative 

Number of New Wells 

in Production 

Number of Wells under 

Construction 

Well Drilling 

Rig Type 

1 Direct Project Maximum 

Production (3100 

wells) all 

Alternatives 

3,100 0 -- 

2 Direct Project Proposed Action and 

Alternative A 

2,850 250/year Straight 

3 Direct Project Alternative B 3,025 75/year Directional 

4 Direct Project Preferred Alternative 2,850 250/year 50% Straight/ 

50% Directional 

5 Cumulative No Action1 0 0 -- 

6 Cumulative Maximum 

Production (3100 

wells) all 

Alternatives 

3,100 0 -- 

7 Cumulative Proposed Action and 

Alternative A 

2,850 250/year Straight 

8 Cumulative Alternative B 3,025 75/year Directional 

9 Cumulative Preferred Alternative 2,850 250/year 50% Straight/ 

50% Directional

1

 Includes 198 wells in Jonah Field which began production after 2001 as RFD. 

For each far-field sensitive area, CALPUFF-modeled concentration impacts were post-processed 

with POSTUTIL and CALPOST to derive: 1) concentrations for comparison to ambient air 

quality standards (WAAQS and NAAQS), PSD Class I significance thresholds, and PSD Class I 

and II Increments; 2) deposition rates for comparison to sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition 

levels of concern and to calculate changes to ANC at sensitive lakes; and 3) light extinction 

changes for comparison to visibility impact thresholds. For the mid-field analyses, CALPOST 

concentrations were post-processed to estimate light extinction changes at regional communities 

for comparison to the visibility impact thresholds. For in-field locations, CALPUFF 

concentrations were post-processed to compute maximum concentration impacts for comparison 

to WAAQS and NAAQS. 
62 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

4.6.1 Concentration

The CALPOST and POSTUTIL post-processors were used to summarize concentration impacts 

of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at PSD Class I and sensitive PSD Class II areas, and at in-field 

locations. Predicted impacts are compared to applicable ambient air quality standards, PSD 

Class I and Class II increments, and significance levels as shown in Table 4.7. All NEPA PSD 

demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD 

increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by the WDEQ-AQD. 

Table 4.7 NAAQS, WAAQS, PSD Class I and Class II Increments, and PSD Class I and 

Class II Significance Levels for Comparison to Far-field Analysis Results 

(μg/m3

). 

Pollutant/Averaging Time NAAQS WAAQS 

PSD Class I 

Increment 

PSD Class II 

Increment 

PSD Class I 

Significance Level1

PSD Class II 

Significance Level2

NO2 

 Annual3 100 100 2.5 25 0.1 1.0 

SO2 

 3-hour4

 1,300 1,300 25 512 1.0 25.0 

 24-hour4

 365 260 5 91 0.2 5.0 

 Annual3 80 60 2 20 0.1 1.0 

PM10 

 24-hour4 150 150 8 30 0.3 5.0 

 Annual3

 50 50 4 17 0.2 1.0 

PM2.5 

 24-hour5

 65 65 -- -- -- -- 

 Annual 5 15 15 -- -- -- -- 

1

 Proposed Class I significance levels from 61 Federal Register 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996: Impacts above 

these levels do not necessarily indicate a significant impact, they generally are used to indicate the need for a 

more detailed modeling analysis. 2

 Class I significance levels (EPA 1990b): Impacts above these levels do not necessarily indicate a significant 

impact, they generally are used to indicate the need for a more detailed modeling analysis. 3 Annual arithmetic mean. 4 No more than one exceedance per year is allowed. 5 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming; -- = no current or proposed value. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 63 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

PM10 concentrations were computed by adding predicted CALPUFF concentrations of PM10

(fraction of PM greater than PM2.5), PM2.5, SO4, and NO3. PM2.5 concentrations were calculated 

as the sum of modeled PM2.5, SO4, and NO3 concentrations. In post-processing the PM10

impacts at all far-field receptor locations, project alternative traffic emissions of PM10

(production and construction) were not included in the total estimated impacts, only the PM2.5

impacts were considered. This assumption was based on supporting documentation from the 

Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) analyses of mechanically generated fugitive dust 

emissions that suggest that particles larger than PM2.5 tend to deposit out rapidly near the 

emissions source and do not transport over long distances (Countess et al. 2001). This 

phenomenon is not modeled adequately in CALPUFF; therefore, to avoid overestimates of PM10

impacts at far-field locations, these sources were not considered in the total modeled impacts. 

However, the total PM10 impacts from traffic emissions were included in all in-field 

concentration estimates. 

Far-field Results

The maximum predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 at each of the analyzed 

PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas, for each of the 9 modeled direct project alternatives and 

cumulative source scenarios, are provided in Appendix F. Predicted direct impacts are compared 

to applicable PSD Class I and Class II increments and significance levels, and when added to 

representative background pollutant concentrations (see Table 4.2), the total concentration is 

compared to applicable NAAQS and WAAQS. Cumulative impacts from all alternatives are 

compared directly to applicable PSD Class I and Class II increments, and to the NAAQS and 

WAAQS when background pollutant concentrations are added. Tables F.1.1-F.1.9 provide the 

maximum modeled NO2 concentrations at each of the sensitive areas. The maximum modeled 

SO2 concentrations are provided in Tables F.2.1-F.2.9, and the maximum modeled PM10 and 

PM2.5 impacts are provided in Tables F.3.1-F.3.9, and Tables F.4.1-F.4.9, respectively. 

Summaries of results by alternative for NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are provided in Tables 

F.10.1-F10.2, F.10.3-F.10.4, F.10.5-F.10.6, and F.10.7-F.10.8, respectively. 
64 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

The modeling results indicate that neither direct project impacts nor cumulative source impacts 

would exceed any ambient air quality standards (WAAQS and NAAQS) or be above PSD 

increment (see Tables F.1.1-F.4.9). Direct project NO2 impacts at the Bridger Class I 

Wilderness Area are above the proposed PSD Class I significance level of 0.1 μg/m3

 for NO2. A 

direct project maximum NO2 concentration of 0.13 μg/m3 is predicted under the Proposed Action 

and Alternative A (see Table F.1.2). In addition, direct project impacts of 24-hour PM10, 

concentrations are above the proposed Class I significance level of 0.3 μg/m3 at the Bridger 

Wilderness Area under each alternative, with a maximum of 1.66 μg/m3 predicted for the 

Proposed Action and Alternative A (see Table F.3.2). 

In-Field Results

The maximum predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 within and nearby the 

JIDPA, for each of the 9 modeled direct project and cumulative scenarios are provided in 

Appendix F, Tables F.5.1 - F.5.9. A summary of results by alternative is provided in 

Tables F.10.9 - F.10.10. Predicted direct project and cumulative impacts are added to 

representative background pollutant concentrations and are compared to applicable NAAQS and 

WAAQS. As shown in Tables F.5.1 - F.5.9, there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS or 

WAAQS within and nearby the JIDPA from field-wide project sources or cumulative sources. 

This analysis further supports the compliance demonstrations shown in Section 3.4 for maximum 

near-field impacts. 

4.6.2 Deposition

Maximum predicted S and N deposition impacts were estimated for each project alternative and 

cumulative source scenario. The POSTUTIL utility was used to estimate total S and N fluxes 

from CALPUFF predicted wet and dry fluxes of SO2, SO4, NOx, NO3, and HNO3. CALPOST 

was then used to summarize the annual S and N deposition values from the POSTUTIL program. 

Predicted direct project impacts were compared to the NPS deposition analysis thresholds 

(DATs) for total N and S deposition in the western U.S., which are defined as 0.005 kilograms 

per hectare per year (kg/ha-year) for both N and S. Cumulative deposition impacts from project 

alternative and regional sources were compared to USDA Forest Service levels of concern, 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 65 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

defined as 5 kg/ha-yr for S and 3 kg/ha-yr for N (Fox et al. 1989) below which no adverse 

impacts from atmospheric deposition are likely. 

The maximum predicted N and S deposition impacts for each of the alternatives are provided in 

Appendix F, Tables F.6.1 – F.6.4. A summary of results by alternative is provided in 

Tables F.10.11 - F.10.14. Modeling results for project sources under each Alternative indicate 

that there would be no direct project S deposition impacts above the DAT, and that all 

cumulative N and S deposition impacts, including background N and S deposition values, would 

be well below the cumulative analysis levels of concern. Modeling results do indicate that there 

could be direct project N deposition impacts that are above the DAT at the Bridger and Popo 

Agie Wilderness Areas and at the Wind River Roadless Area for the Proposed Action and 

Alternative A scenarios and at the Bridger and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas for the Preferred 

Alternative (see Table F.6.1). The maximum predicted nitrogen deposition impacts occurred for 

the Proposed Action and Alternative A and are 0.03, 0.02, and 0.01 kg/ha-yr, at Bridger and 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas, and at the Wind River Roadless Area, respectively (see Table 

F.6.1). 

4.6.3 Sensitive Lakes

The CALPUFF-predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors listed in 

Section 4.2.3 were used to estimate the change in ANC. The change in ANC was calculated 

following the January 2000, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region's Screening 

Methodology for Calculating ANC Change to High Elevation Lakes, User's Guide (USDA Forest 

Service 2000). The predicted changes in ANC are compared with the USDA Forest Service's 

Level of Acceptable Change (LAC) thresholds of 10% for lakes with ANC values greater than 

25 microequivalents per liter (μeq/l) and 1 μeq/l for lakes with background ANC values of 

25 μeq/l or less. Of the seven lakes listed in Table 4.5 and identified by the USDA Forest 

Service as acid sensitive, Upper Frozen and Lazy Boy lakes are considered extremely acid 

sensitive. 

ANC calculations were performed for each of the project alternative and cumulative source 

scenarios, with the results presented in Appendix F, Tables F.7.1 – F.7.9. A summary of results 
66 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

by alternative is provided in Tables F.10.15 - F.10.16. The modeling results indicate that 

deposition impacts from direct project and cumulative emissions would not exceed the LAC 

threshold for ANC at any of the sensitive lakes. 

4.6.4 Visibility

The CALPUFF model-predicted concentration impacts at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive 

Class II areas and at mid-field regional community locations were post-processed with 

CALPOST to estimate potential impacts to visibility (regional haze) for each alternative and 

cumulative source scenario for comparison to visibility impact thresholds. CALPOST estimated 

visibility impacts from predicted concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, SO4, and NO3. PM10 emissions 

from project traffic emissions were not included in the total estimated impacts 

(see Section 4.6.1), only the impacts to visibility from PM2.5 were considered. 

Visibility impairment calculations were performed using estimated natural background visibility 

conditions obtained from FLAG (2000) (FLAG method) and measured background visibility 

conditions from the Bridger Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites 

(IMPROVE method). IMPROVE-method data are based on the quarterly mean of the 20% 

cleanest days as shown in Table 4.3. The IMPROVE background visibility data are provided as 

reconstructed aerosol total extinction data, based on the quarterly mean of the 20% cleanest days 

measured at the Bridger Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites for the 

historical monitoring period of record through December 2002. 

For the FLAG method, estimated natural background visibility values as provided in 

Appendix 2.B of FLAG (2000), and monthly relative humidity factors as provided in the 

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA 

2003b) were used. The natural background visibility data used with the FLAG visibility analysis 

for each area analyzed are shown in Table 4.8. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 67 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.8 FLAG Report Background Extinction Values.1

Site Season 

Hygroscopic 

(Mm-1)

2 

Non-hygroscopic

 (Mm-1)

2 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Bridger Wilderness Area3 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Teton Wilderness Area 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Washakie Wilderness Area 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Grand Teton National Park 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

Winter 0.6 4.5 

Spring 0.6 4.5 

Summer 0.6 4.5 

Yellowstone National Park 

Fall 0.6 4.5 

1

 FLAG (2000). 

2

 Mm-1 = inverse megameters 3

 Also used for Popo Agie Wilderness, Wind River Roadless Area, and regional communities. 
68 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

The IMPROVE method used the measured background conditions at the Bridger Wilderness 

Area and at the Yellowstone National Park site, and the monthly relative humidity factors as 

provided in EPA (2003b). Visibility data from the Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site 

were used for the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas and for the Wind River 

Roadless Area, and visibility data from the Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE site were used 

for the Teton and Washakie Wilderness Areas and for Grand Teton and Yellowstone National 

Parks. 

Background visibility data monitored at the Bridger Class I Wilderness Area IMPROVE site 

were used to estimate potential visibility impairment at the regional community locations. These 

data were used because no visibility monitoring has been conducted in populated areas of the 

region. Since anthropogenic emissions (traffic, wood stoves, furnaces, etc.) exist in the 

residential locations it is likely that the visibility data measured in the Bridger Wilderness Area 

are more pristine than what would be measured in the residential areas. Therefore, since 

visibility impacts are calculated as percent increases of modeled concentrations above 

background values, the use of these data may overestimate the potential visibility impacts at 

these communities. 

As recommended in EPA (2003b), monthly relative humidity factors determined from the 

Bridger IMPROVE site were used for the Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas; 

Yellowstone IMPROVE data were used for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and 

for the Teton Wilderness Area; and North Absaroka IMPROVE data were used for the Washakie 

Wilderness Area. Relative humidity data for the Bridger site were also used for the Popo Agie 

Wilderness Area and for the Wind River Roadless Area. Table 4.9 provides the relative 

humidity factors (f[RH]) that were used in the analyses. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 69 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table 4.9 Monthly f(RH) Factors from Regional Haze Rule Guidance.

IMPROVE Site Quarter Months f(RH) Values 

1 Jan, Feb, Mar 2.5, 2.3, 2.3 

2 Apr, May, Jun 2.1, 2.1, 1.8 

3 Jul, Aug, Sep 1.5, 1.5, 1.8 

Bridger Wilderness Area1 

4 Oct, Nov, Dec 2.0, 2.5, 2.4 

1 Jan, Feb, Mar 2.4, 2.2, 2.2 

2 Apr, May, Jun 2.1, 2.1, 1.9 

3 Jul, Aug, Sep 1.6, 1.5, 1.8 

North Absaroka Wilderness Area2

 

4 Oct, Nov, Dec 2.0, 2.3, 2.4 

1 Jan, Feb, Mar 2.5, 2.3, 2.2 

2 Apr, May, Jun 2.1, 2.1, 1.9 

3 Jul, Aug, Sep 1.7, 1.6, 1.8 

Yellowstone National Park3

 

4 Oct, Nov, Dec 2.1, 2.4, 2.5 

1

 Also used for Fitzpatrick and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas, Wind River Roadless Area, and regional communities. 2

 Also used for Washakie Wilderness Area. 

3

 Also used for Teton Wilderness Area and Grand Teton National Park. 

Change in atmospheric light extinction relative to background conditions is used to measure 

regional haze. Analysis thresholds for atmospheric light extinction are set forth in FLAG (2000), 

with the results reported in percent change in light extinction and change in deciview (dv). The 

thresholds are defined as 5% and 10% of the reference background visibility or 0.5 and 1.0 dv 

for project sources alone and cumulative source impacts, respectively. FLAG (2000) also 

identifies a goal that any specific project combined with cumulative new source growth will have 

no days of visibility impairment at or above 1.0 dv in any Class I area. The BLM considers a 1.0 

dv change as a significant adverse impact; however, there are no applicable local, state, tribal, or 

federal regulatory visibility standards. It is the responsibility of the Federal Land Manager 

(FLM) or Tribal government responsible for that land to determine when adverse impacts are 

significant or not, and these may differ from BLM levels for significant adverse impacts (e.g., 

the USFS considers a 0.5-dv change as a threshold in order to protect visibility in sensitive 

areas). 

The BLM recognizes that other federal agencies may use alternative methods to calculate 

visibility impairment (see Appendix G). 
70 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Far-Field Results 

The maximum predicted far-field visibility impacts for each of the project alternatives are 

provided in Appendix F, Tables F.8.1 – F.8.9. A summary of results by alternative is provided in 

Tables F.10.17 - F.10.20. Predicted impacts are shown using both the FLAG and IMPROVE 

background visibility data. For each Class I and sensitive Class II area the maximum predicted 

change in dv and the estimated number of days per year that could potentially exceed 0.5 and 1.0 

dv thresholds are provided. Note that visibility is protected in Class I areas; Class II areas are 

included here to further define impacts in potentially sensitive areas. 

Direct visibility impacts from the project sources were predicted to be above the 0.5-dv threshold 

at the Bridger, Fitzpatrick and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas, and at the Wind River Roadless 

Area for the Proposed Action and Alternative A, and above the 1.0-dv threshold at only the 

Bridger Wilderness for each alternative. The highest frequency of predicted visibility impacts 

occurred at the Bridger Wilderness for the Proposed Action and Alternative A where there were 

22 days per year (FLAG) and 28 days per year (IMPROVE) when visibility impacts were 

predicted to be above the 0.5-dv threshold, and 9 days per year (FLAG) and 10 days per year 

(IMPROVE) above the 1.0-dv threshold (see Table F.8.2). The maximum dv change was 

estimated as 3.2 dv (FLAG) and 3.5 dv (IMPROVE) (see Table F.8.2). 

Cumulative visibility impacts from the project and regional sources for the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives A and B were predicted to be above the 1.0-dv threshold at the Bridger Wilderness 

Area and at the Wind River Roadless Area. Cumulative impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

and regional sources were predicted to be above the 1.0-dv threshold at only the Bridger 

Wilderness Area. The highest frequency of predicted cumulative visibility impacts occurred at 

the Bridger Wilderness for the Proposed Action and Alternative A where there were 11 days per 

year (FLAG) and 17 days per year (IMPROVE) when visibility impacts were predicted to be 

above the 1.0-dv threshold (see Table F.8.7). The maximum dv change at the Bridger 

Wilderness Area was estimated as 3.7 dv (FLAG) and 4.0 dv (IMPROVE) (see Table F.8.7). 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 71 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Tables are also provided in Appendix F (Tables F.8.10 – F.8.17), for each Class I and sensitive 

Class II area where the maximum predicted change in dv is estimated to potentially exceed 0.5 

and 1.0 dv thresholds, that present all predicted impacts above the thresholds and lists the days 

when the impacts were predict to occur. 

Mid-Field Results 

The maximum predicted mid-field visibility impacts for each of the project Alternative scenarios 

are provided in Appendix F, Tables F.9.1 – F.9.9. A summary of results by alternative is 

provided in Tables F.10.21 - F.10.24. Predicted impacts are shown using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data. The maximum predicted visibility impacts (change in dv) 

at regional communities and the estimated number of days per year that could potentially exceed 

the 1.0-dv threshold are provided for each community location using both the FLAG and 

IMPROVE background visibility data. The highest frequency of predicted visibility impacts 

from direct project sources occurred at Big Sandy under for the Proposed Action and Alternative 

A where there were 19 days per year (FLAG) and 23 days per year (IMPROVE) when visibility 

impacts were predicted to be above the 1.0-dv threshold (Table F.9.2). The maximum dv 

change, 3.8 dv (FLAG), and 4.3 dv (IMPROVE) was predicted to occur at Pinedale (see 

Table F.9.2). Modeling analyses using the maximum production emissions indicate that there 

would be only 1 day above the 1.0-dv threshold (IMPROVE), occurring at Pinedale, with a 

maximum impact of 1.1 dv (Table F.9.1). 

The highest frequency of predicted cumulative visibility impacts is estimated for Big Sandy for 

the Proposed Action and Alternative A where there were 31 days per year (FLAG) and 34 days 

per year (IMPROVE) when the visibility impacts were predicted to be above the 1.0-dv 

threshold (see Table F.9.7). The maximum dv change, 3.9 dv (FLAG), and 4.4 dv (IMPROVE) 

was predicted to occur at Pinedale (see Table F.9.7). 
72 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Tables are also provided in Appendix F (Tables F.9.10 – F.9.29), for each regional community 

location, that present all predicted impacts above the visibility 1.0 dv threshold and lists the days 

when the impacts were predict to occur. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 73 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Air Resource Specialists. 2002. Green River Basin Visibility Study. Monitored Air Quality 

Data. Air Resource Specialists, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project Air Resources Technical 

Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field 

Office, Kemmerer, Wyoming, in cooperation with Environmental Research and 

Technology Inc. 

 

. 1988. Pinedale Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs District, 

Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1990. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Great 

Divide Resource Area. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Great 

Divide Resource Area, Rawlins District. Rawlins, Wyoming. 

. 1997. Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan. U.S. 

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Green River Resource Area, Rock 

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

. 1999a. Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement-Technical Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, in cooperation with 

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and State of Wyoming. 

. 1999b. Continental Divide/Wamsutter II and South Baggs Natural Gas Development 

Projects, Environmental Impact Statement, Air Quality Impact Assessment, Technical 

Support Document, Volume II, Far-Field Analysis. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, in 

cooperation with Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. 

. 2003. Desolation Flats Natural Gas Exploration and Development Project - Technical 

Support Documents for the Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis. U.S. Department of 

Interior Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with Buys & Associates, Inc. 

Cooperative Institute for Research in Atmosphere. 2003. Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) summary data provided by Scott Copeland, 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, 

October 2003. 
74 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Countess, R.J., W.R. Barnard, C.S. Claiborn, D.A. Gillette, D.A. Latimer, T.G. Pace, J.G. 

Watson. 2001. Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically 

Resuspended Road Dust Emissions Applicable for Regional Scale Air Quality Modeling. 

Report No. 30203-9. Western Regional Air Partnership, Denver, Colorado.

Earth Tech. 2001. The Southwest Wyoming Regional CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling Study 

Final Report. Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. February 2001. 

. 2003. CALMET/CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling System. Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, 

Massachusetts. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Guideline for Air Quality Maintenance and Planning 

and Analysis, Vol. 10, (Revised). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/4-77-001. 

. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume II: Mobile 

Sources, Fourth Edition. 

. 1990a. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. Final Rule, 40 

C.F.R. Part 300. 

. 1990b. Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting, October 1990. 

. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and 

Reasonable Maximum Exposure. Preliminary Review Draft. 

. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Vol. 1, Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Fifth Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

. 2002. Air Toxics Database. Dose-Response Assessment for Assessing Health Risks 

Associated With Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, Table 2. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html>. Data accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2003a. Guideline On Air Quality Models. 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Appendix W, July 2003. 

. 2003b. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. 

. 2004. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I: Stationary 

Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 75 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup. 2000. Federal Land Managers' 

Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report. U.S. Forest Service-Air 

Quality Program, National Park Service-Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-Air Quality Branch. December 2000. 

Fox, Douglas, Ann M. Bartuska, James G. Byrne, Ellis Cowling, Rich Fisher, Gene E. Likens, 

Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst, Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols. 1989. A 

Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. 

General Technical Report RM-168. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 36 pp. 

Gas Research Institute. 1999. GRI-HAPCalc® Version 3.01. Gas Research Institute. Des 

Plaines, Illinois. 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling. 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling 

Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R-98-019. Office of Quality Planning and 

Standards. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1998. 

National Park Service. 2001. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds. 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park Service Air 

Resources Division. <http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/2001>, Data accessed July 

2003. 

Pfleider, Eugene, P. 1972. Surface Mining. Seeley W. Mudd Series. American Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York. 

Scheffe, Richard D. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1988. 

TRC. 2004. Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Wyoming State Office and Pinedale Field Office. TRC 

Environmental Corporation, Laramie, Wyoming. November 2004. 

______. 2005. Jonah Infill Drilling Project Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document 

Supplement. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming State Office and Pinedale Field Office. TRC Environmental Corporation, 

Laramie, Wyoming. August 2005. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Screening Methodology for Calculating ANC Change to High 

Elevation Lakes, User's Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. January 2000. 
76 Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Oil and Gas Production Facilities 

Chapter 6, Section 2 Permitting Guidance, Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Air Quality Division. June 1997 with revisions through August 2001. 

. 2003. Wyoming's Long Term Strategy for Visibility Protection, 2003 Review Report. 

Appendix E, Visibility Monitoring Data Assessment. Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD). 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

APPENDIX A:

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL,

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT,

SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING

Prepared for

Bureau of Land Management

Pinedale Field Office

Pinedale, Wyoming

and

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Prepared by

TRC Environmental Corporation

Laramie, Wyoming

September 2003

Revised October 2003
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL,

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT,

SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING

Prepared for:

Bureau of Land Management

Pinedale Field Office

P.O. Box 768

Pinedale, Wyoming 82941

and

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

5353 Yellowstone Road

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009

Prepared by:

James Zapert

Susan Connell

Peter J. Guernsey

TRC Environmental Corporation

605 Skyline Road

Laramie, Wyoming 82070

TRC Project 35982

September 2003

Revised October 2003
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project i

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ............................... 5

1.3 PROPOSED WORK TASKS...................................................................................... 5

2.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY.................................................................................................... 7

2.1 PROJECT EMISSIONS.............................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Construction Emissions................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Production Emissions..................................................................................... 8

2.2 CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORY.............................................................. 8

2.2.1 Existing Inventory........................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Permitted Sources..........................................................................................11

2.2.3 WOGCC/COGCC/UDNR-DOGM/IOGCC Sources...................................12

2.2.4 RFD and RFFA.............................................................................................12

3.0 CRITERIA POLLUTANT NEAR-FIELD MODELING..........................................................15

3.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY.................................................................................15

3.2 BACKGROUND DATA .............................................................................................15

3.3 CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................17

3.4 HAP IMPACT ASSESSMENT...................................................................................19

4.0 FAR-FIELD ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................23

4.1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................23

4.2 MODEL INPUT ..........................................................................................................24

4.2.1 Model Selection and Settings..........................................................................24

4.2.2 Emissions.......................................................................................................27

4.2.2.1 Project Emissions.............................................................................27

4.2.2.2 Cumulative Source Emissions..........................................................27

4.2.3 Receptors......................................................................................................28

4.2.4 Background Data...........................................................................................29

4.2.4.1 Criteria Pollutants............................................................................29

4.2.4.2 Chemical Species............................................................................30

4.2.4.3 Visibility..........................................................................................31

4.2.4.4 Lake Chemistry...............................................................................34

4.3 POST-PROCESSING.................................................................................................35

4.3.1 Concentration ................................................................................................35

4.3.2 Visibility.........................................................................................................35

4.3.3 Deposition .....................................................................................................36
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project ii

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS......................................................................37

5.1 NEAR-FIELD..............................................................................................................37

5.2 FAR-FIELD.................................................................................................................38

5.2.1 Class I and Class II Increments......................................................................38

5.2.2 Visibility.........................................................................................................39

5.2.3 Deposition .....................................................................................................40

5.2.4 ANC.............................................................................................................40

6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................41

APPENDIX A: EPA OZONE SCREENING METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX B: SOUTHWEST WYOMING VISIBILITY TRENDS

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map 1.1 Air Quality Study Area............................................................................................. 2

Map 1.2 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location Map, Sublette County, Wyoming....................... 3

Map 2.1 Study Area/Modeling Domain, Jonah Infill Drilling Project.........................................10

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Potential RFD in the Study Area...............................................................................13

Table 3.1 Near-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3)...........18

Table 3.2 Acute RELs.............................................................................................................21

Table 3.3 Non-Carcinogenic HAP RfCs..................................................................................21

Table 3.4 Carcinogenic HAP RfCs and Exposure Adjustment Factors......................................21
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project iii

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Page

Table 4.1 Additional Surface Meteorological Data Sites...........................................................25

Table 4.2 Far-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3) .............30

Table 4.3 FLAG Report Background Extinction Values............................................................33

Table 4.4 Background ANC Values for Acid Sensitive Lakes..................................................35

Table 5.1 Ambient Standards, Class II PSD Increments, and Significance Levels For

Comparison to Near-Field Analysis Results (μg/m3)..................................................38

Table 5.2 PSD Class I Increments and Significance Level Concentrations (μg/m3).....................39

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3.1 Wind Rose, Jonah Field, 1999 .................................................................................16
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project iv

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANC Acid neutralizing capacity

AQD Air Quality Division

AQRV Air Quality Related Value

ARS Air Resource Specialists

BACT Best Achievable Control Technology

BLM Bureau of Land Management

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CAAQS Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards

CDPHE/APCD Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/Air Pollution Control Division

CD/WII Continental Divide/Wamsutter II

CO Carbon monoxide

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

dv Deciview

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EnCana EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FLAG Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup

FLM Federal Land Managers

GRI Gas Research Institute

HAP Hazardous air pollutant

HNO3 Nitric acid

IAAQS Idaho Ambient Air Quality Standards

IDEQ Idaho Division of Environment Quality

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health

IOGCC Idaho Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

IWAQM Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area

kg/ha/yr Kilograms per hectare per year

LAC Level of Acceptable Change

LOP Life of Project

MEI Maximally Exposed Individual

MLE Most Likely Exposure

N Nitrogen

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NO3 Nitrate

NOx Oxides of nitrogen

NPS National Park Service

NSR New Source Review
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

NWS National Weather Service

O3 Ozone

Operators EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc., BP America, and other oil and gas companies

PAPA Pinedale Anticline Project Area

PFO Pinedale Field Office

PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size

ppb Parts per billion

Project Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Protocol Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

REL Reference exposure level

RfC Reference Concentrations for Chronic Inhalation

RFD Reasonably foreseeable development

RFFA Reasonably foreseeable future actions

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

S Sulfur

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SO4 Sulfate

SWWYTAF Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum

TRC TRC Environmental Corporation

UAAQS Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards

UDEQ-AQD Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division

UDNR-DOGM Utah Department of Natural Resources-Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining

URF Unit risk factor

VOC Volatile organic compound

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WAQSR Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation

ìeq/l Microequivalents per liter

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Air Quality Impact Assessment

Protocol (Protocol) to identify the methodologies for quantifying potential air quality impacts

from the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project (the Project). These methodologies are being

provided prior to study initiation to ensure that the approach, input data, and computation

methods are acceptable to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and that other interested

parties have the opportunity to review the Protocol and provide input before the study is initiated.

The Project's location in west-central Wyoming will require the examination of Project and

cumulative source impacts in Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, northeastern Utah, and

southeastern Idaho within the study area shown on Map 1.1. The study area and a significant

portion of the analysis are similar to cumulative analyses performed for previous natural gas

development projects in Wyoming. However, the approach presented in this Protocol differs

from previous regional cumulative analyses in two primary aspects. First, the analysis will

utilize the most recent visibility and NOx background data available to more accurately reflect

current conditions in the region and will advance the emissions inventory start-date to reflect

this more recent background data. Second, the proposed Class I modeling approach will be

consistent with recent federal guidance for performing regional Class I analyses and will comply

with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD)

recommendations.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana) of Denver, Colorado, has notified the BLM, Pinedale

Field Office (PFO), that it and other oil and gas companies including BP America (collectively

referred to as the Operators), propose to continue development of natural gas resources located

within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project area (JIDPA) (Map 1.2). The proposed project area is

generally located in Townships 28 and 29 North, Ranges 107 through 109 West, Sublette

County, Wyoming. The total project area encompasses approximately 30,200 acres, of which

28,280 acres are federal surface/federal mineral estate, 1,280 acres are State of Wyoming

surface/mineral estate, and 640 acres are private surface/federal mineral estate.
J

onahInfill

DrillingProject

StudyArea

Bridger

Wilderness

Fitzpatrick

Wilderness

WindRiver

RoadlessArea

PopoAgie

Wilderness

GrandTeton

NationalPark

Washakie

Wilderness

Yelllowstone

NationalPark

JonahInfill

ProjectAreaWY

OMING

UTAH

COLORADO

IDAHO

MONTANA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

Teton

Wilderness

Pinedale

FieldOffice

RockSprings

FieldOffice

JonahInfill

DrillingProject

StudyArea

Bridger

Wilderness

Fitzpatrick

Wilderness

WindRiver

RoadlessArea

PopoAgie

Wilderness

GrandTeton

NationalPark

Washakie

Wilderness

Yelllowstone

NationalPark

JonahInfill

ProjectAreaWY

OMING

UTAH

COLORADO

IDAHO

MONTANA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

Teton

Wilderness

Pinedale

FieldOffice

RockSprings

FieldOffice

051020304050M

iles

G:35982/ProtocolMap1.1.mxd

Map1.1AirQualityStudyArea.

Air Quality mI pact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 2

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 3

iv.'

WESTON

CONVERSE NIOBRARA t

0 20 ~O 60 --

WILES

GOSHEN

UINTA

Map 1.2 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Location Map, Sublette County, Wyoming.

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

-
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 4

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

The Operator Proposed Action for this Project involves the development of 1,250 new natural

gas wells on 850 new surface locations in the JIDPA. However, additional alternatives involving

greater well numbers will also be analyzed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. The maximum number of wells would

be 3,100, assuming an approximately 5- to 10-acre down-hole well spacing throughout the

JIDPA. Drilling operations are expected to last from approximately 4 to 20 years, with a life-of-project

(LOP) of 30-50 years. The JIDPA is currently accessed by existing developed roads.

Approximately 63-87 days would be required to develop each well (four days to construct the

well pad and access road, from one to four days for rig-up, generally from 18 to 36 days for

drilling [an average of 23 days is proposed for use in the air quality analysis], 35 days over a

60-day period for completion, from one to four days for rig-down, and four days for pipeline

construction). The estimated size of each drill site location is 3.8 acres, of which approximately

2.9 acres would be reclaimed after the well is completed and the gas gathering pipeline is

installed. A reserve pit would be constructed at each drill site location to hold drilling fluids and

cuttings. Non-productive and non-economical wells would be reclaimed immediately to

appropriate federal, state, or private landowner specifications.

The gas produced within the JIDPA would be transported by existing pipelines from the field.

To facilitate a complete cumulative impact assessment and since gas compression needs for the

proposed Project cannot reasonably be separated from those necessary for the adjacent Pinedale

Anticline Project Area (PAPA), future compression requirements for the PAPA will also be

considered in the air quality analysis. Projections of future compression requirements supporting

both the JIDPA and the PAPA have been requested from pipeline companies working within

these areas. This total regional compression estimate will be analyzed as part of both the

Proposed Action and the Maximum Well Number Alternatives.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 5

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS

The BLM Pinedale Resource Management Plan (RMP)/Record of Decision (ROD) (BLM 1988)

and the Green River RMP ROD (BLM 1997) direct the management of BLM-administered lands

within the JIDPA. Management of oil and gas resources, as stated in the RMPs, provides for

leasing, exploration, and development of oil and gas while protecting other resource values.

According to the RMPs, all public lands in the JIDPA are suitable for oil and gas leasing and

development, subject to certain stipulations.

The study area for this impact analysis (CALMET/CALPUFF modeling domain) will be similar

to the domain used for the Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum (SWWYTAF) (Earth Tech

2001) and the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 1999a). These study areas were identical and

included portions of southwest Wyoming, southeast Idaho, northeast Utah, and

northwest/north-central Colorado and utilized the CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system to

estimate regional air quality impacts. The proposed modeling domain not only includes these areas

but also extends farther north to include Grand Teton National Park, Teton and Washakie

Wilderness Areas, and the southern edge of Yellowstone National Park.

1.3 PROPOSED WORK TASKS

The air quality analysis will address the impacts on ambient air quality and Air Quality Related

Values (AQRVs) resulting from: 1) air emissions from construction and production activities

proposed in the JIDPA 1,250 new wells; 2) 3,100 new wells; and 3) air emissions from other

documented regional emissions sources within the study area. Ambient air quality impacts will

be quantified and compared to applicable state and federal standards, and AQRV impacts

(impacts on visibility [regional haze] and acid deposition) will be quantified and compared to

applicable thresholds as defined in the Federal Land Managers' (FLMs') Air Quality Related

Values Workgroup (FLAG), Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM)

guidance documents (FLAG 2000; IWAQM 1998), and other state and federal agency guidance.

Impact assessment criteria are discussed in further detail in Section 5.0 of this Protocol.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 6

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

The assessment of impacts will include the completion of the following five tasks.

• Develop Jonah Infill Drilling Project construction and production emissions

inventories (see Section 2.1).

• Compile a cumulative emissions inventory within the study area, including new

sources permitted through June 30, 2003, reasonably foreseeable development

(RFD), and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) (see Section 2.2).

• Assess near-field ambient impacts from Project emissions sources (see

Sections 3.0 and 5.1).

• Assess far-field ambient impacts (pollutant concentration, visibility, and acid

deposition impacts) within the modeling domain and at Class I and other sensitive

areas from Project emissions sources (see Sections 4.0 and 5.2).
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 7

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

2.0 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

2.1 PROJECT EMISSIONS

The Proposed Action for the project includes the development of from 1,250 to 3,100 natural gas

wells. Additional alternatives would also be proposed to represent intermediate development

scenarios, scenarios designed to limit well pad numbers, and/or limit the rate of development.

Drilling would continue for approximately 4 to 20 years, with an approximate 30- to 50-year

LOP. Relevant production facilities associated with each well would include a separator,

dehydrator, water tank, condensate tank, and methanol tank. Ancillary facilities would include

new compressor engines at existing compressor stations inside and outside the JIDPA.

Emissions inventories for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide

(CO), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less

than or equal to 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, n-hexane, and formaldehyde) will

be developed for both construction and production activities and for ancillary facilities planned

as part of the Project. Lead emissions will be considered negligible and not calculated in the

inventory. The emissions inventory will be developed based on the Proposed Action and

Maximum Development Alternative with assistance from the Operators, using reasonable but

conservative scenarios identified for each activity. The inventory will be developed using

manufacturer's emissions data, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) AP-42 (EPA

1995), Gas Research Institute (GRI) emission factors, and other accepted engineering methods as

described below.

2.1.1 Construction Emissions

Emissions-generating construction activities include: wellpad and access road construction;

drilling; flow-back/flaring; vehicle travel during the drilling and completion phase; and

construction and vehicle travel during gas pipeline installation. Drilling engine and flaring
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 8

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

emissions will be calculated using AP-42 or other acceptable engineering methods. Both

controlled and uncontrolled flaring emissions will be calculated. Flaring emissions calculations

and assumptions will be forwarded to WDEQ-AQD for review during development of the

inventory. Fugitive particulate emissions from vehicle travel and construction activities, wind

erosion emissions from areas disturbed during construction, and combustion source emissions

will be calculated using AP-42 emission factors and GRI-HAPCalc® (GRI 1999). It will be

assumed that adequate dust suppression (e.g., watering or dust suppressants) will be applied to

achieve a control efficiency of 50%.

2.1.2 Production Emissions

Sources of pollutant emissions during the production phase will include combustion emissions

from well-site facilities and compressor engines, and VOC and HAP emissions from gas

transmission operations. Fugitive particulate emissions from unpaved road travel and from wind

erosion on disturbed areas (such as well pads) will also occur. Combustion equipment emissions

will be calculated using AP-42, manufacturer's, and/or GRI emission factors, in accordance with

WDEQ-AQD oil and gas permitting guidance (WDEQ 2001) where applicable guidance exists.

Fugitive dust from unpaved roads and wind erosion emissions from disturbed areas will be

calculated using AP-42 emission factors. VOC and HAP emissions from production (aside from

those arising from combustion sources) will be generated by well-site dehydrators, fugitive leaks,

and flashing emissions from stored liquids. Both fugitive and flashing emissions will be

calculated using representative constituent analyses of natural gas and stored liquids,

respectively, as well as a discussion of Best Achievable Control Technology (BACT)

applicability and requirements, will be included for emissions sources as appropriate, in

accordance with WDEQ-AQD oil and gas permitting guidance (WDEQ 2001).

2.2 CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

An inventory of existing and proposed emissions sources within the study area will be conducted

and will include the identification of permitted sources, oil and gas wells, RFD, and RFFA. The
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 9

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

cumulative inventory will be completed using methods similar to previous inventories performed in

support of regional analyses. The inventory will be developed using data obtained from

WDEQ-AQD, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment/Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE/APCD),

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), Utah Department of Environmental

Quality-Air Quality Division (UDEQ-AQD), Utah Department of Natural Resources-Division of

Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDNR-DOGM), Idaho Division of Environment Quality (IDEQ), Idaho

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (IOGCC), BLM, and other agencies as required.

The time period of emissions data to be inventoried will differ from that of previous regional

studies in the use of updated visibility and NOx background data in the cumulative analysis.

These data are described in greater detail in Sections 4.2.4.2 and 4.2.4.3 of this Protocol. The

inventory period proposed in this Protocol has been selected based on the availability of current

background data through 2001; as a result, the inventory will begin in January 2001 and end on a

month-end date contemporary to this Protocol, June 30, 2003. If significant schedule changes

occur as the analysis progresses, the cutoff dates will be adjusted to ensure that no data is

unreasonably excluded from the analysis. Some overlap between emission sources which began

operating in 2001 and background data monitored during 2001 will exist; however, this overlap

provides additional conservatism to the analysis. Furthermore, the updated background values

more accurately reflect current background conditions, and the reduction in years of emissions

sources modeled helps to simplify the analysis.

Sources of PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions within the study area (the

CALPUFF/CALMET modeling domain), will be inventoried. The study area is shown in

Map 2.1.

2.2.1 Existing Inventory

Three cumulative inventories have been completed as part of NEPA projects in southwest Wyoming,

and they all included a portion of the study area proposed for the Project. The first
Jonah Infill

Drilling Project

Study Area/

Modeling Domain

MM5 Sub-grid Domain

Bridger

Wilderness

Fitzpatrick

Wilderness

Wind River

Roadless Area

Popo Agie

Wilderness

Pinedale

South Piney Anticline

Project Area

Jonah Infill

Drilling Project

Moxa

Stagecoach

Draw

Fontenelle

Continental

Divide

Seminoe Road

Project Area

Atlantic Rim

Project Area

Desolation

Flats

South

Baggs

Greater

Wamsutter II

Creston/Blue

Gap

Grand Teton

National Park

Washakie

Wilderness

Yelllowstone

National Park

Black Joe Lake

Mulligan Draw

Lower Saddlebag Lake

Deep

Lake

Hobbs Lake

Ross

Lake

WYOMING

UTAH COLORADO

IDAHO

MONTANA

SO

UTH

D

A

K

OTA

NEBRASKA

Teton

Wilderness

-112.904,44.233 (Longitude, Latitude)

-334.873,189.975 (Lambert Conformal)

-112.611,40.075 (Longitude, Latitude)

-335.000,-258.000 (Lambert Conformal) -106.985,40.142 (Longitude, Latitude)

129.000,-258.000 (Lambert Conformal)

-106.871,44.304 (Longitude, Latitude)

129.002,189.855 (Lambert Conformal)

Upper Frozen Lake

Lazy Boy

Lake

Jonah Infill

Drilling Project

Study Area/

Modeling Domain

MM5 Sub-grid Domain

Bridger

Wilderness

Fitzpatrick

Wilderness

Wind River

Roadless Area

Popo Agie

Wilderness

Pinedale

South Piney Anticline

Project Area

Jonah Infill

Drilling Project

Moxa

Stagecoach

Draw

Fontenelle

Continental

Divide

Seminoe Road

Project Area

Atlantic Rim

Project Area

Desolation

Flats

South

Baggs

Greater

Wamsutter II

Creston/Blue

Gap

Grand Teton

National Park

Washakie

Wilderness

Yelllowstone

National Park

Black Joe Lake

Mulligan Draw

Lower Saddlebag Lake

Deep

Lake

Hobbs Lake

Ross

Lake

WYOMING

UTAH COLORADO

IDAHO

MONTANA

SO

UTH

D

A

K

OTA

NEBRASKA

Teton

Wilderness

-112.904,44.233 (Longitude, Latitude)

-334.873,189.975 (Lambert Conformal)

-112.611,40.075 (Longitude, Latitude)

-335.000,-258.000 (Lambert Conformal) -106.985,40.142 (Longitude, Latitude)

129.000,-258.000 (Lambert Conformal)

-106.871,44.304 (Longitude, Latitude)

129.002,189.855 (Lambert Conformal)

Upper Frozen Lake

Lazy Boy

Lake

0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

Filename: G:\35982\Protocol Map 2.1.mxd

JIIPA Distances to Class I/Sensitive Areas

Class I/Sensitive Area Distance to JIIPA (km)

Bridger Wilderness Area

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

Washakie Wilderness Area

Grand Teton National Park

Teton Wilderness Area

Yellowstone National Park

Popo Agie Wilderness Area

Wind River Roadless Area

32

58

132

140

141

180

44

49

Map 2.1 Study Area/Modeling Domain, Jonah Infill Drilling Project.

Air Q

u

ality

mI

p

a

ct Assessm

e

nt Proto

c

ol, Jo

n

a

h

Infill Drillin

g

Proj

e

ct 10

35982 TR

C

En

viro

n

m

e

ntal Corp

oratio

n
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 11

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

was completed as part of the Continental Divide/Wamsutter II (CD/WII) EIS (BLM 1999b) and

the second was performed for the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 1999a). A third cumulative

inventory in the region has been prepared for the Desolation Flats EIS (BLM 2003). The

Desolation Flats EIS study utilized the CD/WII EIS study area and built upon the previous

studies listed above, and it included emissions sources permitted through December 31, 2000.

The Desolation Flats EIS cumulative inventory will be consulted to obtain emissions data for

sources proposed and operating during the time period that overlaps between the proposed

inventory time-frame and the end-date of the Desolation Flats EIS study. Both the CD/WII EIS

and Pinedale Anticline EIS study end-dates precede the start-date of the proposed JIDPA

analysis.

2.2.2 Permitted Sources

The cumulative emissions inventory for the Project will include emissions sources that:

• are located within the study area;

• emit NOx, SO2, or PM10/PM2.5;

• began operation on or after January 1, 2001;

• began operation or were permitted before June 30, 2003; and

• were permitted within 18 months of January 1, 2001, but are not yet operating

(will be inventoried and included as RFFA [see Section 2.2.4]).

To illustrate the inventory cut-off date, an emissions source which was permitted and began

operation in late 2000 would not be included in the inventory. However, an emissions source

that was permitted in late 2000 but began operation in early 2001 would be included in the

inventory. An emissions source permitted in late 2000 (and therefore within 18 months prior to

January 1, 2001), but not yet operating would be included as RFFA. An emission source that

begins operation in July 2003, after the inventory cut-off date, would be included only if it was

permitted on or before June 30, 2003.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 12

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Actual emissions will be used if a minimum of 1 year of actual data is available; otherwise,

potential-to-emit (maximum permitted) emission rates will be used. Emissions decreases will be

included only if the decrease occurs at a major source and if the decrease is verifiable by

WDEQ-AQD. Sources operating under permit waivers will not be inventoried due to their

insignificant nature, and a qualitative discussion of waivers will be presented in the Technical

Support Document. Mobile source emissions not directly resulting from the Proposed Action,

biogenic sources, urban sources, and other non-industrial emission sources are assumed to be

included in monitored background concentrations and are not included in this analysis.

2.2.3 WOGCC/COGCC/UDNR-DOGM/IOGCC Sources

A list of well drilling permits issued between January 1, 2001, and June 30, 2003, will be

compiled using permit data obtained from WOGCC, COGCC, UDNR-DOGM, and IOGCC.

Information regarding well type and equipment, and historic and current field production will be

used to create a representative emission factor in pounds per well for all emitted pollutants. This

average emission factor will be multiplied by the number of wells installed during the study

period in each county within the study area to calculate total well emissions by county.

2.2.4 RFD and RFFA

An inventory of RFD and RFFA sources will be performed for inclusion in the cumulative

dispersion modeling. For the purposes of this project, RFFA is defined as a source which

possesses an unexpired air permit issued on or after July 1, 1999, but the source is not yet

operating. The primary source of RFFA information will be state permit records obtained

through a file data search.

RFD is defined as 1) air emissions from the undeveloped portions of authorized NEPA projects,

and 2) air emissions from not-yet-authorized NEPA projects (if emissions are quantified when

modeling for the JIDPA commences). RFD information will be obtained from final NEPA

documents that have been submitted to BLM for planned project development, specifically, from
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 13

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

the air quality analyses performed for these projects. Undeveloped portions of these authorized

projects will be obtained from BLM records tracking project development to determine total

wells or other equipment yet undeveloped. For instance, for an authorized gas field development

area for which 2,000 wells were projected and analyzed but only 250 wells have been developed

as of the inventory end-date of this study, 250 wells would be included under permitted oil and

gas wells and the remaining 1,750 would be considered RFD. RFD information from not-yetauthorized projects will be obtained from contractors working on ongoing air quality analyses for

NEPA projects.

Full development of proposed projects inventoried as RFD may or may not coincide with full

development of the Project. As a result, the inclusion of RFD in the cumulative analysis may

result in overly conservative impact estimates. To ensure "reasonable, but conservative" analysis

results for all stages of Project development, the cumulative modeling analysis discussed later in

this Protocol will be performed both with and without RFD sources. A preliminary listing of

RFD projects which may be examined in this study, as defined in the paragraph above, is

presented in Table 2.1. All development areas will be reviewed for inclusion, and those projects

with significant pollutant emissions during production activities will be included as RFD. The

BLM will be consulted to determine the existence of additional NEPA-authorized projects

Table 2.1 Potential RFD in the Study Area.

Big Piney-LaBarge Desolation Flats Jonah II Road Hollow

Bird Canyon Dripping Rock/Cedar Breaks Kennedy Oil Pilot Sierra Madre

Bird-Opal Loop Pipeline East LaBarge Merna Pipeline Soda Unit

BTA Bravo Essex Mountain Moxa Arch South Baggs

Burley Fontenelle II Mulligan Draw South Piney

Castle Creek Hay Reservoir Opal Loop Pipeline Stagecoach

Continental Divide/Wamsutter II Hickey-Table Mountain Pinedale Anticline Vermillion Basin

Copper Ridge Horse Trap Pioneer Gas Plant

Creston-Blue Gap Jack Morrow Hills Riley Ridge
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 14

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

or the necessity for including as RFD any additional projects that do not meet the above

definition. During completion of this analysis, more detailed development and operations data

will be compiled for all RFD and presented in the Technical Support Document. To ensure a

timely, complete modeling analysis, only development authorized through the inventory end-date

of June 30, 2003, or quantified as of the beginning of the modeling analysis, will be included in

the JIDPA analysis. For RFD quantified after the inventory end-date, a qualitative discussion

will be presented describing the proposed development(s). Similarly, a qualitative discussion

will be presented for development currently proposed in the Powder River Basin Coalbed

Methane Development Project, located outside of the JIDPA study domain in northeast

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 15

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

3.0 CRITERIA POLLUTANT NEAR-FIELD MODELING

3.1 MODELING METHODOLOGY

The near-field ambient air quality impact assessment will be performed to quantify maximum

pollutant impacts in the vicinity of the project area resulting from construction and production

emissions. EPA's proposed guideline model, AERMOD (version 02222), will be used to assess

these near-field impacts.

One year of meteorological data will be used that includes hourly surface meteorology data (wind

speed, wind direction, standard deviation of wind direction [sigma theta], and temperature)

collected in the Jonah Field from January 1999 through January 2000. A wind rose for these data

is presented in Figure 3.1.

The AERMOD preprocessor AERMET will be used to process Jonah Field meteorological data

into formats compatible with AERMOD. In addition to the data collected in the Jonah Field,

AERMET requires an upper air, twice daily sounding, meteorological data set and, at a

minimum, cloud cover parameters or net radiation data. If net radiation data is available,

AERMET will accept it in lieu of cloud cover data. If solar radiation data is available, AERMET

will use it in combination with cloud cover data. Twice daily sounding data collected from

Riverton, Wyoming; cloud cover data collected at Big Piney, Wyoming; and solar radiation

measurements collected at Pinedale, Wyoming, are available and will be used for this analysis.

3.2 BACKGROUND DATA

Background concentration data collected for criteria pollutants at regional monitoring sites will

be added to concentrations modeled in the near-field analysis to establish total pollutant

concentrations for comparison to ambient air quality standards. The most representative

monitored regional background concentrations available for criteria pollutants are shown in
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 16

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Figure 3.1 Wind Rose, Jonah Field, 1999.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 17

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table 3.1. Further research will be conducted to determine if more recent CO and/or SO2

background data are available at alternative monitoring sites and if those data are suitable for this

analysis. Background concentrations of HAPs are not available and are assumed to be minimal;

furthermore, comparison thresholds are based on incremental exposure rather than total

exposure, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this Protocol.

3.3 CRITERIA POLLUTANT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Criteria pollutants PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, and CO will be modeled with AERMOD. Ozone

(O3) formation and impacts will not be modeled using AERMOD; rather, ozone impacts will be

estimated from NOx and VOC emissions using a screening methodology developed by Scheffe

(1988) and provided in Appendix A of this Protocol. For all other pollutants, emissions of each

pollutant will be examined to determine the development phase (i.e., construction or production)

during which emissions will be greatest, and it will be this development-phase/emission-rate

combination that will be modeled to determine near-field project impacts. Based on previous

analyses, it is expected that construction activities will generate the greatest PM10, PM2.5, and

SO2 emissions, and that production activities will generate the greatest NOx and CO emissions.

For construction activities, a representative well pad and resource/access road will be developed

for modeling which represents a reasonable but conservative well pad/road layout. Hourly

emission rate adjustment factors will be applied to sources emitting only during specific diurnal

periods. For PM10 and PM2.5 this layout will be modeled, using the meteorological data

described above, 36 times, once at each of 36 10o rotations to ensure that impacts from all

directional layout configurations and meteorological conditions are assessed. In accordance with

averaging periods for which ambient standards exist, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations will be

calculated for 24-hour and annual averaging periods, and SO2 concentrations will be calculated

for 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging periods.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 18

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table 3.1 Near-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3).

Pollutant Averaging Period Measured Background Concentration

Carbon monoxide (CO)11-hour

8-hour

3,336

1,381

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

2 Annual 3.4

Ozone (O3)

3

1-hour

8-hour

169

147

PM10

4

24-hour

Annual

47

16

PM2.5

4

24-hour

Annual

15

5

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

5

3-hour

24-hour

Annual

132

43

9

1 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in

the Riley Ridge EIS (BLM 1983).

2 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period

January-December 2001 (Air Resource Specialists [ARS] 2002).

3 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming, during period

June 10, 1998, through December 31, 2001 (ARS 2002).

4 Data collected by WDEQ-AQD at Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Year 2002.

5 Data collected at LaBarge Study Area, Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek Site 1982-1983.

Four production scenarios will be analyzed. Each scenario will include an existing infill

compressor station and representative well configuration. The first production scenario will

analyze a well configuration based on 10 wells on a single pad (approximately 13 pads/640-acre

section), the second scenario will analyze five wells on a single pad (approximately

26 pads/640-acre section), the third scenario will analyze two wells on a single pad (64 well pads

per 640-acre section), and the fourth scenario will include 128 single-well pads per 640-acre

section. Analyzing these scenarios will ensure that maximum possible production impacts from

wells and compression combined are identified. For each production scenario, annual average

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations and 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations will be

predicted.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 19

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Point sources will be used for modeling NOx and CO emissions from compressors and well-site

combustion equipment, and for modeling SO2 emissions from drilling rigs during construction

activities. Volume sources will be used for modeling PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road travel

and wind erosion during construction activities.

Model receptors will be located a minimum of 100 m from construction emission sources at

100-m grid spacing. Following WDEQ-AQD compressor modeling guidance, model receptors

will be placed at 25-m intervals along anticipated compressor facility fencelines. Compressor

stack heights will be set at actual or proposed heights but no greater than 1.5 times compressor

building heights. Receptors beyond the compressor facility fenceline will be placed at 100-m

intervals or at intervals appropriate to decreased well spacing.

3.4 HAP IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Near-field HAP concentrations will be calculated for assessing impacts both in the immediate

vicinity of Project area emission sources for short-term (acute) exposure assessment and at

greater distances for calculation of long-term risk. Sources of HAPs are expected to include

well-site fugitive and smokeless flare emissions and compressor combustion emissions. Because

HAPs will be emitted predominantly during the production phase, only HAP emissions from

production will be analyzed.

The modeling methodology for the short-term and long-term HAP impact assessments is nearly

identical to the methodology outlined in Section 3.1. Volume sources will be used for modeling

well-site fugitive HAP emissions during production, and point sources will be used to represent

compressor engine emissions. The four representative production scenarios described in

Section 3.3 will also be analyzed in this HAPs analysis.

Receptors will be placed a minimum of 100 m from production wells and at 100-m spacing

beyond. Receptors will be placed at 25-m intervals along compressor fence lines and at 100-m

spacing beyond. The short-term HAP assessment will consist of modeling formaldehyde

emissions from a representative natural gas-fired compressor station and modeling all other
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 20

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

natural gas constituent-based HAPs in the representative area developed for the criteria pollutant

modeling as described in Section 3.3. For the long-term assessment, receptors will be placed on

a polar grid at 10o-intervals equidistant from the emissions source and the nearest residence or

expected residence. The nearest residence is expected to be located along the New Fork River.

Short-term (1-hour) HAP concentrations will be compared to acute Reference Exposure Levels

(RELs), shown in Table 3.2. RELs are defined as concentrations at or below which no adverse

health effects are expected. No RELs are available for ethylbenzene and n-hexane; instead, the

available Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) values are used. These IDLH values

are determined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and were

obtained from EPA's Air Toxics Database (EPA 2002).

Long-term exposure to HAPs emitted by the Proposed Action will be compared to Reference

Concentrations for Chronic Inhalation (RfCs). An RfC is defined by EPA as the daily inhalation

concentration at which no long-term adverse health effects are expected. RfCs exist for both

non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects on human health (EPA 2002). Annual modeled HAP

concentrations for all HAPs emitted will be compared directly to the non-carcinogenic RfCs

shown in Table 3.3.

RfCs for suspected carcinogens benzene and formaldehyde are expressed as risk factors, shown

in Table 3.4. Accepted methods for risk assessment will be used to evaluate the incremental

cancer risk for these pollutants.

Annual modeled concentrations will be multiplied by EPA's unit risk factors (URF) (based on

70-year exposure) for those pollutants, and then the product will be multiplied by an adjustment

factor which represents the ratio of projected exposure time to 70 years. The adjustment factors

represent two scenarios: a most likely exposure (MLE) scenario and one reflective of the

maximally exposed individual (MEI).
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 21

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table 3.2 Acute RELs.

HAP

REL

(mg/m3)

Benzene 1.3 1

Toluene 37.

1

Ethylbenzene 35.

2

Xylene 22.

1

n-Hexane 39.

2

Formaldehyde 0.094 1

1 EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 2 (EPA 2002).

2 No REL available for these HAPs. Values shown are from Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health

(IDLH/10), EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 2 (EPA 2002).

Table 3.3 Non-Carcinogenic HAP RfCs.

HAP

Non-Carcinogenic RfC 1

(μg/m3)

Benzene 30

Toluene 400

Ethylbenzene 1,000

Xylenes 430

n-Hexane 200

Formaldehyde 9.8

1

EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 1 (EPA 2002).

Table 3.4 Carcinogenic HAP RfCs and Exposure Adjustment Factors.

Analysis1 HAP Constituent

Carcinogenic RfC (Risk Factor) 2

1/(μg/m3) Exposure Adjustment Factor

MLE Benzene 7.8 x 10-6 0.0949

MLE Formaldehyde 1.3 x 10-5 0.0949

MEI Benzene 7.8 x 10-6 0.71

MEI Formaldehyde 1.3 x 10-5 0.71

1 MLE = most likely exposure; MEI = maximally exposed individual.

2

EPA Air Toxics Database, Table 1 (EPA 2002).
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 22

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

The MLE duration will be assumed to be 9 years, which corresponds to the mean duration that a

family remains at a residence (EPA 1993). This duration corresponds to an adjustment factor of

9/70 = 0.13. The duration of exposure for the MEI is assumed to be 50 years (i.e., the LOP),

corresponding to an adjustment factor of 50/70 = 0.71.

A second adjustment will be made for time spent at home versus time spent elsewhere. For the

MLE scenario, the at-home time fraction is 0.64 (EPA 1993), and it will be assumed that during

the rest of the day the individual would remain in an area where annual HAP concentrations

would be one quarter as large as the maximum annual average concentration. Therefore, the

MLE adjustment factor will be (0.13) x [(0.64 x 1.0) + (0.36 x 0.25)] = 0.0949. The MEI

scenario assumes that the individual is at home 100% of the time, for a final adjustment factor of

(0.71 x 1.0) = 0.71. EPA unit risk factors and adjustment factors are shown in Table 3.4.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 23

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

4.0 FAR-FIELD ANALYSIS

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the far-field analysis is to quantify the impacts on Class I and other sensitive

areas from air pollutant emissions expected to result from the development of the Project.

Ambient air quality impacts beyond the immediate Project area and throughout the study area

will be analyzed. Cumulative impacts also will be quantified by including in the analysis other

documented sources of air pollutant emissions within the study area. To achieve these goals, the

most current long-range modeling analysis tools will be used in conjunction with the most recent

guidance for their utilization.

As requested by BLM and generally accepted for long-range modeling analyses, the

CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system (Earth Tech 2003) will be used in this analysis. The

study will be performed in accordance with the following recent and major guidance sources:

• direct guidance provided by representatives of the BLM, the National Park

Service, and the U.S.D.A. Forest Service;

• Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.),

Part 51, Appendix W;

• Interagency Work Group on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary

Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts,

EPA-454/R-98-019, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December

1998 (IWAQM 1998); and

• Federal Land Managers - Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG),

Phase I Report, December 2000 (FLAG 2000).

Air emissions of NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, from 1) 1,250 wells, 2) 3,100 wells, and

3) cumulative emissions, including all currently operating, proposed, and RFD emissions sources

within the modeling domain, will be modeled. A description of the emissions inventory
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 24

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

procedures to be implemented is included in Section 2.0 of this Protocol. The idealization of

these emissions sources for input to the CALPUFF model is described in Section 4.2.

The proposed modeling domain for this analysis includes the domain developed for SWWYTAF

and used for Pinedale Anticline EIS, but extends approximately 50 km farther to the north. The

extent of the domain, along with other regional features, is shown in Map 2.1. The CALPUFF

dispersion model will be run with CALMET wind field data, developed for year 1995, to predict

the transport and dispersion of pollutants. The CALPUFF model accounts for changes in the

wind field, variability in surface conditions, terrain influences, chemical transformation, wet

removal from precipitation, and dry deposition, and calculates concentration and deposition at

receptors input to the model.

CALPUFF output will be post-processed with POSTUTIL and CALPOST to derive

concentrations for comparison to ambient standards, significance thresholds, and Class I and II

Increments; deposition rates for comparison to sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition thresholds

and to calculate acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) for sensitive water bodies; and light extinction

for comparison to visibility impact thresholds in Class I and other sensitive areas. A discussion

of the post-processing methodology to be used is provided in Section 4.3 of this Protocol.

4.2 MODEL INPUT

4.2.1 Model Selection and Settings

The recently released regulatory version of the CALMET/CALPUFF modeling system

(CALMET Version 5.5 dated March 4, 2002, CALPUFF Version 5.7 dated March 4, 2002) will

be used to develop wind fields and calculate both ambient concentrations and AQRV impacts.

The SWWYTAF CALMET methodology is proposed for use in combination

with meteorological data updated for use in the Pinedale Anticline EIS. This approach ensures

consistency with the well-accepted SWWYTAF study while incorporating improved data quality
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 25

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

resulting from extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures performed on

data used in the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 1999a).

The CALMET wind fields utilized in the Pinedale Anticline EIS study were based upon wind

fields developed by Earth Tech for the SWWYTAF study (Earth Tech 2001). As part of the

Pinedale Anticline EIS, Air Sciences performed extensive review and QA/QC of surface station

and precipitation data used in SWWYTAF and corrections were made. These surface data will

be used in this analysis, along with additional available surface meteorological data sites within

the newly extended northern portion of the domain. Table 4.1 lists the additional sites that will be

added to the analysis.

Precipitation data for the stations used in the SWWYTAF study will be used for this analysis,

since they include stations throughout the proposed Jonah Infill modeling domain. The Pinedale

Anticline modeling analysis identified problems with the original SWWYTAF precipitation data

files, specifically, that the data for the month of December were missing. The precipitation data

proposed for use in this analysis have been corrected.

Table 4.1 Additional Surface Meteorological Data Sites.

Site Data Source

Craters of the Moon, Idaho National Park Service (NPS)

Yellowstone, Wyoming NPS

Cody, Wyoming National Weather Service (NWS)

Idaho Falls, Idaho NWS

Salmon, Idaho NWS

Sheridan, Wyoming NWS

Meeteetse, Wyoming Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)

Interstate 25 (I-25) Divide WYDOT
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 26

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Other differences between the SWWYTAF study and the Pinedale Anticline EIS study include:

1) upper air observations were not used in the Pinedale Anticline EIS and 2) changes were made

to CALMET input settings in the Pinedale Anticline EIS from those originally used in

SWWYTAF. A detailed description of the modeling methodology used in the Pinedale Anticline

EIS can be found in the supporting air quality technical document (BLM 1999b).

This analysis proposes to utilize the SWWYTAF CALMET methodology, the regional mesoscale

meteorological (MM5) data subgrid processed to 20-km spacing, surface and precipitation data

updated for use in the Pinedale Anticline EIS as discussed above and including data from

75 surface meteorological stations and 155 precipitation stations, and four upper air

meteorological stations to supplement MM5 upper air estimates, in accordance with current NPS

recommendations.

The uniform horizontal grid is processed to 4-km resolution, based on a Lambert Conformal

Projection defined with a central longitude/latitude at (-108.55°, 42.55°) and first and second

latitude parallels at 30° and 60°. The modeling domain consists of 116 x 112, 4-km grid cells,

and covers the project area and Class I and other sensitive areas with a sufficient buffer zone to

allow for potential recirculation or flow reversal effects to be evaluated. The total area of the

modeling domain is 464 x 448 km. Ten vertical layers exist at heights of 20, 40, 100, 140, 320,

580, 1,020, 1,480, 2,220, and 2,980 m. The extents of the horizontal grid, which form the

extents of the cumulative study area, are shown in Map 2.1.

The CALPUFF model will be run using the IWAQM-recommended default switch settings for

all parameters. Chemical transformation will be based on the MESOPUFF II chemistry for

conversion of SO2 to sulfate (SO4) and NOx to nitric acid (HNO3) and nitrate (NO3). Each of

these pollutant species will be included in the CALPUFF model run. NOx, HNO3, and SO2 will

be modeled with gaseous deposition and SO4, NO3, PM10, and PM2.5 will be modeled using

particle deposition. Electronic copies of CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST input files will

be included with the Technical Support Document.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 27

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

4.2.2 Emissions

4.2.2.1 Project Emissions

Pollutant emission rates estimated as described in Section 2.0 will be input to CALPUFF to

predict air quality impacts from the Project. Emissions from both the construction phase and

well production (field operation) phase will be modeled. Emissions from construction activities

and production activities over the LOP will be examined to determine an annual period

representing a maximum combination of production and construction.

Hourly emission-rate adjustment factors will be applied to emissions that occur only during

specific diurnal periods, such as travel on unpaved roads. Seasonal adjustment factors will be

applied to compensate for increased gas well-heater use in the winter months. Well locations will

be modeled as area sources within the specific area of the JIDPA they are projected to be located

in, on a rectangular grid not exceeding 4 x 4 km spacing and possessing a total area not

exceeding the total area of the JIDPA.

The analysis for both 1,250 and 3,100 wells will include future regional compression

requirements projected by the pipeline companies working in the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline

fields. Compressor-engine emissions will be input as point sources with actual expected stack

parameters at their anticipated locations.

4.2.2.2 Cumulative Source Emissions

Cumulative sources, including permitted sources, RFD, and RFFA inventoried following the

methodology described in Section 2.2, will be input to the CALPUFF model as point sources or

area sources. As part of the emissions inventory, source location and exit parameter data will be

obtained. Permitted and proposed sources will be modeled both alone and with RFD and RFFA

sources to provide a clear analysis of the impacts attributable to each.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 28

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Pollutant emissions from stacks will be modeled as point sources in the CALPUFF model. EIS

development project emissions will be assessed to determine worst-case emission levels (i.e., full

production vs. interim production level + drilling). Multiple stacks within single facilities will be

combined into a single, worst-case stack to reduce model run-time. This procedure was followed

in the Pinedale Anticline EIS and other EIS cumulative source inventories. Worst-case stack

parameters will be selected based on the potential for the greatest long-range impacts (i.e., greater

stack height, greater exhaust flow rate). For already aggregated facilities that have undergone

modifications, sources will be de-aggregated and re-examined for source parameters before

combining into a single source.

Fugitive emissions will be aggregated into area sources in the model, either source

location-specific or regional depending upon the nature of the fugitive emissions sources. The

locations of area sources input to the model will be disclosed in the technical support document.

Because regional paved and unpaved roadway travel not associated with any specific regional

well development field and biogenic sources are considered to be included in the ambient air

background concentrations described in this Protocol, those fugitive sources will not be modeled.

4.2.3 Receptors

Model receptors will be input to CALPUFF, at which concentration, deposition, and other

impacts will be calculated. A gridded Cartesian receptor grid will be created at the

computational grid resolution of 4 km throughout the modeling domain to calculate domain-wide

cumulative impacts. Receptors will be placed along the boundaries of all Class I and sensitive

areas at 2-km spacing, and within the boundaries of those areas at 4-km resolution.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I and other sensitive areas located within the

modeling domain and the distance of each from the JIDPA are shown in Map 2.1. Federal

Class I areas to be evaluated are:

• Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area,

• Teton Wilderness Area,

• Washakie Wilderness Area,
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 29

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

• Grand Teton National Park, and

• Yellowstone National Park.

Because the southern portion of Yellowstone National Park is along the boundary of the

modeling domain, the wind patterns surrounding those receptors may not be accurately modeled

by CALMET and treatment of receptors at boundary locations may be suspect. A discussion of

the uncertainty of modeling results for Yellowstone will be included in the TSD.

Several PSD Class II areas are located within the modeling domain for which ambient air and

AQRV impacts assessments are not mandatory but have been requested. These Class II sensitive

areas are:

• Popo Agie Wilderness Area (Federal Class II), and

• Wind River Roadless Area (Federal Class II).

In addition, discrete receptors will be placed at the following sensitive lakes identified as the

most sensitive to acid deposition:

• Black Joe Lake, Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Deep Lake, Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Hobbs Lake, Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Lazy Boy Lake, Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Upper Frozen Lake, Bridger Wilderness Area,

• Ross Lake, Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, and

• Lower Saddlebag Lake, Popo Agie Wilderness Area.

4.2.4 Background Data

4.2.4.1 Criteria Pollutants

Ambient air concentration data collected at monitoring sites in the region provide a measure of

background conditions in existence during the most recent available time period. Regional

monitoring-based background values for criteria pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, CO, NOx, and SO2)
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 30

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

were collected at monitoring sites in Wyoming and northwestern Colorado, and are summarized

in Table 4.2. These ambient air background concentrations will be added to modeled pollutant

concentrations (expressed in micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]) to arrive at total ambient air

quality impacts for comparison to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Wyoming

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS), Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS),

Utah Ambient Air Quality Standards (UAAQS), and Idaho Ambient Air Quality Standards

(IAAQS), as discussed in Section 5.0.

4.2.4.2 Chemical Species

The CALPUFF chemistry algorithms require hourly estimates of background ammonia and

ozone concentrations for the conversion of SO2 and NO/NO2 to sulfates and nitrates,

Table 4.2 Far-Field Analysis Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3).

Pollutant Averaging Period Measured Background Concentration

Carbon monoxide (CO)11-hour

8-hour

3,336

1,381

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

2 Annual 3.4

Ozone (O3)

3

1-hour

8-hour

169

147

PM10

4

24-hour

Annual

47

16

PM2.5

4

24-hour

Annual

15

5

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

5

3-hour

24-hour

Annual

132

43

9

1 Data collected by Amoco at Ryckman Creek for an 8-month period during 1978-1979, summarized in the

Riley Ridge EIS (BLM 1983).

2 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming during period

January-December 2001 (ARS 2002).

3 Data collected at Green River Basin Visibility Study site, Green River, Wyoming during period June 10, 1998,

through December 31, 2001 (ARS 2002).

4 Data collected by WDEQ-AQD at Emerson Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Year 2002.

5 Data collected at LaBarge Study Area at the Northwest Pipeline Craven Creek Site 1982-1983.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 31

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

respectively. While ammonia concentrations are thought to be fairly uniform spatially, ozone

concentrations vary greatly over time and space. A review of background ozone data indicates

that six ozone stations are available in the region for year 1995. 1995 ozone

data is used because it is concurrent with the CALMET windfields, which were created using

1995 surface and MM5 datasets. Ozone stations proposed for use are as follows:

• Pinedale, Wyoming,

• Centennial, Wyoming,

• Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming,

• Craters of the Moon National Park, Idaho,

• Highland, Utah, and

• Mount Zirkel Visibility Study, Hayden, Colorado.

Hourly ozone data from these stations will be included in the CALPUFF modeling, with a default

value of 44.7 parts per billion (ppb) (7 a.m.-7 p.m. mean, used for SWWYTAF) used for missing

hours. A background ammonia concentration of 1.0 ppb as suggested in the IWAQM Phase 2

guidance (for arid lands) will be used.

4.2.4.3 Visibility

The proposed analysis differs from previous Wyoming NEPA cumulative air quality analyses in

its update of visibility background to include the most current data available at the time of this

Protocol. Monitored visibility background data that have undergone QA/QC are currently

available through December 31, 2001. This analysis proposes to utilize IMPROVE visibility

data for the period of record 1989 through 2001 and 2001 NOx background data collected in the

final year of the Green River Basin Visibility Study, and to revise the period of regional

emissions inventory to reflect industrial activity occurring during and since that updated

background to represent the most appropriate combination of measured background and modeled

impacts. If 2002 IMPROVE visibility data are available by the time the analysis is conducted,

that data will be utilized.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 32

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

WDEQ-AQD has prepared an annual report on Wyoming's long-term strategy for visibility

protection in Class I areas (WDEQ 2003). An assessment of visibility monitoring data is

presented as Appendix F of that report, including an analysis of trends in visibility monitored at

Wyoming IMPROVE and Wyoming Visibility Monitoring Network sites. Bridger Wilderness

and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites are the closest monitoring sites to the Project

area, and data reported from these sites extends from January 1989 through December 2001. As

a result, visibility trends at these sites are of particular interest. These visibility trends are

well-illustrated by two graphs in WDEQ-AQD's report, Graph 3 and Graph 6, presented in

Appendix B of this Protocol. A detailed description of the data and assumptions behind these

graphs is not presented here; rather, the reader is referred to the WDEQ-AQD report (WDEQ

2003).

As the graphs indicate, visibility conditions at Bridger Wilderness have not decreased since 1989,

and an improvement in monitored visibility conditions has occurred at Yellowstone National

Park since 1989 (Appendix B). It is important to note the significant fluctuations in monitored

visibility during the period from 1995 through 1997 and that previous Wyoming NEPA

cumulative air quality analyses utilized visibility background data monitored through 1997.

Updating background visibility will improve the quality of the analysis by providing a longer

period of record and resulting in a better estimate of long-term visibility conditions in the region.

CALPOST will be used to estimate change in light extinction from CALPUFF model

concentration results. At the request of the BLM and following the most current agency

recommendations, two separate methods are proposed for this analysis: FLAG and WDEQ.

The FLAG method uses seasonal natural background visibility conditions and relative humidity

factors at Class I areas. This method is highly conservative since values of estimated natural

background are generally less than measured background, and a calculated light extinction value

will therefore comprise a greater percentage of the total light extinction (background +

calculated). For the FLAG method proposed for this analysis, estimated natural background

visibility values as provided in Appendix 2.B of FLAG (2000), and monthly relative humidity
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 33

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

factors as provided in the Draft Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the

Regional Haze Rule (EPA 2001) will be used. Because natural background data are provided for

Federal Class I areas only, data from the nearest Federal Class I area will be used for other areas

analyzed but not classified as Federal Class I areas. The natural background visibility data that

will be used with the FLAG visibility analysis for each area analyzed are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 FLAG Report Background Extinction Values.1

Site Season

Hygroscopic

(Mm-1)

Non-hygroscopic

 (Mm-1)

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Bridger Wilderness Area

(will also be used for Popo Agie Wilderness Area and Wind

River Roadless Area)

Fall 0.6 4.5

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

Fall 0.6 4.5

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Teton Wilderness Area

Fall 0.6 4.5

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Washakie Wilderness Area

Fall 0.6 4.5

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Grand Teton National Park

Fall 0.6 4.5

Winter 0.6 4.5

Spring 0.6 4.5

Summer 0.6 4.5

Yellowstone National Park

Fall 0.6 4.5

1

FLAG (2000).
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 34

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

The WDEQ method uses reconstructed IMPROVE aerosol total extinction data. Background

visibility data will be based on the seasonal mean of the 20% cleanest days measured at the

Bridger Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites. The WDEQ method

will also utilize monthly relative humidity factors as provided in the Draft Guidance for

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule. The seasonal mean of

the 20% cleanest days visibility data will be determined using data from the historical record

through December 2001 or through December 2002 if available at the time of the analysis.

Seasonal visibility data from the Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site will be used for the

Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas and for the Wind River Roadless Area,

and visibility data from the Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE site will be used for the Teton

and Washakie Wilderness Areas and for Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Monthly

relative humidity data are available for the Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness

Areas, and for Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Relative humidity data for the

Bridger Wilderness Area will also be used for the Popo Agie Wilderness Area and for the Wind

River Roadless Area analyses.

4.2.4.4 Lake Chemistry

The most recent lake chemistry background ANC data have been obtained from the FLMs for

each sensitive lake listed in Section 4.2.4. The 10th percentile lowest ANC values were

calculated for each lake following procedures provided from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. The

ANC values proposed for use in this analysis and the number of samples used in the calculation

of the 10th percentile lowest ANC values are provided in Table 4.4.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 35

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table 4.4 Background ANC Values for Acid Sensitive Lakes.

Wilderness

Area Lake

Latitude

(Deg-Min-Sec)

Longitude

(Deg-Min-Sec)

10th Percentile

Lowest ANC Value

(μeq/l)

Number of

Samples

Bridger Black Joe 42o44'22" 109o10'16" 65.8 55

Bridger Deep 42o43'10" 109o10'15" 60.6 47

Bridger Hobbs 43o02'08" 109o40'20" 70.3 54

Bridger Lazy Boy 43o19'57" 109o43'47" 18.8 1

Bridger Upper Frozen 42o41'08" 109o09'38" 3.0 3

Fitzpatrick Ross 43o22'41" 109o39'30" 60.4 33

Popo Agie Lower Saddlebag 42o37'24" 108o59'38" 54.2 32

4.3 POST-PROCESSING

4.3.1 Concentration

CALPOST will be used to process the CALPUFF concentration output file to compute maximum

concentration values for SO2 (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average), PM2.5 (24-hour and annual

average), PM10 (24-hour and annual average) and NO2 (annual average).

4.3.2 Visibility

As discussed in Section 4.2.4.3, visibility impacts (measured as change in light extinction) will

be calculated using two separate methods, which differ by the background data used to derive the

percent change in visibility. Changes in light extinction will be estimated for both Project

emissions and cumulative source emissions at receptor locations outlined in Section 4.2.3 of this

Protocol.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 36

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

CALPOST will first be run using the FLAG method recommended screening mode

(MVISBK = 6), to calculate the change in light extinction from natural background conditions.

This procedure computes light extinction changes from seasonal estimates of natural background

aerosol concentrations and monthly relative humidity factors, and CALPUFF-predicted particle

species concentrations. Seasonal background extinction values used for the FLAG method are

shown in Table 4.3. Those values will be input to CALPOST as variables BKSO4 (dry

hygroscopic) and BKSOIL (non-hygroscopic). Using these parameters, CALPOST will compute

the change in daily (24-hour) visibility, with the results reported in percent change in light

extinction and change in deciview (dv). The FLAG method conservatively assumes that the

seasonal natural visibility conditions occur on every day during the entire season.

CALPOST will then be run using the WDEQ method to calculate the change in light extinction

using the seasonal mean of the 20% cleanest days particle mass data as background conditions.

Seasonal speciated aerosol data for the 20% cleanest days, measured at the Bridger Wilderness

Area and Yellowstone National Park IMPROVE sites will be used. This method uses the

seasonal background aerosol concentrations and monthly averaged relative humidity factors to

estimate the change in light extinction. The CALPOST switch ‘MVISBK' is set to 6 for this

method. Similar to the FLAG method, the WDEQ method also conservatively assumes that the

cleanest seasonal visibility conditions occur on every day during the entire season.

4.3.3 Deposition

The POSTUTIL utility provided with the CALPUFF modeling system will be used to estimate

total S and N fluxes from CALPUFF-predicted wet and dry fluxes of SO2, SO4, NOx, NO3,

HNO3, PM10, and PM2.5. CALPOST will be used to summarize the annual S and N deposition

values from the POSTUTIL program.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 37

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

5.1 NEAR-FIELD

Pollutant significance levels are set forth in Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

(WAQSR). Under the New Source Review (NSR) process, an emission source which models

pollutant concentrations (from its operations alone) that are below these significance levels is

typically exempt from additional modeling analyses for the insignificant pollutant. In this near

-field modeling analysis, significance levels will be compared to Project concentrations

predicted by AERMOD as an indicator of the magnitude of impact from the Project alone.

Another demonstration of project-only impacts will be made by comparison of Project

concentrations to Class II PSD Increments. This demonstration is for information only and is not

a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which would be completed as necessary

during the WDEQ-AQD permitting process.

In addition, the WDEQ-AQD has been authorized by EPA to enforce ambient air quality

standards set forth in the Clean Air Act through approval of the Wyoming State Implementation

Plan. The NAAQS and ambient standards adopted by state regulatory agencies set absolute

upper limits for specific air pollutant concentrations (expressed in μg/m3) at all locations where

the public has access. Modeled concentrations occurring from construction and production

operations will be added to the existing ambient air quality background concentrations shown in

Table 3.1, and the total concentrations will be compared to corresponding NAAQS and state

ambient air quality standards (i.e., WAAQS, CAAQS, UAAQS, IAAQS) shown in Table 5.1.

Ambient air quality standards, significance levels, and PSD Class II Increments are shown in

Table 5.1.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 38

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table 5.1 Ambient Standards, Class II PSD Increments, and Significance Levels For

Comparison to Near-Field Analysis Results (μg/m3).1

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant/Averaging Time National Wyoming Colorado Utah and Idaho

PSD Class II

Increment

Class II

Significance Level

Carbon monoxide (CO)

1-hour140,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 -- 2,000

8-hour110,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 -- 500

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

Annual2100 100 100 100 25 1

Ozone (O3)

1-hour 235 235 235 235 -- --

8-hour3157 157 -- 157 -- --

PM10

24-hour1150 150 150 150 30 5

Annual250 50 50 50 17 1

PM2.5

24-hour465 65 -- 65 NA --

Annual 415 15 -- 15 NA --

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

3-hour11,300 1,300 70051,300 512 25

24-hour1365 260 1005365 91 5

Annual280 60 15580 20 1

1 No more than one exceedance per year.

2 Annual arithmetic mean.

3 Average of annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average.

4

Proposed.

5 Category III Incremental standards (increase over established baseline).

5.2 FAR-FIELD

5.2.1 Class I and Class II Increments

Under federal and state PSD regulations, increases in ambient air concentrations in Class I areas

are limited by PSD Class I Increments. Specifically, emissions associated with a particular

development may increase ambient concentrations above baseline levels only within those

specific increments developed for SO2, PM10, and NO2. PSD Class I Increments are set forth in

federal and state PSD regulations and are shown in Table 5.2. EPA has also proposed modeled
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 39

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

significance levels for Class I areas which would eliminate further analysis under the NSR

program if ambient concentrations were shown to be below significance levels, which are also

shown in Table 5.2. PSD Class II Increments are applicable in Class II areas and are shown in

Table 5.1

Modeled concentrations predicted in Federal PSD Class I areas from the Project alone will be

compared to Class I significance levels and Class I Increments, and cumulative modeling results

predicted within Federal PSD Class I areas will be compared to Class I Increments. Project and

cumulative impacts predicted at sensitive areas designated as PSD Class II areas will be

compared to Class II Increments.

These demonstrations are for information only and are not regulatory PSD Increment

consumption analyses, which would be completed as necessary during WDEQ-AQD permitting

processes.

5.2.2 Visibility

Atmospheric light extinction relative to background conditions is used to measure regional haze.

Analysis thresholds for atmospheric light extinction are set forth in FLAG (2000). The

thresholds are defined as 5% and 10% of the reference background visibility (or 0.5 and 1.0 dv)

for projects sources alone and cumulative source impacts, respectively. In general, if impacts are

Table 5.2 PSD Class I Increments and Significance Level Concentrations (μg/m3).

Pollutant Averaging Period Class I Increment Significance Level1

SO2 Annual

24-hour

3-hour

2

5

25

0.1

0.2

1.0

PM10 Annual

24-hour

4

8

0.2

0.3

NO2 Annual 2.5 0.1

1

Proposed Class I significance levels, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 40

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

greater than these thresholds, FLMs may consider conditions (magnitude, frequency, duration,

etc.) of the impact on a case by case basis. These thresholds and the FLAG guidelines were

developed for NSR applications where an AQRV analysis is required as part of a PSD permit

application.

5.2.3 Deposition

CALPUFF will be used to predict the total wet and dry fluxes of SO2, SO4, NOx, NO3, and HNO3

at the sensitive receptor areas. The modeled deposition flux of each oxide of S or N will then be

adjusted for the difference of the molecular weight of their oxide and then summed to yield a

total deposition flux of S or N. The total S deposition and N deposition from Project emissions

will be calculated and presented in kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr). These values will be

compared to the 0.005 kg/ha/yr deposition analysis thresholds defined by NPS for total N and

total S in the western U.S. (NPS 2001). Estimated total deposition fluxes of S and N from

cumulative source impacts at sensitive areas will be compared with threshold values for

terrestrial ecosystems presented by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service in its screening procedure to

evaluate effects of air pollution in eastern region wildernesses cited as Class I air quality areas

(Fox et al. 1989). These threshold values are 5 and 3 kg/ha/yr for total S and N deposition

fluxes, respectively.

5.2.4 ANC

The CALPUFF-predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors listed in

Section 4.2.3 will be used to estimate the change in ANC. The change in ANC will be calculated

following the January 2000, USFS Rocky Mountain Region's Screening Methodology for

Calculating ANC Change to High Elevation Lakes, User's Guide (U.S.D.A. Forest Service

2000). The predicted changes in ANC will be compared with the U.S.D.A. Forest Service's

Level of Acceptable Change (LAC) thresholds of 10% for lakes with ANC values greater than

25 microequivalents per liter (ìeq/l) and 1 ìeq/l for lakes with background ANC values of

25 ìeq/l and less. Lake impacts will be assessed with consideration of limited data points

available for several analyzed lakes. ANC calculations will be performed for both Project

emissions and for cumulative source emissions.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 41

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

6.0 REFERENCES

Air Resource Specialists. 2002. Green River Basin Visibility Study. Monitored Air Quality

Data. Air Resource Specialists, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project Air Resources Technical

Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field

Office, Kemmerer, Wyoming, in cooperation with Environmental Research and

Technology Inc.

 . 1988. Pinedale Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs District,

Rock Springs, Wyoming.

 . 1990. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Great

Divide Resource Area. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Great

Divide Resource Area, Rawlins District. Rawlins, Wyoming.

 . 1997. Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan. U.S.

Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Green River Resource Area, Rock

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming.

 . 1999a. Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement-Technical Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, in cooperation with

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and State of Wyoming.

 . 1999b. Continental Divide/Wamsutter II and South Baggs Natural Gas Development

Projects, Environmental Impact Statement, Air Quality Impact Assessment, Technical

Support Document, Volume II, Far-Field Analysis. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming, in

cooperation with Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts.

 . 2003. Desolation Flats Natural Gas Exploration and Development Project - Technical

Support Documents for the Ambient Air Quality Impact Analysis. U.S. Department of

Interior Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with Buys & Associates, Inc.

Earth Tech. 2001. The Southwest Wyoming Regional CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling Study

Final Report. Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, Massachusetts. February 2001.

 . 2003. CALMET/CALPUFF Air Quality Modeling System. Earth Tech, Inc., Concord,

Massachusetts.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 42

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the

Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure. Preliminary Review Draft.

 . 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Vol. 1, Stationary Point and

Area Sources, Fifth Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina.

 . 2001. Draft Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional

Haze Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.

 . 2002. Air Toxics Database. Dose-Response Assessment for Assessing Health Risks

Associated With Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, Table 2. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website.

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html>. Data accessed June 20, 2003.

Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup. 2000. Federal Land Managers'

Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report. U.S. Forest Service-Air

Quality Program, National Park Service-Air Resources Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service-Air Quality Branch. December 2000.

Fox, Douglas, Ann M. Bartuska, James G. Byrne, Ellis Cowling, Rich Fisher, Gene E. Likens,

Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst, Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols. 1989. A

Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas.

General Technical Report RM-168. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 36 pp.

Gas Research Institute. 1999. GRI-HAPCalc® Version 3.01. Gas Research Institute. Des

Plaines, Illinois.

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling. 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality

Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling

Long Range Transport Impacts. EPA-454/R-98-019. Office of Quality Planning and

Standards. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 1998.

National Park Service. 2001. Guidance on Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds.

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Park Service Air

Resources Division. <http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/flagfree/2001>, Data accessed

July 2003.

Scheffe, Richard D. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August 1988.
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 43

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2000. Screening Methodology for Calculating ANC Change to High

Elevation Lakes, User's Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Region. January 2000.

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Oil and Gas Production Facilities

Chapter 6, Section 2 Permitting Guidance, Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality-Air Quality Division. June 1997 with revisions through August 2001.

 . 2003. Wyoming's Long Term Strategy for Visibility Protection, 2003 Review Report.

Appendix E, Visibility Monitoring Data Assessment. Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD).
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 

APPENDIX A: 

EPA OZONE SCREENING METHODOLOGY
1

NOTICE: This document has been recreated by Greg Remer, Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution

Control, July 27, 1998 from a copy of an original. Although every attempt has been made to

ensure exact duplication of the original document, it is an electronic re-creation of the original

and there may be errors. It is used here due to the poor print quality of the document available

through U.S. EPA; however, all calculations will be performed in accordance with the official

printed document.

VOC/NOx POINT SOURCE SCREENING TABLES

by Richard D. Scheffe

September, 1988

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Technical Support Division

Source Receptor Analysis Branch
2

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Background 2

3.0 Screening Tables 3

4.0 References 8

Appendix A - Development of Screening Table 9
3

1.O INTRODUCTION

This document provide a simple screening procedure

presented in tabular form to calculate the ozone increment due

to a VOC dominated (i.e, VOC mass emissions greater than NOx

emissions) point source. [Throughout this document, ozone

increment refers to a calculated increase in ozone above an

assumed ambient value due to the effect of a single point

source.] The tables are based on a series of applications of

the Reactive Plume Model-II (RPM-II), a Lagrangian based

photochemical model. Anticipated applications would include

evaluation of the impact on ambient ozone due to new or modified

point sources emitting more than 25 tons/year NMOC (nonmethane

hydrocarbons). The screening technique is presented as two

separate tables intended for appilcation in urban and rural

areas, respectively.

The user is directed to Section 3 of this report for

appilcation procedures needed to conduct an ozone increment

screening analysis. Required inputs for determining an ozone

increment are limited to estimates of NMOC and NOx mass

emissions rates. As a screening technique the procedure has

been designed be both robust and simple to use, while

maintaining several inherent assumptions which lead to

conservative (high ozone)ozone increment predictlons. The user

is not required to characterize ambient meteorology or source

emission and ambient speciation profiles. This technique is not

intended to to substituted for a realistic photochemical

modeling analysis; rather it is to be used only in the context

of a firt-step proecdure which potentially can preclude further

resource intensive analyses. The ozone increment estimates

produced from this analysis should be interpreted as

conservative predictions which would exceed ozono formation

produced by actual episodic events.

 A description of the protocol and asumptions used in

developlng the screening tables is given in Appendix A.
4

2.0 BACKGROUND

Estimations of impacts of point sources emitting ozone

precursors (NOx and/or VOC emissions) on ambient ozone provide

regulatory agencies with data to address air quality issues

involving proposed new or modified sources. In theory many

issues can be resolved by applylng a photochemical air quality

model. However, two questions regarding model application must

be resolved: (1) what is the most appropriate model for a

particular application, and (2) how could that model be applied

(i.e., how are model inputs developed and output interpreted)?

 The Guideline on Air Quality Models (1986) recommends

application of two photochemical models for addressing ozone air

quallty issues, the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) or EKMA. The EKMA

model is not desgined to handle point sources, as point source

emissions are immediately spread into a broadly based urban mix

and the individual contribution of a single point source is

quenched by such broad spatial dilutlon. Although the UAM

explicitly handles spatial resolutlon of point sources through

spatially gridded cells, the degree of resolution typically

offered by such gridding (4-5 km) is still insufficient to

account for near-source behaviour. Also, the resources and

input data required by the UAM are very extensive; consequently,

it is an inefficient means for evaluating effects of individual

sources.

 The Reactive Plue Model-II (RPM-II) is an alternative air

quality model whlch was developed in the late 1970's to address

photochemically reactive plumes. The model’s inherent

flexibility accomodates recently developed chemical mechanisms;

this work was based on use of the Carbon Bond Mechanism-Version

IV (CBM-IV), which is consistent with oter, current EPA

photochemical models (ROM, EXMA).

The RPM-II is an appropriate choice for case by case

refined (i.e, not an initial screening estimate) modelling

applications. However, the prospective model user faces the

possibility of conducting an exhaustive compilation of

meteorological and emissions source data. Consequently, use of

photochemical models to assess individual point sources has been

lmited. The development of a screening analysis may eliminate,

in certain applicatlons, the nedd for a more intensive refined

modeling analysis. Current modeling guidelines do not offer

recommendatlons for screening of individual source impacts on

ozone. The tables presented herein are intended to serve as a

means for screening effects on ozone from individual point

sources so that subsequent, more refined analyses can be focused

on sources where it is warranted.
6

3.0 SCREENING TABLES

The interpretation or definition of a “rural” or “urban”

area within the framework of this technique is intended to be

rather broad and flexible. The rationale for having rural and

urban tables stems from the need to account for the coupled

effect of point source emissions and background chemistry on

ozone formation. Background chemistry in the context of this

procedure refers to a characterization of the ambient

atmospheric chemistry into which a polnt source emits. The

underlying model runs used to develop the rural table (Table 1)

were performed with spatially invariant background chemistry

representative of “clean” continental U.S. areas. Model runs

used to develop the urban table (Table 2) are based on

background chemistry incorporating daily temporal fluctuatlons

of NOx and hydrocarbons asociated with a typical urban

atmosphere (refer to Appendix A for details regarding background

chemistry). Background chemistry is an important factor in

estimating ozone formation; however, characterization of

background chemistry is perhaps the most difficult aspect of

reactive plume modeling because of data scarcity and the level

of resources required to measure or model (temporally and

spatially) the components necessary to charcterize the ambient

atmospheric along the trajectory of a point source plume.

Recognizing the conflicting needs of using simple

characterizations of background chemistries and applylng this

screning technique in situations where sources are located in or

impact on areas which can not be simply categorized, the

following steps should be used to choose an appopriate table:

(1) If the source locatlon and downwind impact area can be

decribed as rural and where ozone exceedances have never been

reported, choose the rural area table.

(2) If the source location and downwind impact area are of urban

characte, choose the urban area table.

(3) If an urban based source potentially can impact a downwind

rural area, or a rural based source can potentially impact a

downwind urban area, use the highest value obtained from

applying both tables.

The VOC point source screninq tables (Tables 1 and 2)

provided ozone increments as a function of NMOC (nonmethane

organic carbon) mass emissions rates and NMOC/NOx emissions

ratios. To determine an ozone impact the user is required to

apply best estimates of maximum daily NMOC emissions rate, and

estimated annual mass emissions rates of NMOC and NOx which are

used to determine NMOC/NOx ratio for ascribing the applicable
7

column in Table 1 or 2. The reasons for basing application on

daily maximum NMOC emissions rates are (1) to avoid

underestimates resulting from discontinuous operations and (2)

the underlying modeling simulations are based on single day

episodes. The NMOC emissions rates in Tables 1 and 2 are given

on an annual basis; consequently the user must project daily

maximum to annual emissions rates illustrated in the example

application given below. One purpose of the technique is to

provide a simple, non-resource intensive tool; therefore, annual

NMOC/NOx emissions ratios are used because consideration of

daily fluctuations would require a screening application applied

to each day.

Parameters describing background chemistry, episodic

meteorology, and source emissions speciation affect actual ozone

impact produced by a point source. However, as a screening

methodology the application should be simple, robust and yield

conservative (high ozone) values. Thus, only NMOC and Nox

emissions rates are required as input to Tables 1 and 2.

Rural Example Application

A manufacturing company intends to construct a facility in

an isolated rural location where ozone exceedances have never

been observed. The pollution control agency requires that the

company submit an analysis showing that operation of the

proposed facility will not result in an ozone increment greater

than X ppm in order to permit operation. The estimated daily

maximum NMOC emissions rate is 9000 lbs/day. The annual

estimated emissions rates for NMOC and NOx are 1000 tons/yr and

80 tons/yr, respectively. The company's strategy is to provide

a screening analysis using the rural area table to prove future

compliance. If the screening result exceeds X ppm, the company

will initiate a detailed modeling analysis requiring

characterization of source emissions speciation, ambient

chemistry, and episodic meteorology.
8

Screening Estimate:

1 - Determine which column of Table (l) is applicable:

The NMOC/NOx ratio is based on annual estimetes; thus,

1000/80 = 12.5 and middle column values are applied.

2 - Calculate annual NMOC emissions rates in tons/yr from

maximum daily rate:

(9000 lbs/day)(1 ton/2000 1bs)(365 days/yr) = 1643 ton~/yr

3 - Interpolate linearly between 1500 tons/yr and 2000 tons/yr

to produce an interpolated column 2 ozone increment:

(1643-l500)(3.84-3.05)/(2000-1500) + 3.04 = 3.27 pphm

3.27pphm(1 ppm/100 pphm) = 0.0327 ppm

If 0.0327 ppm is below the criterion value (X ppm), no further

modeling analyis required and operation may be pemitted.

Otherwise, the company wil1 procede with an additional casespecific modeling analysis.
9

Table 1. Rural based ozone increment (pphm) as a function of

NMOC emissions and NMOC/NOx ratios.

NMOC/NOx

TONS NMOC/TONS NOx

(PPMC/PPM)

NMOC

EMISSIONS

(TONS/YR)

> 20.7

(>20)

5.2-20.7

(5-20)

< 5.2

(< 5)

50 0.4 0.4 1.1

75 0.4 0.4 1.2

100 0.4 0.5 1.4

300 0.8 1.0 1.7

500 1.1 1.4 1.9

750 1.6 1.9 2.3

1000 2.0 2.4 2.7

1500 2.7 3.0 3.3

2000 3.4 3.8 3.7

3000 4.8 5.2 4.3

5000 7.0 7.5 4.8

7500 9.8 10.1 5.1

10000 12.2 12.9 5.4

• multiply pphm by 0.01 to obtain ppm

DRAFT
10

Table 2. Urban based ozone increment (pphm) as a function of

NMOC emissions and NMOC/NOx ratios.

NMOC/NOx

TONS NMOC/TONS NOx

(PPMC/PPM)

NMOC

EMISSIONS

(TONS/YR)

> 20.7

(>20)

5.2-20.7

(5-20)

< 5.2

(< 5)

50 1.1 1.1 1.0

75 1.2 1.1 1.1

100 1.3 1.2 1.1

300 1.8 1.6 1.9

500 2.2 2.0 2.8

750 3.3 2.6 3.9

1000 4.1 3.2 4.7

1500 5.8 4.2 4.9

2000 7.1 5.4 4.9

3000 9.5 7.8 6.5

5000 13.3 12.0 9.3

7500 17.3 16.7 12.5

 10000 21.1 20.8 15.5

• multiply pphm by 0.01 to obtain ppm

DRAFT
11

4.0 REFERENCES

Baugues, X., 1988, Personal Communication, OAQPS, U.S. EPA,

Durham, NC.

EPA, 1988, Air Emissions Speciation Manual, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Durham, NC.

EPA, 1986, Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised),

EPA-450/2-78-027R.

PEI, 1988, HAzardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities

Ozone Alr Quality Analysis, PEI Associatas,

Durham, NC.

SAI, 1980, USER'S Guide to the Reactive Plume Model- RPM II,

Systems Applications Incorporated, San Rafael, CA.

Schere, X., 1988, Personal Communication, Atmospheric Science

Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC..
12

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT OF SCREENING TABLES

RPM-II DESCRIPTON

Screening tables presnted in this report were derived using

the Reactive Plume Model-II (RPM-II). RPM-II was originally

developed by Systems Applications, Incorporated (SAI) under

contract to EPA in the late 1970's. RPM-II is a Lagrangian

based model which describes the downwind tranport and chemical

behaviour of a plume emitted from a point source. Plume

concontrations are a function of meteorological source emission

and ambient air quality inputs. Downwind plume dimensions are

either calculated through Gaussian dispersion formulae using

Pasquill-Gifford stability classes, or dimensions are manually

set. The plue is resolved lnto several well-mixed columns

aligned transverely wlth the mean wlnd flow. Mass transfer of

reactive species occurs across cell boundaries. As the plume

expands it entrains backgound air which then is incorporated

within the reactive plume mix. A thorough descrlption of the

nodel formulation can be found in the RPM-II User's Guide (SAI,

1980). Listed below are general categories of model inputs used

during RPM-II applications for developing the screening tables.

Model Inputs:

The followlng summary of model inputs addresses the major

input data requirements used ln developing the screening tables;

a comprehenslve list or required modeling inputs is found in the

User's Guide. The RPM-II source code addresses a single input

vhlch includes followlng:

Meteorological Coniderations - Required meteorological inputs

include time-dependent values of wlnd speed and either stability

class to determine horizontal and/or vertical plume dimensions

or values reflecting user-determined plume depths and/or

horizontal plume widths. The program has been modified to

accept ambient temperature to adjust temperature dependent

raaction rate constants.

Chemistry Considerations - The RPM-II was designed to accept

different chemical mechanisms; a particular mechanism is entered

as input data. The original RPM-II and subsequent variations

have used an older mechanism, Carbon Bond 2 (CB2). The source

code was modified to accept an array of eleven time-dependent

photolysis rate constants so that the most recent version of the

Carbon Bond-4 mechanism, which is also used in EKMA/OZIPM4 (EPA,
13

1988), could be applied. Additional code was installed to

accept activation energies to determine temperature dependent

reaction rates These code modifications and the operation of CB4

within RPM-II were evaluated by comparing RPM-ll predictions

with EKMA/OZIPM4 Both models were run in batch reactor mode with

identical sunlight, temperature and initial conditions over the

course of a ton-hour run, both models produced nearly identical

time profiles for all species.

Air Quality Considerations - The model requires initialization

of all CB4 surrogate and explicit species concentrations, and

concentrations air of background air Time-variant concentrations

off background air can be input manually, or the model will

calculate temporal profiles of all species based on a

user-supplied initial mix and diurnal variation in photolytic

reaction rates.

Emissions Estimates - Principal emissions inputs are emissions

rate of organic and inorganic species. Although any species

included in thee CB4 mechanism can be declared as an emissions

input, typical inputs include NO; NO2; CO; CB4 surrogate organic

groups - parrafins (PAR), olefins (OLE), higher aldehydes (ALD2)

and explicit organic groups - formaldehyde (FORM), ethylene

(ETH), toluene (TOL) and xylene (XYL).

DERIVATION OF SCREENING TABLE

The concept of a screening procedure for ozone precursors

is immediate with an immediate contradiction: A screening tool

must be simple to apply and robust, but the inclusion of

photochemical phenomena in a modeling analysis typically is

complicated and case specific. A major difficulty in applying a

model such as RPM-II is specifying background concentrations

because the model is particularly sensitive to ambient air

quality. Hydrocarbon and NOx composition vary spatially and

temporally throughout any region. A thorough refined modeling

exercise would require temporal profiles of all dominant

inorganic and organic species in the CB4 mechanism. Such data

are scarce for even a single location. The problem is handled

explicitly in grid modeling (e.g., UAM application) by

assimilating appropriate emissions inventories and generating

ambient air quality estimates (in combination with invoking

reasonable assumptions regarding initial and boundary

conditions). Similarly, it is feasible to generate ambient air

quality data with a trajectory model like RPM-II, with

appropriate placement of emissions sources. However, that

approach is cumbersome within the model framework as well as

application specific and, consequently, not amenable to

developing a robust screening tool. To overcome this

difficulty, simplifying assumptions regarding background
14

chemistry quality must be invoked. Such assumptions should

yield conservative answers (i.e., high ozone generation) and, as

a consequence of building in "conservatism" via air qualitiy

assumptions, the need for case-specific representativeness

diminishes. Accordingly, these screening tables are based on

"prototypical", assumed characterizations of background

chemistries, representing rural and urban locations. The

following discussions outline the procedures used to develop

base cave meteorological and chemical inputs so that

conservative estimates of ozone formation would be produced from

model runs performed with the various source emissions scenarios

incorporated in the screening tables.

DEVELOPMENT OF REASONABLE WORST-CASE MODEL INPUTS (RURAL)

Background Air Chemistry

Ambient concentrations of all CB4 species (Table A1)

assumed for rural background air are identical to those utilized

in rural ozone modeling studies (PEI, 1988) performed with EPA's

Regional Oxidant Model (ROM). Those concentrations were

generated by applying the CBM-RR chemical mechanism (a more

detailed version of the carbon bond mechanism) in a batch

reactor mode under sequential 12-hour alternating periods of

full sunlight and darkness until a relatively aged, steady state

mixture was produced. Initial concentrations of NOx, CO, and

NMOC were derived by EPA's Atmosphorlc Science and Research

Laboratory (Schere, 1988).

The ambient NOx and hydrocarbon concentrations in Table A1

reflect generally low ozone precursor concentrations which might

suggest a minimum of ozone forming potential, relative to a more

concentrated urban mix. Although sonewhat counter-intuitive

results derived from running various emissions mixes (VOC

don$nated) with rural or urban background concentrations showed

a greeter ozone increment with rural background air, under

equivalent emission rates. This might simply be explained by

considering that ozone forming potential already exists in urban

air due to a large mass of pollutants implied in urban

background concentrations. In contrast, ozone forming potential

in rural air may be lacking key ingredients (NOx, reactive VOC)

which when supplied results in a larger increment Also, low NO

concentrations in rural air probably results in less ozone

scavenging through direct titration.

Meteorological and Source Speciation Inputs

A prospective user of the screening tables would select an

appropriate mass emission rate and NMOC/NOx emissions ratio to
15

determine the ozone increments due to individual VOC/NOx

sources. The tables have no provisions for specifying values of

meteorological variables (such rigidity is common for most

screening analyses). Furthermore, adjustment of the mix of

emitted hydrocarbon fractions is not permitted, again keeping

within reasonable restrictions imposed by a screening technique.

A base-case input file incorporating a single set of base-case

values for meteorological parameters and one emissions

reactivity mix was developed with the intention of providing

conservative (worst case) ozone formation estimates. The

screening tables represent runs based on those meteorological

parameters with selected adjustments in emissions rates.

The set of meteorological parameters were chosen by running

the model over a range of discrete values for one variable,

while holding all other variables constant. A true factorial

analysis of all possible combinations of wind speed plume

dimensions, starting time and temperature was not performed

because of the range, continuous nature and number of variables

involved.

The procedures used to determine base-case meteorological

inputs are listed below and followed by a discussion of the

results from that analysis. For clarity, throughout the

discussion "standared value" refers to the value which each

variable is maintained while other variables are varied; the

"standard value" should not be confused with "base-case" value,

the determination of which was the object of this exercise.

Background Air - Concentrations of CB4 species representative of

rural, continental U.S. locations as presented in Table A1 were

held constant throughout each modeling run.
16

Emissions - A continuous mass emission rate of 10,000 tons/year

NMOC was used for all runs designed to produce base-case values

for meteorological variables. The NMOC/NOx; NOx/NO; CO/NMOC and

hydrocarbon speciation partitioning were based on EKMA default

values (EPA, 1988):

PPM CO/PPMC NMOC - 1.2

PPMC NMOC/PPM NOx - 10

PPM NOx/PPM NO - 4

CB4 group fraction on PPMC basis

ETH 0.037

OLE 0.035

ALD2 0.052

FORM 0.021

TOL 0.089

XYL 0.117

PAR 0.564

NR 0.085
17

Additional related issues involving emissions scenarios are

discussed below within the context of reactivity.

Location - In terms of model inputs, location only translates to

diurnal variation of solar zenith angle. The EKMA default

location of Los Angeles, California (Lat. 34.058; Long. 138.256;

6/21/75) was used in all runs, virtually no sensitivity resulted

from varying latitude.

Starting Time - Starting times (i.e., plume emergence were

incremented hourly from 0600 to 1200 LST (0800 standard start).

Wind Speed - Wind speeds were incremented by 1 m/s over a range

from 1 m/s to 4 m/s. The standard wind speed for all rune was 4

m/s.

Plume Width - Spatially variant downwind plume widths were

generated by specifying standard Pasquill-Gifford stability

classes 1-5 with class 3 used as the standard stability class.

Plume Depth - Plume depths were incremented 200 m over a range

from 300 m to 1500 m (500m standard depth).

Temperature - Temperatures were incremented 8 K over a range

from 287 K to 311 K (303 K was standard).

Emissions NMOC Mix - In addition to the standard EKMA mix with a

NMOC/NOX of 10, runs were performed with single-component NMOC

emissions representing each CB4 class (except isoprene) and

different NMOC/NOx ratios. To overcome numerical problems

requiring excessive computational time for olefins, a mix of 70%

olefins end 30% parafins was used in place of pure olefins.

These single-component emissions were run with mass

emissions rates of CO and NOx that were identical to those

applied for the standard EKMA emissions mix. Consequently,

NMOC/NOx (PPMC/PPM basis) ratios varied somewhat due to 

differences in effective molecular weights among the

emissions scenarios. All NMOC emissions were based on the

standard mass emission rate of 10,000 tons/year. Also,

additional NMOC/NOx ratios of 5 and 2 (based on standard EKMA

mix) were applied for all emissions mixes.
18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Meteorology:

Sensitivities of maximum ozone increments within a point

source plume due to independent variation of several

meteorological parameters are presented in Figures 1-5. Based

on 13 these results and consideration of consistency among

meteorological variables, the following values based on the

subsequent analysis were chosen for base-case meteorological

inputs to provide conservative ozone increment estimates:

wind speed - 1 m/s

horizontal stability - class C

plume depth - 700 m

ambient temperature - 311 K

start time - 1000 LST (NMOC/NOx > 5)

 - 0700 LST (5 > NMOC/NOx > 1)

 - 0600 LST (NMOC/NOx < 1)

Starting Time - Only minor sensitivity was attributed to varying

starting time from 0600 to 1200 LST for standard mix with

NMOC/NOx = 10 (Figure 1). Sensitivity to starting time

increased as NMOC/NOx ratio decreased; at lower NMOC/NOx ratios

earlier starting times produced larger ozone increments (Figures

2-3).

Sensitivity to starting time is strongly coupled to

optimizing both NO to NO2 conversion and prividing adequate

reactive VOC. At highNMOC/NOx, NO titration of ozone is not

dominant and exposure of high incident radiation to concentrated

NMOC (short time after start-up) produces large ozone

increments. In contrast, at low NMOC/NOx ratios NO titration is

a problem and the plume requires extended time to reach optimum

ozone forming potential. Accordingly, an earlier start time

which provides intense incident radiation upon segments

sufficiently downwind such that a substantial percentage of NO

has been converted (as well as diluted).

Wind Speed - Wind speed variations impart the greatest degree of

sensitivity on maximum ozone increments (Figure 4).

Successively smaller decreases in ozone impacts occur as wind

speed increases from 1 to 5 m/s; a reasonable response since, in

effect, a 2-fold increase in wind speed represents a 50%

decrease in the effective emissions rate injected into a plume

segment. In addition, a dilution effect due to increased

dispersion near the source accompanies elevated wind speeds.

Stability Class (Horizontal dispersion) - Ozone formation

increased as stability classes were changed from Class A(1) to
19

Class E(5) (Figure 5), an expected response related to

successively less downwind dilution when proceeding through

higher stability categories. In the context of this analysis

Class D and E stabilities yield large ozone increments; but

these classes are clearly inconsistent with other optimal ozone

forming conditions (full sunlight, light winds). In following a

conservative approach consistent with any screening protocol

selection of Class C stability is appropriate. Actually, the

selection of a more stable dispersion scenario is consistent

with the notion of plume meander whereby plume dispersion

calculated from standard dispersion parameters encompasses a

complete crosswind profile due to plume meander, yet the

effective crosswind plume dimension (where reactions occur) is

governed by an instantaneous crosswind dimension. While plume

meander certainly increases areal exposure to a particular

plume, reactivity is dependent on actual crosswind dimensions at

a point in time.

Plume depth - The ozone formation response to plume depth (held

constant throughout time) is similar to that for wind speed

(Figure 6), an apparent dilution phenomenom. The selection of

700 m maximum plume depth is, admittedly, somewhat arbitrary.

Certainly an upper bound must be imposed to account for low

mixing heights, otherwise a plume would grow indefinitely, and

rather rapidly, over time. While the existence of 700 m mixing

heights is not uncommon, the occurrence of such a low mixing

height under optimal ozone forming conditions is not likely in

many locations. Nevertheless, an upper bound must be imposed

and, as illustrated in Figure 6, the difference in maximum ozone

increments between 700 mand 900 m is about 15 %. Furthermore,

observed summertime, afternoon measurements of plume depths

taken from the Tennessee Plume Study (Ludwig et a1., 1981) show

plume depths typically ranging from 500 m to 700 m.

Temperature - Ozone formation increased with increased

temperature (Figure 7), a result consistent with observed

correlations among high temperature and high ozone levels. The

selection of 311 K (100 EF) is not unreasonably high.

VOC Emissions Reactive Mix

The apportioning of emissions by CB4 classes would

typically be set by a particular source profile for a refined

modeling application. Since screening tables are designed to

provide a simple and robust screening procedure, out of

necessity the emissions mix becomes a bariable which must be

addressed when developing a worst-case baseline input file. A

robust method conceivably should bracket the limitless variety

of VOC mixes, a rather encompassing objective. To that end a

crude attempt at bracketing a range of all possible VOC point
20

source emissions was developed by running the RPM-II with

single-component NMOC

emissions for each CB4 category.

Results of this analysis ara shown in Figures 8-l0 for

three different NMOC/NOx ratios. All VOC emissions rates were

held at 10,000 tons/year, and NMOC/NOx and NMOC/CO ratios were

based on the standard EKMA mix. The large NMOC emissions rate

of 10,000 tons/year was not intended to be representative; the

rate was used to better indentify trends which otherwise might

have been lost in numerical noise. The ratios varied slightly

among the different mixes because of differences in VOC

molecular weights. To provide consistency all mass rates for

NOx (at a given NMOC/Nox ratio) and CO were identical for

different mixes (the NMOC/NOx ratio is volume based).

Consequently, different NMOC molar emissions rates existed among

mixes, with higher molar emission rates for lower weight classes

(e.g. paraffins). The decision to base this analysis on mass

emissions is based on the expectation that the anticipated users

of this screening technique will address permitting issues based

on mass emission rates.

As shown in Figures 8-10, variation in ozone increments

predicted for different CB4 components range up to about 1.5

times the ozone increment obtained with a standard EKMA urban

mix. Accordingly, the EKMA mix is retained for all screening

analyses and application will requre a scale-up factor of 1.5.

It should be noted that a 70 % olefln mix is unrealistic as most

olefin-named compounds are composed of chains dominated by

paraffin bonds. At first glance the magnitude of differences

among various mixes is surprising within the context of k-OH

values for the various CB4 groups (listed bolow) - thls topic is

pursued further in a later section regarding urban table

development.
21

CB4 Class k-OH

(min-1)

ETH 5824

OLE 20422

ALD2 11833

FORM 15000

TOL 1284

XYL 4497

PAR 1203

EKMA MIX 3180

Rural Area Screening Tables

Results from a matrix of runs covering a range of VOC

emission rates and NMOC/NOx emissions ratios are presented in

Table A2. In order to maintain a consistent basis for data

evaluation, all Table A2 results are based on a 1000 LST start

time. Several trends exist among the data in Table A2:

* At NMOC ratios greater than 3, any increase in NMOC

loading leads to an increased ozone maximum

* As VOC loading rate increases an optimal NMOC/NOx

emissions ratio exists, and this ratio shifts to lower

values as NMOC source size increases.

* At NMOC/NOx emissions ratios less than 3, VOC loading

increases can lead to relative decreases in ozone

maximums as wall as oxone deficits during one solar

day.

A simplified version of Table A2 is presented as the rural

area screening table in section 3.0 (Table 1). The effects of

NMOC/NOx ratios have been attenuated somewhat by presenting

three broad NMOC/NOx ratios. The results under each range

reflects a scale-up factor of 1.5 and are based on the most

conservative (maximum ozone producing) NMOC/NOx ratio each rango

> 20 (NMOC/NOx = 20); 5-20 (12 - see Figure 11); < 5 (5). In

addition the results in Table 1 are based on optimal starting

times for different NMOC/NOx ratios and adjusted by using a

reactivity scale-up factor of 1.5.

DEVELOPMENT OF REASONABLE WORST-CASE MODEL INPUTS (URBAN)

Unless listed below, all model inputs used to develop urban

screening tables were identical to those used for rural tables.
22

Specifically, these similar inputs include plume geometry, wind

speed and ambient temperature.

Background Air Chemistry

A diurnal concentration and composition profile for

background air chemistry was prepared by conducting 8 A.M.-6

P.M. simulations using the ambient mode option (batch reactor)

in RPM-II followed by a plume simulation using a 10,000 ton/yr

VOC emissions source with composition described above in the

rural table development secton. The ambient mode sumulation

develops background profiles for all CB4 species (inorganics,

intermediates, precursors and sinks). In turn, the background

air devoloped by the ambient simulation can become entrained

(and available for reaction) within the source emissions plume

during the subsequent plume simulation.

A rather crude attempt at determining a "reasonable worstcase" background profile consisted of running various

simulations using different precursor levels to identity a set

of precursors which produces 1) a relative maximum ozone

increment during the plume simulation and 2) a background

profile characteristic, in a broad sence, of urban air quality.

Initial concentrations of precursors used to drive tho ambient

simulation were based on starting with OZIPM4 default values

(listed below) for NMOC, NOx and CO composition and

concentration, and scaling those values downward and

across-the-board (i.e., reducing total precursor concentration

yet retaining default composition) such that conditions 1) and

2) were achieved. The downward scaling is required because the

ambient mode option in RPM-II has no provision for adjusting

mixing height; consequently, a set of precursors which might

produce a realistic profile with typical diurnal dilution yields

highly concentrated, unrealistic cancentrations with a constant

reactor volume constraint.
23

OZIPM4 DEFAULT PRECURSOR INPUTS

NMOC Total 1.0 ppmc OLE 0.0175 ppm

Nox Total 0.1 ppm ETH 0.0185 ppm

NO2 0.025 ppm FORM 0.021 ppm

NO 0.075 ppm TOL 0.0127 ppm

CO 1.2 ppm ALD2 0.026 ppm

PAR 0.564 ppm NR 0.085 ppm

XYL 0.146 ppm H2O 20,000 ppm

The results of several simulations are presented in Figure

12. The OZIPM4 default set of precursors without reduction

produces an excessively high peak background ozone concentration

of 46.4 pphm. subsequent simulations with across-the-board

precursor reductions resulted in successively larger ozone

increments and lower peak ambient ozone concentrations. The set

of precursor inputs corresponding to 16 % of default values

produced the largest ozone increment while achieving ambient

ozone above 12 pphm. Accordingly, that set of precursors were

used for developing the urban screening tables (unadjusted -

Table A3, adjusted - Table 2, main text).

Starting Time

The precursor concentrations reflect 6-9 A.M. values.

Thus, to provide consistency with precursor composition, all

simulations started at 8 A.M. LST.

VOC Emissions Reactive Mix

Results of modal runs conducted with single-component CB4

mixes at different NMOC/NOx ratios show substantial differences

on formation of ozone increments (Figure 12). These results

contrast sharply with the analogous set of rural based

simulations (Figures 8-10). The urban based ozone increment due

to olefins is more than five times that of the EKMA mix at an

NMOX/NOx ratio of 10, whereas only a 50 % increase occurred in

the rural analysis. Differences among the more reactive urban

mixes and the EKMA mix diverge further at lower XMOC/NOx ratios.

Also, a large dependence on NOx which produces a shift from

reactive to much less reactive (high to low NMOC/NOx ratio)
24

occurs with formaldehyde.

For the purpose of preparing a "single" urban screening

table, a scale-up factor of 3 was applied to the results in

Table

A3 (urban area increments as a function of VOC emissions rates

and NMOC/NOx emissions ratios) to derive the urban screening

table (Table 2). The value of 3 is not entirely arbitrary.

Based on the results in Figure 13, a scale-up factor of 5 might

be more appropriate. However, because so much conservatism is

built in to the meteorological and, to a certain degree, the

background chemistry inputs, collecting the most reactive mixes

for scale-up would probably result in a screening out of nearly

all VOC point sources. The factor 3 was determined by surveying

the weighted k-OH values of VOC species profiles in the Air

Emissions Speciation Manual (EPA, 1988). The weighted k-OH of

the 90th percentile (about 9000 min-1) was nearly three times

that of the standard EKMA mix used in formulating Table A3

(Baugues, 1988). Considering that the highest weighted k-OH

values for the VOC species profiles exceeded 20,000 min-1,

scaling by 3 might be viewed as a less drastic approach.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

These reactivity-sensitivity simulations suggest that

background chemistry is a limiting factor in determining ozone

increments due to ozone precursor emissions - hardly a

surprising outcome. Such dependency on source composition,

especially within urban atmospheres, infers that a single

scale-up factor, as used for the rural table, is not adequate.

One can always resort to more refined source specific analyses.

Ideally, a thorough refined analysis would formulate background

chemistry with the best available modeling techniques and let a

source plume entrain those concentrations - the basic concept of

the PARIS model which imbeds RPM-II within the Urban Airshed

Model (UAM), which can utilize available meteorological, air

quality and emissions (all categories) information to formulate

background chemistry profiles. Such an exercise is highly

resource intensive, and thus a motivation for developing a

usable screening approach. _

Clearly, a need exists for accommodating variations in

point source VOC speciation within the context of a screening

analysis. It is suggested that the concept of an extended

screening approach which allows source specific emissions

speciation inputs be pursued. a possible approach could utilize

the apparent, conservative meteorological inputs developed for

these tables (and/or from additional efforts) as default inputs

to RPM-II in combination with best estimates of the composition

of a specified source. This approach would eliminate the major
25

difficulties in operating a model such as RMP-II -

characterization of meteorology and background chemistry.
26

Table A1. Background species concentrations (ppm) taken

to be representative of “clean” atmospheric conditions

----------------------------------------------------------------

-

ALD2 9.005E-5 NO 5.054E-5

H2O2 1.084E-3 OH 2.947E-7

MGLY 1.529E-6 PHO 4.124E-9

O 1.496E-10 XYL 1.296E-9

PAR 3.224E-3 ETH 1.681E-5

XO2 1.171E-5 HO2 2.496E-5

C2O3 7.389E-7 NO2 1.491E-4

N2O5 1.723E-9 OLE 4.676E-9

O3 3.193E-2 FORM 1.148E-3

PHEN 4.286E-5 ISOP 0.000E+0

XO2N 1.417E-6 NO3 2.041E-8

CO 9.873E-2 PAN 5.167E-5

HNO3 1.646E-3 TOL 1.219E-5

----------------------------------------------------------------

-

from (PEI, 1988)
27

Table A2. Rural based ozne increment (pppm) as a function of

NMOC emissions and NMOC/NOx emissions ratios.

NMOC/NOx

(PPMC/PPM)

NMOC

EMISSIONS

(TONS/YR)

ALL

VOC

30 20 15 12 10 5 3 1

50 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.35 0.42 0.70

75 0.21 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.42 0.53 0.83

100 0.20 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.49 0.63 0.92

300 0.19 0.44 0.53 0.60 0.69 0.72 0.94 1.09 1.14

500 0.18 0.63 0.76 0.88 0.96 1.02 1.25 1.36 0.87

750 0.16 0.85 1.05 1.17 1.29 1.32 1.55 l.55 0.39

1000 0.15 1.08 1.33 1.46 l.57 1.59 1.80 1.68 0.12

1500 0.15 1.47 1.82 2.01 2.03 2.15 2.20 1.70 -

2000 0.15 1.86 2.24 2.48 2.56 2.65 2.44 1.61 -

3000 0.15 2.63 3.20 3.39 3.46 3.54 2.87 1.29 -

5000 0.15 3.93 4.65 4.88 5.00 4.97 3.22 0.90 -

7500 0.14 5.49 6.52 6.63 6.73 6.63 3.40 0.75 -

10000 0.13 6.83 8.11 8.22 8.57 8.06 3.62 0.65 -

- indicates no discernible ozone enhancement
28

Table A3. Urban based ozone increment (pphm) as a function of

NMOC emissions and NMOC/NOX ratios.

NMOC/NOx

(PPMC/PPM)

NMOC

EMISSIONS

(TONS/YR)

ALL

VOC

30 20 15 10 5 3 1

50 0.38 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.21

75 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.3S 0.32 0.20

100 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.3S 0.32 0.22

300 0.59 0.57 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.42 0.34 0.62

500 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.62 0.46 0.48 0.93

750 1.09 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.61 0.65 1.31

1000 1.38 1.08 1.07 1.02 0.91 0.74 0.89 1.56

1500 1.93 1.61 1.41 1.36 1.21 1.02 1.27 1.64

2000 2.35 2.07 1.80 1.68 1.48 1.33 1.63 1.24

3000 3.16 2.81 2.59 2.28 2.00 1.95 2.17 0.14

5000 4.43 4.31 4.01 3.43 3.11 2.99 3.09 -

7500 5.34 5.76 S.56 4.92 4.37 4.17 3.64 -

10000 5.90 7.03 6.93 6.31 5.49 5.17 3.55 -

- indicates no discernible ozone enhancement
29
30
31
Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 

APPENDIX B: 

SOUTHWEST WYOMING VISIBILITY TRENDS 
Graph 3: Reconstructed Total Extinction at IMPROVE Sites in Wyoming

IMPROVE Aerosol Data 

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Deciviews (dV)
Graph 6: Mean Extinction in Deciviews for the 

20% Cleanest days at Regional IMPROVE Sites

IMPROVE Aerosol Data

02468

101214161820

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Deciview
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

APPENDIX B:

PROJECT EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 B-1 TRC Environmental Corporation 

APPENDIX B 

The following is a list of the tables included within this appendix. 

B.1.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION TABLES 

Emissions listed in the construction emission tables are for all construction scenarios unless 

otherwise specified. 

B.1.1 Well Pad Construction – 1 Well per Pad 

B.1.2 Resource Road Construction 

B.1.3 Well Pad/Resource Road Traffic 

B.1.4 Well Pad/Resource Road Heavy Equipment Tailpipe 

B.1.5 Rig Move and Drilling Traffic – Straight Drilling 

B.1.6 Rig Move and Drilling Haul Truck Tailpipe –Straight Drilling 

B.1.7 Drilling Emissions AP-42 – Straight Drilling 

B.1.8 Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Straight Drilling 

B.1.9 Drilling Emissions – Tier 2 – Straight Drilling 

B.1.10 Completion/Testing Traffic 

B.1.11 Completion/Testing Heavy Equipment Tailpipe 

B.1.12 Completion Flaring 

B.1.13 Pipeline Construction 

B.1.14 Pipeline Construction Traffic 

B.1.15 Pipeline Heavy Equipment Tailpipe 

B.1.16 Construction Wind Erosion – 1 Well per Pad 

The following tables show construction emissions for the multiple well pad scenarios. Emissions 

are only shown if the multiple well pad scenario varies from the single well pad scenarios. 

B.1.17 Well Pad/Resource Road Construction – 2 Wells per Pad 

B.1.18 Well Pad/Resource Road Construction – 5 Wells per Pad 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 B-2 TRC Environmental Corporation 

B.1.19 Well Pad/Resource Road Construction – 10 Wells per Pad 

B.1.20 Rig Move and Drilling Traffic – Directional Drilling 

B.1.21 Rig Move and Drilling Haul Truck Tailpipe – Directional Drilling 

B.1.22 Drilling Emission AP-42 – Directional Drilling 

B.1.23 Drilling Emissions –Tier 1 – Directional Drilling 

B.1.24 Drilling Emissions – Tier 2 – Directional Drilling 

B.1.25 Wind Erosion – 2 Wells per Pad 

B.1.26 Wind Erosion – 5 Wells per Pad 

B.1.27 Wind Erosion – 10 Wells per Pad 

B.2.0 PRODUCTION EMISSION TABLES 

Emissions listed in the production emission tables are for all production scenarios unless 

otherwise specified. 

B.2.1 Production Traffic – 1 Well per Pad 

B.2.2 Production Heavy Equipment Tailpipe – 1 Well per Pad 

B.2.3 Indirect Heater 

B.2.4 Separator Heater 

B.2.5 Dehydrator Reboiler Heater 

B.2.6 Dehydrator Flashing 

B.2.7 Fugitive HAPs and VOC 

B.2.8 Condensate Storage Tank 

B.2.9 Jonah Water Disposal Well 

B.2.10 Bird Canyon Compressor Station 

B.2.11 Falcon Compressor Station 

B.2.12 Gobblers Knob Compressor Station 

B.2.13 Jonah Compressor Station 

B.2.14 Luman Compressor Station 

B.2.15 Paradise Compressor Station 

B.2.16 Wind Erosion – 1 Well per Pad 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 B-3 TRC Environmental Corporation 

The following tables show production emissions for the multiple well pad scenarios. Emissions 

are only shown if the multiple well pad scenario varies from the single well pad scenarios. 

B.2.17 Production Traffic – 2 Wells per Pad 

B.2.18 Production Traffic – 5 Wells per Pad 

B.2.19 Production Traffic – 10 Wells per Pad 

B.2.20 Wind Erosion – 2 Wells per Pad 

B.2.21 Wind Erosion – 5 Wells per Pad 

B.2.22 Wind Erosion – 10 Wells per Pad 

B.2.23 Relative Decline Curve for a Typical Jonah Field Well 

B.2.24 Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year – Alternative A and Proposed Action 

B.2.25 Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year – Alternative B 

B.2.26 Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year – Preferred Alternative
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Projec

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad ConstructionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate EmissFax: (307) 745-8317 Well Pad Construction

Date: 3/24/2004

Well Pad 

Area

Construction Activity 

TSP Emission Factor1

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)2

PM2.5 

(co

(acre) (tons/acre-month) (days/well pad) (hours/day) (%) (lb/well) (

3.8 1.2 4 10 50 218.88 

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/day/well) 54.72 

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/hr/well) 5.47 

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations"; TSP = total suspended particulates.2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM10 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM2.5 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

Table B.1.1 

Well Pad Construction - 1 Well per Pad

B-4
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proj

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Resource Road ConstruPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate EmFax: (307) 745-8317 from Resource Road Co

Date: 3/24/2004

Resource Road 

Area1

Construction Activity TSP 

Emission Factor2

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)3

PM2

(c

(acres) (tons/acre-month) (days/pad) (hours/day) (%) (lb/pad) 

1.3455 1.2 4 10 50 77.50 

Resource Road Construction Emissions (lb/day/pad resource road segment) 19.38 

Resource Road Construction Emissions (lb/hr/pad resource road segment) 1.94 

1 Construction Area = 0.15-mi x 74-ft ROW = 1.3455 acres; TSP = total suspended particulates.2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM10

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

4 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM2.5

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

Table B.1.2

Resource Road Construction

B-5
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Laramie, WY 82070 Activity:Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fax: (307) 745-8317 

Date: 

Vehicle Type Road Type Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content1

Moisture 

Content2

Round 

Trips 

(RTs) 

RT 

Distance

Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT)3

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor4

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor4

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RT/pad) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) 

Gravel/haul trucks Primary Access magnesium chloride 35,000 20 5.1 2.4 8 14 112 85 1.54 0.24 

Resource water 35,000 15 5.1 2.4 8 5 40 50 1.54 0.24 

Light trucks/pickups Primary Access magnesium chloride 7,000 30 5.1 2.4 12 14 168 85 0.56 0.08 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 12 5 60 50 0.46 0.07 

 Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/pad) 

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/pad)6 

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."3 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.4 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.5 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.6 Calculated as lb/well; 4 days/well; 10 hours/day; and represents emissions for 9.5-mile segment of road.

Table B.1.3

Well Pad/Resource Road Traffic

B-6
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Dr

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity:Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combu

Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Heavy E

Date:

Heavy Equipment

Engine 

Horsepower

Number 

Required

Operating 

Load 

Factor1 Pollutant Emission Factor2

Construction 

Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity 

Duration Pollutant Emissions 

(hp) (g/hp-hr) (days/ (hours/day) (lb/well) 

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 equipment type) CO NOx SO2 VOC PM105 

Scraper 700 2 0.4 2.45 7.46 0.901 0.55 0.789 4 10 120.99 368.40 44.49 27.16 38.96 Motor Grader

250 1 0.4 1.54 7.14 0.874 0.36 0.625 4 10 13.58 62.96 7.71 3.17 5.51 

D8 Dozer3 210 1 0.4 2.15 7.81 0.851 0.75 0.692 2 10 7.96 28.93 3.15 2.78 2.56 

Total Heavy Equipment Tailpipe Emissions 142.53 460.28 55.35 33.11 47.04 

1 Taken from "Surface Mining" (Pfleider 1972) for average service duty.2 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. 3 Emission factor for track-type tractor.4 Calculated as lb/well; days/equipment type; 10 hours/day.5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for combustion sources.

Well Pad/Reso

Table B.1.4

Well Pad/Resource Road Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

3/24/2004

B-7
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Rig Move and DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions from Traffic Fax: (307) 745-8317 on Unpaved Roads

Date:

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT 4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2

Emiss

Facto

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VM

Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

44,000 20 5.1 2.4 140 14 1,960 85 1.70 0.2

Resource water 44,000 15 5.1 2.4 140 5 700 50 1.70 0.2

Logging/mud trucks Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

48,000 20 5.1 2.4 10 14 140 85 1.77 0.2

Resource water 48,000 15 5.1 2.4 10 5 50 50 1.77 0.2Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

20,000 30 5.1 2.4 20 14 280 85 1.19 0.1

Resource water 20,000 20 5.1 2.4 20 5 100 50 1.19 0.1Primary Access magnesium 

chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 30 14 420 85 0.56 0.08

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 30 5 150 50 0.46 0.06

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/w

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-60,000 lbs; average weight of 44,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 22 days/well; 24 hours/day, and represents emissions for 9.5-mile segment of road. Total duration is 22 days for a vertical well, including rig move 

Table B.1.5

Rig Move and Drilling Traffic - Straight Drilling

Vendors/marketers/ variousRoustabouts/welders/ hot-shot/contract laborSemis-tractor/ trailer/mud/water/ fuel/cement trucks1

3/24/2004

B-8
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Rig Move and DrilliPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Heavy Equipm

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Haul 

Truck RTs RT Distance

Total Haul 

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions 

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) 

CO 14.74 170 19 3230 22 24 104.96 

NOx 11.44 170 19 3230 22 24 81.46 

SO22 0.32 170 19 3230 22 24 2.26 

VOC 5.69 170 19 3230 22 24 40.52 

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 3 Calculated as lb/well; 22 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table B.1.6

Rig Move and Drilling Haul Truck Tailpipe - Straight Drilling

B-9
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA AP-42

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor 1

Total Horsepower 

(hp) All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions Emissions

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr/well)

CO 0.00668 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,702.63 5.93NOx 0.031 2,100 0.42 19 24 12,542.17 27.50

SO2

4 0.00205 2,100 0.42 19 24 829.40 1.82

VOC 0.0025 2,100 0.42 19 24 1,011.47 2.22PM10

5 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 890.09 1.95

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 700 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 25 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for the drilling rigs.

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 3.3, "Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines"; lb/hp-hr = pounds per horsepower-hour.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800 hp and one at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheet for G3412, gas petroeleum drilling engine.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.7

Drilling Emissions AP-42 - Straight Drilling

B-10
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proje

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EmisFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - E

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total hp All 

Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions Em

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.42 19 24 7,581.69 NOx 0.015 2,100 0.42 19 24 6,154.55 SO2

4 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 891.96 

PM10

5 0.00088 2,100 0.42 19 24 356.79 

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 700 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 25 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for the drilling rigs.

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 No

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800 hp and one at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheets for G4312, gas petroleum drilling engin

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.8

Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Straight Drilling

B-11
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Projec

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EmissFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EP

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions Em

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/h

CO 0.0057 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,319.11 5

NOx 0.0090 2,100 0.42 19 24 3,657.05 8

SO2

4 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 0

VOC 0.0004 2,100 0.42 19 24 148.87 0

PM10

5 0.00033 2,100 0.42 19 24 133.79 0

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 700 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 25 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for the drilling rigs.

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 N

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800 hp and one at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheets for G4312, gas petroleum drilling eng

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.9

Drilling Emissions - Tier 2 - Straight Drilling

B-12
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Completion/Testing TrafficPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions fromFax: (307) 745-8317 Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Date: 3/24/2004

Vehicle Type

Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs 

per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emissions5

PM2.5 

Emissions5

Em

(co

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/well) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) (l

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 350 14 4,900 85 1.87 0.29 1,

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 350 5 1,750 50 1.87 0.29 1,Primary Access

magnesium chloride

48,000 20 5.1 2.4 50 14 700 85 1.77 0.27 1

Resource water 48,000 15 5.1 2.4 50 5 250 50 1.77 0.27 2Primary Access

magnesium chloride

20,000 30 5.1 2.4 30 14 420 85 1.19 0.18 

Resource water 20,000 20 5.1 2.4 30 5 150 50 1.19 0.18 Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 140 14 1,960 85 0.56 0.08 1

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 140 5 700 50 0.46 0.07 1

 Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/well) 3,

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/well)

7 

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs; average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as lb/well; 35 days/well; 17 hours/day; and represents emissions for 9.5-mile segment of road.

Small Haul TrucksLight trucks/ pickups

Table B.1.10

Completion/Testing Traffic

Semis/transport/ water/sand/frac trucks1Large Haul Trucks

B-13
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill D

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Completion/TPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombFax: (307) 745-8317 from Heavy E

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total Haul Truck 

RTs RT Distance

Total Haul Truck 

Miles Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissio

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/wel

CO 14.74 430 19 8170 35 17 265.49 

NOx 11.44 430 19 8170 35 17 206.05 

SO22 0.32 430 19 8170 35 17 5.72 

VOC 5.69 430 19 8170 35 17 102.49 

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 19972 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 7.003 Calculated as lb/well; 35 days/well; 17 hours/day.

Table B.1.11

Completion/Testing Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

B-14
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Inf

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenaLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: CompletiPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Gas FlariFax: (307) 745-8317 Flowback 

Date: 3/24/2004

Flaring Specifications: Stack Parameters

Height 5 m

Total Volume of Gas Emitted 35,000 mcf Temperature 1,273 KelvinTotal Volume of Condensate Emitted 250 bbls Diameter 1.0 mAverage Heat Content 1,093 BTU/scf Velocity 20 m/sFlaring/Flowback Activity Duration 120 hrs/wellFlaring Duration 80 hrs/wellPre-ignition Flow-back Duration 40 hrs/wellPre-ignition Flow-back Time Involving a Gas Stream 10 %Actual Hours Gas is Vented 4 hrsTotal Hours in which Gas is Vented or Flared1 84 hrs 

Average Flowrate of Gas2 416.67 mcf/hr

Total Volume of Gas Vented3 1,666.67 mcf

Total Volume of Flared Gas4 33,333.33 mcf

Average Flowrate of Condensate 2.98 bbls/hrPre-flare Volume of Condensate 11.90 bbls Volume of Condensate Flared 238.10 bblsActivity Volume

Volume 

Units Pollutant

Emission 

Factor

Emission 

Factor Units Emission Factor Source6

Tota

Emissi

(tons

Venting - Natural Gas 5 1,666.67 mcf VOC 4.70 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 3.91 

HAP (total) 0.17 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.14  n-Hexane 0.08 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.07 Benzene 0.026 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.02 Toluene 0.041 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.03 Ethylbenzene 0.0019 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.001 Xylenes 0.018 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.01

Flaring - Natural Gas 33,333.33 mcf NOx 0.068 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5 1.24 

CO 0.37 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5 6.74 VOC 2.35 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 39.1HAP (total) 0.09 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 1.43 

 n-Hexane 0.042 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.70 

 Benzene 0.013 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.22  Toluene 0.020 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.34  Ethylbenzene 0.001 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.01 Xylenes 0.009 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.15 

Table B.1.12

Completion Flaring

B-15
Table B.1.12 (Continued)

Activity Volume

Volume 

Units Pollutant

Emission 

Factor

Emission 

Factor Units Emission Factor Source6

Tota

Emissi

(tons

Flaring - Condensate 238.10 bbls VOC 121.98 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 14.5

HAP (total) 25.85 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 3.08  n-hexane 4.59 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 0.55  Benzene 1.42 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 0.17  Toluene 6.11 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 0.73  Ethylbenzene 0.74 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 0.09  Xylenes 12.99 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysis 1.55 

1 Calculated as 10% * 40 hrs of pre-ignition flowback + 80 hrs of flaring.2 Calculated as 3,500 mcf/84 hrs.3 Calculated as 416.67 mcf/hr * 4 hrs.4 Calculated as 416.67 mcf/hr * 80 hrs.5 An estimated 11.9 bbl of condensate are captured prior to flare ignition. Flashing from this condensate is not analyzed6 For all emission factors that used the constituent analysis, a 50% destruction rate was assumed. 

B-16
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Pipeline ConstructionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate EmissionsFax: (307) 745-8317 from Pipeline Construction

Date: 3/24/2004

Pipeline 

Construction Area1

Construction Activity TSP 

Emission Factor2

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction Activity 

Duration PM10 Emissions3 PM2.5 E

(acres) (tons/acre-month) (days/pad) (hours/day) (lb/pad) (lb

0.45 1.2 4 8 52.36 1

Pipeline Construction Emissions (lb/day/pad) 13.09 

Pipeline Construction Emissions (lb/hr/pad) 1.64 

1 Pipeline construction area = 0.15-mi x 25-ft ROW = 0.45 acres.2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM2.5 size 

 monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

4 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM2.5 size 

Table B.1.13

Pipeline Construction

B-17
TRC Environmental Corporation Project

605 Skyline Drive ScenarioLaramie, WY 82070 ActivityPhone: (307) 742-3843 EmissionsFax: (307) 745-8317 

Date

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

pad

RT 

Distance VMT4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.5 

Emission 

Factor5

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VMT) 

Semis/transport, boom, equipment, water removal, sand, and gravel trucks1

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 8 14 112 85 1.87 0.29 

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 8 5 40 50 1.87 0.29 

Light truck/pick-ups Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 12 14 168 85 0.23 0.03 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 12 5 60 50 0.23 0.03 

 Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/pad

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/pad)

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs, average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as Emissions (lb/pad); 4 (days/pad); 8 (hours/day); and represents emissions over 9.5-mile segment of road.

Table B.1.14

Pipeline Construction Traffic

B-18
TRC Environmental Corporation P

605 Skyline Drive SceLaramie, WY 82070 AcPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emis

Heavy 

Equipment

Engine 

Horsepower

Number 

Required

Operating 

Load 

Factor Pollutant Emission Factor 1

Construction 

Activity Duration

Construction 

Activity 

Duration Pollutant Emissions 

(hp) (g/hp-hr) (days/equip type) (hours/day) (lb/well) 

CO NOx SO2 VOC PM10 CO NOx SO2 VOC PM106 CO 

Grader 200 1 0.4 1.54 7.14 0.874 0.36 0.625 2 8 4.35 20.15 2.47 1.02 1.76 0.27 

Excavator2 300 1 0.4 2.15 7.81 0.851 0.75 0.692 4 8 18.20 66.12 7.20 6.35 5.86 0.57 

Trencher3 300 1 0.4 4.6 11.01 0.932 1.01 0.902 1 8 9.74 23.30 1.97 2.14 1.91 1.22 

Tractor4 

( )

150 1 0.4 7.34 11.91 0.851 1.76 1.27 2 8 15.53 25.21 1.80 3.72 2.69 0.97 

Total Emissions from Heavy Equipment Tailpipes 47.82 134.77 13.44 13.23 12.22 3.03 

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources; g/hp-hr = grams per horsepower-hour.2 Emission factor for track-type tractor.3 Emission factor for miscellaneous.4 Emissions factor for wheeled tractor.5 Calculated as lb/well; days/equipment type; 8 hours/day.6 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for combustion sources.

Table B.1.15

Pipeline Heavy Equipment Tailpipe

B-19
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pr

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad, Resource RPhone: (307) 742-3843 ConstructionFax: (307) 745-8317 Emissions: Wind Erosion

Date:

Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Indust

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 50 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Construction: 3.8 acres 15,378.60 m2

Access Road Construction: 1.3455 acres 5,445.24 m2 (based on 74-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile 

Pipeline Construction 0.45 acres 1,821.15 m2 (based on 25-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile Source Parameters148 1-km area sourcessigma z = 2.33 mPM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM10 

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissio

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/sec

Well Pad Construction: 0.3733 0.1493 153.79 50 28.70 11.48 3.62 Resource Road Construction 0.3733 0.1493 54.45 50 10.16 4.07 1.28 Pipeline Construction 0.3733 0.1493 18.21 50 3.40 1.36 0.43 

Table B.1.16

Construction Wind Erosion - 1 Well Per Pad

3/24/2004

B-20
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 2 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad ConstructionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate EmissionsFax: (307) 745-8317 from Well Pad Construction

Date: 3/24/2004

Well Pad 

Area

Construction 

Activity TSP 

Emission Factor1

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)2

PM2.5 Emis

(controlle

(acre) (tons/acre-month) (days/well pad) (hours/day) (%) (lb/well) (lb/we

7.0 1.2 4 10 50 403.20 106.4

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/day/well) 100.80 26.60

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/hr/well) 10.08 2.66

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM10 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM2.5 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

Table B.1.17

Well Pad/Resource Road Construction - 2 Wells per Pad

B-22
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 5 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad ConstructionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Well Pad Construction

Date: 3/24/2004

Well Pad 

Area

Construction 

Activity TSP 

Emission Factor1

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)2

PM2.5 Emis

(controlle

(acre) (tons/acre-month) (days/well pad) (hrs/day) (%) (lb/well) (lb/wel

10.0 1.2 4 10 50 576.00 152.00

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/day/well) 144.00 38.00

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/hr/well) 14.40 3.80

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM10 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM 2.5 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

Table B.1.18

Well Pad/Resource Road Construction - 5 Wells per Pad

B-23
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 10 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad ConstructionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 Well Pad Construction

Date: 3/24/2004

Well Pad 

Area

Construction 

Activity TSP 

Emission Factor1

Construction Activity 

Duration

Construction 

Activity Duration

Emission Control 

Efficiency

PM10 Emissions 

(controlled)2

PM2.5 Emis

(controlle

(acre) (tons/acre-month) (days/well pad) (hrs/day) (%) (lb/well) (lb/wel

10.0 1.2 4 10 50 576.00 152.00

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/day/well) 144.00 38.00

Well Pad Construction Emissions (lb/hr/well) 14.40 3.80

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.3, "Heavy Construction Operations".2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 36% of the TSP is in the PM10 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", Background Document. Assuming that 9.5% of the TSP is in the PM 2.5 

 size range, monthly emissions converted to daily and hourly emissions based on 30-day month.

Table B.1.19

Well Pad/Resource Road Construction - 10 Wells per Pad

B-24
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah In

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: DirectioLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Rig MovPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Tra

Date:

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3

RTs per 

Well

RT 

Distance VMT4

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor5

PM2.

Emissi

Facto

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (miles) (VMT/pad) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VM

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

44,000 20 5.1 2.4 168 14 2,352 85 1.70 0.26 

Resource water 44,000 15 5.1 2.4 168 5 840 50 1.70 0.26 

Logging/mud trucks Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

48,000 20 5.1 2.4 12 14 168 85 1.77 0.27 

Resource water 48,000 15 5.1 2.4 12 5 60 50 1.77 0.27 

Roustabouts/welders/ hot-shot/contract labor

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

20,000 30 5.1 2.4 24 14 336 85 1.19 0.18 

Resource water 20,000 20 5.1 2.4 24 5 120 50 1.19 0.18 

Vendors/marketers/ various

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 36 14 504 85 0.56 0.083 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 36 5 180 50 0.46 0.068 

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/w

Total Unpaved Road Traffic Emissions (lb/hr/w

1 Semi vehicle weight range is 28,000-60,000 lbs; average weight of 44,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance.5 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.6 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/pad x control efficiency.7 Calculated as (lb/well); 26 days/well; 24 hours/day; and represents emissions for 9.5-mile segment of road. Total duration is 26 days for a directional well, including rig m

Table B.1.20

Rig Move and Drilling Traffic – Directional Drilling

Semis-tractor/ trailer/mud/water/fuel/ cement trucks1

3/24/200

B-25
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling P

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Rig Move and DrillinPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EFax: (307) 745-8317 from Heavy Equipme

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Haul 

Truck RTs RT Distance

Total Haul 

Truck Miles 

Traveled

Haul Activity 

Duration

Haul Activity 

Duration Emissions 

(g/mile) (RTs/well) (miles/RT) (miles/well) (days/well) (hrs/day) (lb/well) 

CO 14.74 216 19 4,104 26 24 133.36 

NOx 11.44 216 19 4,104 26 24 103.50 

SO22 0.32 216 19 4,104 26 24 2.87 

VOC 5.69 216 19 4,104 26 24 51.48 

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Volume II Mobile Sources. Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged" with 50,000 miles, 2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density of 3 Calculated as lb/well; 26 days/well; 24 hours/day.

Table B.1.21

Rig Move and Drilling Haul Truck Tailpipe - Directional Drilling

B-26
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proj

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EmisFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - E

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total Horsepower All 

Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions E

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (

CO 0.00668 2,600 0.42 23 24 4,050.56 NOx 0.03100 2,600 0.42 23 24 18,797.53 

SO2

4 0.00205 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,243.06 

VOC 0.00250 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,515.93 PM10

5 0.00220 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,334.02 

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperat 675 Kelvin

Diameter 0.2 mVelocity 30 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for drilling rigs

1 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 3.3, "Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines"; lb/hp-hr = pounds per horsepower-hour.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on four engines, two at 800 hp and two at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheets for G4312, gas petroleum drilling en

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.22

Drilling Emission AP-42 - Directional Drilling

B-27
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pro

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EmFax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA 

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total Horsepower All 

Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions 

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) 

CO 0.0187 2,600 0.42 23 24 11,363.04 NOx 0.015 2,600 0.42 23 24 9,224.12 

SO2

4 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 

VOC 0.0022 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,336.83 

PM10

5 0.00088 2,600 0.42 23 24 534.73 

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 675 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 30 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for drilling rigs

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 No

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on four engines, two at 800 hp and two at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheets for G4312, gas petroleum drilling engine

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.23

Drilling Emissions –Tier 1- Directional Drilling

B-28
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pr

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EFax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA 

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions 

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hrs/day) (lb/well) 

CO 0.0057 2,600 0.42 23 24 3,475.75 NOx 0.0090 2,600 0.42 23 24 5,481.00 

SO2

4 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 

VOC 0.0004 2,600 0.42 23 24 223.12 PM10

5 0.00033 2,600 0.42 23 24 200.52 

Stack ParametersHeight 5 mTemperature 675 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 30 m/s5 x 5 x 5 m structure used to determine downwash parameters for drilling rigs

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 No

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on four engines, two at 800 hp and two at 500 hp.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

4 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate calculated from Caterpillar's specification sheets for G4312, gas petroleum drilling engin

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Table B.1.24

Drilling Emissions - Tier 2 - Directional Drilling

B-29
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pro

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 2 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad, Resource RoPhone: (307) 742-3843 ConstructionFax: (307) 745-8317 Emissions: Wind Erosion

Date: 3/24/2004

Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industr

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 50 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Construction: 7 acres 28,329.00 m2

Access Road Construction: 1.3455 acres 5,445.24 m2 (based on 74-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile 

Pipeline Construction 0.45 acres 1,821.15 m2 (based on 25-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM1

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissi

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/se

Well Pad Construction 0.3733 0.1493 283.29 50 52.87 21.15 6.66 Resource Road Construction 0.3733 0.1493 54.45 50 10.16 4.07 1.28 Pipeline Construction 0.3733 0.1493 18.21 50 3.40 1.36 0.43 

Table B.1.25 

Wind Erosion – 2 Wells per Pad

B-30
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling P

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 5 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad, Resource RPhone: (307) 742-3843 ConstructionFax: (307) 745-8317 Emissions: Wind Erosion

Date: 3/24/2004

Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Indus

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 50 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Construction: 10 acres 40,470.00 m2

Access Road Construction: 1.3455 acres 5,445.24 m2 (based on 74-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile 

Pipeline Construction 0.45 acres 1,821.15 m2 (based on 25-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emis

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/s

Well Pad Construction 0.3733 0.1493 404.70 50 75.53 30.21 9.Resource Road Construction 0.3733 0.1493 54.45 50 10.16 4.07 1.Pipeline Construction 0.3733 0.1493 18.21 50 3.40 1.36 0.

Table B.1.26 

Wind Erosion – 5 Wells per Pad

B-31
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pro

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 10 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Well Pad, Resource RoPhone: (307) 742-3843 ConstructionFax: (307) 745-8317 Emissions: Wind Erosion

Date: 3/24/2004

Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industr

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 50 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Construction: 10 acres 40,470.00 m2

Access Road Construction: 1.3455 acres 5,445.24 m2 (based on 74-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile 

Pipeline Construction 0.45 acres 1,821.15 m2 (based on 25-ft ROW width, 0.15-mile PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM1

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissi

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/se

Well Pad Construction 0.3733 0.1493 404.70 50 75.53 30.21 9.52 Resource Road Construction 0.3733 0.1493 54.45 50 10.16 4.07 1.28 Pipeline Construction 0.3733 0.1493 18.21 50 3.40 1.36 0.43 

Table B.1.27 

Wind Erosion – 10 Wells per Pad

B-32
TRC Environmental Proje

605 Skyline Drive ScenaLaramie, WY 82070 ActivPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissio

Fax: (307) 745-8317 

Da

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3 

RTs per 

Well4 RT Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

PM2.5 

Emissio

Facto

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VM

Workover Rig Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

90,000 20 5.1 2.4 1 14 14 85 2.35 0.36 

Resource water 90,000 15 5.1 2.4 1 5 5 50 2.35 0.36 

Haul trucks (water/condensate)1

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 35 14 490 85 1.87 0.29 

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 35 5 175 50 1.87 0.29 

Light trucks/ pickups/pumpers 8 

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 122 14 1,708 85 0.56 0.08 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 122 5 610 50 0.46 0.07 

 Total Access and Unimproved Road Emissions (lb/well/

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs. Average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Includes Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions system (SCADA). SCADA is being installed at wells to increase production efficiency by providing real-time operating data to 

 and pressures, processing equipment operating conditions, tank levels, and emissions control equipment status. SCADA implementation is expected to reduce well site visits b spills.

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field m

Table B.2.1 

Production Traffic – 1 Well per Pad

B-33
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production TrafficPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion EmissioFax: (307) 745-8317 from Heavy Equipment Tai

Date: 3/24/2004

Pollutant

Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Annual RTs per Well

Single Well Round 

Trip Distance

Single Well Annual 

VMT

Hourly Emissions 

Single Well

Annual 

Sing

(g/mi) (RTs/well/yr) (mi/RT) (mi/well/yr) (lb/hr) 

CO 14.74 35 19 665.00 0.002467 0.NOx 11.44 35 19 665.00 0.001915 0.

SO22 0.32 35 19 665.00 0.000054 0.

VOC 5.69 35 19 665.00 0.000952 0.

1 AP-42 (EPA 1985), Table 2.7.1 "Volume II Mobile Sources." Heavy duty diesel engine powered trucks, high altitude, 20 mph, "aged"

 with 50,000 miles, 1997+ model.

2 The SO2 emission factor is calculated assuming 10 mpg fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel density o

Table B.2.2 

Production Heavy Equipment Tailpipe – 1 Well per Pad

B-34
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Emissions from Indirect HeaterFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 1/26/04Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Indirect Heater Design Firing Rate (MMBTU/hr) 0.75Operating Parameters:Operating cycle 15 min/hr September to AprilOperating hours 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 213 days/yr.Annual Operating Hours 1,277.5Capacity (%) 100Annual Load (%): Winter 43.75 Spring 12.5

 Summer 0 Fall 43.75

Actual Fuel Combustion for the Year per Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 0.96 MMSCFHeat Content 1,000.00 Btu/scfBuilding Size (approximate):Width 8.00 ftLength 15.00 ftHeight 7 ftPotential Emission Data:

From Stack Testing Actual2 Actual Method of Emission 

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (tpy) Determination Factors Units

Filterable Particulate -- 0.0034 0.002 AP-42 4.5 lb/MMscf

Condensable Particulate -- 0.0056 0.004 AP-42 7.5 lb/MMscfTotal PM -- 0.0090 0.006VOC -- 0.0060 0.004 AP-42 8.0 lb/MMscfCO 0.291 0.073 0.19 Stack Testing1

NOx 0.034 0.0085 0.022 Stack Testing1SO2 -- 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.0 lb/MMscf

1 Stack testing data for this heater was provided by EnCana and included five separate tests of NOx and CO emissions. 

 NOx and CO were the only pollutants for which stack testing emission were provided. The maximum of the stack test  emissions was used for calculations.

2 Actual lb/hr calculated using stack testing lb/hr * 15 min/hr * 60 min/hr.

Table B.2.3 

Indirect Heater

B-35
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Low-pressure SeparatorFax: (307) 745-8317 Heater

Date: 1/26/04

Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Low-pressure Separator BurnerDesign Firing Rate (MMBTU/hr) 0.085Operating Parameters:Operating cycle 7.5 min/hr September to AprilOperating hours 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 213 days/yr.Annual Operating hours 638.75Capacity (%) 100Annual Load (%): Winter 43.75 Spring 12.5

 Summer 0 Fall 43.75

Actual Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 0.05 MMSCF 1000

Heat Content 1,000 Btu/scfBuilding Size:Width 8.00 ftLength 15.00 ftHeight 7.00 ftPotential Emission Data:

From Stack Testing Actual2 Actual Method of Emission 

lb/hr lb/hr tpy Determination Factors Units

Filterable Particulate 0.00038 0.00012 AP-42 4.5 lb/MMscfCondensable Particulate 0.00064 0.00020 AP-42 7.5 lb/MMscfTotal PM 0.0010 0.00033SO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.0 lb/MMscf

NOx 0.0100 0.0013 0.0032 Stack Testing1

CO 0.138 0.0173 0.044 Stack Testing1VOC 0.00068 0.00022 AP-42 8.0 lb/MMscf

1 Stack testing data for this heater was provided by EnCana and included five separate tests of NOx and CO emissions. 

 NOx and CO were the only pollutants for which stack testing emission were provided. The maximum of the stack test  emissions was used for calculations.

2 Actual lb/hr calculated using stack testing lb/hr * 7.5 min/hr * 60 min/hr.

Table B.2.4 

Separator Heater

B-36
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Dehy Reboiler HeaterFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 1/26/04Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Reboiler HeaterDesign Firing Rate (MMBTU/hr) 0.085Operating Parameters:Operating cycle 35 min/hr year roundOperating hours 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.Annual Operating hours 5,110Capacity (%) 100Annual Load (%): Winter 25 Spring 25

 Summer 25 Fall 25

Actual Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 0.43 MMSCFHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfBuilding Size:Width 8.00 ftLength 15.00 ftHeight 7.00 ftPotential Emission Data:

From Stack Testing Actual2 Actual Method of Emission 

lb/hr lb/hr tpy Determination Factors Units

Filterable Particulate -- 0.00038 0.0010 AP-42 4.5 lb/MMscf

Condensable Particulate -- 0.00064 0.0016 AP-42 7.5 lb/MMscfTotal PM -- 0.00102 0.0026SO2 -- 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.0 lb/MMscf

NOx 0.0080 0.0047 0.020 Stack Testing1

CO 0.080 0.047 0.20 Stack Testing1VOC -- 0.00068 0.0017 AP-42 8.0 lb/MMscf

1 Stack testing data for this heater was provided by EnCana and included five separate tests of NOx and CO emissions. 

 NOx and CO were the only pollutants for which stack testing emission were provided. The maximum of the stack test  emissions was used for calculations.

2 Actual lb/hr calculated by using stack testing lb/hr * 35 min/hr * 60 min/hr.

Table B.2.5 

Dehydrator Reboiler Heater

B-37
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: TEG Dehydrator FlashingFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003

Uncontrolled Controlled

Pollutant (tpy)1 (tpy)1VOC 12.78 1.20HAP 6.75 0.68Benzene 1.55 0.15Toluene 3.18 0.35Ethylbenzene 0.15 0.01Xylene 1.70 0.15n-Hexane 0.16 0.02

1 Data provided by EnCana. Assumes 75% of the wells have a pump limit and 25% of the wells have BTEX control.

Dehydrator Flashing

Table B.2.6 

B-38
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProduPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: FugitiFax: (307) 745-8317 Date:Gas Analysis Weight FractionVOC 0.18378 Benzene 0.00054 Toluene 0.00085 Ethlybenzene 0.00004 Xylene 0.00038 n-hexane 0.00176 

Emission Factor1 Non-methane Hydrocarbons2 Non-methane Hydrocarbons Benzene2 Benzene Toluene2 Toluene Ethlybenzene2 Ethlybenzene Xylen

Source Quantity (lb/hr/component) (lb/hr) (tpy) (lb/hr) (tpy) (lb/hr) (tpy) (lb/hr) (tpy) (lb/hValves 16 0.00992 0.0292 0.128 0.00009 0.00038 0.00014 0.00059 0.000006 0.000028 0.000Flanges 38 0.00086 0.0060 0.026 0.00002 0.00008 0.00003 0.00012 0.000001 0.000006 0.000Connections 94 0.00044 0.0076 0.033 0.00002 0.00010 0.00004 0.00015 0.000002 0.000007 0.000Pump seals 8 0.00529 0.0078 0.034 0.00002 0.00010 0.00004 0.00016 0.000002 0.000007 0.000Open ended lines 6 0.00441 0.0049 0.021 0.00001 0.00006 0.00002 0.00010 0.000001 0.000005 0.000

Total Emissions/Well 0.0554 0.243 0.00016 0.00071 0.00026 0.00113 0.000012 0.000053 0.000

1 Taken from the WDEQ (2001) "Oil and Gas Production Facilities Chapter 6, Section 2 Permitting Guidance". 2 Calculated as weight fraction * emissions factor * quantity of source. 

Table B.2.7 

 Fugitive HAPs and VOC

10/30/

B-39
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Condensate Storage TankFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003VOC 1 tpy/tank NOx Emission Factor2 0.068 lb/MMBTU

HAP 0.1 tpy/tank CO Emission Factor2 0.37 lb/MMBTU

Benzene 0.0024 tpy/tank Heat Content 1,000 Btu/scfToluene 0.0001 tpy/tank Condensate Production 25.30 bbl/dayEthylbenzene 0.0014 tpy/tank Gas to Oil Ratio3 957.37 scf/bbl

Xylene 0.0018 tpy/tank Gas Production 24,221.46 SCFDn-Hexane 0.0443 tpy/tank

Combustion Emissions from Storage Tanks

These wells average 25.3 bbls NOx 0.30 tpy/tank

of condensate per day. CO 1.64 tpy/tank

VOC 15.9 tpy/tankHAP 0.8 tpy/tankBenzene 0.0367 tpy/tankToluene 0.0021 tpy/tankEthylbenzene 0.022 tpy/tankXylene 0.0279 tpy/tankn-Hexane 0.6891 tpy/tankThese wells average 7.9 bbls of condensate per day. 

1 Provided by EnCana.2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.5-1, "Emission Factors for Flare Operations."3 Taken from Tank Oil Analysis Global Properties.

Table B.2.8 

Condensate Storage Tank

Uncontrolled Storage Tank Emissions1

NOx and CO Emissions from Smokeless Flare 

Combustion

Storage Tank with Control (assuming 98% control)1 

VOC and HAP Emissions

B-40
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProductionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Jonah Water Disposal WellFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/31/2004Unit Description Jonah Water Disposal WellEngine Design (hp) 400Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Stack ParametersHeight 6.1 mTemperature 832 KelvinDiameter 0.2 mVelocity 16.7 m/sEmissions Data: lb/hr tpy NOx 0.90 3.9

 CO 0.90 3.9 VOC 0.90 3.9 Formaldehyde 0.10 0.2

Table B.2.9 

Jonah Water Disposal Well

B-41
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field ComprePhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Duke Field Services Bird CanyFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Bird Canyon Compressor StationEngine design (hp) 11,004Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 636.30 MMSCFAssumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1000 Btu/scfEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.00008 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.00008 lb/MMscfSO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscfNOx 17.0 74.4 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

CO 7.3 31.9 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 12.1 53.1 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hrFormaldehyde 1.9 8.5 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 2 Emission rates taken from Bird Canyon Permit for an engine with 0.7g/hp-hr NOx.

Table B.2.10 

Bird Canyon Compressor Station

B-42
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Pinedale Anticline CoPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions:Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Falcon Compressor StationEngine design (hp/hr) 7,336Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 424.20 MMSCFAssumes gas consumed at rate of 6,601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.0000771 lb/MMscfSO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscfNOx 11.3 49.6 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

CO 4.9 21.3 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 8.1 35.4 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hrFormaldehyde 1.3 5.7 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline Permit for an engine with 0.7g/hphr NOx.

Duke Field Services Falcon C.S.

Table B.2.11 

Falcon Compressor Station

B-43
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Pinedale Anticline CPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions:Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Gobblers Knob Compressor Station (Comprised of Pinedale, Mesa 1, and Mesa 2)Engine design (hp/hr) 10,000Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 578.25 MMSCFAssumes gas consumed at rate of 6,601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.0000771 lb/MMscfSO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscfNOx 15.4 67.6 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

CO 6.6 29.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 11.0 48.3 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hrFormaldehyde 1.8 7.7 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline WDEQ permit for an engine with 0.7g/hp-hr NO x.

Questar Gobblers Knob C.S.

Table B.2.12 

Gobblers Knob Compressor Station

B-44
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field CompressioPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions:Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Jonah Compressor StationEngine design (hp/hr) 3,900Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 225.52 MMSCFAssumes gas consumed at rate of 6,601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfEmission Data:

 Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.0000771 lb/MMscfSO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscfNOx 6.0 26.4 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hrCO 2.6 11.3 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hrVOC 4.3 18.8 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hrFormaldehyde 0.7 3.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline Permit for an engine with 0.7g/hp-hr NOx.

Mountain Gas Resources Jonah C

Table B.2.13 

Jonah Compressor Station

B-45
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field Compression

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions:

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Luman Compressor Station

Engine design (hp/hr) 11,604

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr

Operating hours 8,760

Capacity (%) 100 (while operating)

 Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 671.00 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6,601 Btu/hp-hr

Heat Content 1,000 Btu/scf

Emission Data for 11,004 hp: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr TPY Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

SO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

NOx 17.9 78.4 BACT 0.70 g/hp-hr

CO 7.7 33.6 Permitted Emissions 2 0.30 g/hp-hr

VOC 12.8 56.0 Permitted Emissions 2 0.50 g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 2.0 9.0 Permitted Emissions 2 0.08 g/hp-hr

Emission Data for 600 hp: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr TPY Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 7.71E-05 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 7.71E-05 lb/MMscf

SO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

NOx 1.3 5.8 BACT 1.0 g/hp-hr

CO 0.7 2.9 Permitted Emissions 2 0.50 g/hp-hr

VOC 0.7 2.9 Permitted Emissions 2 0.50 g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 0.1 0.4 Permitted Emissions 2 0.07 g/hp-hr

Total Emissions: lb/hr TPY

PM10 0.0 0.0

PM2.5 0.0 0.0

SO2 0.0 0.0

NOx 19.2 84.2

CO 8.3 36.5

VOC 13.5 58.9

Formaldehyde 2.1 9.4

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 

2 Emission rates taken from Luman Permit MD-921.

Duke Field Services Luman C.S.

Table B.2.14 

 Luman Compressor Station 

B-46
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All ScenariosLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Pinedale Anticline ComprPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions:Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 3/24/2004Fuel Combustion Source:Unit Description Paradise Compressor StationEngine design (hp/hr) 7,336Operating Parameters:Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yrOperating hours 8,760Capacity (%) 100 (while operating) Annual Load (%) Winter 25 Spring 25

Summer 25 Fall 25

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 424.20 MMSCFAssumes gas consumed at rate of 6,601 Btu/hp-hrHeat Content 1,000 Btu/scfEmission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr tpy Determination Factor1 Units

PM10 0.0 0.0 AP-42 0.0000771 lb/MMscf

PM2.5 0.0 0.00 AP-43 0.0000771 lb/MMscfSO2 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscfNOx 11.3 49.6 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

CO 4.9 21.3 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 8.1 35.4 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hrFormaldehyde 1.3 5.7 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3 (EPA 2004). 2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline WDEQ permit for an engine with 0.7g/hp-hr NO x.

Paradise C.S.

Table B.2.15 

Paradise Compressor Station

B-47
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Pro

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 1 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProductionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Wind Erosion from WelFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industrial Wind Ero

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 0 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Production: 0.9 acres 3642.30 m2

PM-10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions E

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) 

Well Pad - Production: 0.3733 0.1493 36.42 0 13.60 5.438341379 

Table B.2.16 

Wind Erosion – 1 Well per Pad

B-48
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 2 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production TrafficPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Traffic on Unpa

Date: 3/24/2004

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed Silt Content2

Moisture 

Content3 RTs per Well4 RTs per Pad4

RT 

Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

PM2

Emiss

Fact

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (RTs/year) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VM

Workover Rig Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

90,000 20 5.1 2.4 1 na 14 14 85 2.35 0.3

Resource water 90,000 15 5.1 2.4 1 na 5 5 50 2.35 0.3

Haul trucks (water/condensate)1

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 35 na 14 490 85 1.87 0.2

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 35 na 5 175 50 1.87 0.2

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions (lb/w

Light trucks/ 

pickups/pumpers8 

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 na 122 14 1,708 85 0.56 0.0

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 na 122 5 610 50 0.46 0.0

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions (lb/p

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions - All Traffic (lb/p

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs; average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Includes Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions system (SCADA). SCADA is being installed at wells to increase production efficiency by providing real-time operating data to field staff includ

 equipment operating conditions, tank levels, and emissions control equipment status. SCADA implementation is expected to reduce well site visits by 30-40% and reduce potential for spills.

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field modeled emissio

Table B.2.17 

Production Traffic – 2 Wells per Pad

B-49
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 5 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production TrafficPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulate 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Traffic on Unp

Date: 3/24/2004

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3 

RTs per 

Well4 RTs per Pad4 RT Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

PM2.

Emiss

Facto

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (RTs/year) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb/VM

Workover Rig Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

90,000 20 5.1 2.4 1 na 14 14 85 2.35 0.36 

Resource water 90,000 15 5.1 2.4 1 na 5 5 50 2.35 0.36 

Haul trucks (water/condensate)1

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 35 na 14 490 85 1.87 0.29 

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 35 na 5 175 50 1.87 0.29 

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions (lb/we

Light trucks/ pickups/pumpers8 

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 na 122 14 1,708 85 0.56 0.08 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 na 122 5 610 50 0.46 0.07 

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions (lb/pad

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions - All Traffic (lb/pad

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs; average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Includes Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions system (SCADA). SCADA is being installed at wells to increase production efficiency by providing real-time operating data to field staff 

 processingequipment operating conditions, tank levels, and emissions control equipment status. SCADA implementation is expected to reduce well site visits by 30-40% and reduce pote

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field modeled em

Table B.2.18 

Production Traffic – 5 Wells per Pad

B-50
TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling 

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 10 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: Production TrafficPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Fugitive Particulat

Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Traffic on Un

Date: 3/24/2004

Vehicle Type Road Type

Dust Control Method

Average 

Vehicle 

Weight

Average 

Vehicle 

Speed

Silt 

Content2

Moisture 

Content3 

RTs per 

Well4 RTs per Pad4 RT Distance VMT5

Emission 

Control 

Efficiency

PM10 

Emission 

Factor6

Em

F

(lb) (mph) (%) (%) (RTs/yr) (RTs/year) (miles) (VMT/well/yr) (%) (lb/VMT) (lb

Workover Rig Primary 

Access

magnesium chloride

90,000 20 5.1 2.4 1 na 14 14 85 2.35 

Resource water 90,000 15 5.1 2.4 1 na 5 5 50 2.35 

Haul trucks (water/condensate)1

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

54,000 20 5.1 2.4 35 na 14 490 85 1.87 

Resource water 54,000 15 5.1 2.4 35 na 5 175 50 1.87 

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions 

Light trucks/ 

pickups/pumpers8 

Primary Access

magnesium chloride

7,000 30 5.1 2.4 na 122 14 1,708 85 0.56 

Resource water 7,000 20 5.1 2.4 na 122 5 610 50 0.46 

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions 

 Total Unpaved Road Emissions - All Traffic 

1 Haul trucks weight range is 28,000-80,000 lbs; average weight of 54,000 lbs used for calculations. 2 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 13.2.2-1, "Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Material on Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads."3 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Table 11.9-3, "Typical Values for Correction Factors Applicable to the Predictive Emission Factor Equations."4 Includes Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions system (SCADA). SCADA is being installed at wells to increase production efficiency by providing real-time operating data to field staff inclu

 processing equipment operating conditions, tank levels, and emissions control equipment status. SCADA implementation is expected to reduce well site visits by 30-40% and reduce potential f

5 Calculated as Round Trips per Vehicle Type x Round Trip Distance6 AP-42 (EPA 2004), Section 13.2.2 "Unpaved Roads", equations 1a and 1b.7 Calculated as lb/VMT x VMT/well x control efficiency.8 Emissions based on trip frequency and miles traveled to one well in the field. During production, 20 wells could be visited per day. This assumption will be reflected in full-field modeled emissio

Table B.2.19 

Production Traffic – 10 Wells per Pad

B-51
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proje

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 2 wells per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProductionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Wind Erosion from Well PFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industrial 

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 0 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Production: 1.2 acres 4,856.40

m2

PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM10 

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissio

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2

) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/sec

Well Pad - Production 0.3733 0.1493 48.56 0 18.13 7.251121838 2.28 

Table B.2.20 

Wind Erosion – 2 Wells per Pad

B-52
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proje

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 5 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProductionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Wind Erosion from Well PFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industrial 

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 0 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Production: 2 acres 8,094.00

m2

PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM10 

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissio

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2

) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/sec

Well Pad - Production 0.3733 0.1493 80.94 0 30.21 12.08520306 3.81 

Table B.2.21 

Wind Erosion – 5 Wells per Pad

B-53
TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Proje

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 10 well per padLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: ProductionPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Wind Erosion from Well PFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 10/30/2003Emission Factor : 0.3733 lb/hr/100m2 Based on AP-42 Chapter 13.2.5 (EPA 2004), Industrial 

using Jonah Field, Wyoming meteorological data.

Control Efficiency: 0 %Disturbed Area:Well Pad Production: 2 acres 8,094.00

m2

PM10 Emissions Calculations:

PM10 PM2.5 Control PM10 PM2.5 PM10 

Emission Factor Emission Factor Area Efficiency Emissions Emissions Emissio

(lb/hr/100 m2) (lb/hr/100 m2) (100 m2

) (%) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/sec

Well Pad - Production 0.3733 0.1493 80.94 0 30.21 12.08520306 3.81 

Table B.2.22 

Wind Erosion – 10 Wells per Pad

B-54
Note: Based on a ratio of 79% 2 BCF wells and 21% 4 BCF wells and a representative composite gas analysis. 

Table B.2.23 Relative Decline Curve for a Typical Jonah Field Well

0

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.2

1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133 145 

Months

Relative Change

B55
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of new Wells 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 100Total Wells 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3100

Construction Emissions: NOx 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 701.8 280.7

CO 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 396.5 158.6 SO2 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 10.5 PM10 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 147.3 PM2.5 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.3 37.3 VOCs 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 2955.7 1182.3 Benzene 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 8.2 Toluene 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 22.1 Ethylbenzene 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.2 Xylene 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 34.3 n-hexane 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 26.4 Total HAPs 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 93.2 

Production Emissions: NOx 50.9 101.8 152.7 203.6 254.5 305.4 356.3 407.2 458.1 509.0 559.9 610.8 631.1 

CO 316.2 632.4 948.6 1264.8 1581.0 1897.2 2213.4 2529.6 2845.8 3162.0 3478.2 3794.4 3920.9 SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PM10 76.4 152.8 229.2 305.6 382.0 458.4 534.9 611.3 687.7 764.1 840.5 916.9 947.5PM2.5 13.5 26.9 40.4 53.9 67.4 80.8 94.3 107.8 121.2 134.7 148.2 161.6 167.0VOCs 4647.0 5901.7 6784.7 7528.2 8178.8 8738.6 9248.1 9718.4 10157.1 10577.7 10973.1 11344.8 8906.0Benzene 305.1 387.4 445.4 494.2 536.9 573.7 607.1 638.0 666.8 694.4 720.4 744.8 584.7Toluene 618.7 785.7 903.3 1002.3 1088.9 1163.4 1231.2 1293.9 1352.3 1408.3 1460.9 1510.4 1185.7Ethylbenzene 31.7 40.2 46.3 51.3 55.8 59.6 63.1 66.3 69.3 72.1 74.8 77.4 60.7Xylene 332.0 421.6 484.7 537.8 584.3 624.3 660.6 694.2 725.6 755.6 783.9 810.4 636.2n-hexane 123.5 156.8 180.3 200.1 217.4 232.2 245.8 258.3 269.9 281.1 291.6 301.5 236.7Total HAPs 1410.9 1791.8 2059.9 2285.7 2483.2 2653.2 2610.3 2950.6 3083.8 3211.5 3331.6 3444.4 2704.0

Total Yearly Emissions: NOx 752.6 803.5 854.4 905.3 956.2 1007.1 1058.0 1108.9 1159.8 1210.7 1261.6 1312.5 911.8

CO 712.7 1028.9 1345.1 1661.3 1977.5 2293.7 2609.9 2926.1 3242.3 3558.5 3874.7 4190.9 4079.5SO2 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 10.5PM10 444.7 521.1 597.5 673.9 750.3 826.7 903.1 979.5 1055.9 1132.3 1208.7 1285.1 1094.8PM2.5 106.7 120.2 133.7 147.1 160.6 174.1 187.5 201.0 214.5 228.0 241.4 254.9 204.3VOCs 7602.7 8857.4 9740.3 10483.9 11134.4 11694.3 12203.8 12674.0 13112.8 13533.4 13928.8 14300.5 10088.2Benzene 325.7 408.0 466.0 514.8 557.5 594.3 627.7 658.6 687.4 715.0 741.0 765.4 592.9Toluene 673.9 840.9 958.5 1057.5 1144.1 1218.6 1286.4 1349.1 1407.5 1463.5 1516.1 1565.6 1207.8Ethylbenzene 37.1 45.6 51.6 56.7 61.2 65.0 68.4 71.6 74.6 77.5 80.2 82.7 62.9Xylene 417.7 507.3 570.4 623.5 670.0 710.0 746.4 780.0 811.3 841.4 869.6 896.2 670.5n-hexane 189.5 222.8 246.3 266.1 283.4 298.2 311.8 324.3 335.9 347.1 357.6 367.5 263.1Total HAPs 1643.8 2024.8 2292.8 2518.6 2716.1 2886.1 2843.2 3183.6 3316.8 3444.5 3564.5 3677.4 2797.1

1 Decline curve that multipliers are based on can be found as B.2.23

Table B.2.24 - Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year (Tons per Year) - Alternative A and Proposed Action

B-56
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ... 2045

# of new Wells 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 ... 75Total Wells 75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 ... 3075

Construction Emissions: NOx 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 285.9 ... 285.9

CO 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 167.6 ... 167.6 SO2 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 ... 8.8 PM10 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 109.4 ... 109.4 PM2.5 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 ... 28.8 VOCs 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 895.9 ... 895.9 Benzene 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 ... 6.2 Toluene 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 ... 16.6 Ethylbenzene 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 ... 1.6 Xylene 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 ... 25.7 n-hexane 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 ... 19.8 Total HAPs 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 69.9 ... 69.9 

Production Emissions: NOx 15.3 30.5 45.8 61.1 76.3 91.6 106.9 122.2 137.4 152.7 168.0 183.2 198.5 ... 626.0 

CO 94.9 189.7 284.6 379.4 474.3 569.2 664.0 758.9 853.7 948.6 1043.5 1138.3 1233.2 ... 3889.3 SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... 0.0 PM10 22.9 45.8 68.8 91.7 114.6 137.5 160.5 183.4 206.3 229.2 252.1 275.1 298.0 ... 939.8PM2.5 4.0 8.1 12.1 16.2 20.2 24.2 28.3 32.3 36.4 40.4 44.5 48.5 52.5 ... 165.7VOCs 1394.1 1770.5 2035.4 2258.5 2453.6 2621.6 2774.4 2915.5 3047.1 3173.3 3291.9 3403.4 2671.8 ... 4548.6Benzene 91.5 116.2 133.6 148.3 161.1 172.1 182.1 191.4 200.0 208.3 216.1 223.4 175.4 ... 305.1Toluene 185.6 235.7 271.0 300.7 326.7 349.0 369.4 388.2 405.7 422.5 438.3 453.1 355.7 ... 618.5Ethylbenzene 9.5 12.1 13.9 15.4 16.7 17.9 18.9 19.9 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 18.2 ... 31.6Xylene 99.6 126.5 145.4 161.3 175.3 187.3 198.2 208.3 217.7 226.7 235.2 243.1 190.9 ... 332.0n-hexane 37.1 47.1 54.1 60.0 65.2 69.7 73.7 77.5 81.0 84.3 87.5 90.5 71.0 ... 123.5Total HAPs 423.3 537.6 618.0 685.7 745.0 795.9 842.4 885.2 925.2 963.5 999.5 1033.3 811.2 ... 1410.8

Total Yearly Emissions: NOx 301.2 316.4 331.7 347.0 362.2 377.5 392.8 408.1 423.3 438.6 453.9 469.1 484.4 ... 911.9

CO 262.5 357.3 452.2 547.1 641.9 736.8 831.6 926.5 1021.4 1116.2 1211.1 1305.9 1400.8 ... 4056.9SO2 8.8 9.8 10.8 11.8 12.8 13.8 14.8 15.8 16.8 17.8 18.8 19.8 20.8 ... 48.8PM10 132.3 155.2 178.1 201.0 224.0 246.9 269.8 292.7 315.7 338.6 361.5 384.4 407.3 ... 1049.2PM2.5 32.8 36.9 40.9 45.0 49.0 53.0 57.1 61.1 65.2 69.2 73.3 77.3 81.3 ... 194.5VOCs 2290.0 2666.4 2931.3 3154.4 3349.6 3517.5 3670.4 3811.4 3943.1 4069.3 4187.9 4299.4 3567.7 ... 5444.5Benzene 97.7 122.4 139.8 154.4 167.3 178.3 188.3 197.6 206.2 214.5 222.3 229.6 181.6 ... 311.3Toluene 202.2 252.3 287.5 317.2 343.2 365.6 385.9 404.7 422.2 439.0 454.8 469.7 372.3 ... 635.1Ethylbenzene 11.1 13.7 15.5 17.0 18.3 19.5 20.5 21.5 22.4 23.3 24.1 24.8 19.8 ... 33.3Xylene 125.3 152.2 171.1 187.1 201.0 213.0 223.9 234.0 243.4 252.4 260.9 268.9 216.6 ... 357.7n-hexane 56.9 66.9 73.9 79.8 85.0 89.5 93.5 97.3 100.8 104.1 107.3 110.3 90.8 ... 143.3Total HAPs 493.1 607.4 687.9 755.6 814.8 865.8 912.2 955.1 995.0 1033.3 1069.4 1103.2 881.1 ... 1480.7

1 Decline curve that multipliers are based on can be found as B.2.23

Table B.2.25 - Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year (Tons per Year) - Alternative B

B-57
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

# of new Wells 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 100Total Wells 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3100

Construction Emissions: NOx 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 580.6 232.2

CO 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 432.5 173.0 

SO2 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 13.6 PM10 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 107.1 42.9 

PM2.5 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 39.0 VOCs 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 2962.7 1185.1 Benzene 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 8.2 Toluene 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.2 22.1 Ethylbenzene 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.2 

Xylene 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.8 34.3 n-hexane 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 26.4 Total HAPs 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 232.9 93.2 

Production Emissions: NOx 10.2 20.4 30.5 40.7 50.9 61.1 71.3 81.4 91.6 101.8 112.0 122.2 126.2 

CO 316.2 632.4 948.6 1264.8 1581.0 1897.2 2213.4 2529.6 2845.8 3162.0 3478.2 3794.4 3920.9 

SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PM10 15.3 30.6 45.8 61.1 76.4 91.7 107.0 122.3 137.5 152.8 168.1 183.4 189.5PM2.5 2.7 5.4 8.1 10.8 13.5 16.2 18.9 21.6 24.2 26.9 29.6 32.3 33.4VOCs 4647.0 5901.7 6784.7 7528.2 8178.8 8738.6 9248.1 9718.4 10157.1 10577.7 10973.1 11344.8 8906.0Benzene 305.1 387.4 445.4 494.2 536.9 573.7 607.1 638.0 666.8 694.4 720.4 744.8 584.7Toluene 618.7 785.7 903.3 1002.3 1088.9 1163.4 1231.2 1293.9 1352.3 1408.3 1460.9 1510.4 1185.7Ethylbenzene 31.7 40.2 46.3 51.3 55.8 59.6 63.1 66.3 69.3 72.1 74.8 77.4 60.7Xylene 332.0 421.6 484.7 537.8 584.3 624.3 660.6 694.2 725.6 755.6 783.9 810.4 636.2n-hexane 123.5 156.8 180.3 200.1 217.4 232.2 245.8 258.3 269.9 281.1 291.6 301.5 236.7Total HAPs 1410.9 1791.8 2059.9 2285.7 2483.2 2653.2 2610.3 2950.6 3083.8 3211.5 3331.6 3444.4 2704.0

Total Yearly Emissions: NOx 590.7 600.9 611.1 621.3 631.4 641.6 651.8 662.0 672.2 682.3 692.5 702.7 358.4

CO 2956.2 3272.4 3588.6 3904.8 4221.0 4537.2 4853.4 5169.6 5485.8 5802.0 6118.2 6434.4 4976.9SO2 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 13.6PM10 122.4 137.7 153.0 168.3 183.5 198.8 214.1 229.4 244.7 259.9 275.2 290.5 232.3PM2.5 100.1 102.8 105.5 108.2 110.9 113.5 116.2 118.9 121.6 124.3 127.0 129.7 72.4VOCs 7609.7 8864.4 9747.3 10490.9 11141.4 11701.3 12210.8 12681.0 13119.8 13540.4 13935.8 14307.5 10091.0Benzene 325.7 408.0 466.0 514.8 557.5 594.3 627.7 658.6 687.4 715.0 741.0 765.4 592.9Toluene 673.9 840.9 958.5 1057.5 1144.1 1218.6 1286.4 1349.1 1407.5 1463.5 1516.1 1565.6 1207.8Ethylbenzene 37.1 45.6 51.6 56.7 61.2 65.0 68.4 71.6 74.6 77.5 80.2 82.7 62.9Xylene 417.7 507.3 570.4 623.5 670.0 710.0 746.4 780.0 811.3 841.4 869.6 896.2 670.5n-hexane 189.5 222.8 246.3 266.1 283.4 298.2 311.8 324.3 335.9 347.1 357.6 367.5 263.1Total HAPs 1643.8 2024.8 2292.8 2518.6 2716.1 2886.1 2843.2 3183.6 3316.8 3444.5 3564.5 3677.4 2797.1

Table B.2.26 - Field-wide Emissions Summary by Year (Tons per Year) - Preferred Alternative

B-58
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

APPENDIX C:

CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This appendix outlines the methodology used in the emissions inventory of industrial sources 

within the cumulative modeling domain. 

C.1 STATE AGENCY-PERMITTED INDUSTRIAL SOURCE INVENTORY 

C.1.1 State Air Quality Regulatory Authority 

The determination of sources to inventory was based on the date a source was permitted and its 

operation start-up date. The following criteria were the basis upon which sources were included 

or excluded. 

• Include sources permitted and operating January 1, 2001 – June 30, 2003. 

• Include if permitted July 1, 1999 – June 30, 2003 but not yet operating (see 

RFFA). 

• Include sources of NOx, PM10, or SO2 emissions. 

• Exclude sources permitted and operating prior to January 1, 2001; sources listed 

but with permits cancelled or rescinded; and sources with no NOx, SO2, or PM10

emissions. 

A list of permitted sources within the JIDPA modeling domain was provided by state air quality 

agencies. The inclusion/exclusion determination was made either at the initial list stage 

(depending upon the detail of the information provided), or when the physical file was examined. 

Throughout the process, excluded facilities and reason for exclusion were documented. 

For all included sources, the following information was collected. 

• County 

• Facility name 

• Unique facility ID number 

• Permit number 

• Permit issuance date 

• Operation start-up date 

• Unique source ID numbers 

and SIC codes if available 

• Source description 

• Site location (lat/long, UTM 

and zone, and/or section, 

township, and range) 

• Permitted change in NOx, 

SO2, PM10, and PM2.5

emission rate by source 

during inventory period 

• NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5

actual emission rate by 

source, if available 

• Stack exit parameters: 

height, temperature, velocity, 

diameter, and flow rate for all 

included facilities 

35982 C-1 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The change in permitted emission limits occurring during the inventory period was obtained for 

included sources, either through a physical file search or from the state agency. Actual 

emissions were obtained, if available electronically, for year 2000 and for the most recent 

reporting period available for that site (2001 or after) to allow a determination of change in 

actual emissions during the inventory period. Actual emissions were not available electronically 

for a majority of the sources. PM2.5 data were not available for sources in any state. PM2.5

emissions were calculated based on the ratio of PM2.5 to PM10 using assumptions for natural gas 

combustion, coal combustion, or fugitive particulates. 

For any modification to an included permitted source: 

• the permitted increase or decrease in emissions was determined between 

pre-January 1, 2001 and the inventory period (January 1, 2001 – June 30, 2003); 

• the permitted increase or decrease was obtained from permit documents by 

locating a description of the change or by recording both new and old permit 

limits; 

• emissions decreases were tracked for major sources only (>250 tpy); 

• emissions increases of less than 1 tpy were not tracked; 

• fugitive PM10 and NOx emissions for surface coal mine permit modifications were 

included. Annual emissions calculated in year 2000 or previous applications were 

reviewed and compared to 2003 annual emissions. The increase or decrease was 

modeled; 

• actual emissions for all included sources were reported as the difference between 

2000 reported actual emissions and 2002 reported actual emissions (or most 

recent year reported after 2000). If no 2000 data existed, no actuals were 

recorded. 

For each site, multiple stacks were combined into a single representative emission point for the 

cumulative modeling. The following methodology was used in combining the stacks. 

• Combine total change in emissions by site and pollutant. 

• Select stack parameters using the following hierarchy. 

-

-

-

-

Select stack with greatest “M” value using SCREEN method outlined in 

“Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary 

Sources, Revised”, EPA-454/R-92-019. (“M” value is a merged stack 

parameter which accounts for the relative influence of stack height, plume 

rise, and emission rate on concentrations) 

Review “M” values and, if they are not representative of the overall 

facility, use stack parameters from the single point exhibiting the highest 

emission rate. 

If stack parameters are still not representative, select worst-case 

parameters based on the potential for maximum long-range impacts (i.e., 

high temperature, stack height, exit velocity). 

If no stack parameters are available, determine the SIC code for the 

facility and substitute the stack parameters given for that SIC code in the 

EPA SIC code source parameter guidance. If a single stack parameter 

35982 C-2 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

value is missing and the SIC code is known, the single value is substituted 

from SIC code stack parameter guidance when reasonable. 

- If the SIC code is not known, or if no representative SIC code values are 

found, use generic stack parameters of 15-m height, 422◦

 Kelvin 

temperature, 0.31-m exit diameter, and 10.0-m per second (m/s) exit 

velocity. If a single parameter is missing from any source for which no 

SIC code is known or available, the single generic parameter is 

substituted. 

C.1.2 Natural Gas and Oil Well Agency-permitted Sources

Natural gas and oil well data were gathered by obtaining from state oil and gas permitting 

agencies total production by county for the years 2000 and 2002. Production rates for the first 

two quarters of 2003 were requested but not yet available for any state at the time the inventory 

was completed. Production rates for 2000 were subtracted from production rates from the most 

recent available annual period (2002). An average emission rate per unit natural gas well of 

0.045 tpy NOx was used based on Jonah Field well equipment emissions monitoring performed 

by EnCana in July 2003. This value was also used for CBM wells. An average emission rate for 

oil wells of 0.3 tpy NOx was obtained from WDEQ-AQD. These representative emission rates 

were applied to calculate total NOx emissions per county. PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions were 

assumed to be negligible. All states inventoried, with the exception of Idaho, had operational oil 

and gas wells. Colorado had no change in the number of operational oil and gas wells within the 

inventory period. 

All Utah and Wyoming oil and gas agency-permitted well data are included in Table C.9. No 

table is shown for Idaho or Colorado because the net change is zero. 

C.1.3 Jonah Field Well Permitted Post-inventory Start-Date

Emissions from 198 wells permitted following inventory baseline date are summarized in 

Table C.10. 

C.1.4 State-specific Methodologies

The inventory area includes portions of Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah. Due to the 

differences in the data provided by each state, some variation in inventory procedures were 

necessary. The following are the state-specific procedures used in the inventory. 

Colorado

A list of permitted facilities within the inventory area was requested. Permitted and actual 

emissions for the most recent reporting year were provided in electronic format by Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). A manual file search was performed 

to determine the change in emissions for each modification. If a facility had both an initial and a 

35982 C-3 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

final permit and there were differences between the initial and final permit limits, the differences 

were documented as a permitted emissions change. Permits with “.CN” suffixes are cancelled, 

“.XP” indicates permit exempt, “.XA” indicates both Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) and 

permit exempt, “.GF” indicates grandfathered and all permits with theses extensions were 

excluded from inventory. “F” indicates fugitive source. Because no start-up dates were included 

in the files, and because of Colorado’s procedures for initial and final permit issuance, all 

permits issued through June 30, 2003 were conservatively assumed to be operational as of 

June 30, 2003. Colorado included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.1 and Colorado 

excluded state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.2. 

Idaho

A list of permitted facilities within the inventory area was requested, and Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) provided facility numbers, names, and locations. Permit files for 

all facilities listed were reviewed on-site at the IDEQ offices in Boise to obtain necessary data. 

No actual emissions were available in the files. All permitted facilities were assumed 

operational and stack exit parameters were obtained from files when available. Idaho included 

state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.3 and Idaho excluded state-permitted sources are 

shown in Table C.4. 

Utah

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) supplied electronic versions of Approval Order 

documents and a list of available actual emissions and stack parameters in electronic format. 

Approval Orders were examined for changes in emissions. If no emissions change was listed in 

the Approval Order, change in emissions was calculated based on the difference between the 

current facility total emissions as reported by UDAQ and facility total emissions from the most 

recent permit as reported by UDAQ. Actual emissions were provided by UDAQ for 2000 and 

2002, and change in actual emissions for the inventory period was assumed to be the difference 

between these values. No actuals reported in either 2000 or 2002 were assumed to indicate no 

emissions change. Because UDAQ does not track start-up dates electronically, and no physical 

file search was required for any other reason, all permitted sources were assumed operational. 

Utah included state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.5 and Utah excluded state-permitted 

sources are shown in Table C.6. 

Wyoming

A list of permitted facilities within the state of Wyoming was requested from WDEQ-AQD. 

Permit files for all facilities listed were reviewed on-site at the WDEQ-AQD offices in Cheyenne 

to obtain necessary data. For any facilities classified as natural gas/coal bed methane (CBM) 

production sites with emissions increases greater than 3 tpy, the files were reviewed for any 

combustion equipment and were included if any single piece of combustion equipment emitted 

more than 2 tpy. All other production sites were assumed to be included in Wyoming Oil and 

Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) production estimates. Actual emissions were 

provided by WDEQ-AQD in electronic format and were limited to only large facilities for which 

35982 C-4 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

actual emissions are tracked for fee payment purposes. Years 2000 and 2001 were available, and 

the change in actual emissions for the inventory period was assumed to be the difference 

between 2000 and 2001 values. Start-up dates were provided by WDEQ-AQD to determine the 

operating status of a facility. If a facility had no reported start-up date but the facility permit was 

issued more than 2 years previous, the facility was assumed operational. A list of facilities 

permitted less than 2 years prior to the inventory period and reporting no start-up date was 

provided to WDEQ-AQD to verify start-up date, and based on data received from WDEQ-AQD 

were assumed operational or RFFA. Five permit files were unable to be located by WDEQAQD staff after an extensive search, and therefore were excluded. Stack exit parameters were 

obtained from files if available. Wyoming included state-permitted sources are shown in Table 

C.7 and Wyoming excluded state-permitted sources are shown in Table C.8. 

C.2 RFFA 

State agency-permitted sources which were determined to not yet be in operation as of the 

inventory end-date were included as RFFA in all analyses. Included permitted RFFA sources are 

shown in Table C.11. 

C.3 RFD INVENTORY 

Wyoming RFD within the modeling domain was compiled. In accordance with definitions 

agreed upon by BLM, EPA, WDEQ-AQD, and USDA Forest Service for use in EIS projects, 

RFD was defined as 1) the NEPA-authorized but not yet developed portions of Wyoming NEPA 

projects and 2) not yet authorized NEPA projects for which air quality analyses were in progress 

and for which emissions had been quantified. A list of known NEPA projects was submitted to 

each Wyoming BLM Field Office, along with a request for feedback regarding the inclusion of 

listed projects or presence of any additional unlisted projects. The air quality technical 

documentation for projects to be inventoried and any available information on development 

status within each project area were requested, if not already in possession. 

This information, along with project status data received from the Wyoming State BLM office, 

provided a basis for the RFD inventory; however, no information on the development status 

within each field was available from BLM. Therefore, the WOGCC and WDEQ-AQD were 

consulted to determine permitted wells and permitted compressor engines, respectively. 

WOGCC had available well development by BLM project area for the Pinedale and Rawlins 

Field Offices only. Well development by project area in other field offices was determined by 

geographically plotting well locations, counting the wells permitted after the project 

authorization date located within each project area, and using those well counts to determine 

remaining authorized wells. No compressor development or ancillary facility development data 

was available for any BLM field office. As a result, compressors and ancillary facilities 

permitted through WDEQ-AQD were geographically plotted and those associated with a specific 

project area that were permitted after the project authorization date were subtracted from total 

authorized compression to determine RFD. 

35982 C-5 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Emissions of all available pollutants were summarized by project. Any excluded projects and 

exclusion reason were documented. A summary of NEPA RFD project emissions are shown in 

Table C.12. 

C.4 QA/QC PROCEDURES 

The QA/QC procedure followed throughout the inventory process was as follows. 

• Procedures for data collection and processing were documented (see above). 

• Files were obtained digitally directly from agency to eliminate transcription 

errors. 

• When physical file searches were required, relevant documents were photocopied 

so input could be completed in an orderly manner, transcription errors could be 

minimized, and documents could be reviewed without return to agency premises 

if questions arose. 

• All input values were checked once following initial input for numerical errors, 

and again following completion of input group for reasonableness. 

• Exclusions and questionable data were documented. Methods used to single out 

incorrect data included: examine UTM zone by county, plot geographic 

locations, and spot-check data points to determine reasonableness. 

• The issuing agency was contacted with permit questions rather than making 

assumptions. 

• All data were entered into databases with consistent format to eliminate 

inconsistency between states. 

• Database query results were spot-checked manually to ensure accuracy. 

• Inventory was peer reviewed at several stages during development and upon 

completion.

35982 C-6 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Table C.1

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Permit Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx 

Facility Name Site ID Number County (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) Argali Exploration Company 0133 02MF0001 Moffat 2.74 422.00 53.85 0.10 43.40 Big West Oil & Gas Flying J Oil and Gas 0108 95MF004-2 Moffat 3.35 422.00 14.72 0.20 19.12 Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 0014 00RB0283 Rio Blanco 21.34 301.31 8.50 0.88 0.00 Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 0014 12RB802-2 Rio Blanco 1.00 294.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 0014 12RB802-3F Rio Blanco 1.00 294.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Journey Operating, LLC - Sandhills Lease 0143 01MF0993 Moffat 2.43 422.00 26.54 0.10 15.90 Merit Energy - Powder Wash Station 0111 02MF0073 Moffat 3.35 422.00 40.62 0.15 18.70 Precision Excavating, INC 0079 00RO0741F Routt 1.00 294.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 Questar Gas Mgmt. CO. W Hiawatha C.S. 0161 01MF0787 Moffat 4.57 422.00 28.37 0.30 15.70 Questar Gas Mgmt. CO. W Hiawatha C.S. 0067 01MF0039 Moffat 4.57 422.00 31.27 0.30 12.50 Rocky Mtn Nat Gas - Blue Gravel 0125 03MF0113 Moffat 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 8.53 Tipperary Corporation - Walker 12-5 0168 02MF0370 Moffat 2.43 422.00 11.33 0.09 14.60 Tipperary Corporation - Walker 12-5 0168 02MF0371 Moffat 2.43 422.00 11.33 0.09 3.30 Tipperary Corporation - Walker 3-1 0169 02MF0995 Moffat 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 14.60 Tri State Generation Craig 0018 01MF0003 Moffat 25.48 361.70 17.28 1.03 0.00 True Oil LLC - BTA Federal #12-33 0156 00MF0111 Moffat 3.04 422.00 18.98 1.82 10.70 Twin Landfill Corp. - Milner Landfill 0057 02RO0124 Routt 20.42 424.20 10.45 0.82 0.00 

Total Colorado State-Permitted Source Emissions 177.05 

C-7
Table C.2

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Facility Name Site ID Permit Number Reason for ExclusionColorado Boulder ABRA AUTO BODY AND GLASS 1231 00BO0125 No criteria pollutants.Colorado Weld ADVANCED FORMING TECHNOLOGY 0495 96WE428-1 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - PLATTE VALLEY WCR 0378 93WE448F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - PLATTE VALLEY WCR 0378 94WE0486 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Larimer AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - WCR, INC -STEGNER 0357 02LR0077.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - WCR, INC -STEGNER 0357 00LR0033F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Boulder AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - WCR, INC. 0009 99BO0649.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - WCR, INC. 0024 10LR406 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES - WCR, INC. 0173 89WE087F No change in emissions.Colorado Weld AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES -WEST CENTRAL REG. 0305 92WE858F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Boulder AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES-WCR, INC. - FRANCIS 0058 83BO286 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES-WCR,INC.-WW FARMS P 0549 99WE0033F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Larimer AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES 0044 95LR474.CN Permit exempt.Colorado Larimer AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES 0044 01LR0544.XP Permit exempt.Colorado Weld AGLAND, INC. - FARMLAND FEED, LLC 0397 94WE025 Permit exempt.Colorado Weld ANDESITE ROCK CO - CARR GRAVEL RESOURCE 0186 89WE068F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld ANDESITE ROCK CO DEL CAMINO PIT 0100 84WE086-2.XA Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld ANDESITE ROCK CO DEL CAMINO PIT 0100 84WE086-1F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Larimer ANHEUSER BUSCH INC 0060 99LR0453 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Moffat ARGALI EXPLORATION COMPANY 0133 95MF544-1.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder ASPHALT SPECIALIST CO - KENOSHA PONDS 0655 00BO0326F Operating prior to 1/1/ 200Colorado Boulder BALL AEROSPACE & TECHNOLOGIES CORP 0084 95BO405 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld BITTER CREEK PIPELINES - NEW RAYMER .CN 0270 92WE049.CN Cancelled.Colorado Rio Blanco BLUE MOUNTAIN ENERGY - DESERADO MINE 0014 12RB802-5 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Rio Blanco BLUE MOUNTAIN ENERGY - DESERADO MINE 0014 12RB802-6 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Morgan BRUSH COGENERATION PARTNERS/COLO POWER 0027 91MR933 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld CAMAS COLORADO INC/BESTWAY PAVING 0004 10WE552.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder CEMEX, INC. - LYONS CEMENT PLANT 0003 98BO0259 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Boulder CEMEX, INC. - LYONS CEMENT PLANT 0003 98BO0292 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer CHAPPELLE ANIMAL HOSP 0077 01LR0837 Increase < 1TPY.Colorado Rio Blanco CHEVRON USA - WILSON CREEK GAS PLT 0010 99RB0602.CN Cancelled.Colorado Rio Blanco CHEVRON USA PRODUCTION CO RANGELY FIELD 0034 88RB066-10 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Rio Blanco CHEVRON USA PRODUCTION CO RANGELY FIELD 0034 90RB073 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Rio Blanco CHEVRON USA PRODUCTION CO RANGELY FIELD 0034 88RB066-11 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Boulder CITY OF BOULDER POLICE DEPARTMENT 0642 98BO0829 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld CITY OF GREELEY WATER POLLUT CONTROL FAC 0322 96WE739 Permit exempt.Colorado Larimer COLLINS COLLISION PRODUCTS INC 0048 90LR126-1 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer COLLINS COLLISION PRODUCTS INC 0048 12LR830 No criteria pollutants.Colorado Moffat COLOWYO COAL CO 0007 95MF1040 No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder COMPOSITE TEK 0458 92BO1369 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer CONNELL RESOURCES-TIMNATH CONNELL PIT 0353 99LR0923F No change in emissions.

C-8
Table C.2

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Facility Name Site ID Permit Number Reason for ExclusionColorado Larimer COULSON EXCAVATING COMPANY INC 0301 95LR767F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Morgan DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. 0076 01MR0571 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld DENVER REGIONAL LANDFILL 0079 83WE412 No criteria pollutants.Colorado Larimer DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION INC 0319 00LR0280 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION INC 0319 97LR0311F Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer DON KEHN CONSTRUCTION INC 0319 97LR0312 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - EAST LATERA 0202 95WE192 Ownership change only.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - EATON 0035 97WE0349 Reduction at a synthetic mColorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - FINA 0199 97WE0852 Ownership change only.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - JODY 0535 98WE0263 Ownership change only.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - KIRKMEYER 0221 97WE0001 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - MIDPOINT 0152 98WE0709 No inventoried pollutants.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - PLATTEVILLE 0595 01WE0433 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - RIVERSIDE 0110 97WE0791 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - SOUTHFIELD 0024 98WE0708 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - SURREY 0075 97WE0319 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES - WEST SPINDL 0076 96WE140 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, LLC - TAMPA 0115 00WE0503 Name change only.Colorado Weld EASTMAN KODAK CO 0003 01WE0460 No criteria pollutants.Colorado Rio Blanco ELAM CONST INC DAVENPORT PIT 0050 91RB043F Ownership change only.Colorado Weld ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. - ARISTOCRAT 0127 85WE384-1 Ownership change only.Colorado Weld ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. - FREDERICK 0151 98WE0453 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. - FREDERICK 0151 98WE0452 Ownership change only.Colorado Moffat ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC -SAND HILLS 0148 96MF892.CN Cancelled.Colorado Moffat ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC -SAND HILLS 0148 99MF0797 No change in emissions.Colorado Rio Blanco ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC. - BUCKSKIN 0152 00RB0201.CN Cancelled.Colorado Rio Blanco ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC. - BUCKSKIN 0152 01RB0927.CN Cancelled.Colorado Rio Blanco ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA), INC. - BUCKSKIN 0152 02RB0620.CN Cancelled.Colorado Moffat ENSIGN OPERATING COMPANY 0112 95MF025 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld ENVIROCYCLE, LLC.CN 0565 99WE0738.CN Cancelled.Colorado Morgan EXCEL CORP 0024 99MR0691 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer GENESIS FIXTURES, INC. 0351 99LR0766 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer GOES FUNERAL CARE & CREMATORY 0387 02LR0101 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder GOLDEN CONCRETE DBA AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 0579 00BO0084.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder GOLDEN CONCRETE DBA AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 0579 00BO0085.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder GOLDEN CONCRETE DBA AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 0579 00BO0086 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder GOLDEN CONCRETE DBA AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 0579 00BO0161 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld GOLDEN'S ANDESITE MINING CO.CN 0244 91WE569F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Routt GRAND SUMMIT RESORT HOTEL 0076 99RO0806 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer GREAT WESTERN DIAMOND COMPANY 0155 92LR307F Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Routt HAYDEN GULCH TERMINAL INC 0013 00RO0297F Operating prior to 1/1/200

C-9
Table C.2

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Facility Name Site ID Permit Number Reason for ExclusionColorado Weld HIGHLAND FEED & BEAN, INC. 0167 88WE296 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Adams ICS - CO, LLC 0785 93AD387 No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM) 0006 00BO0630 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Boulder INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM) 0006 95BO557 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Boulder INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM) 0006 98BO0212.XP Permit exempt.Colorado Larimer ITT INDUSTRIES 0348 99LR0640 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer JAKE KAUFFMAN & SONS, INC.-WAGNER PIT #3 0354 99LR0926F Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Moffat JOURNEY OPERATING LLC 0152 97MF0493 Ownership change only.Colorado Moffat JOURNEY OPERATING, LLC - SANDHILLS LEASE 0143 97MF0619.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld KENNETH SCHELL & BILL KOBOBEL 0259 02WE0097 XA Exempt from APEN.Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORP. -FT. LUP 0057 00WE0581 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORP. -FT. LUP 0057 00WE0582 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORP. -FT. LUP 0057 01WE0763 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTINA CORP.-PLATTEVI 0552 99WE0177.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTINA CORP.-PLATTEVI 0552 99WE0178 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTINA CORP.-PLATTEVI 0552 99WE0175 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTINA CORP.-PLATTEVI 0552 99WE0176 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. 0320 10LR555 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder LAFARGE WEST, INC. 0004 97BO0546F No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder LAFARGE WEST, INC. 004b 12BO326 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - 35TH AVE PLANT 0426 11WE922F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - 35TH AVE PLANT 0426 97WE0029 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Rio Blanco LAFARGE WEST, INC. - BLAIR MESA MINE 0116 96RB890F Name change only.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - COTTONWOOD/SHAW PIT 0548 01WE0264 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - COTTONWOOD/SHAW PIT 0548 01WE0265 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - COTTONWOOD/SHAW PIT 0548 01WE0744 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - COTTONWOOD/SHAW PIT 0548 01WE0707 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - COTTONWOOD/SHAW PIT 0548b 00WE0156F No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - EAST RIGDEN PIT 0159 12LR186F No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - EAST RIGDEN PIT 0159 12LR187 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - EAST RIGDEN PIT 0159 99LR0947F No change in emissions.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - FT LUPTON PIT 0539 98WE0489F No change in emissions.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - GREELEY WEST PIT 0013 97WE0138F No change in emissions.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - HAMM PIT 0236 98WE0277.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - HAMM PIT 0236 98WE0276 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - HOME OFFICE 0128 00LR0720F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - HOME OFFICE 0128 91LR070F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - LOVELAND PIT 0114 12LR522F No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder LAFARGE WEST, INC. - LYONS PIT 0314 87BO288F Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Routt LAFARGE WEST, INC. - STEAMBOAT NORTH PIT 0015 98RO0526.XP Permit exempt.Colorado Routt LAFARGE WEST, INC. - STEAMBOAT NORTH PIT 0015 02RO0576.GF Permit grandfathered.

C-10
Table C.2

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Facility Name Site ID Permit Number Reason for ExclusionColorado Routt LAFARGE WEST, INC. - STEAMBOAT SOUTH PIT 0024 87RO030F Ownership change only.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - STONEHAM PIT 1354 02WE0566F.XP Permit exempt.Colorado Weld LAFARGE WEST, INC. - STROMQUIST 0095 88WE045 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer LAFARGE WEST, INC. - THREE BELLS PIT 0260 97LR0632F No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder LAFARGE WEST, INC. - VALMONT PLANT 0349 12BO218 No change in emissions.Colorado Morgan LEPRINO FOODS_COMPANY 0044 97MR0499 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Boulder LEXMARK INTL INC 0005 96BO251 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld LOVELAND INDUSTRIES 0398 90WE473-1.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer LOVELAND READY MIX 0372 00LR0744F Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Larimer LOVELAND READY MIX CONC - SEE 1231329 0383 01WE0820F Permitted under another pColorado Weld LOVELAND READY MIX CONCRETE 0566 99WE0570F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer LOVELAND READY MIX CONCRETE INC 0085 01LR0374 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Morgan MANCHIEF POWER COMPANY LLC 0072 99MR0169 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer MJR COMPANY 0366 00LR0365F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer MJR COMPANY 0367 00LR0366F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld MONFORT FINANCE COMPANY, INC. - KUNER 0009 99WE0498 No change in emissions.Colorado Grand MOUNTAIN PARK CONCRETE INC 0040 02GR0138 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Grand MOUNTAIN PARK CONCRETE INC 0018 91GR165 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Larimer NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER 0242 94LR088 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld NORTHERN CO MEDICAL CTR 0055 96WE218 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Moffat NORTHERN LIGHTS PET CREMATORY 0165 02MF0174 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Larimer PETE LIEN & SONS OWL CANYON COMPLEX 0003 11LR145 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Larimer PETE LIEN & SONS OWL CANYON COMPLEX 0003 97LR0755 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Larimer PETE LIEN & SONS OWL CANYON COMPLEX 0003 97LR0753 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer PETE LIEN & SONS DBA COLO LIEN - MONROE 0323 97LR0353F No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer PIONEER SAND CO 0368 00LR0646F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld PLATTE CHEMICAL CO 0036 87WE026-1.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld PLATTE CHEMICAL CO 0036 87WE026-4.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld PLATTE CHEMICAL CO 0036 01WE0472.XP Permit exempt.Colorado Larimer PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY - RAWHIDE 0053 01LR0115.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY - RAWHIDE 0053 01LR0291.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer POUDRE VALLEY HOSP 0032 94LR191 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer PRECIOUS MEMORIES PET CEMETERY 0096 00LR0742 Increase <1 TPY.Colorado Larimer PRECIOUS MEMORIES PET CEMETERY 0096 02LR0508 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Routt PRECISION EXCAVATING, INC. 0079 02RO0354.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder PUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONT 0001 00BO0814 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder PUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONT 0001 00BO0815 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder PUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONT 0001 00BO0816 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder PUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONT 0001 00BO0817 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Boulder PUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONT 0001 99BO0474 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld PUBLIC SERVICE CO FORT SAINT VRAIN PLT 0023 99WE0762 No change in emissions.

C-11
Table C.2

Colorado State-Permitted Source Inventory - CDPHE APCD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Facility Name Site ID Permit Number Reason for ExclusionColorado Routt PUBLIC SERVICE CO HAYDEN PLT 0001 98RO0374 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Routt PUBLIC SERVICE CO HAYDEN PLT 0001 98RO0375 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Routt PUBLIC SERVICE CO HAYDEN PLT 0001 98RO0376 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Rio Blanco PUBLIC SERVICE CO INDIAN VALLEY STA 0056 99RB0389.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld PUBLIC SERVICE CO YOSEMITE STATION 0141 87WE006-1 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld PUBLIC SERVICE CO YOSEMITE STATION 0141 87WE006-2 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld PUBLIC SERVICE CO YOSEMITE STATION 0141 95WE461 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld PUBLIC SERVICE CO YOSEMITE STATION 0141 96WE379 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Moffat QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PROD-JACKS DRAW 16 0085 93MF1655-1XP Permit rescinded.Colorado Moffat QUESTAR GAS MANAGEMENT - AVALANCHE 0132 97MF0336 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Moffat QUESTAR GAS MGMT CO W HIAWATHA COMP STA 0067 01MF0040.CN Cancelled.Colorado Moffat QUESTAR GAS MGMT CO W HIAWATHA COMP STA 0067 91MF625 No change in emissions.Colorado Jackson R & G OIL COMPANY, LLC - LONE PINE FIELD 0018 99JA0914.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer REAGER FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY 0068 97LR0095 No change in emissions.Colorado Weld RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS (AMERICA), INC 0558 99WE0429 No change in emissions.Colorado Larimer ROCKY MOUNTAIN CULTURED MARBLE INC 0286 94LR634 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld ROCKY MOUNTAIN MILLING, LLC 0194 90WE022 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Moffat ROCKY MTN NAT GAS - BLUE GRAVEL 0125 97MF0648.CN Cancelled.Colorado Moffat ROCKY MTN NAT GAS - BLUE GRAVEL 0125 97MF0647 Ownership change only.Colorado Rio Blanco ROCKY MTN NATURAL GAS CO PICEANCE 0037 88RB149 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Rio Blanco ROCKY MTN NATURAL GAS CO PICEANCE 0037 92RB1423-2 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Rio Blanco SAM F. LOVE 0144 99RB0753F.CN Cancelled.Colorado Weld SCHULTE INVESTMENTS (WAS ELSRO INC) 0150 87WE177 No change in emissions.Colorado Rio Blanco SOUTH-TEX TREATERS, INC. - MEEKER PLANT 0163 01RB0220.CN Cancelled.Colorado Rio Blanco SOUTH-TEX TREATERS, INC. - MEEKER PLANT 0163 01RB0221.CN Cancelled.Colorado Larimer STAINLESS DESIGNS INC.CN 0334 98LR0133.CN Cancelled.Colorado Boulder SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC. 0582 95BO525 No change in emissions.Colorado Routt TRANS COLO CONCRETE 0071 90RO192 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Moffat TRUE OIL LLC - CADDIS FEDERAL 33-9 0157 00MF0474 No change in emissions.Colorado Boulder TUSCARORA INC 1247 02BO0928 No criteria pollutants.Colorado Routt TWENTYMILE COAL CO 0009 93RO1204 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld VARRA COMPANIES 0180 01WE0946 Increase < 1 TPY.Colorado Weld VARRA COMPANIES INC 0239 12WE774-F Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld WALSH PRODUCTION INC - LILLI GAS PROC. 0468 98WE0310 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Weld WALSH PRODUCTION INC - LILLI GAS PROC. 0468 98WE0311 Operating prior to 1/1/200Colorado Morgan WALSH PRODUCTION, INC. 0069 97MR0706.CN Cancelled.Colorado Morgan WALSH PRODUCTION, INC. 0069 97MR0705 Ownership change only.Colorado Moffat WESTERN GAS RESOURCES INC SAND WASH STA 0153 97MF0649 Reduction at PSD minor sColorado Weld WESTERN SUGAR CO 0002 02WE0621 Increase < 1 TPY.

C-12
Table C.3

Idaho State-Permitted Inventory - IDEQ Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 PM1

Facility Name Permit Number County (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) (tpyARTCO 65 12 Madison 7.62 294.00 3.04 0.91 3.90 0.02 Ash Grove Cement Company 5 4 Bannock 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 (53

 

Basic American Foods 11 20 Bingham 14.32 455.37 8.89 1.21 60.32 0.37 4Basic American Foods 11 20 Bingham 11.27 273.15 8.62 0.91 60.32 0.37 4Basic American Foods 11 20 Bingham 11.27 273.15 7.76 0.76 60.32 0.37 4Brigham Young University Idaho 65 11 Madison 19.50 273.15 16.01 1.06 30.22 85.85 10Bush Ag Resources Inc - Malt 19 25 Booneville 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 116.20 95.70 57General Mills Operations Inc. 11 28 Bingham 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Hess Pumice Products Inc. 71 3 Oneida 19.65 273.15 12.78 0.60 18.92 4.01 Idaho Asphalt Supply Inc. 11 23 Bingham 15.24 273.15 16.03 0.59 21.50 44.00 Idaho Pacific Corp. 51 13 Jefferson 10.66 273.15 13.93 0.95 38.62 6.80 2J R. Simplot Company - Don Siding 77 6 Power 53.34 273.15 11.68 1.82 4.34 0.04 4J R. Simplot Company - Don Siding 77 6 Power 53.34 273.15 11.68 1.82 64.00 (345.00) Northwest Pipeline Corp. 5 28 Bannock 4.57 427.60 29.10 0.60 24.58 (2.94) Northwest Pipeline Corp. 5 28 Bannock 7.92 273.15 27.30 0.73 14.68 0.18 Northwest Pipeline Corp. 5 28 Bannock 7.92 273.15 33.96 0.66 24.58 (2.94) Northwest Pipeline Corp. 7 4 Bear Lake 9.14 273.15 31.88 1.11 25.88 1.01 

Total Idaho State-Permitted Source Emissions 568.38 (112.16) 6

C-13
Table C.4

Idaho State-Permitted Source Inventory - IDEQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Permit Number Facility Reason for ExclusionIdaho Caribou 29 32 ALEXANDER COMPANY Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bingham 11 20 BASIC AMERICAN FOODS Reduction at PSD minor sIdaho Booneville 19 28 BUSCH AG RESOURCES INC No change in emissions.Idaho Booneville 19 28 BUSCH AG RESOURCES INC Reduction at PSD minor sIdaho Caribou 29 28 CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Power 77 23 CHEVRON PIPELINE CO/NW TERMINA No inventoried pollutants.Idaho Bingham 11 22 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-INEEL Administrative change.Idaho Bingham 11 22 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-INEEL No change in emissions.Idaho Bingham 11 22 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-INEEL Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bingham 11 22 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-INEEL Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bingham 11 22 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-INEEL Permit exempt.Idaho Bingham 11 28 GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS INC Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bannock 5 29 IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Booneville 19 19 IDAHO TRAVERTINE CORP Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bingham 11 29 J R SIMPLOT COMPANY FOOD GROUP Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Power 77 6 J R SIMPLOT COMPANY-DON SIDING Administrative change.Idaho Power 77 6 J R SIMPLOT COMPANY-DON SIDING Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Power 77 6 J R SIMPLOT COMPANY-DON SIDING Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 2 KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL LLC No inventoried pollutants.Idaho Caribou 29 2 KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL LLC No inventoried pollutants.Idaho Caribou 29 2 KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL LLC No inventoried pollutants.Idaho Caribou 29 2 KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL LLC Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 2 KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL LLC Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bannock 5 36 KIMBERLY-CLARK/BALLARD MEDICAL Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Bannock 5 28 NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORP Reduction at PSD minor sIdaho Caribou 29 3 NU-WEST (AGRIUM) Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 3 NU-WEST (AGRIUM) Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 3 NU-WEST (AGRIUM) Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 1 P4 PRODUCTION LLC No change in emissions.Idaho Caribou 29 1 P4 PRODUCTION LLC Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Booneville 19 26 PENFORD PRODUCTS COMPANY Reduction at PSD minor sIdaho Bannock 5 25 PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES CORP Facility closed.Idaho Jefferson 51 16 SEB'S FEED AND SUPPLY Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 29 33 SILICON INTERNATIONAL ORE LLC Increase < 1 tpy.Idaho Caribou 29 33 SILICON INTERNATIONAL ORE LLC Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Caribou 777 247 SMITH PAVING & CONSTRUCTION Operating prior to 1/1/200Idaho Booneville 19 41 YELLOWSTONE PLASTICS INC Operating prior to 1/1/200

C-14
Table C.5

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Approval Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 PM

Company Name Source Name Order (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) (tpyAUTOLIV ASP, Inc./Auto Safety

10025 Ogden Generant Facility 010623 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 15.74 0.23 7.1

Air Liquide America 11825 020341 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 6.89 0.08 0.3Allen Gravel LLC 11995 Aggregate Processing 010556 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 15.58 1.75 6.6Alta Group 12321 022321002 22.13 357.48 8.81 0.85 0.49 0.01 1.3AMCOR Precast 12670 022670001 12.41 335.21 10.21 0.85 1.48 0.02 6.6Asphalt Materials Incorporated

10343 Stansteel Asphalt Plant SN#413 010376 12.19 422.00 24.00 1.01 1.86 0.12 1.1

Asphalt Materials Incorporated

11981 Bluffdale Sand Quarry 010196 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 4.88 0.42 3.4

ATK Thiokol Propulsion 10009 Promontory Plant 010456 18.29 422.00 1.77 0.76 0.00 0.00 36.5AUTOLIV ASP 11460 021460006 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 1.6AUTOLIV ASP, Inc./Auto Safety

11602 Ogden Module Facility 010340 9.75 422.00 4.85 0.61 4.01 0.07 3.0

Boeing Company (The) 10425 Aircraft and Parts Manufacturing 010916 4.57 422.00 48.15 0.15 2.80 0.01 0.0Bountiful City Light and Power

10120 Power Plant 010249 16.76 422.00 35.74 0.99 22.10 0.28 0.4

Boyer Company (The) 12555 Gateway Shopping Plaza Blocks A&B 010693 7.01 422.00 10.00 1.22 12.90 5.10 1.0Bredero Price 12073 020203 10.03 325.93 5.37 0.76 0.00 0.00 8.0Brigham Sand/Gravel 10011 Brigham City Aggregate Plant 010201 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 18.71 1.79 6.0Brigham Young University 10790 020179 45.72 422.00 2.40 2.74 19.75 4.27 0.2Cache County Corporation - Road Dept.

12518 Cove Pit 010451 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 10.94 0.84 2.7

Chemical Lime Company 10707 Grantsville Plant 010574 22.86 422.00 24.11 0.36 0.00 0.00 1.9Chemical Lime Company 10707 Grantsville Plant 010717 22.86 422.00 24.11 0.36 -6.30 0.01 20.1Chevron Products 10119 SL Refinery 020119046 48.77 422.00 10.00 1.22 12.02 4.23 2.2Circle Four Farms 11440 020030 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 11.03 5.42 0.1Citation Oil and Gas Corporation

10683 Pine View Gas Plant 020683003 12.80 422.00 0.11 1.07 128.98 0.02 0.2

Clipper Publishing 10130 020128 12.65 383.15 9.94 0.73 1.19 0.01 0.0Compeq International Corporation

11743 Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 010996 10.97 422.00 17.08 0.15 0.00 0.00 2.2

Concrete Products of Utah 12742 022742001 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 0.60 0.01 4.7Conoco Incorporated - SL Terminal

10133 Salt Lake Terminal Company 010028 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 7.31 0.00 0.0

Construction Products 10407 020407004 8.53 422.00 10.00 1.22 -12.52 0.00 3.0Construction Products Company

10513 Kearns Facility 010129 7.25 422.00 0.01 0.85 -3.27 -0.86 4.7

Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) 010508 20.43 424.21 10.46 0.82 2.46 -0.45 -0.2Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) 010703 20.43 424.21 10.46 0.82 0.28 21.03 0.0Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) 010826 20.43 424.21 10.46 0.82 8.53 6.67 0.6Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility 021339029 20.43 424.21 10.46 0.82 142.00 0.00 0.0El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

12683 022683001 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 6.06 0.00 0.0

El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

12685 022685001 11.77 450.54 9.51 0.82 3.25 0.00 0.0

El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

12686 022686001 11.77 450.54 9.51 0.82 3.55 0.01 0.1

El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

12687 022687001 11.77 450.54 9.51 0.82 4.39 0.00 0.0

El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

12707 022707001 11.77 450.54 9.51 0.82 1.42 0.01 0.0

Fashion Cabinet Manufacturing Inc.

10482 Cabinet Manufacturing Facility 010157 7.92 422.00 10.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 2.6

Source 

ID

C-15
Table C.5

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Approval Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 PM

Company Name Source Name Order (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy

Source 

ID

Fetzer's Incorporated 11211 021211003 12.59 348.54 10.55 0.88 1.23 0.00 0.0Fresenius Medical Care 10951 Ogden Dialysis Products Manufacturing 010370 10.95 422.00 14.06 0.40 34.39 2.92 2.6Geary Construction 10695 Wanship Pit 020695002 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 16.91 2.82 4.9Geary Construction Incorporated

10695 Wanship Pit 021106 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 16.91 2.82 4.9

Geneva Rock Products 10820 020083 3.66 422.00 18.71 1.01 9.67 7.79 1.7G-L Industries, Inc. 11792 Laminated Wood Beam Manufacturing 010746 10.06 422.00 10.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 3.9Global Coatings Incorporated

10880 Global Coatings Incorporated 010342 11.28 362.26 9.97 0.76 2.69 0.01 -1.5

Gordon C. Orton Construction Co. Inc.

12242 Aggregate Processing 010200 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 3.18 0.33 2.2

Granite School District 10364 020066 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 9.60 3.70 0.8Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation

10917 Production Plant 010624 10.92 422.00 23.56 0.94 0.60 0.06 14.9

Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation

12439 022439001 3.96 422.00 24.54 0.15 55.00 11.10 12.0

Halliburton Energy Services 12100 020002 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 0.00 0.00 12.8Hallmark Moldings 11900 020078 12.74 345.59 10.85 0.95 0.00 0.00 4.0Harper Contracting 10569 020569003 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 21.14 2.46 0.3Harper Contracting 11481 Pit #16 Parley's Canyon 011016 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 7.64 0.20 0.3Harper Contracting 11557 Pit #5 - Salt Lake County 010989 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 -1.19 -3.41 4.5Harper Contracting 12432 "Aggregate Pit#24, Brown Canyon" 010564 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 23.79 1.53 4.4Harper Contracting 12585 Pit#23 Near Manila 010992 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 55.40 3.57 8.5Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010106 11.28 422.00 33.78 0.30 0.00 0.00 1.4Hill Air Force Base 10121 OO-ALCM/EMC 020286 11.28 422.00 33.78 0.30 35.00 0.21 2.6Holcim (US) Inc. 10007 Devil's Slide Plant 010303 76.20 422.00 44.73 0.19 825.00 0.00 0.0Holcim (US) Incorporated 10007 020007013 76.20 422.00 44.73 0.19 4.10 22.40 6.3Honeywell International Incorporated

10146 Automotive Oil & Air Filters - Clearfield 010557 11.43 422.00 29.72 0.46 9.82 0.05 1.1

Hoyt USA 12481 Archery Products Manufacturing 010536 13.56 422.00 4.04 0.86 0.00 0.00 5.1Huish Detergents Incorporated

10463 Detergent Manufacturing 010868 11.58 422.00 47.44 0.12 0.46 0.00 4.9

Hyrum City Power 12614 020079 60.12 431.59 16.68 2.74 34.33 1.74 2.0Indian Oil Company 10829 020829004 12.07 469.21 13.08 0.88 2.39 8.48 1.0Intermountain Health Care 12505 020224 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 4.06 0.02 0.3Intermountain Health Care 12505 022505002 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 4.30 1.18 0.5Interstate Brands West Corporation

12174 022174002 12.53 381.15 6.83 0.43 3.47 0.00 0.2

Jack B. Parson Companies 10721 020721002 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 9.97 0.61 3.7Jack B. Parson Company 12323 020105 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 16.76 2.65 4.9Jack B. Parsons Company 10071 Smithfield Cedarapids 29.013 Asphalt Hot Pla010880 5.49 422.00 10.00 0.91 22.53 8.55 5.1

Jack B. Parsons Company 10972 West Ogden Operations 010190 9.14 422.00 10.00 0.91 3.68 6.93 2.4John Kuhni Sons 12208 020084 15.24 422.00 24.27 1.22 6.97 28.75 2.0Kern River Gas Transmission

12514 020126 14.02 422.00 0.22 2.53 41.31 1.39 2.6

Kern River Gas Transmission

12514 020127 14.02 422.00 0.22 2.53 83.57 2.69 5.4

Kern River Gas Transmission

12514 020129 14.02 422.00 0.22 2.53 3.52 0.00 0.1

C-16
Table C.5

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Approval Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 PM

Company Name Source Name Order (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy

Source 

ID

Kern River Gas Transmission

12514 020299 14.02 422.00 0.22 2.53 85.33 2.83 5.6

Kern River Gas Transmission Company

12514 Elberta Compressor Station 010603 14.02 422.00 0.22 2.53 40.96 1.40 2.7

Koch Performance Asphalt Company

12469 Hot Asphalt Storage Terminal 010288 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 22.40 0.12 4.7

LeGrand Johnson Construction

10055 020055 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 5.63 6.59 0.0

Lloyd H. Facer Trucking Inc. 12308 Wellsville Pit 010475 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 8.40 0.60 1.6MacLean Quality Composites

12732 022732001 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 2.74 0.02 5.1

Materials Packaging Corporation

10380 Dry Mix Cement Plant 010065 4.57 422.00 10.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 2.7

McNeil Brothers 12744 022744001 14.12 350.04 10.03 0.91 17.28 1.15 4.5Nestle USA Prepared Foods Division Inc.

10812 Prepared Foods Processing 010960 13.72 422.00 20.72 0.76 16.35 2.03 1.7

Northern Utah Manufacturing

10049 020378 20.15 422.21 13.05 1.10 26.00 0.10 19.2

Novell Incorporated 12144 020146 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 5.00 5.00 5.0Nucor Steel 10008 Nucor Steel 010787 38.86 422.00 10.08 2.53 422.07 86.53 127.5Owens Corning 10033 Western Fiberglass - Salt Lake City Plant 010987 17.86 422.00 34.51 0.09 0.03 0.08 2.1Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Company

10794 020794008 36.58 422.00 30.25 0.99 21.10 0.00 3.9

PacifiCorp 10355 Gadsby Power Plant 010250 76.20 422.00 21.03 3.35 197.00 0.00 14.1PacifiCorp Environmental Services

10355 020204 76.20 422.00 21.03 3.35 81.00 6.12 29.5

PacifiCorp Power 12495 West Valley 020282 24.69 422.00 26.56 3.66 32.41 2.42 11.6Pacificorp Power Marketing 12495 West Valley Power Plant 010440 24.69 422.00 26.56 3.66 129.65 9.67 46.7Pepperidge Farm Incorporated

11841 Commercial Bakery 010620 11.89 422.00 43.70 0.52 23.30 0.10 2.6

Pioneer Oil 10972 020972002 9.14 422.00 10.00 0.91 0.77 21.24 0.7Questar Pipeline Company 11532 Kastler/Marushack Compressor Station 010164 14.02 422.00 10.00 0.60 1.34 0.00 0.1Questar Pipeline Company 11532 Kastler/Marushack Compressor Station 020089 14.02 422.00 10.00 0.60 16.20 0.00 1.1Questar Regulated Services 11839 020005 5.33 422.00 7.61 0.41 24.05 0.00 0.7Salt Lake Community College

12279 Jordan Campus 010119 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 8.27 0.40 0.9

Salt Lake County 10409 Welby Pit: Asphalt Plant/ Crusher/ Sand Plan010308 6.10 422.00 0.46 0.91 3.23 1.50 0.0

Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities

12724 Salt Lake City Water Reclamation Facility 022724001 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 23.53 0.23 0.5

SF Phosphates Limited Company

10749 Vernal Phosphate Operations 030749002 26.04 337.32 14.02 1.25 -42.70 -0.20 -302.5

Skyview Excavation & Grading

11864 Morgan Rock Pit 010872 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 7.84 0.66 3.1

Skywest Airlines 11674 Skywest Airlines at SLC Int'l Airport 010247 18.90 422.00 3.88 0.12 3.11 0.00 0.1SME Industries Incorporated 11599 021599002 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 4.84 0.32 0.5Snowbird Development 10406 020406004 12.44 435.43 13.05 0.79 22.25 0.76 1.6Staker & Parson Companies 10128 Foss Lewis Pit & Aggregate Plant 010857 4.94 422.00 1.59 1.39 12.20 3.64 7.9Staker & Parson Companies 10408 Beck Street North Pit and Hot Plant 010485 9.14 422.00 0.16 1.71 -8.28 0.00 5.4

C-17
Table C.5

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Approval Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 PM

Company Name Source Name Order (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy

Source 

ID

Staker & Parson Companies 10408 Beck Street North Pit and Hot Plant 010569 9.14 422.00 0.16 1.71 -8.28 0.00 5.4Staker & Parson Companies 10712 Erda Pit & Hot Plant 010032 3.05 422.00 2.36 0.20 3.75 2.80 1.7Staker Paving and Construction

10411 020307 4.57 422.00 11.65 1.52 6.93 15.66 0.0

Temkin International 10860 020085 15.00 383.65 13.57 0.85 2.93 0.02 0.2Tesoro West Coast 10335 020217 60.35 422.00 16.91 2.90 -40.00 -253.00 -18.0The Kroger Company 10163 Layton Manufacturing 020163003 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 9.37 0.13 1.2Thiokol Corporation 10009 Lampo Junction 020009086 18.29 422.00 1.77 0.76 0.00 0.00 150.3University of Utah 10354 University of Utah facilities 010128 12.19 422.00 10.00 1.22 -125.84 -0.09 -0.9University of Utah 10354 University of Utah facilities 010264 12.19 422.00 10.00 1.22 13.19 0.38 1.1University of Utah 10354 University of Utah facilities 010265 12.19 422.00 10.00 1.22 22.27 0.42 2.6Utah State University 10047 020001 12.19 422.00 8.08 1.52 31.71 5.40 4.9Utelite Corporation 10676 Shale Processing 010027 18.29 422.00 7.42 0.91 12.62 -10.41 3.7Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company

10156 Trailer Manufacturing Facility 010158 11.58 422.00 18.38 0.91 1.76 0.10 0.1

Vulcraft 10028 020269 16.76 422.00 6.56 0.71 0.00 0.00 2.2W.W. Clyde and Company 12780 022780001 11.68 326.21 15.37 0.73 32.90 4.95 3.6Wasatch Energy Systems 10129 020138 38.71 422.00 23.85 1.22 -414.37 -49.83 -10.5Wellsville City Corporation 12646 020172 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 16.34 4.58 1.2

Total Utah State-Permitted Source Emissions 2,595.89 47.07 424.4

C-18
Table C.6

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State Company Name Source ID Source Name Approval Order Reason FUtah Abbott Salt Lake Operations 11644 Salt Lake Operations 020122 No changeUtah Alcoa Extrusions 10847 020847008 No changeUtah Alliant Techsystems Incorporated 10402 Bacchus Works: Plant 1/NIROP/Graphite Structures 010406 No changeUtah Alliant Techsystems Incorporated 10402 Bacchus Works: Plant 1/NIROP/Graphite Structures 010635 No changeUtah American Welding and Tank Company 11598 West Jordan Manufacturing Facility 020065 No changeUtah AMPAC 10279 Utah Operations 020004 No changeUtah Asphalt Materials Incorporated 11981 Bluffdale Sand Quarry 010759 No changeUtah Asphalt Materials Incorporated 11981 Bluffdale Sand Quarry 011981 No changeUtah ATK Thiokol Propulsion 10009 Promontory Plant 010038 No changeUtah Autoliv ASP Inc. OEA Initiator Facility 10026 Airbag Initiator Manufacturing Facility 010845 No changeUtah Ballard Petroleum LLC 12543 020147 Reduction Utah BDL Mill Custom Woodworking 12586 020056 Increase < Utah Blanchard Metals Processing Company 10591 Blanchard Metals Processing Co. 010972 No changeUtah Boeing Company (The) 10425 Aircraft and Parts Manufacturing 020068 No changeUtah Bountiful City Light and Power 10120 Power Plant 020054 No changeUtah Bourns, Inc. 10053 020336 No changeUtah Brigham Sand and Gravel 10011 020011004 No changeUtah Broken Arrow Construction 11729 Clive Plant 011012 Increase < Utah Broken Arrow Construction 11729 021729003 No changeUtah Brush Resources 10311 020267 No changeUtah Burdick Paving 11357 021357003 No changeUtah C. E. Butters Realty & Construction 11840 021840004 No changeUtah Canyon Fuel Company 10665 Salina Coal Yard 020665004 No changeUtah Canyon Gas Resources 12413 020047 No changeUtah Canyon Gas Resources 10253 020244 No changeUtah Canyon Gas Resources 12413 020247 No changeUtah Cargill Animal Nutrition 10949 020949003 Increase < Utah Central Valley Water 10414 020414005 No changeUtah Central Valley Water 10414 Reclamation Facility 020414006 No changeUtah Chemical Lime Company 10707 Grantsville Plant 010856 No changeUtah Cherrico Furniture Company 12238 022238002 Increase < Utah Chevron Product Company 10119 020313 No changeUtah Chevron Products Co - SL Refinery 10119 Salt Lake Refinery 010638 No changeUtah Christensen Construction & Gravel Inc. 12246 Concrete Processing Equipment 010147 No changeUtah Classic Cabinets Incorporated 10488 Cabinet Manufacturing Facility 010938 Increase < Utah Classic Cabinets Incorporated 10488 Cabinet Manufacturing Facility 020130 Increase < Utah Classic Cabinets Incorporated 10488 Cabinet Manufacturing Facility 020488006 No changeUtah Companion Systems Incorporated 10181 Fiberglass Manufacturing 010022 No changeUtah Compeq International Corporation 11743 Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 010195 No changeUtah Condie Construction 12137 020012 No changeUtah Crown Asphalt Products 12145 020213 No change

C-19
Table C.6

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State Company Name Source ID Source Name Approval Order Reason FUtah Crusher Rental and Sales Incorporated 11621 021621003 No changeUtah CSI Acquisition 10181 D.B.A. Companion Systems 020198 No changeUtah Custom Crushing Incorporated 12142 022142002 No changeUtah D.Q. Holdings 12519 022519003 No changeUtah DAW Technologies 11567 020150 No changeUtah Department of the Air Force 10121 020121145 No changeUtah Department of the Army 11594 Tooele Army Depot 020291 Reduction Utah Department of the Army 11594 Tooele Army Depot 021594021 Reduction Utah Department of the Army 11594 Tooele Army Depot 020160 No changeUtah Department of the Army 11594 Tooele Army Depot 020236 No changeUtah Department of the Army 11594 Tooele Army Depot 021594020 No changeUtah Department of the Army 12236 Deseret Chemical Depot 022236003 No changeUtah Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) 010153 Reduction Utah Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 Deseret Chemical Depot (South Area) 010908 Increase < Utah Deseret Chemical Depot 11339 SCBTO-RM 020159 Increase < Utah Desert Power L. P. 12519 022519004 Reduction Utah Desert Power, L.L.C. 12519 Tooele County 011043 No changeUtah E.A. Miller Incorporated 10051 020051004 Increase < Utah Easton Technical Products 10365 Tubing Manufacturing Facility 010963 No changeUtah Easton Technical Products 10365 020365008 No changeUtah El Paso Production 11186 021185007 No changeUtah El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company 12682 022682001 Increase < Utah El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company 12710 022710001 Increase < Utah FAK, LLC 12054 022054003 No changeUtah Firestone Building Products 10491 Foam Insulation Manufacturing Facility 010193 Increase < Utah Firestone Building Products 10491 Foam Insulation Manufacturing Facility 030491005 No changeUtah Flying J Incorporated 10122 020120 No changeUtah Flying J Incorporated 10122 020221 No changeUtah Flying J Incorporated 10122 Flying J Refinery (Big West Oil Co.) 020330 No changeUtah Flying J Incorporated 10122 020122024 No changeUtah Foreland Refining 12145 020208 No changeUtah FUTURA Industries 10191 Freeport Center 020167 No changeUtah Geneva Steel 10796 Steel Manufacturing Facility 010031 No changeUtah Gilbert Western 11086 020211 No changeUtah Gilbert Western 11067 020287 No changeUtah Golden Eagle Refinery, Inc 10134 020134001 Increase < Utah Gordon C. Orton Construction Co. Inc. 12242 Aggregate Processing 010808 Increase < Utah Granite Construction 12272 022272004 No changeUtah Granite Construction Company 12272 West Haven Asphalt Plant 010993 No changeUtah Graymont Western US 10313 020140 No changeUtah Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation 10917 020917018 No change

C-20
Table C.6

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State Company Name Source ID Source Name Approval Order Reason FUtah Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation 10917 020917019 No changeUtah Hallmark Cabinet 10580 Hallmark Cabinet 010283 Increase < Utah Harper Contracting 10570 Pit #14 - Point of the Mountain 010976 Increase < Utah Harper Contracting 11051 020125 No changeUtah Harper Contracting 11797 021797002 No changeUtah Heber Light and Power 10884 020884005 No changeUtah Hexcel Corporation 11386 Salt Lake Operations 010079 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010131 Increase < Utah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010552 Increase < Utah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010705 Increase < Utah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010822 Increase < Utah Hill Air Force Base 10121 OO-ALCM/EMC 020209 Increase < Utah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 000378 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010103 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010130 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010261 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010274 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010367 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 010981 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 Main Base 011036 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 10121 OO-ALCM/EMC 020210 No changeUtah Hill Air Force Base 11284 021284011 No changeUtah Holcim (US) Inc. 10007 Devil's Slide Plant 010500 No changeUtah Holcim (US) Incorporated 10007 020007012 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 010039 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 010089 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 010811 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 020097 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 020109 No changeUtah Holly Refining & Marketing Company 10123 Phillips Refinery 010763 No changeUtah Horizon Milling 10920 020920004 Increase < Utah Hoyt USA 12481 Archery Products Manufacturing 010973 No changeUtah Hoyt USA 12481 022481002 No changeUtah Hudson Printing Company 10426 020009 No changeUtah Huish Detergents 10463 020463014 Increase < Utah IBA S&I Incorporated 10435 Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization 010980 No changeUtah Inland Constructors Incorporated 12741 022741001 No changeUtah Jack B. Parsons Company 10042 020006 No changeUtah Jack B. Parsons Company 11572 Bauer Pit & Batch Plant 990683 Operating Utah Johnson Matthey Refining 10367 020143 Increase < Utah Kennecott Utah Copper 10571 020178 Increase < 

C-21
Table C.6

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State Company Name Source ID Source Name Approval Order Reason FUtah Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation 10572 Power Plt/ Lab/ Tailings Impoundment 010816 No changeUtah Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation 10571 Mine & Copperton Concentrator 010862 No changeUtah Kern River Gas Transmission Company 12514 Elberta Compressor Station 010835 Increase < Utah Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Incorporated 10919 Kimberly-Clark - Ogden Plant 010871 Reduction Utah L-3 Communications 12226 020250 No changeUtah Lafarge Southwest 11188 021188003 No changeUtah La-Z-Boy Utah 10012 Furniture Manufacturing Plant 010869 Reduction Utah La-Z-Boy Utah 10012 Furniture Manufacturing Plant 010015 No changeUtah LDS Church Printing Center 10449 020449005 No changeUtah Lifetime Products 11229 021229013 Increase < Utah Lifetime Products 11229 Basketball standards & picnic table manufacturer 010197 No changeUtah Lifetime Products 11229 Basketball standards & picnic table manufacturer 010436 No changeUtah Lifetime Products 11229 020290 No changeUtah Litton Guidance & Control Systems 10397 020397007 No changeUtah Longview Fibre Company 11789 021789004 Increase < Utah MACA Supply Company 11358 020088 No changeUtah MACA Supply Company 11358 021358002 No changeUtah Magnesium Corporation of America 10716 020048 No changeUtah Metz Baking Company 10369 020249 No changeUtah Morton International/Morton Salt Div. 10726 Morton Salt 010251 No changeUtah Murray City Power Department 10348 Electrical Generation Plant 010126 Reduction Utah Northeast Casualty Real Property 10736 020736010A No changeUtah Nucor Steel 10008 Nucor Steel 010152 No changeUtah Owens Corning 10033 Western Fiberglass - Salt Lake City Plant 010541 No changeUtah Owens Corning 10033 020033008 No changeUtah PacifiCorp 10355 Gadsby Power Plant 010263 Reduction Utah PacifiCorp 10355 020067 No changeUtah Petersen Specialized Fabricators 12638 020020 No changeUtah Primary Children's Medical Center 10461 020028 No changeUtah Provo City Power 10319 020319002 No changeUtah Provo City Power 10795 Power Plant 030795??? No changeUtah Publishers Press 10488 020130 Increase < Utah Questar Gas 10432 020432005 Reduction Utah Rail Bearing Service 11246 Rail Road Wheel Bearing Refurbishing Plant 010807 Increase < Utah Rayloc - Division of Genuine Parts Co. 10808 Auto Parts Remanufacturing 010709 Increase < Utah Recot, Inc. DBA FritoLay 11297 Salty Snack Plant 010743 No changeUtah Rees's Enterprise 11043 021043005 No changeUtah Rees's Enterprise 11067 021067003 No changeUtah Rees's Enterprise 11878 021878003 No changeUtah Rohm & Haas-Morton International 10726 Morton Salt Division 020726007 No changeUtah Rohm & Haas-Morton International 10726 Morton Salt Division 020726008 No change

C-22
Table C.6

Utah State-Permitted Source Inventory - UDAQ Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State Company Name Source ID Source Name Approval Order Reason FUtah RT Manufacturing Incorporated 11867 RT Manufacturing - Orem Facility 010169 No changeUtah Safety-Kleen 10736 020736010 Reduction Utah Safety-Kleen 10736 APTUS 020168 No changeUtah Salt Lake City Department of Airports 10450 Salt Lake City International Airport 010710 Increase < Utah Salt Lake City Department of Airports 10450 Salt Lake City International Airport 010052 No changeUtah Silver Eagle Refining 10124 Woods Cross Inc 020082 Reduction Utah Skywest Airlines 11674 Skywest Airlines at SLC Int'l Airport 010964 No changeUtah Southwire Company 11262 Utah Plant 021262006 No changeUtah Sunnyside Cogeneration 10096 020096011A Increase < Utah Sunnyside Cogeneration 10096 020096010 No changeUtah Temkin International Incorporated 10860 Plastic Film Printing Facility 010151 No changeUtah The Quikrete Companies 10375 020123 No changeUtah Thiokol Corporation 10009 Promontory 020009088 No changeUtah Thiokol Propulsion 10009 Promontory Plant 020202 No changeUtah Thiokol Propulsion 10009 Promontory Plant 020009087 No changeUtah Third Rock Sand & Gravel 12437 Sand & Gravel Operation 010386 No changeUtah Tom Brown Incorporated 10034 Lisbon 020034008 No changeUtah Tooele Army Depot 11594 Tooele Army Depot 010712 Increase < Utah Town of Eagle Mountain 12198 Planning and Utility Department 010468 Increase < Utah Town of Eagle Mountain 12198 Planning and Utility Department 032198003 Increase < Utah United States Gypsum Company 10654 020342 Reduction Utah University of Utah 10354 020081 No changeUtah Utah Metal Works Incorporated 10337 Utah Metal Works 010506 Increase < Utah Utah State University 10047 020047006 No changeUtah Utelite Corporation 10676 Shale Processing 010170 No changeUtah Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company 10156 Trailer Manufacturing Facility 020003 No changeUtah Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company 10156 Trailer Manufacturing Facility 020212 No changeUtah Valtek Incorporated 10881 020137 No changeUtah W.W. Clyde and Company 12780 020139 No changeUtah Wasatch Energy Systems 10129 County Landfill & Energy Recovery Facility (DCERF) 010850 No changeUtah Wasatch Energy Systems 10129 020129010 No changeUtah Wasatch Technologies 12395 020173 Increase < Utah Wavell-Huber Wood Products 12501 022501002 No changeUtah Wavell-Huber Wood Products Incorporated 12501 Architectural Woodworking Shop 010877 Increase < Utah Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. 10059 020059006 No changeUtah Western Rock Products 11796 020280 No changeUtah Westinghouse Electric Company 10922 020275 No changeUtah Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 10922 Zirconium/Halfnium Production Plant 010088 Increase < 

C-23
Table C.7

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Included Sources

Permit Height Temperature Velocity Diameter N

Company Facility Number County (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tBCCK Engineering, Inc. Pretty Water Gas Plant CT-2969 Sweetwater 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 

 

Burlington Resources Oil and Gas MBE Compressor CT-2735 Fremont 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Carl D. Underwood Oil & Gas Burnt Wagon Gas Processing Plant CT-2370 Natrona 3.65 422.00 10.00 0.15 

 

Chevron USA, Inc. Bullfrog Compressor Station MD-351A Natrona 5.94 633.70 37.03 0.30 

 

Chevron USA, Inc. Waltman 44 Compression Facility MD-659 Natrona 5.94 649.00 52.70 0.30 

 

Condor Exploration LLC Slate Creek End Facility CT-2617 Lincoln 7.62 422.00 12.50 0.25 

 

Devon Energy Production CO. Worland Field Compressor Station CT-2677 Big Horn 7.92 725.92 57.60 0.39 

 

Duke Energy Field Services, LP Black Butte 1-18-100 C.S. CT-2373 Sweetwater 12.19 422.00 42.36 0.25 

 

Duke Energy Field Services, LP Black Butte 13-18-100 C.S. CT-2606 Sweetwater 9.14 422.00 39.62 0.25 

 

Duke Energy Field Services, LP Patrick Draw Gas Plant MD-663 Sweetwater 7.31 422.00 46.45 0.25 (

 

General Chemical Corporation Green River Trona Plant MD-567 Sweetwater 25.48 361.70 17.28 1.03 (

 

Jonah Gas Gathering Company Bird Canyon/County Line C.S. CT-2252 Sublette 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.70 

 

Jonah Gas Gathering Company Falcon Compressor Station CT-2251 Sublette 9.75 725.37 26.39 0.70 

 

Jonah Gas Gathering Company Falcon Compressor Station MD-815 Sublette 4.57 674.00 30.78 0.20 

 

Jonah Gas Gathering Company Paradise Compressor Station CT-2250 Sublette 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.70 

 

Kern River Gas Transmission Coyote Creek CT-3003 Uinta 5.39 422.00 12.50 0.40 

 

Kern River Gas Transmission Muddy Creek Station MD-736 Lincoln 17.22 422.00 13.16 2.59 

 

Kern River Gas Transmission Muddy Creek Station MD-783 Lincoln 17.22 736.00 12.63 2.75 

 

Merit Energy Company SRMGU 27-32 MD-620 Natrona 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 

 

Mountain Gas Resources Fabian Ditch Compressor Station MD-642 Sweetwater 7.62 509.82 28.95 0.40 

 

Mountain Gas Resources Granger Gas Plant MD-644 Sweetwater 4.88 833.00 24.38 0.06 

 

Mountain Gas Resources Jonah Compressor Station CT-2280 Sublette 7.62 904.00 28.66 0.40 

 

Northwest Pipeline Company Green River Compressor Station MD-863 Sweetwater 9.60 493.20 11.20 1.90 (

 

Questar Gas Management CO. Blacks Fork Gas Plant MD-638 Uinta 9.14 869.00 69.17 0.46 

 

Questar Gas Management CO. Pinedale Compressor Station CT-2466 Sublette 15.24 714.00 72.54 0.46 

 

Questar Gas Management CO. Vermillion Creek C.S. MD-549A Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Questar Pipeline Company Eakin Compressor Station MD-615 Uinta 10.52 700.00 28.01 0.61 (1

 

Saurus Resources Incorporated MH-1 Compressor Station CT-2301 Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Tom Brown Incorporated Bravo Unit 02 Central Tank Battery MD-617 Sweetwater 7.31 422.00 47.85 0.30 

 

Umetco Minerals Rattlesnake Quarry MD-625 Natrona 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 

Wexpro Company Canyon Creek/Vermillion Complex MD-605 Sweetwater 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 

 

Williams Field Services Big Piney Compressor Station MD-677 Sublette 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Williams Field Services Echo Springs Gas Plant MD-606 Carbon 10.67 560.93 24.43 1.72 1

 

Williams Field Services LaBarge Compressor Station MD-675 Lincoln 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Williams Field Services Saddle Ridge Compressor Station MD-676 Sublette 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 

 

Total Wyoming State-Permitted Source Emissions 

6

C-24
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Lincoln AEC Oil & Gas (USA) Incorporated JGGC/OTTCO Interconnect Miscellaneous MD-806 Permit expired.WY Big Horn American Colloid Mineral Company Lovell Plant Bentonite Plant MD-289A No change in emissions.WY Carbon Amoco Production Company Baldy Butte 17-1 Production Site CT-2522 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Cabrito 10-30 Production Site CT-2532 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Cabrito 13-18 Well Site Production Site CT-2688 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Cabrito 6-25 Production Site CT-2652 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Champlin 263 B5 Well Site Production Site CT-2837 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Champlin 337 G4 Well Site Production Site CT-2659 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Champlin 345 B2 Production Site CT-3007 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Champlin 345 B2 Production Site CT-3007A Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Corona 02-11 Production Site CT-2928 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Corona 02-19 Well Site Production Site CT-2965 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Corona 11-30 Well Site Production Site CT-2687 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Corona 8-19 Production Site CT-2531 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Crooks Gap Road 21-02 Production Site CT-3060 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Crooks Gap Road 24 Production Site CT-2396 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Frewen 15 Production Site CT-2526 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Frewen 19 Production Site CT-2523 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Monument 19-02 Production Site CT-2930 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Monument 29-01 Well Site Production Site CT-2876 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Monument Lake 33-2 Well Site Production Site CT-2640 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 04-22 Production Site CT-3004 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 06-22 Production Site CT-3000 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 10-22 Production Site CT-2943 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 16-14 Well Site Production Site CT-2964 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 16-15 Production Site CT-2963 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 16-22 Production Site CT-2962 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Amoco Production Company Stud Horse Butte 4-20 Production Site CT-2686 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Tierney II 29-5 Well Site Production Site CT-2741 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Tierney II 33-2 Well Site Production Site CT-2701 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Two Rim 03-01 Production Site CT-2878 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Two Rim 20-2 Production Site CT-2525 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Amoco Production Company Wild Rose 13-01 Production Site CT-2925 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Brady 46F Production Site CT-2713 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Chambers Federal 3-24 Production Site CT-2639 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Chambers Federal 4-24 Production Site CT-3135 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Chambers Federal 5-24 Production Site CT-3121 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko E&P Company, LP Echo Springs 3-30 Production Site CT-3112 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko E&P Company, LP Echo Springs State 4-16 Well Site Production Site CT-2927 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko E&P Company, LP Federal BF #1 Production Site MD-860 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko E&P Company, LP Federal BF 2-30 Production Site CT-3043 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko E&P Company, LP Federal BH-4 Production Site CT-2802 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Red Desert 10-1 Production Site CT-3161 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Red Desert 17-1 Production Site CT-2704 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Red Desert 17-2 Production Site CT-2982 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP State I-4 Production Site CT-3068 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Table Rock Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-649 Administrative change.WY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Table Rock Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-767 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Table Rock Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-879 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sweetwater Anadarko E&P Company, LP Wells Bluff 13-1 Production Site MD-869 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Anadarko Gathering Company Blue Sky Compressor Station CT-2168A Administrative change.WY Sublette Anschutz Exploration Corporation Mesa 6-27D CPF Production Site CT-3056 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Anschutz Exploration Corporation Mesa 9-21D Production Site CT-3055 Production well with emissiWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Amos Draw Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2056A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Antelope Valley Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-588A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Barker Draw Prospect B C.S. Compressor Station CT-2096A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Barker Draw Prospect C.S. Compressor Station CT-2094A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Barker Draw Prospect C.S. Compressor Station CT-2094A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Lone Tree Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-523A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 1 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2333 Permit expired.

C-25
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 13 Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-732A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 14 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2345 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 16 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2347 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 18 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2349 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 24 Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-794 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Pennaco Pod 3 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2335 Permit expired.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Gathering System - Pod A Compressor Station CT-2150A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Gathering System - Pod B Compressor Station CT-2151A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Gathering System - Pod C Compressor Station CT-2152A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Gathering System - Pod D Compressor Station CT-2153A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Gathering System - Pod E Compressor Station CT-2154A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Pod J ( Formerly Station 21) Compressor Station CT-2186A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sheridan Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Prairie Dog Pod K (Formerly Station 28) Compressor Station CT-2178A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated South Meserve Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-1902A Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated South Ostlund/Daly Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-521A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Spotted Horse Creek #2 Prospect C.S. Compressor Station CT-2506A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Tripp Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2055A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Twenty Mile Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-524A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy Incorporated Werner 13 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2220A Administrative change.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Box Draw Pod 1 Compressor Station CT-1623A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Box Draw Pod 2 Compressor Station CT-1624A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Central Kitty Pod 1 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2581A Co-emission rate modificatiWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Central Kitty Pod 2 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2582A Co-emission rate modificatiWY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Mustang Main Station Compressor Station CT-1783A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Prima - Pod Site 1 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2299 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Prima - Pod Site 2 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2300 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. South Kitty Pod 2 Compressor Station MD-685A Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Main Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2281 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 1 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2282 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 2 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2283 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 3 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2284 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 4 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2285 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 5 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2286 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 6 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2287 Permit expired.WY Campbell Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Wolf Pack Pod 7 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2288 Permit expired.WY Converse Belle Fourche Pipeline Company Well Draw Storage Tank Battery MD-662 No inventoried pollutants.WY Crook Bentonite Performance Minerals Colony Plant Bentonite Plant MD-603A Excluded - based on WDEQ WY Crook Bentonite Performance Minerals Colony Plant Bentonite Plant MD-603 Excluded - based on WDEQ WY Big Horn Bentonite Performance Minerals Lovell Plant Bentonite Plant MD-849 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Natrona Bill Barrett Corporation Cave Gulch #24 Compressor Station MD-580 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Natrona Bill Barrett Corporation Cave Gulch #7 Production Site MD-579 Production well with emissiWY Natrona Bill Barrett Corporation Cave Gulch Gas Conditioning Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-626 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC 3149 Battery Compressor Station CT-2774 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC 3349 East Battery Compressor Station CT-2775 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC 3349 West Battery Compressor Station CT-2776 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC 3449 Battery Compressor Station CT-2777 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Chevron 19 Battery Compressor Station CT-2054A Administrative change.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Chevron 20 Battery Compressor Station CT-2051A Administrative change.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Chevron 30 Battery Compressor Station CT-2052A Administrative change.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Clearmont Central/2949 Battery Compressor Station CT-2773 Permit withdrawn.WY Campbell Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC East Hall Battery Compressor Station MD-422A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Gladewater Central Station Compressor Station MD-670A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Landeck Central Station Compressor Station MD-630A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Johnson Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Piney Creek Central Station Compressor Station MD-654A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC West Cook Battery Compressor Station MD-653A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Wrench Ranch 49 Battery Compressor Station CT-2329A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Bitter Creek Pipelines LLC Wrench Ranch 49 Battery Compressor Station CT-2329A2 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Black Hills Corporation Neil Simpson Two Power Plant MD-604A Administrative change. WY Campbell Black Hills Corporation WYGEN Unit 1 Power Plant CT-1236A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Uinta BP America Production Company Anschutz Ranch East Sweet Gas Plant MD-779 No change in emissions.

C-26
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Uinta BP America Production Company Anschutz Ranch East Sweet Gas Plant MD-779A No change in emissions.WY Sublette BP America Production Company Antelope 3-9 Production Site CT-3085 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 03-30 Well Site Production Site CT-2835 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 06-30 Well Site Production Site CT-2836 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 11-18 Production Site CT-2942 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 15-13 Production Site CT-2981 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 16-30 Production Site CT-2941 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 4-19 Production Site CT-3063 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 6-31 Well Site Production Site CT-2615 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Cabrito 6-31 Well Site Production Site MD-795 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 221 A4 Production Site CT-3187 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 261 A5 Production Site CT-2974 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Champlin 278 E4 Production Site CT-3145 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 292 B3 Production Site CT-3210 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 336 G2 Production Site CT-2972 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 452 C5 Production Site CT-2934 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Champlin 452 E5 Production Site CT-2917 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Coal Gulch F3 Production Site CT-3083 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 10 S-3 Production Site CT-3107 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 15-02 Production Site CT-3170 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 15-4 Production Site CT-3189 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 20-03 Production Site CT-3127 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 25-05 Production Site CT-3186 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap 35-S1 Production Site CT-3066 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Raod 10-02 Production Site CT-3252 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 10 S-2 Production Site CT-3105 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 10-01 Production Site CT-3128 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 11-01 Production Site CT-3110 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 11-02 Production Site CT-3242 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 11-3 Production Site CT-3250 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 15-01 Production Site CT-3103 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 15-3 Production Site CT-3240 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 17-01 Production Site CT-2970 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 17-02 Production Site CT-3008 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 17-02 Production Site CT-3008A Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 17-03 Production Site CT-2975 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 21-01 Production Site CT-3014 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Crooks Gap Road 36-5 Production Site CT-3171 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Delaney Rim 36-02 Production Site CT-3080 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Duck Lake 1-2 Production Site CT-3070 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Duck Lake 23-2 Production Site CT-3294 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Duck Lake 25-01 Production Site CT-2983 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Eight Mile 13-03 Production Site CT-3185 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Eight Mile Lake 11-2 Production Site CT-3150 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Five Mile Gulch 19-1 Production Site CT-3211 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Five Mile Gulch 29-01 Production Site CT-3137 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Fivemile 7-1 Production Site CT-3140 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 07-03 Production Site CT-2898 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 16-02 Production Site CT-2919 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 16-03 Production Site CT-3106 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 16-04 Production Site CT-3095 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 16-05 Production Site CT-3281 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 18-02 Production Site CT-3074 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 19-04 Production Site CT-2935 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 19-5 Production Site CT-3287 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 9-2 Production Site CT-3104 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 9-3 Production Site CT-3109 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Frewen 9-4 Production Site CT-3138 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Luman 9-1 Production Site CT-3307 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Monument 29-3 Production Site CT-3286 Production well with emissi

C-27
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Monument 31-01 Production Site CT-2971 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Monument Lake 29-02 Well Site Production Site CT-2827 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company Muddy Creek 5-5 Production Site CT-3201 Production well with emissiWY Uinta BP America Production Company Painter Reservoir Gas Complex Sweet Gas Plant MD-768 No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Red Desert 15-1 Production Site CT-3314 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Red Wash 11-1 Production Site CT-3243 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Red Wash 3-1 Production Site CT-3292 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Siberia Ridge 1-3 Production Site CT-3251 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Sourdough Gulch 16-2 Production Site CT-3293 Production well with emissiWY Carbon BP America Production Company South Rim 5-2 Production Site CT-3087 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company South Rim 5-3 Production Site CT-3188 Production well with emissiWY Sublette BP America Production Company Stud Horse Butte 09-15 Production Site CT-3136 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 22-03 Production Site CT-3149 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 23-2 Production Site CT-3310 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 23-2 Production Site CT-3310 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 23-2 Production Site CT-3310 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 23-3 Production Site CT-3308 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 23-4 Production Site CT-3282 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 27-03 Production Site CT-3125 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 27-2 Production Site CT-3082 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 28-02 Production Site CT-3058 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 28-03 Production Site CT-3059 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 28-04 Production Site CT-3081 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 33-03 Production Site CT-2968 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 33-04 Production Site CT-2973 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Tierney II 33-5 Production Site CT-3270 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 20-03 Production Site CT-2966 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 20-04 Production Site CT-3006 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 21-04 Production Site CT-2979 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 30-03 Production Site CT-2936 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 3-2 Production Site CT-3313 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 36-02 Production Site CT-3160 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Two Rim 36-4 Production Site CT-3311 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Wamsutter Rim 34-2 Production Site CT-3309 Production well with emissiWY Uinta BP America Production Company Whitney Canyon Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-778 No change in emissions.WY Uinta BP America Production Company Whitney Canyon Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-629 No change in emissions.WY Uinta BP America Production Company Whitney Canyon Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-629A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Wild Rose 13-02 Production Site CT-2918 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Wild Rose 13-03 Production Site CT-2967 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP America Production Company Wild Rose 13-04 Production Site CT-2877 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater BP Amoco Production Company Champlin 292 A2 Storage Tank Battery CT-2521 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Bridger Coal Company Jim Bridger Coal Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-876 No change in emissions.WY Fremont Burlington Resources Oil and Gas FEO 1-35 SWD Production Site CT-3146 Production well with emissiWY Fremont Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Lost Cabin Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant CT-1946A No change in emissions.WY Carbon Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation D.S. Federal #14-4 Production Site CT-1817A Production well with emissiWY Carbon Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Lookout Wash #1 Production Site CT-2760 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Lookout Wash 10-32-15-93 Production Site CT-2761 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Lookout Wash 40-5-14-93 Production Site CT-3099 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Wamsutter 30-26 Production Site CT-3241 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation Wamsutter 40-24 Production Site CT-2978 Production well with emissiWY Campbell Carbon County CT-2443 Crushing and Screening CT-2443 Administrative change.WY Lincoln Chevron USA, Inc. Ballerina #20-10 Production Site CT-2716 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Chevron USA, Inc. Birch Creek 134 Production Site CT-2997 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Chevron USA, Inc. Birch Creek 186 Production Site CT-2997 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Chevron USA, Inc. Birch Creek C.S. @ Battery A Compressor Station MD-770A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Lincoln Chevron USA, Inc. Ham's Fork 24-3 Production Site CT-2718 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln Chevron USA, Inc. Mariposa Federal 3 Production Site CT-2717 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln Chevron USA, Inc. Rim Rock 11-13 Production Site CT-3133 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Chevron USA, Inc. Stagecoach Draw # 17A Production Site CT-2926 Production well with emissiWY Natrona Chevron USA, Inc. Waltman # 57 Production Site CT-2897 Production well with emissi

C-28
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Campbell Clear Creek Natural Gas, LLC Skull Creek Gathering System Compressor Station CT-2758 DEQ could not find this perWY Uinta Clear Creek Storage Company LLC Clear Creek Gas Storage Facility Production Site MD-594 Production well with emissiWY Campbell CMS Field Service Larey Draw Compressor Station CT-2405A No change in emissions.WY Campbell CMS Field Service MTG-Felix Central Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2298A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Cottonwood Creek Prospect C Station Compressor Station CT-2194A No change in emissions.WY Campbell CMS Field Services Fitch Central Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-602A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell CMS Field Services Kingsbury Central Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-828 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Kuhn #2 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2683A No change in emissions.WY Johnson CMS Field Services Kuhn 27 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2189A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis A Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2644 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis B Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2645 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis C Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2646 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis D Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2647 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis E Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2648 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis F Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2649 Permit withdrawn.WY Sheridan CMS Field Services Meriwether Lewis G Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2650 Permit withdrawn.WY Campbell CMS Field Services North Felix Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-1732A Administrative change.WY Laramie Coastal Chemical Cheyenne Nitrogenous Fertilizer Facility Miscellaneous CT-1099A2 Administrative change.WY Laramie Coastal Chemical Cheyenne Nitrogenous Fertilizer Facility Miscellaneous CT-1099A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater Colorado Interstate Gas Table Rock Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-740 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Colorado Interstate Gas Table Rock Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-740A No change in emissions.WY Johnson Comet Energy, LLC Lawrence 28 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2954A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Natrona ConocoPhillips Company Casper Pump Station Storage Tank Battery MD-673 No inventoried pollutants.WY Platte ConocoPhillips Company Guernsey Crude Station Storage Tank Battery MD-636 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater ConocoPhillips Company Rock Springs Terminal Storage Tank Battery MD-635 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sheridan ConocoPhillips Company Sheridan Terminal Storage Tank Battery MD-634 No change in emissions.WY Sheridan ConocoPhillips Company Sheridan Terminal Storage Tank Battery MD-634A No change in emissions.WY Natrona Defense Technology Corporation Casper Facilities Miscellaneous MD-762 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company Blue Gap No. 4-7-14-92 Production Site CT-2830 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company East Echo Springs 14-26-19-92 Production Site CT-3164 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company East Echo Springs 16-22-19-92 Production Site CT-3166 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company East Echo Springs 3-26-19-92 Production Site CT-3163 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company East Esho Springs 1-34-19-92 Production Site CT-3305 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Devon Energy Production Company Five Mile Ditch 6-30-21-93 Production Site CT-3100 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Devon Energy Production Company Red Lakes 13-6-18-94 Production Site CT-3062 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Devon Energy Production Company Red Lakes No. 16-6-18-94 Production Site CT-2714 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company Standard Draw 1-18-18-93 Production Site CT-3079 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company Standard Draw 16-18-18-93 Production Site CT-3165 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company Standard Draw 16-18-18-93 Production Site CT-3165 (Corrected) Production well with emissiWY Carbon Devon Energy Production Company Standard Draw 16-30-18-93 Production Site CT-3086 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Devon Energy Production Company Tierney 15-32-19-94 Production Site CT-2655 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Devon Energy Production Company Tierney 2-32-19-94 Production Site CT-3290 Production well with emissiWY Big Horn Devon Energy Production Company Worland Field Compressor Station Compressor Station ct-2677a Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette Devon Energy Production Company Yellow Point No. 04-01-28-109 Production Site CT-2643 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Devon Energy Production Company Yellow Point No. 14-14-28-109 Production Site CT-2702 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Duke Energy Field Services, LP Bitter Creek 21-4 Dehydration CT-3289 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Duke Energy Field Services, LP Black Butte 11-19-100 C.S. Compressor Station CT-2605A No change in emissions.WY Uinta Duke Energy Field Services, LP Emigrant Trail Gas Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-774 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell El Paso Corporation Lazy B Station Compressor Station CT-1847A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sweetwater El Paso Corporation Redlakes #2 Dehydration CT-2275 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Fremont El Paso Field Services Fee 1-8 Production Site CT-3035 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 1-4 Dehydration CT-3021 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 2-32 Dehydration CT-3142 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 3-4 Dehydration CT-3047 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 4-32 Dehydration CT-3037 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 9-32 Dehydration CT-3020 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Forest 9-4 Dehydration CT-3023 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Red Lakes 12-10 Dehydration CT-2999 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Red Lakes 13-6-18-94 Dehydration CT-3096 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Red Lakes 8-1 Dehydration CT-3011 Increase < 1 tpy.

C-29
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Carbon El Paso Field Services Standard Draw 1-18-18-93 Production Site CT-3067 Production well with emissiWY Carbon El Paso Field Services Standard Draw 16-18-18-93 Dehydration CT-3122 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Tierney 2-32 Dehydration CT-3209 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wamsutter Regulator Compressor Station MD-741A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wild Rose 11-18 Dehydration CT-3239 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wild Rose 1-26 Dehydration CT-3048 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wild Rose 2-18 Dehydration CT-3041 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wild Rose Federal 1-6 Dehydration CT-3221 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater El Paso Field Services Wild Rose Federal 2-10 Dehydration CT-3126 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette EOG Resources B Tank Battery Production Site CT-1552A Production well with emissiWY Lincoln EOG Resources Emigrant Springs 20-21 Production Site CT-3029 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln EOG Resources Emigrant Springs 21-22 Production Site CT-3015 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln EOG Resources ESU 20-21 & 26-21 Production Site MD-868 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln EOG Resources GRBU 216-12 Production Site CT-3116 Production well with emissiWY Sublette EOG Resources GRBU 301-7d Production Site CT-2990 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater EOG Resources North Ruger 35-29D Production Site CT-3257 Production well with emissiWY Sheridan Federated Oil and Gas Box Elder Creek Main Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2289A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sheridan Federated Oil and Gas Wild Horse Creek Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-1942A No change in emissions.WY Portable First Energy Services Company, Inc. Road Runner Screen Plant Crushing and Screening CT-3218 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell First Sourcenergy Wyoming Incorp. PRFC #14 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2267 Permit expired.WY Campbell First Sourcenergy Wyoming Incorp. PRFC #21 Compressor Station CT-2372A No change in emissions.WY Campbell First Sourcenergy Wyoming Incorp. PRFC #21 Compressor Station CT-2372 Permit expired.WY Sweetwater FMC Wyoming Corporation Soda Ash Facility - Green River Plant Trona Industry MD-608 No change in emissions.WY Sublette Forest Oil Corporation Elm Federal No. 23-12 Production Site CT-2867 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Forest Oil Corporation Elm Federal No. 23-22 Production Site CT-2547 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Forest 1-4-17-94 Production Site CT-3097 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Forest 2-32-18-94 Production Site CT-3172 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Forest 3-4-17-94 Production Site CT-3168 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Forest 9-32-18-94 Production Site CT-3108 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose 1-26 Production Site CT-3139 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose 1-26 Production Site CT-3139 (Corrected) Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose Federal 11-18 Production Site CT-3303 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose Federal 1-6 Production Site CT-3306 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose Federal 2-18-17-94 Production Site CT-3147 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Forest Oil Corporation Wild Rose Federal 9-18 Production Site CT-3317 Production well with emissiWY Laramie Frontier Oil and Refining Company Frontier Refinery Petroleum Refinery MD-607 No change in emissions.WY Laramie Frontier Oil and Refining Company Frontier Refinery Petroleum Refinery MD-839 No inventoried pollutants.WY Washakie Hiland Partners, L.L.C. Hiland Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-641 No change in emissions.WY Washakie Hiland Partners, L.L.C. Hiland Gas Plant Sour Gas Plant MD-641A No change in emissions.WY Fremont Howell Petroleum Corporation Big Sand Draw Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-885 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Platte Imerys Marble, Inc. Wheatland Marble Plant Miscellaneous MD-695 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Independent Production Company Pronghorn North Compressor Station CT-1889A Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sheridan Intermountain Construction & Materials CT-1216 Asphalt Plant MD-610 No change in emissions.WY Campbell JM Huber Stones Throw North Compressor Station CT-2694A No change in emissions.WY Campbell JM Huber Stones Throw Pod 1 Station Compressor Station CT-1964A No change in emissions.WY Campbell JM Huber Stones Throw Pod 5 Station Compressor Station CT-1965A No change in emissions.WY Campbell JM Huber Stones Throw Pod 6 Station Compressor Station MD-705A No change in emissions.WY Sublette Joe's Concrete & Lumber Incorp. Portable Concrete Batch Plant Concrete Plant CT-2117 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette Jonah Gas Gathering Company Bird Canyon/County Line C.S. Compressor Station CT-2252A Location change only.WY Sublette Jonah Gas Gathering Company Luman Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-714 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Washakie KCS Mountain Resources Incorp. Manderson Gas Plant / Oil Battery Sour Gas Plant CT-1320A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Natrona Kinder Morgan Cyclone Ridge (39 Mile) C.S. Compressor Station MD-672 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Amos Draw Booster Compressor Station MD-788 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Archibald Booster Compressor Station MD-792 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" HA Creek Booster Compressor Station MD-789 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Hay Booster Compressor Station MD-787 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Converse Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Hogs Draw Booster Compressor Station MD-785 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Converse Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Irwin Ranch Station Compressor Station MD-786 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Weston Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Todd Booster Compressor Station MD-784 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Converse Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "A" Well Draw Booster Station Compressor Station MD-742 Reduction at a PSD minor s

C-30
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Natrona Kinder Morgan, Inc. Casper Extraction Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-769 No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater Marathon Oil Company Wamsutter 12-32 Production Site CT-2703 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Cabrito 12-19-29-107 Production Site CT-3222 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Cabrito 12-25-29-108 Production Site CT-2888 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Cabrito 14-25-29-108 Production Site CT-2938 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Cabrito 14-30-29-107 Production Site CT-3223 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Cabrito 7-30-29-107 Production Site CT-3072 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Corona SHB 10-30-29-108 Production Site CT-3277 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Corona-SHB 16-31-29-108 Production Site CT-3246 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Corona-Stud Horse Butte 6-30-29-108 Production Site CT-3297 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 11-7-28-108 Production Site CT-3194 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 12-7-28-108 Production Site CT-2914 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 1-5x-28-108 Production Site CT-2944 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 1-6X-28-108 Production Site CT-2937 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 1-7X-28-108 Production Site CT-2889 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 2-7-28-108 Production Site CT-2881 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 3-8x-28-108 Production Site CT-2957 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 4-18-28-108 Production Site CT-2911 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 4-4-28-108 Production Site CT-2912 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 4-6-28-109 Production Site CT-3026 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 5-4-28-108 Production Site CT-3167 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 5-8-28-108 Production Site CT-2956 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 6-5-28-108 Production Site CT-2891 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 6-6-28-108 Production Site CT-3022 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 6-7-28-108 Production Site CT-2913 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 7-5-28-108 Production Site CT-2959 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 7-6-28-108 Production Site CT-2819 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 8-6-28-108 Production Site CT-3078 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal 8-7-28-108 Production Site CT-2902 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Jonah Federal No. 4-7-28-108 Production Site CT-2907 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 10-26-29-108 Production Site CT-3053 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 10-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3092 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 10-33-29-108 Production Site CT-2807 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 10-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2906 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 10-35-29-108 Production Site CT-2882 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 11-22-29-108 Production Site CT-3017 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 11-33X-29-108 Production Site CT-3144 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 12-26-29-108 Production Site CT-2887 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 12-27-29-108 Production Site CT-3272 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 12-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3195 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 12-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2904 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 1-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3016 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 1-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3179 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 13-20-29-108 Production Site CT-2908 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 13-29-29-108 Production Site CT-2909 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 1-36-29-108 Production Site CT-2939 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-26-29-108 Production Site CT-2951 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-27-29-108 Production Site CT-3215 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3213 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-33-29-108 Production Site CT-3267 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-34-29-108 Production Site CT-3120 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 14-35-29-108 Production Site CT-2949 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 15-19-29-108 Production Site CT-3025 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 16-26-29-108 Production Site CT-3217 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 16-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3156 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 16-33-29-108 Production Site CT-3280 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 16-35R-29-108 Production Site CT-3198 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-26-29-108 Production Site CT-2961 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-27-29-108 Production Site CT-3204 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3200 Production well with emissi

C-31
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3090 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-33-29-108 Production Site CT-3214 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2953 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 2-35-29-108 Production Site CT-2958 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 3-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3044 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 3-36-29-108 Production Site CT-3057 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 4-26-29-108 Production Site CT-2960 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 4-27-29-108 Production Site CT-3276 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 4-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3155 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 4-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3091 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 4-35-29-108 Production Site CT-2866 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 5-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3247 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 5-36-29-108 Production Site CT-2929 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 6-26-29-108 Production Site CT-3113 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 6-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3089 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 6-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3073 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 6-33-29-108 Production Site CT-3205 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 6-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2910 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 7-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3050 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 7-33-29-108 Production Site CT-2820 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 7-36A-29-108 Production Site CT-3230 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-26-29-108 Production Site CT-3071 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-27M-29-108 Production Site CT-3315 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-28-29-108 Production Site CT-3296 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3248 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-35-29-108 Production Site CT-2948 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 8-36-29-108 Production Site CT-2950 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 9-19-29-108 Production Site CT-2905 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte 9-29-29-108 Production Site CT-3051 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte No. 4-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2915 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Stud Horse Butte No. 8-34-29-108 Production Site CT-2803 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 10-11-28-109 Production Site CT-3193 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 10-13-28-109 Production Site CT-3203 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 10-14-28-109 Production Site CT-3197 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 11-14-28-109 Production Site CT-3202 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 12-13-28-109 Production Site CT-3052 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 14-13-28-109 Production Site CT-3180 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 16-11-28-109 Production Site CT-2808 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 2-12-28-109 Production Site CT-3019 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 2-1-28-109 Production Site CT-3249 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 4-12-28-109 Production Site CT-2945 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 6-12-28-109 Production Site CT-2952 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 8-12-28-109 Production Site CT-3075 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 8-13-28-108 Production Site CT-3119 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point 8-2-28-109 Production Site CT-2880 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point No. 10-12-28-109 Production Site CT-2890 Production well with emissiWY Sublette McMurry Oil Company Yellow Point No. 12-12-28-109 Production Site CT-2903 Production well with emissiWY Converse Merit Energy Company Sage Creek Gas Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-648 No change in emissions.WY Converse Merit Energy Company Sage Grouse Booster Compressor Station MD-743 No change in emissions.WY Carbon Merit Energy Company Savery Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-816 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell MIGC Incorporated Bonepile Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-752A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Lincoln Mountain Gas Resources Ballerina 10-10 Dehydration CT-2991 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Blue Forest Compressor Station MD-884 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Blue Forest 30-13F Dehydration CT-3115 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Blue Forest 40-13 Well Dehydration CT-2924 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Bruff 50-24 Dehydration CT-2596 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Fabian Ditch Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-642A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Lincoln Mountain Gas Resources Hailstone #10 Dehydration CT-2977 No inventoried pollutants.WY Lincoln Mountain Gas Resources Helwig 10-8 Dehydration CT-2562 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Horse Shoe Unit 10-34 Dehydration CT-3143 No inventoried pollutants.

C-32
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Lincoln Road Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-650 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Lincoln Road Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-829 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Sevenmile Gulch Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-1471A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater Mountain Gas Resources Stagecoach Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-372A No change in emissions.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 10-21 Dehydration CT-2586 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 10-23A Dehydration CT-2414 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 14-21 Dehydration CT-2614 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 14-24 Dehydration CT-2413 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 16-21 Dehydration CT-2588 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 2-23 Dehydration CT-2425 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 2-24 Dehydration CT-2616 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Horse Butte 6-24 Dehydration CT-2587 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources Stud Hourse Butte 12-24 Dehydration CT-3337 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette Mountain Gas Resources War Bonnett 15-23 Dehydration CT-2667 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Lincoln Mountain Gas Resources Whiskey Butte 40-30 Dehydration CT-2563 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Nance Petroleum Corporation Red Lakes #2-32 Production Site CT-2374 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore 1-19 Production Site CT-2885 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln Northwest Pipeline Company Muddy Creek Station Compressor Station MD-844 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Converse Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant MD-682 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Petroleum Development Corporation LX Bar Pod 1 Station Compressor Station MD-494A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Petroleum Development Corporation LX Bar Pod 3 Station Compressor Station MD-496 EXPIRED Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Petroleum Development Corporation LX Bar Pod 4 Station Compressor Station MD-497A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Lincoln Pittsburg and Midway Coal Company Kemmerer Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-566 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Natrona Platte Pipe Line Company Casper Tank farm Miscellaneous MD-803 No inventoried pollutants.WY Campbell Powder River Coal Company North Antelope/Rochelle Coal Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-657A Included in MD-657.WY Campbell Powder River Coal Company Rawhide Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-703 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sweetwater Questar Exploration & Production Federal Well 19-1 Production Site CT-2976 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Questar Exploration & Production Mesa 5-21 Production Site CT-3254 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Questar Exploration & Production Mesa Well 16-16 Production Site CT-3219 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Questar Exploration & Production Mesa Well 7-7 & Mesa 3-7 Production Site CT-3192 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Questar Exploration & Production Mesa Well 7-7 & Mesa 3-7 Production Site CT-3192 (Corrected) Production well with emissiWY Sublette Questar Exploration & Production Stewart Point 15-17 Production Site CT-3283 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Questar Exploration & Production Wedge Unit 8 Production Site CT-2736 Production well with emissiWY Uinta Questar Gas Management Company Blacks Fork Gas Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-873 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Big Horn Red Butte Pipe Line Company Byron Station Storage Tank Battery MD-273A No inventoried pollutants.WY Washakie Red Butte Pipe Line Company Chatham Station Storage Tank Battery MD-275A No inventoried pollutants.WY Natrona Rissler and McMurry Company Eagle Creek Ranch Quarry Miscellaneous CT-2874 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Rocky Mountain Gas, Inc. Bobcat Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2274A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Bucko Satellite 1 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2565 Permit expired.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Bucko Satellite 10 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2567A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Bucko Satellite 10 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2567 Permit expired.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Bucko Satellite 9 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2566 Permit expired.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Carson State Central Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-656A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Church Central Compressor Station CT-2427A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Clarkellen Central Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-825A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Hanslip Central Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2490A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Hoe Creek Satellite #2 C.S. Compressor Station CT-2172A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Horse Creek Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2462A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Kline Draw Central Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2235A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC LX Bar Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2240A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Middle Prong Central Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-835 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Riverbend Central Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2569A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Riverbend Satellite 3 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2572A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Spotted Horse Central C. S. Compressor Station CT-2173A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Store Draw Compressor Station MD-753A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC West Kitty Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2074A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Rowdy Pipeline, LLC Wright Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2381A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater SF Phosphates Limited Phosphate Fertilizer Plant Miscellaneous MD-384A No change in emissions.WY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Antelope #11-4 Production Site CT-2980 Production well with emissiWY Sheridan Shell Rocky Mountain Production Antelope 1-9 & Antelope 2-9 Production Site MD-836 Production well with emissi

C-33
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Falcon 1-36 Production Site MD-864 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Falcon 8-36 Production Site MD-864 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Jensen 10-11D Dehydration CT-3196 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Jensen 1A Production Site CT-3123 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Mesa 13-26-32-109 Production Site CT-3285 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Mesa 6-28D-32-109 & Mesa 11-28-32-109 Production Site CT-3134 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Mesa 7-27-32-109 Production Site CT-3132 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production New Fork 7-3-31-109 Production Site CT-3141 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production New Fork 7-3-31-109 Production Site CT-3141 (Corrected) Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Rainbow 11-31-30-107 Production Site CT-3231 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Rainbow 7-31 Production Site CT-3124 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Shell Rocky Mountain Production Riverside 2-14-31-109 Production Site CT-3284 Production well with emissiWY Natrona Sinclair Oil Company Casper Refinery Petroleum Refinery MD-697 No change in emissions.WY Natrona Sinclair Oil Company Casper Station Storage Tank Battery MD-700 No inventoried pollutants.WY Carbon Sinclair Oil Company Sinclair Refinery Petroleum Refinery MD-701 No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Taylor Quarry Quarry Crushing and Screening MD-775 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Black Thunder Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-877 Administrative change.WY Converse Thunder Creek Gas Services Buckshot Treating Facility Compressor Station MD-855 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services FB-1233 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2515 (Corrected) No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services FB-3525 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2553 (Corrected) Included under FB-3525WY Johnson Thunder Creek Gas Services Juniper Draw Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2507A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services MTG Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-773A Administrative change.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services MTG Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-618 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services North Kitty Booster Station Compressor Station MD-858 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-0113 Compressor Station MD-481A2 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-0513 Compressor Station MD-667 DEQ could not find this perWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-0532 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2546A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-0943 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2550A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-1003 Compressor Station CT-1844A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-1115 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2559A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-1244 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2558A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-1632 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2548A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-1643 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2557A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2325 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2551A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2414 Compressor Station MD-583A Administrative change.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2414 Compressor Station MD-666 DEQ could not find this perWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2414 Compressor Station MD-583 DEQ could not find this perWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2414 Compressor Station MD-666A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2613 Compressor Station CT-1945A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2932 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2543A No change in emissions.WY Sheridan Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-2956 Compressor Station CT-2392A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-3053 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2544A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-3225 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2552A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services SC-3543 Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2654A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services South Kitty (Kitty South #2) Compressor Station MD-581A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services South Kitty (Kitty South #2) Compressor Station MD-859 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Thunder Creek Gas Services Spotted Horse (FB-2055) Compressor Station MD-639 DEQ could not find this perWY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Bravo Unit 02 Central Tank Battery Storage Tank Battery MD-688 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Fremont Tom Brown Incorporated Frenchie Draw Satellite Station Compressor Station CT-2058A Permit expired.WY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Great Divide #14 Production Site CT-2922 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Haven Unit #10-4 Production Site CT-2940 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Hay Reservior Unit #76 Production Site CT-2661 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Hay Reservoir 78 Production Site CT-2998 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Tom Brown Incorporated Hay Reservoir Unit #77 Production Site CT-2660 Production well with emissiWY Natrona Tom Brown Incorporated West Cave Gulch 4-36 Compressor Station CT-2900 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Fremont Tom Brown Incorporated West Pavillion Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-680 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Triton Coal Company LLC Buckskin Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-598 Included under MD-707.WY Campbell Triton Coal Company LLC Buckskin Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-707 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Triton Coal Company LLC North Rochelle Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-790 Administrative change.WY Campbell Triton Coal Company LLC North Rochelle Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-790A Administrative change.

C-34
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Boulder 5-19 Production Site CT-3175 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Boulder 7-19 Production Site CT-3304 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Mesa 9-34 Production Site CT-3288 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Riverside 1-4 Production Site CT-3064 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Riverside 2-2 Production Site CT-3046 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Riverside 4-10 Production Site CT-3268 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 10-21 Production Site CT-2720 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 12-23 Production Site CT-2698 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 16-21 Production Site CT-2719 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 2-24 Production Site CT-3176 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 6-24 Production Site CT-2721 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Stud Horse Butte 8-24 Production Site CT-3173 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated War Bonnet 6-23 Production Site CT-3162 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Warbonnet 4-25 Production Site CT-3181 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Warbonnet 4-26 Production Site CT-3169 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Warbonnet 5-23 Production Site CT-3178 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Ultra Resources Incorporated Warbonnet 7-4 Production Site CT-3174 Production well with emissiWY Uinta Union Tank Car Company Evanston Facility Miscellaneous MD-881 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Arthur Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2403A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Belle Creek Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-1898 corrected Administrative change.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Black Thunder Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-492A3 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Black Thunder Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-492A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Black Thunder Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-492A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Black Thunder Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-862 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Bud Station Compressor Station MD-843 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Bud Station Compressor Station MD-577 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Butte Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2461A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Charles/Henry C.S. (formerly Charles) Compressor Station CT-2371A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Comet Station Compressor Station MD-571 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Comet Station Compressor Station MD-832 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Dopplebach Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-468 EXPIRED Permit expired.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Dopplebach Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-402A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Echeta/Croton Compressor Station CT-2868A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Hilight Gas Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-664 No change in emissions.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Horse Creek/Gas Draw C.S. Compressor Station MD-587 Permit withdrawn.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Kestrel Station Compressor Station MD-574 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Lane Station Compressor Station MD-572 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Little Thunder Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-691 (corrected) Included in MD-691.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Malibu/Surfer Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2110A No change in emissions.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Malibu/Surfer Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2110A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Meteor Station Compressor Station MD-568 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Meteor Station Compressor Station MD-831 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Metropolis Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2468A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Montgomery/Tabatha C.S. Compressor Station CT-2131A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Moon Station Compressor Station MD-569 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Porcupine Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-353A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Porter Station Compressor Station MD-564 Expired Permit expired.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Pronghorn/Oryx Compressor Station CT-2700A No change in emissions.WY Johnson Western Gas Resources Pumpkin/Bruno Compressor Station CT-2472A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Rainbow Pod Screw Compressor Compressor Station MD-599 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Rocky Station Compressor Station MD-578 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Sioux/Jr. Reno Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2618A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Spring Creek C.S. (formerly PRFC #15) Compressor Station MD-776 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Campbell Western Gas Resources Spring Creek C.S. (formerly PRFC #15) Compressor Station CT-2265A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Spring Creek C.S. (formerly PRFC #15) Compressor Station CT-2265A2 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Carbon Western Gas Resources Standard Draw 16-30-18-93 Production Site CT-3069 Production well with emissiWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Star Station Compressor Station MD-570 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Star Station Compressor Station MD-830 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Stout Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-551A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Campbell Western Gas Resources Werner Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-596 No change in emissions.

C-35
Table C.8

Wyoming State-Permitted Source Inventory - WDEQ-AQD Permitted Sources - Table of Excluded Sources

State County Company Facility Facility Class Permit Number Reason for Exclusion1WY Campbell Western Gas Resources West Fork Compressor Station Compressor Station CT-2682A No change in emissions.WY Johnson Western Gas Resources Whiskey Draw/Jack Daniels C.S. Compressor Station CT-3266A No change in emissions.WY Sweetwater Western Gas Resources Wild Rose 9-18 Dehydration CT-3291 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Lincoln Westport Oil and Gas Company, L.P. Champlin 288 C-4 Production Site CT-2401 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln Westport Oil and Gas Company, L.P. Grynberg Fed 1-31 #4 Production Site CT-2394 Production well with emissiWY Lincoln Westport Oil and Gas Company, L.P. Rocky Crossing 1-24 Production Site CT-3018 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Westport Oil and Gas Company, L.P. Standard Draw 4-6-18-93 Production Site CT-3001 Production well with emissiWY Uinta Wexpro Company Church Buttes Gas Plant Sweet Gas Plant MD-866 Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sweetwater Wexpro Company Church Buttes Unit 40 Production Site CT-2743 Production well with emissiWY Uinta Wexpro Company Church Buttes Unit Well 154 Production Site CT-3013 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Wexpro Company Church Buttes Unit Well 155 Production Site CT-3012 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Wexpro Company Creston Federal Well 22-4 Production Site CT-2996 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Wexpro Company Mesa 14-16 Production Site CT-3245 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Wexpro Company Mesa 15-16 Production Site CT-3253 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Wexpro Company Mesa 9-16 pad Production Site CT-3220 Production well with emissiWY Sublette Wexpro Company Mesa Well 11-16 Production Site CT-2901 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Wexpro Company Trail Unit Well 15 Production Site CT-3258 Production well with emissiWY Carbon Williams Field Services Eight Mile Lake Station Compressor Station MD-810 No change in emissions.WY Carbon Williams Field Services Company Duck Lake 23-1 Dehydration CT-3002 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Carbon Williams Field Services Company Echo Springs Federal 4-6 Dehydration CT-2811 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Williams Field Services Company Janet Federal 10-34 Dehydration CT-2812 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sweetwater Williams Field Services Company Wamsutter 12-32 Dehydration CT-2813 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Sublette Williams Production Company Riley Ridge 14-33F Production Site CT-3232 Production well with emissiWY Johnson Woodrow Barstad Barstad Pit Crushing and Screening CT-2699 Permit expired.WY Campbell Wyodak Resources Development Corp. Wyodak Mine Surface Coal Mine MD-593 No inventoried pollutants.WY Sweetwater Wyoming Department of Transportation MP 28 Pit Crushing and Screening CT-2410 Increase < 1 tpy.WY Natrona Wyoming Medical Center Hospital Waste Incinerator Incineration MD-645 Began operation in 1992.WY Weston Wyoming Refining Company Newcastle Refinery Petroleum Refinery MD-433A Administrative change.WY Lincoln XTO Energy Inc Fontenelle West Compressor Station Compressor Station MD-852 No change in emissions.WY Sublette Yates Petroleum Corporation Blue Rim State #1 Compressor Station CT-3114A Reduction at a PSD minor sWY Sublette Yates Petroleum Corporation Highway Federal 4-Y Production Facility Production Site CT-3061 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Yates Petroleum Corporation Steamboat Station Pipeline Production Site CT-2810 Production well with emissiWY Sweetwater Yates Petroleum Corporation Trestle Federal #1 Production Facility Production Site CT-2862 Production well with emissi

1Production wells excluded due to emissions < 3 tpy are assumed to be permitted with WOGCC and included in the permitted well inventory compiled throuhg WOGCC.

C-36
State County

Total Number of 

Wells per County

Total NOx Emissions per 

County

Percent of County within the Jonah 

Modeling Domain

Total NOx E

Modeled pe

Oil Gas CBM (tpy) (tpy

Wyoming1 Big Horn 15 8 0 4.86 22.6% 1.10

Carbon 1 36 0 2.19 48.7% 1.06Fremont 25 183 0 15.77 100.0% 15.7Hot Springs 12 1 2 3.73 100.0% 3.73Johnson -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Lincoln 0 15 0 0.67 100.0% 0.67Natrona 69 20 0 21.60 43.0% 9.27Park 70 16 0 21.72 30.4% 6.59Sublette 0 37 0 1.66 100.0% 1.66Sweetwater 47 139 75 23.72 100.0% 23.7Teton -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Uinta 4 19 7 2.37 100.0% 2.37Washakie 10 1 0 3.04 100.0% 3.04Total Emissions Modeled for Wyoming Counties 68.9

Utah1 Box Elder -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00

Cache -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Daggett2 0 1 0 0.05 100.0% 0.05

Davis -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Duchesne 38 1 0 11.45 100.0% 11.4Morgan -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Rich -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Salt Lake -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Summit2 2 -4 0 0.42 100.0% 0.42Tooele -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Uintah -26 442 0 12.09 100.0% 12.0Utah -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Wasatch -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Weber -- -- -- 0.00 -- 0.00Total Emissions Modeled for Utah Counties 24.0Total Emissions Modeled for all counties 92.9

1 Counties shown only if they are within Jonah modeling domain. 2 Emissions from these counties added into Duchesne and Uintah County area sources for modeling. 

Table C.9 State-Permitted Source Inventory - WOGCC and Utah Oil and Gas, Division of Oil - 

Table of Wells by State Permitted after January 1, 2001

C-37
Production Traffic Total

Pollutant Emissions Emissions Emissions

(tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

NOx 9.0 1.7 10.6

SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0PM10 1.7 45.3 47.0PM2.5 1.7 6.9 8.6Note: Includes emissions from 198 wells not elsewhere accounted for in the WOGCC permitted well inventory.

Table C.10 Jonah Field Wells Permitted Post-Inventory End Date

Includes Emissions from 198 Wells

C-38
Table C.11

 Wyoming RFFA - Table of Included Sources

Permit Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx SO2 

Company Facility Name Number County (m) (K) (m/s) (m) (tpy) (tpy) Ames Construction Company CT-2469 CT-2469 Carbon 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 64.90 8.90 Ames Construction Company CT-2470 CT-2470 Carbon 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 35.00 4.60 Ames Construction Company Big Robbie Compressor Station CT-3326 Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 17.70 0.00 Bill Barrett Corporation Cave Gulch Gas Conditioning Plant MD-874 Natrona 14.40 734.80 41.15 0.30 40.20 0.00 Bill Barrett Corporation Cooper Reservoir Unit CT-2467 Natrona 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 11.80 0.00 BP America Production Company Anschutz Ranch East MD-878 Uinta 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 (300.70) 0.00 Chevron USA, Inc. Waltman #23 MD-668 Natrona 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 11.60 0.00 Duke Energy Field Services, LP Black Butte 11-19-100 C. S. CT-2605 Sweetwater 9.14 422.00 39.62 0.25 7.70 0.00 El Paso Field Services Wamsutter Regulator MD-741 Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 2.50 0.00 Enterprise NGL Pipelines, LLC Granger Station MD-811 Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 7.90 0.00 EOG Resources North LaBarge Shallow Unit Tract 16 MD-696 Sublette 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 1.70 0.00 Evans Construction Asphalt Plant MD-813 Teton 14.11 350.03 10.03 0.91 6.90 7.30 Exxon Mobil Corporation Shute Creek Treating Facility MD-771 Lincoln 60.66 608.00 19.34 2.10 141.30 (1,566.00) Hiland Partners, L.L.C. Cottonwood Compressor Station MD-886 Washakie 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 (0.20) 60.80 Infinity Oil & Gas of Wyoming Riley Ridge Compressor Facility #1 MD-808 Sublette 7.32 797.20 45.20 0.30 20.60 0.00 Infinity Oil & Gas of Wyoming Thompson Compressor Station CT-3300 Sublette 7.32 403.00 33.90 0.20 12.60 0.00 Jonah Gas Gathering Company Bird Canyon/County Line C. S. MD-856 Sublette 12.19 691.48 23.11 0.10 2.40 0.00 Jonah Gas Gathering Company Pioneer Dew Point Depression Plant CT-3117 Lincoln 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 19.60 0.00 Kiewit Western Company Portable Hot Mix Asphalt Plant CT-3301 Teton 7.08 422.00 30.05 0.10 33.80 5.70 LeGrand Johnson Asphalt Plant CT-1310 CT-1310A Lincoln 14.11 350.03 10.03 0.91 0.00 39.00 LeGrand Johnson Asphalt Plant CT-771 CT-771A Sublette 14.11 350.03 10.03 0.91 0.00 29.60 Lincoln County Wyoming Municipal Solid Waste Combustor MD-809 Lincoln 9.10 422.00 8.19 0.97 (3.80) 2.30 Mountain Gas Resources Hay Reservoir Central C. S. CT-3101 Sweetwater 6.09 422.00 42.03 0.30 29.00 0.00 Mountain Gas Resources Red Desert Gas Plant MD-669 Sweetwater 7.62 422.00 28.95 0.40 16.00 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore 3-19 CT-2884 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 6.40 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore 3-29 CT-3191 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.70 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore Federal 2-19 CT-3190 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.30 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore Federal 2-20 CT-3265 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.40 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore Federal 4-19 CT-3263 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 4.80 0.00 Nearburg Producing Company Fillmore Federal 4-20 CT-3264 Carbon 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.40 0.00 NERD Gas Company, LLC Mesa Road Mine CT-3274 Sublette 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 Northwest Pipeline Company Kemmerer MD-702 Lincoln 9.14 422.00 31.21 1.11 14.90 0.40 Pacificorp Jim Bridger Plant MD-883 Sweetwater 60.21 431.59 16.67 2.74 0.00 0.00 

 

Pacificorp Naughton Plant MD-867 Lincoln 60.21 431.59 16.67 2.74 0.00 0.00 (

 

Pittsburg and Midway Coal Co. Kemmerer Mine MD-845 Lincoln 1.00 294.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 Questar Exploration Production Co. Stewart Pt Wells 9-29 &16-29 Pad CT-3321 Sublette 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.60 0.00 Questar Gas Management Co. JL 84 Compressor Station CT-2501 Lincoln 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 12.50 0.00 Questar Gas Management Co. Mesa 1 Compressor Station CT-2464 Sublette 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 62.90 0.00 Questar Gas Management Co. Mesa 2 Compressor Station CT-2465 Sublette 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 31.50 0.00 RST Excavation Temporary Jackson Gravel Operation MD-647 Teton 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 9.20 0.40 Saga Petroleum LLC YU Bench Compressor Station MD-651 Park 7.62 849.81 0.14 3.04 5.40 0.00 Saurus Resources Incorporated MH-1 Compressor Station MD-660 Sweetwater 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 20.00 0.00 Shell Rocky Mountain Production Rainbow 11-32-30-107D CT-3269 Sublette 11.76 450.53 9.51 0.82 3.20 0.00 WDOT Rabbit Pit CT-3036 Hot Springs 11.67 326.20 15.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 Yates Petroleum Corporation Blue Rim State #1 CT-3114 Sublette 9.05 509.81 12.50 0.76 2.40 0.00 Questar Gobblers Knob C.S. Sublette 67.60 0.00 Duke Energy Field Services, LP Paradise Sublette 49.60 0.00 

Total Wyoming RFFA Source Emissions (1,407.00) 486.30 (

 

1 Analyzed as part of Jonah Infill Project.

C-39
Total NOx 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total SO2 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total PM10 

Remaining per 

Project Area

EA/EIS Listed by Field Office Jonah Infill Include/Exclude (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Bridger-Teton National ForestCliff Creek - MA 22 Include. 0.45Cottonwood Creek - MA 25 Include. 0.45Horse Creek - MA 24 Include. 0.45LaBarge Creek - MA 12 Include. 0.45Little Greys River - MA 31 Include. 0.45Lower Greys River - MA 32 Include. 0.45Piney Creeks - MA 26 Include. 0.45Upper Hoback - MA 23 Include. 0.45Willow Creek - MA 49 Include. 0.45Buffalo Field Office Drainage POD-Torch E&P Corp. Included as part of PRB. --Other POD projects Included as part of PRB. --Powder River Basin Include. 465.82Burnt Hollow Management Plan EA Exclude - RMP Revision. --Casper Field OfficeCave Gulch Include. 61.00Cooper Reservoir Include. 2.31Cody Field OfficeSee Worland Office. Kemmerer Field OfficeCutthroat Gas Processing Plant Include. 1.00Eighth Granger Gas Plant Expansion Include. 1.60Ham's Fork Pipeline Include. 18.25Hickey Mountain-Table Mountain Include. 14.10Horse Trap Include. 19.85Moxa Arch Include. 235.92Pioneer Gas Plant Include. 9.80 0.02 Riley Ridge Include. 0.68Road Hollow Gas Plant Include. 83.90 54.80 1.59 Lander Field Office Wind River Include. 486.06 0.12 

Table C.12 RFD - Table of Sources

Includes NEPA Projects Through June 2003.

C-40
Total NOx 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total SO2 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total PM10 

Remaining per 

Project Area

EA/EIS Listed by Field Office Jonah Infill Include/Exclude (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 

Table C.12 RFD - Table of Sources

Includes NEPA Projects Through June 2003.

Newcastle Field Office CBM POD Included as part of PRB. --Thundercloud approval CBM Included as part of PRB. --Pinedale Field Office Yellow Point, road, Pipeline- MOC Included in Jonah or Jonah II. --Tank Battery #5 - Enron Included Big Piney/LaBarge CAP. --Big Piney-LaBarge Include. 2.36Williams - Compressor Station and Pipeline Include. 17.19Pinedale Anticline Project Include. 16.01Soda Unit Include. 0.54South Piney Include. 736.70 1.31 82.29 Burley Include 5.10Castle Creek Exclude - Not given by FO as project area 

to include in RFD analysis. 

--

Merna Pipeline Exclude - developed. --Jonah II EIS Exclude - developed. --Jonah Infill Exclude. --Fogarty Creek Unit 2524 Pipeline Production Facilities Exclude - Carol Kruse 9/16/03. --Hoback Basin Exclude - Carol Kruse 9/16/03. --Moccasin Basin Exclude - Carol Kruse 9/16/03. --Union Pass Exclude - Carol Kruse 9/16/03. --Upper Green River Exclude - Carol Kruse 9/16/03. --Rawlins Field OfficeContinental Divide/Wamsutter II Include. 132.18Creston-Blue Gap Include. 4.49Desolation Flats Include. 295.57Mulligan Draw Include. 1.04Sierra Madre Include. 6.90South Baggs Include. 56.06Atlantic Rim EIS Exclude - no emissions quantified. --Seminoe Road Exclude - no emissions quantified. --Dripping Rock/Cedar Breaks Exclude - John Spehar Rawlins FO. --Hay Reservoir Exclude - developed. --Wind Dancer Natural Gas Development EA Exclude - no emissions quantified. --

C-41
Total NOx 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total SO2 

Remaining per 

Project Area

Total PM10 

Remaining per 

Project Area

EA/EIS Listed by Field Office Jonah Infill Include/Exclude (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) 

Table C.12 RFD - Table of Sources

Includes NEPA Projects Through June 2003.

Hanna Draw CBNG Pilot Project EA and Development EIS

Exclude - no emissions quantified. --

Scotty Lake CBNG Pilot Project EA Exclude - no emissions quantified. --Rock Springs Field Office Bird Canyon Exclude - included in Bird Opal Loop 

Pipeline.

--

BTA Bravo Include. 47.68Burlington Little Monument Include. 13.57Copper Ridge Shallow Gas Proj. Include. 245.78Fontenelle Natural Gas Infill Drilling Include. 54.40Jack Morrow Hills Include. 41.28Lower Bush Creek CBM Include. 0.45Stage Coach Include. 82.66Vermillion Basin Include. 2.18Bitter Creek Shallow Gas Development Project Exclude- no emissions quantified. --Pacific Rim Shallow Gas Project Exclude- no emissions quantified. --East LaBarge Exclude - Renee Dana 9/16/03. --Essex Mountain Exclude - Renee Dana 9/16/03. --Monell CO2 Pipeline Exclude - pipeline construction only. --Bird-Opal Loop Pipeline Exclude - developed. --Opal-Loop Pipeline Exclude - developed. --Worland Field OfficeNo projects or project areas within FO district.UtahSalt Creek Exclude - Outside RFD inventory area. --

Total Emissions Remaining 3,166.5 56.1 84.0 

C-42
UUtt aahh

IIddaahhoo

CCoolloorraaddoo

FF r e m o n t C o . r e m o n t C o .

CCaa r b o n C o . r b o n C o . SSwweeee t w a t e r C o . t w a t e r C o .

NNaa t r o n a C o . t r o n a C o .

TTee t o n C o . t o n C o .

SSuubb l e t t e C o . l e t t e C o .

PPaa r k C o . r k C o .

LL i n c o l n C o . i n c o l n C o .

JJoohhnnssoonn CCoo ..

UU i n t a C o . i n t a C o .

AA l b a n y C o . l b a n y C o .

WWaasshhaakk i e C o . i e C o .

BB i g H o r n C o . i g H o r n C o .

HHoo t S p r i n g s C o . t S p r i n g s C o .

CCoonnvvee r s e C o . r s e C o .

CCaammppbbee l l C o . l l C o .

MOXA

PAPA

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE/WAMSUTTER II

JACK MORROW HILLS

FONTENELLE

POWDER RIVER BASIN

BTNF-MA-32

DESOLATION FLATS

CRESTON BLUE GAP

BTNF-MA-26

RILEY RIDGE

BIG PINEY/LABARGE CAP

BTNF-MA-12

BTNF-MA-24

BTNF-MA-49

BTNF-MA-23

VERMILLION BASIN

BTNF-MA-31

BTNF-MA-25

RILEY RIDGE

BTNF-MA-22

MULLIGAN DRAW

SOUTH PINEY

ROAD HOLLOW

SODA UNIT

HICKEY-TABLE MOUNTAIN

COPPER RIDGE

STAGECOACH DRAW

CAVE GULCH BULLFROG

BRAVO

HOGSBACK

CUTTHROAT

HAMS FORK

BURLINGTON

HORSE TRAP

COOPER RES.

SOUTH BAGGS

SIERRA MADRE

EIGHTH GRANGER

LOWER BUSH CREEK

PIONEER DEW POINT

CCaa s p e r s p e r

CCoodd yy

RRoo c k S p r i n g s c k S p r i n g s

EEvvaannsst

toonn

GG r e e n R i v e r r e e n R i v e r

RRaaww l i n s l i n s

LLaannddee rr

WWoorrllaanndd

JJaacckkssoonn

I80

I15

I25

I84

I90

I86

I215

M o d e l i n g D o m a i n

M

o

d

e l i n

g

D

o

m

a i n

M

o

d

e l i n

g

D

o

m

a i n

0 10 20 30

Miles

Drawn: JFR

Figure C.1

Map of Regional Inventory Area

and NEPA Project Areas

Date: September 3, 2004
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

APPENDIX D:

REGIONAL COMPRESSION

EXISTING AND PROPOSED
Facility Horsepower Stack ID Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Stack Parameter Source NOx CO Formaldehyde Emissions Source NOx CO Formaldehyde

(m) (K) (m/s) (m) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)

Existing Permitted Sources

Bird Canyon C.S. 2003 BC1 12.19 637.04 42.66 0.50 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 3.1 0.9 0.3 AP-0189 0.391 0.113 0.038

2003 BC2 12.19 637.04 42.66 0.50 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 3.1 0.9 0.3 Permitted 0.391 0.113 0.038

2935 BC3 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 3/20/2003 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 BC4 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 BC5 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 BC6 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

600 BG1 12.19 691.48 23.11 0.10 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.164 0.164 0.008

600 BG2 12.19 691.48 23.11 0.10 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 1.3 1.3 0.1 0.164 0.164 0.010

-- BF1 10.67 1144.26 1.00 1.30 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 0.6 2.8 0.0 0.076 0.353 0.000

Jonah C.S. 1663 J1 7.62 904.00 28.66 0.41 CT-2280 3.7 7.3 0.2 CT-2280 0.466 0.920 0.025

1663 J2 7.62 904.00 28.66 0.41 CT-2280 3.7 7.3 0.2 0.466 0.920 0.025

1663 J3 7.62 904.00 28.66 0.41 CT-2280 3.7 7.3 0.2 0.466 0.920 0.025

85 J4 5.00 1061.00 45.72 0.10 CT-2280 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.050 0.050 0.003

85 J5 5.00 1061.00 45.72 0.10 CT-2280 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.050 0.050 0.003

63 J6 4.00 1061.00 45.72 0.10 CT-2280 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.038 0.038 0.001

63 J7 4.00 1061.00 45.72 0.10 CT-2280 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.038 0.038 0.001

Luman C.S. 3668 LC1 13.70 726.48 28.65 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 5.7 2.0 0.7 MD-921 0.718 0.252 0.082

3668 LC2 13.70 726.48 28.65 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 5.7 2.0 0.7 0.718 0.252 0.082

3668 LC3 13.70 726.48 28.65 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 5.7 2.0 0.7 0.718 0.252 0.082

3668 LC4 13.70 726.48 28.65 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 5.7 2.0 0.7 0.718 0.252 0.082

215 LG1 10.00 830.93 31.90 0.13 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.113 0.113 0.004

215 LG2 10.00 830.93 31.90 0.13 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.063 0.113 0.004

245 LVRU 5.12 832.00 30.65 0.20 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.068 0.063 0.004

-- LH1 4.72 561.00 2.11 0.61 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.025 0.025 0.000

-- LCU 10.97 1273.00 1.00 2.00 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.038 0.239 0.000

flare LEF1 11.00 1273.00 1.00 2.31 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 12/03. 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.003 0.025 0.000

Falcon C.S. 2935 FC1 9.75 725.37 26.39 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 MD-815 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 FC2 9.75 725.37 26.39 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 FC3 9.75 725.37 26.39 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 FC4 9.75 725.37 26.39 0.70 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

600 FG1 9.75 737.04 0.01 0.20 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.101 0.050 0.013

930 FG4 4.57 674.00 30.78 0.20 MD-815 2.1 4.1 0.1 0.265 0.517 0.013

245 VRU 6.10 932.00 32.60 0.15 MD-815 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.063 0.139 0.013

-- HTR 4.42 480.00 1.43 0.61 MD-815 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.025 0.025 0.000

-- FF1 10.67 637.04 4.43 1.37 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.038 0.176 0.013

Mesa 1 (Gobblers 

Knob)

2790 QM1_1 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 CT-2464 4.3 1.9 0.4 CT-2464 0.542 0.239 0.050

2790 QM1_2 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 CT-2464 4.3 1.9 0.4 0.542 0.239 0.050

3720 QM1_3 15.24 714.00 72.54 0.46 CT-2464 5.7 2.5 0.6 0.718 0.315 0.076

Mesa 2 (Gobblers 

Knob)

1860 QM2_1 15.24 718.00 41.15 0.46 CT-2465 2.9 1.2 0.2 CT-2465 0.365 0.151 0.025

2790 QM2_2 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 CT-2465 4.3 1.8 0.4 0.542 0.227 0.050

Questar Pinedale 

(Gobblers Knob)

1860 QP1 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 CT-2466 2.9 2.4 0.4 CT-2466 0.365 0.302 0.050

1860 QP2 15.24 711.00 53.95 0.46 CT-2466 2.9 2.4 0.4 0.365 0.302 0.050

3720 QP3 15.24 714.00 72.54 0.46 CT-2466 5.7 2.5 0.5 0.718 0.315 0.063

3720 QP4 15.24 714.00 72.54 0.46 CT-2466 5.7 2.5 0.5 0.718 0.315 0.063

Stack Parameters Permitted / Projected Modeled

Table D.1 Jonah Regional Compressor Stations

Modeled Stack Data

D-1
Facility Horsepower Stack ID Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Stack Parameter Source NOx CO Formaldehyde Emissions Source NOx CO Formaldehyde

(m) (K) (m/s) (m) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)

Stack Parameters Permitted / Projected Modeled

Table D.1 Jonah Regional Compressor Stations

Modeled Stack Data

Paradise C.S. 2935 PC1 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 CT-2250 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 PC2 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 PC3 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

2935 PC4 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 4.5 1.9 0.5 0.567 0.239 0.063

600 PG1 4.57 737.04 0.01 0.25 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.101 0.050 0.006

-- PF1 10.67 637.04 4.43 1.37 Updated Stack Data Provided by Duke 7/03. 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.038 0.176 0.013

Yellowpoint C.S. 1121 YC1 7.32 745.93 25.33 0.30 MD-412 2.47 7.41 0.16 MD-412 and Formaldehyde emissions calculated 

by TRC

0.311 0.934 0.020

Fontenelle C.S. F1 10.36 819.80 50.60 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.610 0.610 0.020

F2 10.36 819.80 50.60 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.610 0.610 0.020

F3 10.36 688.70 55.17 0.46 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.610 0.610 0.020

F4 10.36 844.80 29.90 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.380 0.380 0.020

F5 10.36 844.80 29.90 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.380 0.380 0.020

F6 13.72 877.04 42.06 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.305 0.305 0.020

F7 13.72 877.04 42.06 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.305 0.305 0.020

F8 13.72 877.04 42.06 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.305 0.305 0.070

F9 13.72 877.04 42.06 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.305 0.305 0.070

Cow Hollow C.S. CH1 6.10 658.71 37.61 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.610 0.610 0.050

CH2 6.10 658.71 37.61 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.610 0.610 0.050

North Labarge C.S. NL1 6.71 633.15 34.31 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.450 0.450 0.050

NL2 6.71 633.15 34.31 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.450 0.450 0.050

NL3 6.10 449.82 0.30 0.46 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.010 0.010 0.000

NL4 6.10 449.82 0.30 0.46 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.010 0.010 0.000

Hogsback C.S. H1 6.71 698.71 48.13 0.31 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.550 0.550 0.060

H2 Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.550 0.550 0.060

Labarge C.S. WFS_L1 8.93 735.93 20.85 2.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 5.730 5.730 0.000

Birch Creek C.S. BiC1 6.10 630.37 39.01 0.36 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.830 0.830 0.080

BiC2 6.10 630.37 39.01 0.36 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.830 0.830 0.080

Cross Timbers 

Fontonelle C.S.

CT_F1 6.78 497.04 28.08 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.210 0.210 0.010

CT_F2 6.65 513.71 33.88 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.020

CT_F3 6.81 513.71 33.88 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.020

CT_F4 7.11 541.48 34.29 0.43 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.250 0.250 0.030

CT_F5 7.16 513.71 33.88 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.020

CT_F6 7.14 513.71 33.88 0.34 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.020

CT_F7 3.57 803.15 1.89 0.20 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.240 0.240 0.020

Big Piney C.S. BP1 7.62 797.04 24.17 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 3.830 3.830 0.010

BP2 7.62 797.04 24.17 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 3.830 3.830 0.010

BP3 7.62 797.04 19.60 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.630 0.630 0.010

BP4 7.62 797.04 19.60 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.630 0.630 0.010

BP5 7.32 797.04 20.23 0.25 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.320 2.320 0.010

BP6 7.32 797.04 20.23 0.25 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.320 2.320 0.010

BP7 7.32 797.04 20.23 0.25 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.320 2.320 0.010

BP8 7.32 797.04 20.23 0.25 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.320 2.320 0.010

BP9 7.32 797.04 20.23 0.25 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.320 2.320 0.010

D-2
Facility Horsepower Stack ID Height Temperature Velocity Diameter Stack Parameter Source NOx CO Formaldehyde Emissions Source NOx CO Formaldehyde

(m) (K) (m/s) (m) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s) (g/s)

Stack Parameters Permitted / Projected Modeled

Table D.1 Jonah Regional Compressor Stations

Modeled Stack Data

BP10 7.62 797.04 29.35 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 4.650 4.650 0.010

BP11 7.62 672.04 27.89 0.91 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 27.020 27.020 0.130

BP12 9.14 657.59 26.79 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.050

BP13 9.14 657.59 26.79 0.30 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.420 0.420 0.050

BP14 3.66 844.26 32.07 0.10 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.300 0.300 0.002

BP15 10.36 725.93 58.26 0.88 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 2.290 2.290 0.020

Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001

Dry Piney C.S. DP1 3.66 844.26 32.07 0.10 Historical Modeling Files Jonah Modeling Completed by TRC in 2001 0.700 0.700 0.001

Future Expansions

Based on horsepower projected for expansion.

Bird Canyon C.S.1 3668 BCE1 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.71 Bird Canyon Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 BCE2 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.71 Bird Canyon Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 BCE3 12.19 726.48 29.75 0.71 Bird Canyon Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 0.713 0.255 0.082

Falcon C.S.1 3668 FCE1 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Falcon Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 FCE2 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.71 Falcon Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

Gobblers Knob 3333 QME1 15.24 710.93 72.54 0.46 Gobblers Knobb Permit File 5.10 1.80 0.60 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.648 0.231 0.074

3333 QME2 15.24 710.93 41.15 0.46 Gobblers Knobb Permit File 5.10 1.80 0.60 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.648 0.231 0.074

3333 QPE1 15.24 710.93 53.95 0.46 Gobblers Knobb Permit File 5.10 1.80 0.60 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.648 0.231 0.074

Jonah C.S.1 3900 JE1 7.62 903.71 28.66 0.406 Jonah Permit File 6.00 2.20 0.70 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.758 0.271 0.087

Luman C.S.1 3668 LCE1 13.70 726.50 28.65 0.710 Luman Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 LCE2 13.70 726.50 28.65 0.710 Luman Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 LCE3 13.70 726.50 28.65 0.710 Luman Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

600 LGE1 10.00 642.00 47.56 0.203 Luman Permit File 1.30 1.30 0.11 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.167 0.83 0.012

Paradise C.S. 3668 PCE1 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.710 Paradise Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

3668 PCE2 7.92 725.37 26.39 0.710 Paradise Permit File 5.70 2.40 0.65 Based on horsepower projected for expansion. 0.713 0.255 0.082

1

 Analyzed as part of the Jonah Infill Drilling Project.

D-3
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

APPENDIX E:

CALMET INPUT DATA
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

35982 E-1 TRC Environmental Corporation

LIST OF TABLES

Table E.1 Precipitation Stations Used in Development of CALMET Wind Fields.

Table E.2 Upper Air Meteorological Stations Used in Development of the CALMET Wind

Fields.

Table E.3 Surface Meteorological Stations Used in Development of the CALMET Wind

Fields.
Table E.1 Precipitation Stations Used in Development of the CALMET Wind Fields.

Model ID X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Station Code

P001 -34.328 -249.360 52286

P002 49.568 -272.559 55484

P003 -251.906 8.556 103732

P004 -233.557 41.953 104230

P005 -252.533 91.083 104456

P006 -210.422 143.269 109065

P007 -254.853 -201.369 420342

P008 -271.531 -177.297 420820

P009 -211.549 -170.572 421590

P010 -264.402 -202.716 421759

P011 -234.434 -166.124 422385

P012 -70.554 -173.625 422864

P013 -181.985 -228.924 423624

P014 -274.842 -159.152 424538

P015 -260.841 -80.753 425186

P016 -269.236 -89.347 425194

P017 -159.634 -211.499 425815

P018 -258.441 -188.611 425892

P019 -124.262 -215.930 426127

P020 -219.022 -191.884 426374

P021 -275.157 -134.025 426404

P022 -254.783 -235.459 426455

P023 -255.062 -242.678 427064

P024 -116.548 -243.027 427395

P025 -277.292 -184.279 427598

P026 -248.123 -205.187 427846

P027 -213.999 -245.975 428371

P028 -261.104 -222.696 428939

P029 -124.144 -0.613 480697

P030 28.642 93.249 481000

P031 -84.349 106.216 482715

P032 143.111 -141.842 483050

P033 -194.548 -146.643 483100

P034 -172.801 102.667 484910

P035 -14.429 28.720 485390

P036 -157.462 141.698 486440

P037 -144.286 -136.431 486555

P038 -29.676 -132.586 486597

P039 29.069 0.067 486875

P040 134.830 -7.493 487105

P041 123.092 53.124 487375

P042 108.284 -79.755 487533

P043 13.119 51.934 487760

P044 -41.609 -102.056 487845

P045 142.439 -111.382 487995

P046 130.212 -41.687 488070

P047 91.687 136.832 488858

P048 27.206 118.275 488875

P049 -11.646 125.423 488888

E-2
Table E.1 (Continued)

Model ID X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Station Code

P050 -310.000 150.000 6106

P051 -310.000 90.000 6091

P052 -310.000 10.000 6071

P053 -310.000 -30.000 6061

P054 -310.000 -70.000 6051

P055 -310.000 -170.000 6026

P056 -298.000 -218.000 9014

P057 -290.000 -10.000 11066

P058 -290.000 -130.000 11036

P059 -290.000 -250.000 11006

P060 -278.000 30.000 14076

P061 -270.000 70.000 16086

P062 -270.000 -110.000 16041

P063 -250.000 170.000 21111

P064 -250.000 110.000 21096

P065 -238.000 -30.000 24061

P066 -238.000 -58.000 24054

P067 -238.000 -90.000 24046

P068 -238.000 -130.000 24036

P069 -238.000 -250.000 24006

P070 -218.000 202.000 29119

P071 -210.000 170.000 31111

P072 -210.000 62.000 31084

P073 -210.000 10.000 31071

P074 -210.000 -30.000 31061

P075 -210.000 -78.000 31049

P076 -210.000 -110.000 31041

P077 -210.000 -150.000 31031

P078 -210.000 -218.000 31014

P079 -190.000 122.000 36099

P080 -190.000 90.000 36091

P081 -190.000 10.000 36071

P082 -190.000 -10.000 36066

P083 -190.000 -110.000 36041

P084 -190.000 -190.000 36021

P085 -178.000 142.000 39104

P086 -170.000 190.000 41116

P087 -170.000 158.000 41108

P088 -170.000 50.000 41081

P089 -170.000 -10.000 41066

P090 -170.000 -50.000 41056

P091 -170.000 -158.000 41029

P092 -162.000 22.000 43074

P093 -158.000 174.000 44112

P094 -154.000 114.000 45097

P095 -150.000 -90.000 46046

P096 -150.000 -182.000 46023

P097 -138.000 82.000 49089

P098 -130.000 186.000 51115

E-3
Table E.1 (Continued)

Model ID X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Station Code

P099 -130.000 150.000 51106

P100 -130.000 118.000 51098

P101 -130.000 170.000 51111

P102 -130.000 30.000 51076

P103 -110.000 170.000 56111

P104 -110.000 -190.000 56021

P105 -90.000 150.000 61106

P106 -90.000 82.000 61089

P107 -90.000 50.000 61081

P108 -90.000 2.000 61069

P109 -90.000 -70.000 61051

P110 -90.000 -190.000 61021

P111 -70.000 178.000 66113

P112 -70.000 130.000 66101

P113 -70.000 90.000 66091

P114 -70.000 50.000 66081

P115 -70.000 10.000 66071

P116 -58.000 -222.000 69013

P117 -50.000 130.000 71101

P118 -50.000 30.000 71076

P119 -50.000 -198.000 71019

P120 -30.000 170.000 76111

P121 -30.000 90.000 76091

P122 -30.000 10.000 76071

P123 -30.000 -222.000 76013

P124 -10.000 -30.000 81061

P125 -10.000 -70.000 81051

P126 -10.000 -222.000 81013

P127 10.000 -130.000 86036

P128 30.000 170.000 91111

P129 30.000 -50.000 91056

P130 30.000 -98.000 91044

P131 30.000 -178.000 91024

P132 50.000 -250.000 96006

P133 70.000 50.000 101081

P134 70.000 -30.000 101061

P135 70.000 -70.000 101051

P136 90.000 -110.000 106041

P137 90.000 -150.000 106031

P138 90.000 -230.000 106011

P139 102.000 202.000 109119

P140 102.000 94.000 109092

P141 102.000 -190.000 109021

P142 106.000 22.000 110074

P143 106.000 -30.000 110061

P144 106.000 -258.000 110004

P145 110.000 150.000 111106

P146 122.000 -130.000 114036

P147 130.000 130.000 116101

E-4
Table E.1 (Continued)

Model ID X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Station Code

P148 130.000 -154.000 116030

P149 130.000 -218.000 116014

P150 150.000 182.000 121114

P151 150.000 70.000 121086

P152 150.000 -38.000 121059

P153 150.000 -178.000 121024

P154 154.000 -198.000 122019

P155 154.000 -238.000 122009

E-5
Table E.2 Upper Air Meteorological Stations Used in Development of the CALMET Wind Fields.

Station Name X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Model ID

Denver 321.444 -281.130 23062

Grand Junction 2.012 -369.260 23066

Lander -14.429 28.720 24021

Salt Lake City -278.983 -185.610 24127

E-6
Table E.3 Surface Meteorolgical Stations Used in the Development of the CALMET Wind Fields.

Station Name Station Type X (Lambert Conformal km) Y (Lambert Conformal km) Model ID

Amoco Industrial -188.837 -117.730 1001

Ande RAWS -31.013 -12.050 2001

Baggs Zirkel 74.785 -166.360 4001

Beaver WYDOT 20.818 4.010 3001

BitterCreek WYDOT -2.654 -97.240 3002

Burr RAWS -141.055 140.200 2002

Camp RAWS 79.256 -21.460 2003

Casper NWS 163.698 41.900 6007

Centennial NDDN 194.065 -130.500 5002

Cody NWS -35.984 211.760 3003

Con WYDOT 68.278 -89.450 2004

Cow RAWS 78.342 -137.150 4002

Craig Zirkel 78.747 -225.580 2005

Elkhorn RAWS -82.435 121.920 7001

Evan NWS -200.631 -133.530 1002

Exxon Industrial -128.247 -75.080 3004

FirstDivide WYDOT -179.798 -132.420 1003

GenC Industrial -97.396 -102.530 2006

Getc RAWS -213.753 -23.290 2007

Grac RAWS -261.735 4.030 2008

Gran RAWS -167.686 128.380 7002

Hayden NWS 115.118 -241.220 3005

Hiland WYDOT 96.447 59.000 7004

I-25 Divide WYDOT 147.707 151.128 4003

Idaho Falls NWS -274.135 110.280 6005

Jackson NWS -169.576 115.150 1004

Jun Zirkel 42.655 -225.920 1005

Lake Yellowstone RAWS -145.592 109.170 7003

Lander NWS -14.192 29.040 3006

Meeteetsee WYDOT -24.607 184.857 5001

Moon NPS -391.200 111.100 6009

Naughton Industrial -163.727 -82.890 2009

OCI Industrial -89.941 -87.570 2010

Ogden NWS -245.962 -154.600 7006

Pat WYDOT 134.381 2.500 2011

Pine NDDN -97.579 41.610 7005

Poccatello NWS -318.637 47.830 6006

Pole RAWS -259.041 42.350 6008

Rasp RAWS -114.350 100.160 2012

Rawlins NWS 108.284 -79.760 7007

Riley RAWS -152.455 -5.340 1006

Riverton NWS 3.930 48.370 7008

RockSprings NWS -41.850 -102.050 2013

Salmon NWS -403.494 289.510 7009

Salt Lake City NWS -247.589 -219.230 26865

Sheridan NWS 120.667 239.370 80002

Snider RAWS -156.708 -4.430 25785

SodaSprings NWS -222.333 -13.320 26764

TG Industrial -107.679 -91.600 26763

Vernal NWS -62.525 -245.160 26664

West Yellowstone 1 RAWS -194.758 228.710 80001

West Yellowstone 2 RAWS -196.181 231.980 26700

Wind RAWS -44.560 46.200 90002

Worland NWS 46.380 152.760 24029

Yellowstone NPS -141.500 218.300 90001

E-7
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

APPENDIX F: 

MAXIMUM PREDICTED MID-FIELD AND FAR-FIELD IMPACTS 

Note: All PSD demonstrations serve informational purposes only and do not constitute 

regulatory PSD increment consumption analyses. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-1 TRC Environmental Corporation 

LIST OF TABLES 

Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table F.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.1.2 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.1.3 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.1.4 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.1.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.1.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.1.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.1.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.1.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 

Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table F.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.2.2 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.2.3 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.2.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-2 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.2.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.2.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.2.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.2.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.2.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 

Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts 

Table F.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.3.2 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.3.4 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.3.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.3.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.3.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.3.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.3.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-3 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts 

Table F.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.4.2 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.4.3 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.4.4 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.4.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.4.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.4.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.4.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.4.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 

Modeled Impacts Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Maximum Production (3100 

Wells) Sources – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Proposed Action and 

Alternative A Sources (WDR250) – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.3 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Alternative B Sources 

(WDR75) – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.4 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Sources 

(WDR250) – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-4 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.5.5 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from No Action and 

Regional Sources – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.6 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Maximum 

Production (3100 Wells) and Regional Sources – Compared to Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Table F.5.7 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Proposed Action 

and Alternative A (WDR250) and Regional Sources – Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Table F.5.8 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Alternative B 

(WDR75) and Regional Sources – Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table F.5.9 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred 

Alternative (WDR250) and Regional Sources – Compared to Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Modeled Nitrogen (N) and Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts 

Table F.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative Sources 

Table F.6.2 Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I 

and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative and Regional Sources 

Table F.6.3 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative Sources 

Table F.6.4 Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I 

and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative and Regional Sources 

Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

Table F.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.7.3 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Alternative B Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-5 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.7.4 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.7.5 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.7.6 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.7.7 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources 

Table F.7.8 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.7.9 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Table F.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Areas from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.8.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Areas from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.8.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.8.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from No Action and Regional Sources 

Table F.8.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.8.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources 

Table F.8.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.8.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-6 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.8.10 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.8.11 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario 

(1-9) 

Table F.8.12 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.8.13 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario 

(1-9) 

Table F.8.14 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.8.15 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario 

(1-9) 

Table F.8.16 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.8.17 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario 

(1-9) 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

Table F.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

from Maximum Production Sources 

Table F.9.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources 

Table F.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

from Alternative B Sources 

Table F.9.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

from Preferred Alternative Sources 

Table F.9.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from No Action and Regional Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-7 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.9.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Maximum Production and Regional Sources 

Table F.9.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.9.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Alternative B and Regional Sources 

Table F.9.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources 

Table F.9.10 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.11 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.12 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.13 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.14 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.15 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.16 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.17 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.18 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.19 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.20 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.21 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-8 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.9.22 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.23 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.24 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.25 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.26 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.27 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.28 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Table F.9.29 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

Summary of Maximum Modeled Impacts 

Table F.10.1 Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at PSD Class I 

and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.2 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.10.3 Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration (μg/m3

) at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.4 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration (μg/m3

) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources 

Table F.10.5 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at PSD Class I 

and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

 

Table F.10.6 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional 

Sources 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-9 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.10.7 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I 

and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.8 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.10.9 Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3

) from 

Direct Project Sources Within the JIDPA Compared to NAAQS/WAAQS 

Table F.10.10 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative In-field Pollutant Concentrations 

(μg/m3

) from Direct Project and Regional Sources Within the JIDPA Compared to 

NAAQS/WAAQS 

Table F.10.11 Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.12 Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional 

Sources 

Table F.10.13 Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.14 Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts 

(kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and 

Regional Sources 

Table F.10.15 Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC (μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

from Direct Project Sources 

Table F.10.16 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Change in ANC (μeq/L) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Direct Project and Regional Sources 

Table F.10.17 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data 

Table F.10.18 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data 

Table F.10.19 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG 

Background Data 

Table F.10.20 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using 

IMPROVE Background Data 
Air Quality Technical Support Document, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 F-10 TRC Environmental Corporation 

Table F.10.21 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Direct Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data 

Table F.10.22 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Direct Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background 

Data 

Table F.10.23 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming 

Regional Community Locations from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using 

FLAG Background Data 

Table F.10.24 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming 

Regional Community Locations from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using 

IMPROVE Background Data
Table F.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maxim

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.026 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.009 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.41 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.006 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.41 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-11
Table F.1.2 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed 

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.132 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.53 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.044 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.44 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.026 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.43 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-12
Table F.1.3 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alt

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.062 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.46 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.023 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.42 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.013 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.41 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-13
Table F.1.4 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefer

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.0613 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.46 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.0023 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.0007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0193 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.42 

Teton WA 0.0003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

Washakie WA 0.0004 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0116 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.41 

Yellowstone NP 0.0002 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-14
Table F.1.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.119 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.52 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.011 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.029 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 Popo Agie WA 0.027 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.43 

Teton WA 0.007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 

Washakie WA 0.009 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Wind River RA 0.024 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.42 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-15
Table F.1.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from 

Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.143 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.54 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.012 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.029 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 Popo Agie WA 0.036 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.44 

Teton WA 0.007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 

Washakie WA 0.010 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Wind River RA 0.030 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.43 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-16
Table F.1.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fr

Alternative A and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.245 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.64 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.017 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.42 Grand Teton NP 0.030 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 Popo Agie WA 0.070 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.47 

Teton WA 0.007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 

Washakie WA 0.010 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Wind River RA 0.051 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.45 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-17
Table F.1.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.175 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.57 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.030 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 Popo Agie WA 0.049 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.45 

Teton WA 0.007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 

Washakie WA 0.010 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Wind River RA 0.037 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.44 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-18
Table F.1.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from 

Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.174 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.57 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.029 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.43 Popo Agie WA 0.045 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.44 

Teton WA 0.007 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 

Washakie WA 0.010 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Wind River RA 0.036 1.02 25.0 3.4 3.44 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-19
Table F.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Maximum P

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Popo Agie WA 0.000 5.02 91 43.0 43.00 260 

Teton WA 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Wind River RA 0.000 5.02 91 43.0 43.00 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.005 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.000 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.002 25.02 512 132.0 132.00 1,300 

Teton WA 0.001 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.001 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 Wind River RA 0.001 25.02 512 132.0 132.00 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-20
Table F.2.2 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Proposed Ac

Alternative A Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Popo Agie WA 0.001 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.001 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.073 0.21 5 43.0 43.07 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Popo Agie WA 0.013 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Wind River RA 0.010 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.229 1.01 25 132.0 132.23 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.019 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.081 25.02 512 132.0 132.08 1,300 

Teton WA 0.007 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.006 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 Wind River RA 0.037 25.02 512 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-21
Table F.2.3 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alternative B 

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.027 0.21 5 43.0 43.03 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Popo Agie WA 0.006 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Wind River RA 0.004 5.02 91 43.0 43.00 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.089 1.01 25 132.0 132.09 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.032 25.02 512 132.0 132.03 1,300 

Teton WA 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 Wind River RA 0.014 25.02 512 132.0 132.01 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-22
Table F.2.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Al

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Popo Agie WA 0.001 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.001 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.076 0.21 5 43.0 43.08 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Popo Agie WA 0.014 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 Wind River RA 0.011 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.00 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.246 1.01 25 132.0 132.25 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.020 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.087 25.02 512 132.0 132.09 1,300 

Teton WA 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.006 1.01 25 132.0 132.01 1,300 Wind River RA 0.039 25.02 512 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.00 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-23
Table F.2.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from N

and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.041 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.038 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 Popo Agie WA 0.010 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.012 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

Washakie WA 0.008 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Wind River RA 0.014 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.013 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.164 1.01 25 132.0 132.16 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.020 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.201 1.01 25 132.0 132.20 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.020 25.02 512 132.0 132.02 1,300 

Teton WA 0.037 1.01 25 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.022 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Wind River RA 0.109 25.02 512 132.0 132.11 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.075 1.01 25 132.0 132.07 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-24
Table F.2.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from M

Production and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.041 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.038 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 Popo Agie WA 0.010 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.012 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

Washakie WA 0.008 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Wind River RA 0.014 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.013 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.164 1.01 25 132.0 132.16 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.020 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.201 1.01 25 132.0 132.20 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.020 25.02 512 132.0 132.02 1,300 

Teton WA 0.037 1.01 25 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.022 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Wind River RA 0.110 25.02 512 132.0 132.11 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.075 1.01 25 132.0 132.07 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-25
Table F.2.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from P

Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.080 0.21 5 43.0 43.08 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.038 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 Popo Agie WA 0.015 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.012 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

Washakie WA 0.008 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Wind River RA 0.015 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.013 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.243 1.01 25 132.0 132.24 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.022 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.201 1.01 25 132.0 132.20 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.083 25.02 512 132.0 132.08 1,300 

Teton WA 0.037 1.01 25 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.022 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Wind River RA 0.117 25.02 512 132.0 132.12 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.075 1.01 25 132.0 132.07 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-26
Table F.2.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Al

and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.04 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.04 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 Popo Agie WA 0.01 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Teton WA 0.01 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

Washakie WA 0.01 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Wind River RA 0.01 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.01 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.17 1.01 25 132.0 132.17 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.20 1.01 25 132.0 132.20 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.03 25.02 512 132.0 132.03 1,300 

Teton WA 0.04 1.01 25 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.02 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Wind River RA 0.11 25.02 512 132.0 132.11 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.07 1.01 25 132.0 132.07 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-27
Table F.2.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from P

Alternative and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 60 Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Wind River RA 0.000 1.02 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.083 0.21 5 43.0 43.08 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Grand Teton NP 0.038 0.21 5 43.0 43.04 260 Popo Agie WA 0.016 5.02 91 43.0 43.02 260 

Teton WA 0.012 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

Washakie WA 0.008 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 Wind River RA 0.015 5.02 91 43.0 43.01 260 

Yellowstone NP 0.013 0.21 5 43.0 43.01 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.261 1.01 25 132.0 132.26 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.023 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.201 1.01 25 132.0 132.20 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.089 25.02 512 132.0 132.09 1,300 

Teton WA 0.037 1.01 25 132.0 132.04 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.022 1.01 25 132.0 132.02 1,300 Wind River RA 0.117 25.02 512 132.0 132.12 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.075 1.01 25 132.0 132.07 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting ,

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-28
Table F.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from M

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.030 0.21 4 16.0 16.03 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.008 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.006 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.750 0.31 8 33.0 33.75 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.070 0.31 8 33.0 33.07 Grand Teton NP 0.030 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 Popo Agie WA 0.150 5.02 30 33.0 33.15 

Teton WA 0.020 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 

Washakie WA 0.030 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 Wind River RA 0.120 5.02 30 33.0 33.12 

Yellowstone NP 0.010 0.31 8 33.0 33.01 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-29
Table F.3.2 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from P

Alternative A Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.063 0.21 4 16.0 16.06 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.018 1.02 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.013 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.660 0.31 8 33.0 34.66 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.180 0.31 8 33.0 33.18 Grand Teton NP 0.090 0.31 8 33.0 33.09 Popo Agie WA 0.260 5.02 30 33.0 33.26 

Teton WA 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 

Washakie WA 0.080 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 Wind River RA 0.190 5.02 30 33.0 33.19 

Yellowstone NP 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-30
Table F.3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Al

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.041 0.21 4 16.0 16.04 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.011 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.008 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.990 0.31 8 33.0 33.99 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.110 0.31 8 33.0 33.11 Grand Teton NP 0.050 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 Popo Agie WA 0.170 5.02 30 33.0 33.17 

Teton WA 0.030 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 

Washakie WA 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 Wind River RA 0.140 5.02 30 33.0 33.14 

Yellowstone NP 0.020 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-31
Table F.3.4 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from P

Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.023 0.21 4 16.0 16.02 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.007 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.005 1.02 17 16.0 16.00 

Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.633 0.31 8 33.0 33.63 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.079 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 Grand Teton NP 0.036 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 Popo Agie WA 0.083 5.02 30 33.0 33.08 

Teton WA 0.016 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 

Washakie WA 0.029 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 Wind River RA 0.064 5.02 30 33.0 33.06 

Yellowstone NP 0.016 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-32
Table F.3.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.018 0.21 4 16.0 16.02 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.012 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.008 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.009 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.464 0.31 8 33.0 33.46 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.130 0.31 8 33.0 33.13 Grand Teton NP 0.122 0.31 8 33.0 33.12 Popo Agie WA 0.137 5.02 30 33.0 33.14 

Teton WA 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 

Washakie WA 0.043 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 Wind River RA 0.206 5.02 30 33.0 33.21 

Yellowstone NP 0.045 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-33
Table F.3.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Production and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.047 0.21 4 16.0 16.05 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.013 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.015 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.006 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 

Washakie WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.014 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.912 0.31 8 33.0 33.91 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.151 0.31 8 33.0 33.15 Grand Teton NP 0.126 0.31 8 33.0 33.13 Popo Agie WA 0.203 5.02 30 33.0 33.20 

Teton WA 0.052 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 

Washakie WA 0.049 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 Wind River RA 0.227 5.02 30 33.0 33.23 

Yellowstone NP 0.049 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-34
Table F.3.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.081 0.21 4 16.0 16.08 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.011 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.015 0.21 4 16.0 16.02 Popo Agie WA 0.024 1.02 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.007 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 

Washakie WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.021 1.02 17 16.0 16.02 

Yellowstone NP 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.825 0.31 8 33.0 34.82 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.204 0.31 8 33.0 33.20 Grand Teton NP 0.138 0.31 8 33.0 33.14 Popo Agie WA 0.314 5.02 30 33.0 33.31 

Teton WA 0.079 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 

Washakie WA 0.092 0.31 8 33.0 33.09 Wind River RA 0.292 5.02 30 33.0 33.29 

Yellowstone NP 0.063 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-35
Table F.3.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

B and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.058 0.21 4 16.0 16.06 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.014 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.018 1.02 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.006 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 

Washakie WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.016 1.02 17 16.0 16.02 

Yellowstone NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.155 0.31 8 33.0 34.16 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.164 0.31 8 33.0 33.16 Grand Teton NP 0.129 0.31 8 33.0 33.13 Popo Agie WA 0.229 5.02 30 33.0 33.23 

Teton WA 0.062 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 

Washakie WA 0.062 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 Wind River RA 0.250 5.02 30 33.0 33.25 

Yellowstone NP 0.053 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-36
Table F.3.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Alternative and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.041 0.21 4 16.0 16.04 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.013 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.013 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.006 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 

Washakie WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.012 1.02 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.787 0.31 8 33.0 33.79 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.151 0.31 8 33.0 33.15 Grand Teton NP 0.125 0.31 8 33.0 33.13 Popo Agie WA 0.180 5.02 30 33.0 33.18 

Teton WA 0.056 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 

Washakie WA 0.054 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 Wind River RA 0.230 5.02 30 33.0 33.23 

Yellowstone NP 0.050 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.2 Class II significance level, Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitti

 October 1990, EPA OAQPS.

F-37
Table F.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Maximum Production Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.030 5.0 5.03 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Teton WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.000 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.750 13.0 13.75 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.070 13.0 13.07 65 Grand Teton NP 0.030 13.0 13.03 65 Popo Agie WA 0.150 13.0 13.15 65 Teton WA 0.020 13.0 13.02 65 Washakie WA 0.030 13.0 13.03 65 Wind River RA 0.120 13.0 13.12 65 Yellowstone NP 0.010 13.0 13.01 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-38
Table F.4.2 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.063 5.0 5.06 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.018 5.0 5.02 15 Teton WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.013 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.660 13.0 14.66 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.180 13.0 13.18 65 Grand Teton NP 0.090 13.0 13.09 65 Popo Agie WA 0.260 13.0 13.26 65 Teton WA 0.040 13.0 13.04 65 Washakie WA 0.080 13.0 13.08 65 Wind River RA 0.190 13.0 13.19 65 Yellowstone NP 0.040 13.0 13.04 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-39
Table F.4.3 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Alternative B Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.041 5.0 5.04 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.011 5.0 5.01 15 Teton WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.990 13.0 13.99 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.110 13.0 13.11 65 Grand Teton NP 0.050 13.0 13.05 65 Popo Agie WA 0.170 13.0 13.17 65 Teton WA 0.030 13.0 13.03 65 Washakie WA 0.040 13.0 13.04 65 Wind River RA 0.140 13.0 13.14 65 Yellowstone NP 0.020 13.0 13.02 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-40
Table F.4.4 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Preferred Alternative Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.023 5.0 5.02 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Teton WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Yellowstone NP 0.000 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.633 13.0 13.63 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.079 13.0 13.08 65 Grand Teton NP 0.036 13.0 13.04 65 Popo Agie WA 0.083 13.0 13.08 65 Teton WA 0.016 13.0 13.02 65 Washakie WA 0.029 13.0 13.03 65 Wind River RA 0.064 13.0 13.06 65 Yellowstone NP 0.016 13.0 13.02 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-41
Table F.4.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Areas from No Action and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.019 5.0 5.02 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.013 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.009 5.0 5.01 15 Teton WA 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.433 13.0 13.43 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.124 13.0 13.12 65 Grand Teton NP 0.114 13.0 13.11 65 Popo Agie WA 0.128 13.0 13.13 65 Teton WA 0.041 13.0 13.04 65 Washakie WA 0.042 13.0 13.04 65 Wind River RA 0.186 13.0 13.19 65 Yellowstone NP 0.045 13.0 13.04 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-42
Table F.4.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Areas from Maximum Production and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.048 5.0 5.05 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.016 5.0 5.02 15 Teton WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.909 13.0 13.91 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.144 13.0 13.14 65 Grand Teton NP 0.119 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.201 13.0 13.20 65 Teton WA 0.048 13.0 13.05 65 Washakie WA 0.049 13.0 13.05 65 Wind River RA 0.218 13.0 13.22 65 Yellowstone NP 0.049 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-43
Table F.4.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Areas from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.081 5.0 5.08 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.012 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.026 5.0 5.03 15 Teton WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 Wind River RA 0.022 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.822 13.0 14.82 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.204 13.0 13.20 65 Grand Teton NP 0.140 13.0 13.14 65 Popo Agie WA 0.312 13.0 13.31 65 Teton WA 0.075 13.0 13.08 65 Washakie WA 0.092 13.0 13.09 65 Wind River RA 0.283 13.0 13.28 65 Yellowstone NP 0.063 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-44
Table F.4.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Areas from Alternative B and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.059 5.0 5.06 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.020 5.0 5.02 15 Teton WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.017 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.153 13.0 14.15 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.158 13.0 13.16 65 Grand Teton NP 0.122 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.227 13.0 13.23 65 Teton WA 0.058 13.0 13.06 65 Washakie WA 0.062 13.0 13.06 65 Wind River RA 0.240 13.0 13.24 65 Yellowstone NP 0.052 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-45
Table F.4.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Areas from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.042 5.0 5.04 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 Teton WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.785 13.0 13.79 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.145 13.0 13.14 65 Grand Teton NP 0.118 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.170 13.0 13.17 65 Teton WA 0.052 13.0 13.05 65 Washakie WA 0.054 13.0 13.05 65 Wind River RA 0.221 13.0 13.22 65 Yellowstone NP 0.050 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-46
Table F.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Maximum Production Sources - Compar

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 2.5 3.4 5.9 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 0.2 132 132.2 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 0.1 43 43.1 260 365 

Annual 0.0 9 9.0 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 90.4 33 123.4 150 150 

Annual 12.6 16 28.6 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 16.3 13 29.3 651 65

Annual 2.0 5 7.0 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-47
Table F.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sour

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 13.7 3.4 17.1 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 18.3 132 150.3 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 3.7 43 46.7 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 113.2 33 146.2 150 150 

Annual 16.0 16 32.0 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.6 13 34.6 651 65

Annual 3.1 5 8.1 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-48
Table F.5.3 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Alternative B Sources -Compared to Am

Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 11.8 3.4 15.2 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 17.1 132 149.1 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.2 43 47.2 260 365 

Annual 0.3 9 9.3 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 97.1 33 130.1 150 150 

Annual 13.8 16 29.8 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 17.7 13 30.7 651 65

Annual 2.7 5 7.7 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-49
Table F.5.4 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Sources - Compar

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 6.8 3.4 10.2 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 20.0 132 152.0 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.1 43 47.1 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 23.2 33 56.2 150 150 

Annual 3.5 16 19.5 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 5.0 13 18.0 651 65

Annual 0.9 5 5.9 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-50
Table F.5.5 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from No Action and Regional Sou

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 1.2 3.4 4.6 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 0.7 132 132.7 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 0.1 43 43.1 260 365 

Annual 0.0 9 9.0 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 0.3 33 33.3 150 150 

Annual 0.0 16 16.0 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 0.3 13 13.3 651 65

Annual 0.0 5 5.0 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-51
Table F.5.6 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Maximum Production an

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 3.2 3.4 6.6 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 0.7 132 132.7 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 0.1 43 43.1 260 365 

Annual 0.0 9 9.0 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 90.5 33 123.5 150 150 

Annual 12.6 16 28.6 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 16.5 13 29.5 651 65

Annual 2.0 5 7.0 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-52
Table F.5.7 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Proposed Action and Altern

A and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 14.0 3.4 17.4 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 18.2 132 150.2 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 3.6 43 46.6 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 113.4 33 146.4 150 150 

Annual 16.0 16 32.0 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.8 13 34.8 651 65

Annual 3.1 5 8.1 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-53
Table F.5.8 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Alternative B and Region

Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 12.2 3.4 15.6 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 17.1 132 149.1 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.0 43 47.0 260 365 

Annual 0.3 9 9.3 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 97.2 33 130.2 150 150 

Annual 13.8 16 29.8 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 17.9 13 30.9 651 65

Annual 2.7 5 7.7 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-54
Table F.5.9 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative an

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQS

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

NO2 Annual 7.1 3.4 10.5 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 19.9 132 151.9 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.0 43 47.0 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 23.3 33 56.3 150 150 

Annual 3.5 16 19.5 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 5.0 13 18.0 651 65

Annual 1.0 5 6.0 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

F-55
Table F.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PS

Areas from Project Alternative Sources

Modeling Scenario

Max. Prod.

Proposed 

Action and 

Alternative A Alternative B Preferred Alternative Deposition A

Receptor Area (3100 Wells) WDR250 WDR075 WDR250 Threshold for Pro

Bridger WA 0.0067 0.0349 0.0184 0.0154 0.005Fitzpatrick WA 0.0006 0.0027 0.0013 0.0011 0.005Grand Teton NP 0.0002 0.0012 0.0006 0.0005 0.005Popo Agie WA 0.0034 0.0165 0.0084 0.0071 0.005Teton WA 0.0001 0.0006 0.0003 0.0002 0.005Washakie WA 0.0001 0.0007 0.0003 0.0003 0.005Wind River RA 0.0021 0.0099 0.0049 0.0043 0.005Yellowstone NP 0.0001 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.005

1 National Park Service (2001)

F-56
Table F.6.2 Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative and Regional 

No Action Maximum Production Proposed Action and Alternative A Alternative B Preferred 

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact 

Receptor Area 

Bridger WA 0.0295 1.530 0.0348 1.535 0.0570 1.557 0.0421 1.542 0.0415 Fitzpatrick WA 0.0052 1.505 0.0058 1.506 0.0079 1.508 0.0065 1.507 0.0063 Grand Teton NP 0.0093 1.509 0.0095 1.509 0.0104 1.510 0.0098 1.510 0.0097 Popo Agie WA 0.0124 1.512 0.0158 1.516 0.0288 1.529 0.0207 1.521 0.0193 Teton WA 0.0031 1.503 0.0032 1.503 0.0036 1.504 0.0033 1.503 0.0033 Washakie WA 0.0035 1.503 0.0036 1.504 0.0040 1.504 0.0038 1.504 0.0037 Wind River RA 0.0107 1.511 0.0128 1.513 0.0206 1.521 0.0156 1.516 0.0149 Yellowstone NP 0.0023 1.502 0.0024 1.502 0.0026 1.503 0.0025 1.502 0.0024 

1 Fox et al. (1989)2 Includes N deposition value of 1.5 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

F-57
Table F.6.3 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

from Project Alternative Sources

Modeling Scenario

Max. Prod.

Proposed 

Action and 

Alternative A Alternative B Preferred Alternative Deposition A

Receptor Area (3100 Wells) WDR250 WDR075 WDR250 Threshold for Pro

Bridger WA 0.000032 0.001442 0.000623 0.001540 0.005Fitzpatrick WA 0.000004 0.000148 0.000055 0.000158 0.005Grand Teton NP 0.000002 0.000066 0.000025 0.000070 0.005Popo Agie WA 0.000018 0.000732 0.000295 0.000779 0.005Teton WA 0.000001 0.000037 0.000014 0.000039 0.005Washakie WA 0.000001 0.000042 0.000016 0.000045 0.005Wind River RA 0.000011 0.000427 0.000155 0.000453 0.005Yellowstone NP 0.000001 0.000024 0.000009 0.000026 0.005

1 National Park Service (2001)

F-58
Table F.6.4 Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Project Alternative and Regional S

No Action Maximum Production Proposed Action and Alternative A Alternative B Preferred 

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact 

Receptor Area 

Bridger WA -0.00091 0.749 -0.00091 0.749 -0.00086 0.749 -0.00089 0.749 -0.00085 Fitzpatrick WA -0.00081 0.749 -0.00081 0.749 -0.00076 0.749 -0.00079 0.749 -0.00075 Grand Teton NP 0.00337 0.753 0.00338 0.753 0.00344 0.753 0.00340 0.753 0.00344 Popo Agie WA -0.00257 0.747 -0.00257 0.747 -0.00213 0.748 -0.00245 0.748 -0.00210 Teton WA 0.00081 0.751 0.00081 0.751 0.00085 0.751 0.00083 0.751 0.00085 Washakie WA -0.00014 0.750 -0.00014 0.750 -0.00013 0.750 -0.00014 0.750 -0.00013 Wind River RA -0.00115 0.749 -0.00115 0.749 -0.00109 0.749 -0.00113 0.749 -0.00109 Yellowstone NP 0.00099 0.751 0.00100 0.751 0.00102 0.751 0.00100 0.751 0.00102 

1 Fox et al. (1989)2 Includes S deposition value of 0.75 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

Note: Negative results reflect a net decrease in cumulative SO2 emissions.

F-59
Table F.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lake

from Maximum Production Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.022 0.033%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.024 0.041%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.004 0.006%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.001 0.008%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.028 0.567%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.026 0.046%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.001 0.003%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-60
Table F.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.104 0.155%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.114 0.190%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.021 0.030%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.007 0.038%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.140 2.808%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.128 0.231%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.007 0.013%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-61
Table F.7.3 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Alternative B Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.053 0.079%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.057 0.095%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.010 0.014%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.004 0.019%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.069 1.386%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.065 0.117%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.003 0.007%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-62
Table F.7.4 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Preferred Alternative Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.047 0.070%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.051 0.086%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.010 0.014%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.003 0.016%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.064 1.286%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.057 0.102%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.003 0.006%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-63
Table F.7.5 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from No Action and Regional Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.085 0.127%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.087 0.144%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.042 0.060%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.025 0.132%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.091 1.826%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.096 0.174%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.026 0.048%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-64
Table F.7.6 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Maximum Production and Regional Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.107 0.160%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.111 0.185%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.046 0.066%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.026 0.140%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.120 2.391%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.122 0.220%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.027 0.050%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-65
Table F.7.7 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.185 0.276%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.196 0.327%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.062 0.089%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.032 0.168%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.227 4.532%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.220 0.397%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.032 0.060%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-66
Table F.7.8 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Alternative B and Regional Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.137 0.204%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.142 0.237%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.051 0.074%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.028 0.150%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.159 3.173%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.160 0.287%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.029 0.054%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-67
Table F.7.9 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources

Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 

ANC 

Change

Percent 

ANC 

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.127 0.190%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.133 0.221%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.050 0.072%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.027 0.146%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.149 2.982%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.147 0.265%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.028 0.053%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

F-68
Table F.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from M

Production Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 1.02

3 1 1.14

3 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.13

0

0 0.15

0

Grand Teton NP 0.08

0

0 0.08

0

Popo Agie WA 0.21

0

0 0.24

0

Teton WA 0.03

0

0 0.03

0

Washakie WA 0.06

0

0 0.06

0

Wind River RA 0.18

0

0 0.20

0

Yellowstone NP 0.04

0

0 0.04

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-69
Table F.8.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prop

and Alternative A Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 3.16 22

9 3.48 28 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.56

2

0 0.64

3

Grand Teton NP 0.32

0

0 0.33

0

Popo Agie WA 0.54

2

0 0.62

2

Teton WA 0.14

0

0 0.14

0

Washakie WA 0.24

0

0 0.24

0

Wind River RA 0.45

0

0 0.52 1 

Yellowstone NP 0.16

0

0 0.16

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-70
Table F.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Alte

Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 1.71 11

2 1.90 12

Fitzpatrick WA 0.28

0

0 0.32

0

Grand Teton NP 0.17

0

0 0.17

0

Popo Agie WA 0.29

0

0 0.34

0

Teton WA 0.07

0

0 0.07

0

Washakie WA 0.12

0

0 0.12

0

Wind River RA 0.24

0

0 0.28

0

Yellowstone NP 0.08

0

0 0.08

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-71
Table F.8.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Pr

Alternative Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 1.50

9

2 1.66

9

Fitzpatrick WA 0.28

0

0 0.33

0

Grand Teton NP 0.13

0

0 0.14

0

Popo Agie WA 0.25

0

0 0.29

0

Teton WA 0.06

0

0 0.06

0

Washakie WA 0.10

0

0 0.10

0

Wind River RA 0.22

0

0 0.26

0

Yellowstone NP 0.06

0

0 0.06

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-72
Table F.8.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Area

Action and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 1.69

8

3 1.94 11

Fitzpatrick WA 0.42

0

0 0.49

0

Grand Teton NP 0.33

0

0 0.33

0

Popo Agie WA 0.49

0

0 0.58 1 

Teton WA 0.14

0

0 0.14

0

Washakie WA 0.17

0

0 0.17

0

Wind River RA 0.73

3

0 0.81

3

Yellowstone NP 0.15

0

0 0.16

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-73
Table F.8.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Maximum Production and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 1.98 12

4 2.26 15

Fitzpatrick WA 0.48

0

0 0.56 1 

Grand Teton NP 0.34

0

0 0.35

0

Popo Agie WA 0.57 1 0 0.66

3

Teton WA 0.16

0

0 0.16

0

Washakie WA 0.20

0

0 0.20

0

Wind River RA 0.82

3

0 0.92

4

Yellowstone NP 0.17

0

0 0.17

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-74
Table F.8.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 3.65 40 11 4.01 46 Fitzpatrick WA 0.76

5

0 0.87

7

Grand Teton NP 0.49

0

0 0.50 1 

Popo Agie WA 0.85

8

0 0.99 16

Teton WA 0.23

0

0 0.24

0

Washakie WA 0.34

0

0 0.34

0

Wind River RA 1.08

6 1 1.21 12

Yellowstone NP 0.25

0

0 0.25

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-75
Table F.8.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Alternative B and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 2.38 21

5 2.71 28

Fitzpatrick WA 0.53

2

0 0.61

2

Grand Teton NP 0.36

0

0 0.36

0

Popo Agie WA 0.68

4

0 0.78

6

Teton WA 0.18

0

0 0.18

0

Washakie WA 0.25

0

0 0.25

0

Wind River RA 0.90

4

0 1.01

6 

Yellowstone NP 0.18

0

0 0.18

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-76
Table F.8.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Background Data1

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Nu

Days 

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (

Bridger WA 2.29 19

5 2.62 21

Fitzpatrick WA 0.49

0

0 0.57

2

Grand Teton NP 0.34

0

0 0.35

0

Popo Agie WA 0.64

2

0 0.75

4

Teton WA 0.17

0

0 0.17

0

Washakie WA 0.23

0

0 0.23

0

Wind River RA 0.86

4

0 0.96

4

Yellowstone NP 0.17

0

0 0.18

0

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-77
JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 456789

1 1 1- - - - 0.76 0.77 0.81 0.77 0.77

3 1 3- - - - - - 0.56 - -

5 1 5 0.79 2.93 1.65 1.43 1.69 1.98 3.22 2.38 2.29

6 1 6 0.58 1.65 0.93 0.75 0.69 1.15 2.16 1.48 1.30

16 1 16 - - - - - - 0.54 - -

17 1 17 - - - - - - 0.50 - -

19 1 19 - 0.53 ---- 0.65 - -

20 1 20 - 0.70 ---- 0.89 0.59 0.54

22 1 22 - 1.34 0.73 0.66 - 0.65 1.64 1.04 0.97

23 1 23 - 0.66 - - 1.02 1.19 1.61 1.28 1.27

25 1 25 - 0.53 ---- 0.62 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 0.62 - -

27 1 27 - - - - 0.80 0.83 0.92 0.85 0.85

29 1 29 - 1.78 0.89 0.94 - - 1.85 0.97 1.01

39 2 8 - 0.65 ---- 0.69 - -

43 2 12 - 0.82 ---- 0.99 0.63 0.57

44 2 13 - - - - - - 0.58 - -

52 2 21 - - - - 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62

60 3 1 - - - - - 0.52 0.85 0.62 0.62

61 3 2 - - - - - - 0.59 - -

62 3 3 - - - - - - 0.71 - -

85 3 26 - - - - - - 0.68 - -

89 3 30 - - - - - - 0.56 - -

107 4 17 - 1.24 0.65 0.59 - - 1.28 0.70 0.63

108 4 18 - 1.75 0.90 0.86 - - 1.79 0.94 0.90

131 5 11 - - - - - - 0.70 - -

262 9 19 - - - - - - 0.51 - -

264 9 21 - 0.60 ---- 0.69 - -

273 9 30 - 0.99 0.53 - - 0.57 1.31 0.86 0.82

279 10 6 - - - - - - 0.51 - -

281 10 8 - 0.67 ---- 0.73 0.51 -

308 11 4 - - - - - - 0.66 - -

350 12 16 - - - - - - 0.54 - -

351 12 17 - 1.16 0.71 0.55 - - 1.26 0.81 0.65

352 12 18 - 0.90 0.55 - - - 0.95 0.61 -

353 12 19 - 0.73 ---- 0.82 - -

355 12 21 1.02 3.16 1.71 1.50 1.00 1.65 3.65 2.28 2.05

356 12 22 - 1.24 0.61 0.53 - 0.77 1.55 0.94 0.86

361 12 27 - 0.56 - - 0.70 0.76 0.93 0.81 0.78

362 12 28 - 0.74 ---- 0.99 0.59 0.63

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 14 7 6 6 9 30 14 14

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 9 2 2 3 4 11 5 5

Maximum Δ dv 0.79 2.93 1.65 1.43 1.69 1.98 3.22 2.38 2.29

Table F.8.10 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-78
JDAY MO DAY 123456789

1 1 1- - - - 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.89 0.89

2 1 2- - - - - - 0.54 - -

3 1 3 - 0.53 ---- 0.65 - -

5 1 5 0.91 3.33 1.89 1.64 1.94 2.26 3.66 2.71 2.62

6 1 6 0.67 1.89 1.07 0.86 0.80 1.33 2.47 1.70 1.49

16 1 16 - - - - - - 0.62 - -

17 1 17 - - - - - - 0.58 - -

19 1 19 - 0.62 ---- 0.75 - -

20 1 20 - 0.81 ---- 1.03 0.69 0.63

22 1 22 - 1.54 0.84 0.76 - 0.75 1.88 1.20 1.11

23 1 23 - 0.76 - - 1.17 1.37 1.85 1.47 1.46

25 1 25 - 0.61 ---- 0.72 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 0.71 0.51 -

27 1 27 - - - - 0.92 0.96 1.06 0.97 0.98

29 1 29 - 2.04 1.03 1.08 - 0.53 2.12 1.12 1.16

38 2 7 - 0.52 ---- 0.57 - -

39 2 8 - 0.76 ---- 0.80 - -

42 2 11 - - - - - - 0.50 - -

43 2 12 - 0.95 0.52 - - - 1.15 0.73 0.66

44 2 13 - - - - - - 0.67 0.51 -

52 2 21 - - - - 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72

60 3 1 - - - - 0.52 0.61 0.99 0.72 0.72

61 3 2 - - - - - - 0.69 0.51 -

62 3 3 - 0.57 - - 0.51 0.53 0.82 0.58 0.51

73 3 14 - - - - 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.53

84 3 25 - - - - - - 0.52 - -

85 3 26 - 0.54 ---- 0.78 0.54 -

89 3 30 - 0.52 ---- 0.65 - -

107 4 17 - 1.12 0.59 0.53 - - 1.16 0.63 0.57

108 4 18 - 1.59 0.81 0.78 - - 1.63 0.86 0.82

131 5 11 - - - - - - 0.64 - -

264 9 21 - - - - - - 0.57 - -

273 9 30 - 0.82 ---- 1.08 0.71 0.67

279 10 6 - - - - - - 0.58 - -

280 10 7 - - - - - - 0.54 - -

281 10 8 - 0.76 0.51 - - - 0.82 0.57 -

308 11 4 - 0.54 ---- 0.73 0.51 -

325 11 21 - - - - - - 0.55 - -

350 12 16 - 0.52 ---- 0.60 - -

351 12 17 - 1.29 0.79 0.62 - - 1.40 0.91 0.72

352 12 18 - 1.00 0.62 - - - 1.06 0.68 -

353 12 19 - 0.82 ---- 0.91 - -

355 12 21 1.14 3.48 1.90 1.66 1.11 1.83 4.01 2.52 2.27

356 12 22 - 1.38 0.68 0.60 - 0.86 1.72 1.04 0.95

361 12 27 - 0.62 - - 0.78 0.85 1.03 0.90 0.87

362 12 28 - 0.82 - - - 0.51 1.11 0.66 0.70

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 28 12 9 11 15 46 28 21

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 10 4 3 3 4 17 7 6

Maximum Δ dv 1.14 3.48 1.90 1.66 1.94 2.26 4.01 2.71 2.62

Table F.8.11 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-79
JDAY MO DAY 123456789

5 1 5- - - - - - 0.51 - -

25 1 25 - - - - - - 0.66 - -

26 1 26 - 0.53 ---- 0.76 0.51 -

29 1 29 - 0.56 ---- 0.60 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - 0.61 0.53 -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.53 0.00

Table F.8.12 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-80
JDAY MO DAY 12345678 9

5 1 5- - - - - - 0.59 - -

25 1 25 - 0.55 ---- 0.76 - -

26 1 26 - 0.62 ---- 0.87 0.59 0.52

29 1 29 - 0.64 ---- 0.69 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - 0.56 0.71 0.61 0.57

82 3 23 - - - - - - 0.54 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - 0.55 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 3 0 0 0 1 7 2 2

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.87 0.61 0.57

Table F.8.13 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-81
JDAY MO DAY 123456789

6 1 6 - 0.54 ---- 0.83 0.59 0.54

23 1 23 - - - - - - 0.64 0.51 -

60 3 1 - - - - - 0.57 0.85 0.68 0.64

61 3 2 - - - - - - 0.60 - -

280 10 7 - - - - - - 0.52 - -

356 12 22 - 0.54 ---- 0.73 0.51 -

361 12 27 - - - - - - 0.59 - -

362 12 28 - - - - - - 0.59 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 2 0 0 0 1 8 4 2

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.85 0.68 0.64

Table F.8.14 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-82
JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3456 7 8 9

1 1 1- - - - - - 0.52 - -

2 1 2- - - - - - 0.52 - -

6 1 6 - 0.62 - - - 0.52 0.95 0.68 0.63

17 1 17 - - - - - - 0.51 - -

22 1 22 - - - - - - 0.54 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - 0.51 0.74 0.59 0.57

42 2 11 - - - - - - 0.57 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - 0.50 - -

45 2 14 - - - - - - 0.53 - -

60 3 1 - - - - 0.58 0.66 0.99 0.78 0.75

61 3 2 - - - - - - 0.70 0.53 0.50

280 10 7 - - - - - - 0.59 - -

325 11 21 - - - - - - 0.53 - -

356 12 22 - 0.60 ---- 0.82 0.57 -

361 12 27 - - - - - - 0.65 0.54 -

362 12 28 - - - - - - 0.66 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 2 0 0 1 3 16 6 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.66 0.99 0.78 0.75

Table F.8.15 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-83
JDAY MO DAY 123456789

26 1 26 - - - - - - 0.56 - -

44 2 13 - - - - 0.65 0.73 0.98 0.81 0.76

60 3 1 - - - - - - 0.63 0.52 0.51

73 3 14 - - - - 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.57 0.57

356 12 22 - - - - - - 0.61 - -

361 12 27 - - - - 0.73 0.82 1.08 0.90 0.86

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 4 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.82 1.08 0.90 0.86

Table F.8.16 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

FLAG Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-84
JDAY MO DAY 123456789

6 1 6- - - - - - 0.51 - -

15 1 15 - - - - - - 0.57 0.52 -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 0.64 - -

29 1 29 - 0.52 ---- 0.58 - -

43 2 12 - - - - - - 0.55 - -

44 2 13 - - - - 0.75 0.85 1.13 0.94 0.88

60 3 1 - - - - - 0.53 0.73 0.61 0.59

61 3 2 - - - - - - 0.52 - -

73 3 14 - - - - 0.63 0.65 0.71 0.66 0.67

280 10 7 - - - - - - 0.56 - -

356 12 22 - - - - - - 0.68 0.53 -

361 12 27 - - - - 0.81 0.92 1.21 1.01 0.96

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 1 0 0 3 4 12 6 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.92 1.21 1.01 0.96

Table F.8.17 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

F-85
Table F.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Maximum Production Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 0.57

0 0.66

0

Big Sandy 0.76

0 0.85

0

Boulder 0.49

0 0.56

0

Bronx 0.31

0 0.36

0

Cora 0.60

0 0.69

0

Daniel 0.49

0 0.57

0

Farson 0.47

0 0.55

0

Labarge 0.26

0 0.30

0

Merna 0.19

0 0.22

0

Pinedale 0.93

0 1.07 1

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-86
Table F.9.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Proposed Action and Alternative A Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 1.75

2 2.01

6

Big Sandy 2.77 19 3.05 23Boulder 2.09

9 2.39 12

Bronx 1.48 1 1.70 1Cora 2.81 1 3.20 1Daniel 2.24 1 2.56 1Farson 2.04

5 2.33

6

Labarge 1.15

2 1.32

2

Merna 0.68

0 0.79

0

Pinedale 3.78

2 4.27

3

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-87
Table F.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Alternative B Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 0.90

0 1.04 1

Big Sandy 1.61

3 1.79

6

Boulder 1.08

2 1.24

3

Bronx 0.73

0 0.85

0

Cora 1.44 1 1.66 1Daniel 1.15 1 1.32 1Farson 1.05 1 1.21

3

Labarge 0.57

0 0.66

0

Merna 0.36

0 0.42

0

Pinedale 2.09 1 2.39 1

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-88
Table F.9.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 0.79

0 0.92

0

Big Sandy 1.30 1 1.45

4

Boulder 0.95

0 1.10

2

Bronx 0.77

0 0.89

0

Cora 1.52 1 1.75 1Daniel 1.19 1 1.37 1Farson 1.03 1 1.19 1Labarge 0.50

0 0.57

0

Merna 0.30

0 0.35

0

Pinedale 2.07 1 2.37 1

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-89
Table F.9.5 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from No Action and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 1.91

5 2.18

7

Big Sandy 1.27 1 1.45

2

Boulder 2.56

4 2.92

4

Bronx 0.66

0 0.74

0

Cora 0.74

0 0.85

0

Daniel 0.68

0 0.79

0

Farson 1.33

3 1.48

3

Labarge 1.62

6 1.86

6

Merna 0.88

0 0.98

0

Pinedale 1.55

2 1.78

2

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-90
Table F.9.6 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Maximum Production and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 1.98

7 2.26 11

Big Sandy 1.64

4 1.88

9

Boulder 2.67

5 3.04

5

Bronx 0.69

0 0.77

0

Cora 0.81

0 0.93

0

Daniel 0.79

0 0.89

0

Farson 1.47

6 1.69

8

Labarge 1.79

6 2.05

6

Merna 0.91

0 1.01 1

Pinedale 1.69

4 1.94

5

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-91
Table F.9.7 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Proposed Action and Alternative A and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.29 16 2.62 20Big Sandy 3.29 31 3.62 34Boulder 3.26 19 3.70 21Bronx 1.56 1 1.79 1Cora 2.92

6 3.32

8

Daniel 2.34

6 2.67 11

Farson 2.49 11 2.75 12Labarge 2.54

9 2.90 12

Merna 0.99

0 1.13

5

Pinedale 3.91

8 4.41 10

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-92
Table F.9.8 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Alternative B and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.05 10 2.34 14Big Sandy 2.20 13 2.43 16Boulder 2.79

9 3.17

9

Bronx 0.82

0 0.94

0

Cora 1.57 1 1.80

3

Daniel 1.26 1 1.44

2

Farson 1.78 10 2.04 10Labarge 2.07

6 2.37

6

Merna 0.94

0 1.05 1

Pinedale 2.23

5 2.55

8

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-93
Table F.9.9 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative and Regional Sources

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Receptor Area

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of Days

> 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 1.99

8 2.28 13

Big Sandy 1.88

9 2.13 12

Boulder 2.72

6 3.09

9

Bronx 0.84

0 0.97

0

Cora 1.62 1 1.86

2

Daniel 1.28 1 1.47

2

Farson 1.63

8 1.87 10

Labarge 2.02

6 2.30

6

Merna 0.93

0 1.03 1

Pinedale 2.19

5 2.50

6

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-94
Table F.9.10 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.45 - -

19 1 19 - - - - 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.36 1.03 -

22 1 22 - - - - 1.47 1.63 2.29 1.87 1.85

23 1 23 - - - - 1.91 1.98 2.17 2.05 1.99

27 1 27 - - - - 1.06 1.09 1.15 1.11 1.09

39 2 8 - - - - - - 1.15 - -

43 2 12 - - - - - - 1.45 1.08 1.05

60 3 1 - 1.75 - - - 1.09 2.19 1.40 1.35

61 3 2 - 1.38 - - - - 1.54 - -

123 5 3 - - - - - - 1.14 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - 1.16 - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - 1.03 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - 1.12 1.75 1.36 1.33

356 12 22 - - - - - - 1.22 1.04 -

360 12 26 - - - - 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 2 0 0 5 7 16 10 8

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.75 0.00 0.00 1.91 1.98 2.29 2.05 1.99

F-95
Table F.9.11 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 1 2 - - - - 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

5 1 5 - 1.14 - - - - 1.66 1.14 1.08

19 1 19 - - - - 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.56 1.19 1.15

22 1 22 - 1.09 - - 1.69 1.87 2.62 2.14 2.12

23 1 23 - - - - 2.18 2.26 2.47 2.34 2.28

27 1 27 - - - - 1.22 1.25 1.32 1.27 1.26

39 2 8 - 1.00 - - - - 1.33 - -

43 2 12 - 1.04 - - - 1.05 1.67 1.25 1.21

60 3 1 - 2.01 1.04 1.00 - 1.26 2.51 1.62 1.56

61 3 2 - 1.59 - - - - 1.77 1.08 -

86 3 27 - - - - - - 1.16 - -

123 5 3 - - - - - - 1.03 - -

350 12 16 - - - - - - 1.11 - -

352 12 18 - - - - - - 1.03 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - 1.02 1.29 1.09 1.08

354 12 20 - - - - - - 1.14 - -

355 12 21 - - - - 1.10 1.25 1.94 1.52 1.48

356 12 22 - - - - - 1.04 1.36 1.16 1.02

360 12 26 - - - - 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 6 1 1 7 11 20 14 13

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.01 1.04 1.00 2.18 2.26 2.62 2.34 2.28

F-96
Table F.9.12 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 1 1 - - - - - - 1.26 1.00 -

2 1 2 - - - - - - 1.06 - -

3 1 3 - - - - - - 1.19 - -

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.08 - -

6 1 6 - 1.63 - - - 1.19 2.24 1.56 1.49

16 1 16 - - - - - - 1.07 - -

19 1 19 - - - - - - 1.17 - -

21 1 21 - 1.25 - - - - 1.36 - -

22 1 22 - 1.96 - 1.06 - - 2.39 1.35 1.53

23 1 23 - 1.50 - - - 1.22 2.28 1.68 1.63

27 1 27 - 1.45 - - 1.27 1.64 2.54 1.90 1.94

29 1 29 - 1.17 - - - - 1.52 1.00 -

43 2 12 - 1.13 - - - - 1.34 - -

85 3 26 - - - - - - 1.30 - -

89 3 30 - 1.87 - 1.08 - - 2.03 1.16 1.24

91 4 1 - - - - - - 1.12 - -

115 4 25 - - - - - - 1.06 - -

262 9 19 - 1.24 - - - - 1.37 - -

272 9 29 - 1.43 - - - - 1.67 1.03 1.01

273 9 30 - 1.80 1.00 - - - 2.17 1.39 1.37

308 11 4 - - - - - - 1.13 - -

319 11 15 - 1.01 - - - - 1.08 - -

351 12 17 - 1.00 - - - - 1.10 - -

353 12 19 - 1.53 - - - - 1.63 - -

355 12 21 - 2.77 1.61 1.39 - 1.40 3.29 2.20 1.96

356 12 22 - 1.98 1.19 1.09 - - 2.36 1.61 1.49

358 12 24 - 1.20 - - - - 1.65 1.16 1.12

359 12 25 - 1.33 - - - - 1.52 - -

360 12 26 - - - - - - 1.04 - -

361 12 27 - - - - - - 1.20 - -

362 12 28 - 1.69 - - - - 2.23 1.52 1.48

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 19 3 4 1 4 31 13 11

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.77 1.61 1.39 1.27 1.64 3.29 2.20 1.96

F-97
Table F.9.13 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 1 1 - - - - - 1.04 1.45 1.16 1.13

2 1 2 - - - - - - 1.22 - -

3 1 3 - 1.06 - - - - 1.37 1.06 -

5 1 5 - 1.06 - - - - 1.24 - -

6 1 6 - 1.87 1.05 - - 1.37 2.56 1.78 1.71

16 1 16 - - - - - - 1.24 - -

19 1 19 - - - - - - 1.35 1.12 -

21 1 21 - 1.44 - - - - 1.57 1.07 -

22 1 22 - 2.24 - 1.22 - 1.12 2.73 1.55 1.75

23 1 23 - 1.72 1.01 - 1.08 1.41 2.60 1.92 1.87

27 1 27 - 1.67 - - 1.45 1.88 2.89 2.17 2.22

29 1 29 - 1.35 - - - - 1.75 1.15 1.14

43 2 12 - 1.31 - - - - 1.55 - -

52 2 21 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

60 3 1 - - - - - - 1.02 - -

85 3 26 - 1.15 - - - - 1.50 - -

89 3 30 - 2.15 1.15 1.25 - - 2.33 1.35 1.43

91 4 1 - - - - - - 1.02 - -

262 9 19 - 1.02 - - - - 1.14 - -

272 9 29 - 1.18 - - - - 1.39 - -

273 9 30 - 1.50 - - - - 1.80 1.15 1.13

280 10 7 - - - - - - 1.08 - -

308 11 4 - - - - - - 1.25 - -

319 11 15 - 1.12 - - - - 1.20 - -

351 12 17 - 1.12 - - - - 1.23 - -

353 12 19 - 1.70 - - - - 1.81 - 1.03

354 12 20 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

355 12 21 - 3.05 1.79 1.54 - 1.55 3.62 2.43 2.18

356 12 22 - 2.19 1.32 1.21 - 1.10 2.61 1.78 1.66

358 12 24 - 1.34 - - - 1.04 1.83 1.29 1.24

359 12 25 - 1.48 - - - - 1.69 1.03 1.03

360 12 26 - - - - - - 1.15 - -

361 12 27 - 1.01 - - - - 1.34 - -

362 12 28 - 1.88 1.05 1.02 - 1.03 2.46 1.68 1.64

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 23 6 5 2 9 34 16 14

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 3.05 1.79 1.54 1.45 1.88 3.62 2.43 2.22

F-98
Table F.9.14 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - 2.09 1.08 - 1.65 1.99 3.26 2.44 2.37

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.35 1.03 -

20 1 20 - 1.72 - - - 1.25 2.39 1.71 1.68

22 1 22 - - - - 1.78 1.95 2.39 2.08 2.06

23 1 23 - - - - 2.56 2.67 3.01 2.79 2.74

28 1 28 - 1.06 - - - - 1.13 - -

29 1 29 - 1.85 1.06 1.01 - - 2.06 1.28 1.23

43 2 12 - 1.36 - - - - 1.60 1.04 -

60 3 1 - - - - - - 1.35 - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

131 5 11 - - - - - - 1.07 1.01 1.00

321 11 17 - 1.00 - - - - 1.20 - -

324 11 20 - - - - - - 1.08 - -

351 12 17 - - - - - - 1.00 - -

352 12 18 - 1.21 - - - - 1.29 - -

353 12 19 - 1.04 - - - - 1.17 - -

354 12 20 - 1.32 - - - - 1.46 - -

355 12 21 - - - - 1.65 1.87 2.37 2.06 1.96

357 12 23 - - - - - - 1.07 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 9 2 1 4 5 19 9 7

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.09 1.08 1.01 2.56 2.67 3.26 2.79 2.74

F-99
Table F.9.15 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3 1 3 - - - - - - 1.11 - -

5 1 5 - 2.39 1.24 1.14 1.89 2.28 3.70 2.79 2.70

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.56 1.19 1.15

20 1 20 - 1.97 1.13 1.09 - 1.43 2.73 1.97 1.93

22 1 22 - - - - 2.03 2.23 2.72 2.37 2.35

23 1 23 - - - - 2.92 3.04 3.42 3.17 3.12

25 1 25 - - - - - - 1.13 - -

28 1 28 - 1.22 - - - - 1.30 - -

29 1 29 - 2.12 1.22 1.17 - - 2.36 1.48 1.41

39 2 8 - - - - - - 1.01 - -

43 2 12 - 1.57 - - - - 1.85 1.20 1.10

60 3 1 - - - - - - 1.56 1.12 1.12

61 3 2 - - - - - - 1.28 - -

321 11 17 - 1.11 - - - - 1.34 - -

324 11 20 - 1.08 - - - - 1.20 - -

351 12 17 - 1.01 - - - - 1.12 - -

352 12 18 - 1.34 - - - - 1.43 - -

353 12 19 - 1.15 - - - - 1.31 - -

354 12 20 - 1.47 - - - - 1.63 - -

355 12 21 - - - - 1.83 2.08 2.62 2.28 2.17

357 12 23 - 1.01 - - - - 1.19 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 12 3 3 4 5 21 9 9

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.39 1.24 1.17 2.92 3.04 3.70 3.17 3.12

F-100
Table F.9.16 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29 1 29 - 1.48 - - - - 1.56 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 0.00

F-101
Table F.9.17 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29 1 29 - 1.70 - - - - 1.79 - 1.00

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.00 1.00

F-102
Table F.9.18 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.06 - -

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

25 1 25 - - - - - - 1.24 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 1.23 - -

29 1 29 - 2.81 1.44 1.58 - - 2.92 1.57 1.68

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.03 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 1

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.81 1.44 1.58 0.00 0.00 2.92 1.57 1.68

F-103
Table F.9.19 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.22 1.03 1.01

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.27 - -

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

25 1 25 - - - - - - 1.43 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 1.42 1.06 1.02

29 1 29 - 3.20 1.66 1.81 - - 3.32 1.80 1.93

44 2 13 - - - - - - 1.01 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.14 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 1 1 0 0 8 3 3

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 3.20 1.66 1.81 0.00 0.00 3.32 1.80 1.93

F-104
Table F.9.20 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.04 - -

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.22 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - 1.02 - -

29 1 29 - 2.24 1.15 1.23 - - 2.34 1.26 1.33

39 2 8 - - - - - - 1.09 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.17 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 1 1 0 0 6 1 1

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.24 1.15 1.23 0.00 0.00 2.34 1.26 1.33

F-105
Table F.9.21 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - - - 1.19 - -

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.09 - -

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.40 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - 1.18 - -

29 1 29 - 2.56 1.32 1.42 - - 2.67 1.44 1.52

39 2 8 - - - - - - 1.26 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - 1.06 - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - 1.11 - -

86 3 27 - - - - - - 1.14 - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - 1.05 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.30 1.03 1.02

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 1 1 1 0 0 11 2 2

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.56 1.32 1.42 0.00 0.00 2.67 1.44 1.52

F-106
Table F.9.22 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 1 2 - - - - 1.05 1.16 1.30 1.21 1.14

21 1 21 - 2.04 1.05 1.06 - - 2.25 1.27 1.28

22 1 22 - 1.28 - - - - 1.89 1.27 1.20

27 1 27 - 1.22 - - 1.17 1.47 2.26 1.78 1.67

28 1 28 - 1.69 - - - 1.10 2.24 1.54 1.39

353 12 19 - - - - - - 1.04 - -

354 12 20 - 1.92 - - - 1.13 2.49 1.62 1.44

356 12 22 - - - - - - 1.45 1.04 -

358 12 24 - - - - - 1.03 1.35 1.14 1.06

359 12 25 - - - - - - 1.32 1.09 -

362 12 28 - - - - 1.33 1.43 1.54 1.47 1.39

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 5 1 1 3 6 11 10 8

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.04 1.05 1.06 1.33 1.47 2.49 1.78 1.67

F-107
Table F.9.23 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 1 2 - - - - 1.21 1.33 1.49 1.39 1.31

21 1 21 - 2.33 1.21 1.22 - - 2.56 1.46 1.47

22 1 22 - 1.48 - - - 1.09 2.16 1.47 1.38

27 1 27 - 1.40 - - 1.34 1.69 2.58 2.04 1.91

28 1 28 - 1.93 1.08 - - 1.26 2.56 1.77 1.59

331 11 27 - - - - - - 1.04 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - 1.16 - -

354 12 20 - 2.12 1.10 - - 1.26 2.75 1.79 1.60

356 12 22 - 1.02 - - - - 1.61 1.16 1.04

358 12 24 - - - - - 1.15 1.50 1.27 1.18

359 12 25 - - - - - 1.08 1.47 1.21 1.06

362 12 28 - - - - 1.48 1.59 1.71 1.63 1.54

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 6 3 1 3 8 12 10 10

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 2.33 1.21 1.22 1.48 1.69 2.75 2.04 1.91

F-108
Table F.9.24 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9) 

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - 1.12 - - - - 1.25 - -

21 1 21 - - - - 1.22 1.27 1.44 1.32 1.32

22 1 22 - 1.15 - - 1.62 1.79 2.54 2.07 2.02

42 2 11 - - - - - - 1.07 - -

354 12 20 - - - - 1.53 1.61 1.86 1.71 1.66

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.05 - -

358 12 24 - - - - 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.06 1.06

359 12 25 - - - - 1.24 1.27 1.34 1.29 1.29

362 12 28 - - - - 1.57 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.57

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 2 0 0 6 6 9 6 6

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.79 2.54 2.07 2.02

F-109
Table F.9.25 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - 1.29 - - - - 1.44 - -

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.03 - -

21 1 21 - - - - 1.40 1.46 1.66 1.52 1.52

22 1 22 - 1.32 - - 1.86 2.05 2.90 2.37 2.31

42 2 11 - - - - - - 1.24 - -

60 3 1 - - - - - - 1.02 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - 1.10 - -

354 12 20 - - - - 1.70 1.79 2.06 1.89 1.84

355 12 21 - - - - - - 1.17 - -

358 12 24 - - - - 1.15 1.16 1.22 1.18 1.18

359 12 25 - - - - 1.38 1.41 1.49 1.44 1.43

362 12 28 - - - - 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 2 0 0 6 6 12 6 6

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.86 2.05 2.90 2.37 2.31

F-110
Table F.9.26 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

There are no days at or above 1.0 Δdv using this method at this location.

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

F-111
Table F.9.27 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23 1 23 - - - - - - 1.05 - -

24 1 24 - - - - - - 1.01 - -

39 2 8 - - - - - - 1.09 - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - 1.13 - -

356 12 22 - - - - - 1.01 1.11 1.05 1.03

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 1

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.13 1.05 1.03

F-112
Table F.9.28 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background 

Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - 1.55 1.69 2.19 1.87 1.84

6 1 6 - - - - - - 1.34 1.05 1.01

20 1 20 - - - - - - 1.38 - -

23 1 23 - - - - 1.05 1.11 1.26 1.16 1.12

25 1 25 - 1.30 - - - - 1.46 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 1.23 - -

29 1 29 - 3.78 2.09 2.16 - 1.09 3.91 2.23 2.28

355 12 21 - - - - - 1.00 1.48 1.19 1.15

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 2 1 1 2 4 8 5 5

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 3.78 2.09 2.16 1.55 1.69 3.91 2.23 2.28

F-113
Table F.9.29 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Modeling Scenario (1-9)

JDAY MO DAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5 1 5 - - - - 1.78 1.94 2.50 2.14 2.11

6 1 6 - - - - - 1.02 1.54 1.21 1.17

20 1 20 - 1.09 - - - - 1.58 1.09 1.09

23 1 23 - - - - 1.21 1.27 1.45 1.34 1.29

25 1 25 - 1.49 - - - - 1.67 1.04 -

26 1 26 - - - - - - 1.42 1.03 -

29 1 29 1.07 4.27 2.39 2.47 - 1.26 4.41 2.55 2.60

43 2 12 - - - - - - 1.02 - -

352 12 18 - - - - - - 1.05 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - 1.12 1.65 1.32 1.28

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 3 1 1 2 5 10 8 6

Maximum Δ dv 1.07 4.27 2.39 2.47 1.78 1.94 4.41 2.55 2.60

F-114
μ

Table F.10.1 - Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Sources 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct M

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual No Action -- -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.026 3.43 0.001 3.40 0.009 3.41 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.132 3.53 0.006 3.41 0.044 3.44 Alternative B 75 0.062 3.46 0.003 3.40 0.023 3.42 Preferred Alternative 250 0.061 3.46 0.002 3.40 0.019 3.42 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct M

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual No Action -- -- 3.40 -- 3.40 -- 3.40 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 Alternative B 75 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 Preferred Alternative 250 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 100 g/m3 on an annual basis.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

F-115
μ

Table F.10.2 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Project and Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct M

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual No Action -- 0.119 3.52 0.011 3.41 0.027 3.43 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.143 3.54 0.012 3.41 0.036 3.44 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.245 3.64 0.017 3.42 0.070 3.47 Alternative B 75 0.175 3.57 0.014 3.41 0.049 3.45 Preferred Alternative 250 0.174 3.57 0.013 3.41 0.044 3.44 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct M

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual No Action -- 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 Alternative B 75 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 Preferred Alternative 250 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 3.40 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 100 g/m3 on an annual basis.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

F-116
μ

Table F.10.3 - Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from D

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct 

Im

Alternative WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 2No Action -- -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.002 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.001 0Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.229 0.073 0.004 132.2 43.1 9.00 0.019 0.005 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.081 0.013 0.001 132.1 43.0 9.00 0.037 0Alternative B 75 0.089 0.027 0.001 132.1 43.0 9.00 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.032 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.014 0Preferred Alternative 250 0.246 0.076 0.004 132.25 43.08 9.00 0.020 0.006 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.087 0.014 0.001 132.09 43.01 9.00 0.039 0

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct 

Im

Alternative WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 2No Action -- -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- -- -- 132.0 43.0 9.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.001 0Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.007 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.006 0Alternative B 75 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.003 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.00 0.003 0Preferred Alternative 250 0.008 0.002 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.008 0.001 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.00 43.00 9.00 0.006 0

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison with NAAQS/WAAQS which are 1,300 g/m 3 on a 3-hour basis, 365/260 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis 

 and 80/60 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-117
μ

Table F.10.4 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Area

Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct 

Im

Alternative WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 2No Action -- 0.16 0.04 0.00 132.16 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.11 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.16 0.04 0.00 132.16 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.11 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.24 0.08 0.00 132.24 43.08 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 132.08 43.01 9.00 0.12 Alternative B 75 0.17 0.04 0.00 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.11 Preferred Alternative 250 0.261 0.083 0.000 132.26 43.08 9.00 0.023 0.007 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.089 0.016 0.000 132.09 43.02 9.00 0.117 0

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1

Direct 

Im

Alternative WDR 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 2No Action -- 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 Alternative B 75 0.20 0.04 0.01 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.02 Preferred Alternative 250 0.201 0.038 0.007 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.037 0.012 0.001 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.075 0.013 0.001 132.07 43.01 9.00 0.022 0

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison with NAAQS/WAAQS which are 1,300 g/m 3 on a 3-hour basis, 365/260 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis 

 and 80/60 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-118
μ

Table F.10.5 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.75 0.030 33.7 16.03 0.07 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.15 0.008 33.1 16.01 0.12 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 1.66 0.063 34.7 16.06 0.18 0.006 33.2 16.01 0.26 0.018 33.3 16.02 0.19 Alternative B 75 0.99 0.041 34.0 16.04 0.11 0.004 33.1 16.00 0.17 0.011 33.2 16.01 0.14 Preferred Alternative 250 0.633 0.023 33.63 16.02 0.079 0.002 33.08 16.00 0.083 0.007 33.08 16.01 0.06

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- -- 33.0 16.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.01 0.000 33.0 16.00 0.03 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.09 0.003 33.1 16.00 0.04 0.002 33.0 16.00 0.04 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.08 Alternative B 75 0.05 0.002 33.1 16.00 0.03 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.02 0.001 33.0 16.00 0.04 Preferred Alternative 250 0.036 0.001 33.04 16.00 0.016 0.001 33.02 16.00 0.016 0.000 33.02 16.00 0.02

1 Total Concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS whaich are 150 g/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 50 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-119
μ

Table F.10.6 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Project and Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- 0.46 0.018 33.46 16.02 0.13 0.005 33.13 16.00 0.14 0.008 33.14 16.01 0.21 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.91 0.047 33.91 16.05 0.15 0.008 33.15 16.01 0.20 0.015 33.20 16.01 0.23 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 1.82 0.081 34.82 16.08 0.20 0.011 33.20 16.01 0.31 0.024 33.31 16.02 0.29 Alternative B 75 1.16 0.058 34.16 16.06 0.16 0.009 33.16 16.01 0.23 0.018 33.23 16.02 0.25 Preferred Alternative 250 0.787 0.041 33.79 16.04 0.151 0.007 33.15 16.01 0.180 0.013 33.18 16.01 0.23

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- 0.12 0.012 33.12 16.01 0.04 0.005 33.04 16.00 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.04 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.13 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.05 0.006 33.05 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.05 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.14 0.015 33.14 16.02 0.08 0.007 33.08 16.01 0.06 0.005 33.06 16.00 0.09 Alternative B 75 0.13 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.06 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.05 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.06 Preferred Alternative 250 0.125 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.056 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.050 0.004 33.05 16.00 0.05

1 Total Concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS whaich are 150 g/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 50 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-120
μ

Table F.10.7 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.75 0.030 13.7 5.03 0.07 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.15 0.008 13.1 5.01 0.12 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 1.66 0.063 14.7 5.06 0.18 0.006 13.2 5.01 0.26 0.018 13.3 5.02 0.19 Alternative B 75 0.99 0.041 14.0 5.04 0.11 0.004 13.1 5.00 0.17 0.011 13.2 5.01 0.14 Preferred Alternative 250 0.633 0.023 13.63 5.02 0.079 0.002 13.08 5.00 0.083 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.06

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- -- 13.0 5.00 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.01 0.000 13.0 5.00 0.03 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.09 0.003 13.1 5.00 0.04 0.002 13.0 5.00 0.04 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.08 Alternative B 75 0.05 0.002 13.1 5.00 0.03 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.02 0.001 13.0 5.00 0.04 Preferred Alternative 250 0.036 0.001 13.04 5.00 0.016 0.001 13.02 5.00 0.016 0.000 13.02 5.00 0.02

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 65 g/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 15 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-121
μ

Table F.10.8 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- 0.43 0.019 13.43 5.02 0.12 0.006 13.12 5.01 0.13 0.009 13.13 5.01 0.19 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.91 0.048 13.91 5.05 0.14 0.008 13.14 5.01 0.20 0.016 13.20 5.02 0.22 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 1.82 0.081 14.82 5.08 0.20 0.012 13.20 5.01 0.31 0.026 13.31 5.03 0.28 Alternative B 75 1.15 0.059 14.15 5.06 0.16 0.010 13.16 5.01 0.23 0.020 13.23 5.02 0.24 Preferred Alternative 250 0.785 0.042 13.79 5.04 0.145 0.008 13.14 5.01 0.170 0.015 13.17 5.02 0.22

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hNo Action -- 0.11 0.013 13.11 5.01 0.04 0.005 13.04 5.01 0.04 0.004 13.04 5.00 0.04 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.05 0.006 13.05 5.01 0.05 0.004 13.05 5.00 0.05 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.14 0.015 13.14 5.02 0.08 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.06 0.005 13.06 5.01 0.09 Alternative B 75 0.12 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.06 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.05 0.005 13.05 5.00 0.06 Preferred Alternative 250 0.118 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.052 0.006 13.05 5.01 0.050 0.004 13.05 5.00 0.05

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 65 g/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 15 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

F-122
Table F.10.9 - Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3) from Direct Project Sources Within the JIDPA Compared to N

NO2 SO2 PM10 

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Direct M

Imp

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

No Action -- -- 3.4 100 -- -- -- 132 43 9 1,300 365/260 80/60 -- -- 33 16 150 50 -- Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 2.5 5.9 100 0.2 0.1 0.0 132.2 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 90.4 12.6 123.4 28.6 150 50 16.3 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 13.7 17.1 100 18.3 3.7 0.4 150.3 46.7 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.2 16.0 146.2 32.0 150 50 21.6 Alternative B 75 11.8 15.2 100 17.1 4.2 0.3 149.1 47.2 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.1 13.8 130.1 29.8 150 50 17.7 Preferred Alternative 250 6.8 10.2 100 20.0 4.1 0.4 152.0 47.1 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 23.2 3.5 56.2 19.5 150 50 5.0 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration.

F-123
Table F.10.10 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative In-field Pollutant Concentrations ( μg/m 3 ) from Direct Project and Regional Sources W

NAAQS/WAAQS

NO2 SO2 PM10 

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

Dir

Mod

Imp

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 3-hr 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr No Action -- 1.2 4.6 100 0.7 0.1 0.0 132.7 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 0.3 0.0 33.3 16.0 150 50 0.3 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 3.2 6.6 100 0.7 0.1 0.0 132.7 43.1 9.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 90.5 12.6 123.5 28.6 150 50 16.5 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 14.0 17.4 100 18.2 3.6 0.4 150.2 46.6 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.4 16.0 146.4 32.0 150 50 21.8 Alternative B 75 12.2 15.6 100 17.1 4.0 0.3 149.1 47.0 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.2 13.8 130.2 29.8 150 50 17.9 Preferred Alternative 250 7.1 10.5 100 19.9 3.9 0.4 151.9 46.9 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 23.3 3.5 56.3 19.5 150 50 5.0 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration.

F-124
Table F.10.11 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class 

Sources1

Alternative WDR

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness Class I

Popo Agie 

Wilderness Class II

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I

Teton Wilderness 

Class I

Yellowst

Park 

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.00669 0.00057 0.00344 0.00212 0.00023 0.00011 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.03487 0.00266 0.01654 0.00988 0.00116 0.00056 0.Alternative B 75 0.01837 0.00130 0.00844 0.00486 0.00056 0.00027 0.Preferred Alternative 250 0.0154 0.0011 0.0071 0.0043 0.0005 0.0002 0

1 Nitrogen deposition analysis threshold for direct project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr.

F-125
Table F.10.12 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and 

Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources1

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 ModNo Action -- 0.030 1.5295 0.005 1.5052 0.012 1.5124 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.035 1.5348 0.006 1.5058 0.016 1.5158 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.057 1.5570 0.008 1.5079 0.029 1.5288 Alternative B 75 0.042 1.5421 0.007 1.5065 0.021 1.5207 Preferred Alternative 250 0.0415 1.5415 0.0063 1.5063 0.0193 1.5193 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 ModNo Action -- 0.009 1.5093 0.003 1.5031 0.002 1.5023 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.009 1.5095 0.003 1.5032 0.002 1.5024 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.010 1.5104 0.004 1.5036 0.003 1.5026 Alternative B 75 0.010 1.5098 0.003 1.5033 0.002 1.5024 Preferred Alternative 250 0.0097 1.5097 0.0033 1.5033 0.0024 1.5024 

1 Nitrogen deposition analysis level of concern for total impacts - 3.00 kg/ha-yr. 2 Includes N deposition value of 1.5 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

F-126
Table F.10.13 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive P

Direct Project Sources1 

Alternative WDR

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness Class I

Popo Agie 

Wilderness Class II

Wind River Roadless 

Area Class II

Grand Teton National 

Park Class I

Teton Wilderness 

Class I

Yellowst

Par

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.0000316 0.0000036 0.0000184 0.0000114 0.0000015 0.0000008 0.0Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.0014419 0.0001484 0.0007323 0.0004267 0.0000656 0.0000367 0.0Alternative B 75 0.0006225 0.0000547 0.0002954 0.0001552 0.0000246 0.0000135 0.0Preferred Alternative 250 0.00154 0.00016 0.00078 0.00045 0.00007 0.00004 0

1 Sulfur deposition analysis threshold for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr.

F-127
Table F.10.14 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and 

Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources1

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 MoNo Action -- -0.001 0.7491 -0.001 0.7492 -0.003 0.7474 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 -0.001 0.7491 -0.001 0.7492 -0.003 0.7474 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 -0.001 0.7491 -0.001 0.7492 -0.002 0.7479 Alternative B 75 -0.001 0.7491 -0.001 0.7492 -0.002 0.7476 Preferred Alternative 250 -0.0009 0.7491 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0021 0.7479 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 MoNo Action -- 0.003 0.7534 0.001 0.7508 0.001 0.7510 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.003 0.7534 0.001 0.7508 0.001 0.7510 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.003 0.7534 0.001 0.7508 0.001 0.7510 Alternative B 75 0.003 0.7534 0.001 0.7508 0.001 0.7510 Preferred Alternative 250 0.0034 0.7534 0.0009 0.7509 0.0010 0.7510 

1 Sulfur deposition analysis level of concern for total impacts = 5.0 kg/ha-y. 2 Includes S deposition value of 0.75 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

Note: Negative results reflect a net decrease in cumulative SO2 emissions.

F-128
Table F.10.15 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC (

μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive Lakes from Dir

Black Joe Lake Deep Lake Hobbs Lake Lazy Boy Lake Upper Frozen Lake Lower Sa

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Popo Agie W

Clas

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) 

Level of Acceptable Change(μeq/L)

-- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 5.55 

No Action/ Background1 -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 -- 5.0 -- 55.5 

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.02 0.033% 0.02 0.041% 0.00 0.006% 0.00 0.008% 0.03 0.567% 0.03 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.10 0.155% 0.11 0.190% 0.02 0.030% 0.01 0.038% 0.14 2.808% 0.13 Alternative B 75 0.05 0.079% 0.06 0.095% 0.01 0.014% 0.00 0.019% 0.07 1.386% 0.06 Preferred Alternative 250 0.047 0.07% 0.051 0.09% 0.010 0.01% 0.003 0.02% 0.064 1.29% 0.057 

1 No Action Alternative was not modeled; ANC represents background only.

F-129
Table F.10.16 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Change in ANC ( 

μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

Regional Sources

Black Joe Lake Deep Lake Hobbs Lake Lazy Boy Lake Upper Frozen Lake Lower Sa

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Popo Agie W

Clas

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

ANC 

Change

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) 

Level of Acceptable Change(μeq/L)

-- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 5.55 

Background ANC -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 -- 5.0 -- 55.5 No Action -- 0.085 0.13% 0.087 0.14% 0.042 0.06% 0.025 0.13% 0.091 1.83% 0.096 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.107 0.16% 0.111 0.18% 0.046 0.07% 0.026 0.14% 0.120 2.39% 0.122 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.185 0.28% 0.196 0.33% 0.062 0.09% 0.032 0.17% 0.227 4.53% 0.220 Alternative B 75 0.137 0.20% 0.142 0.24% 0.051 0.07% 0.028 0.15% 0.159 3.17% 0.160 Preferred Alternative 250 0.127 0.19% 0.133 0.22% 0.050 0.07% 0.028 0.15% 0.149 2.98% 0.147 

F-130
Table F.10.17 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD C

Direct Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Wind R

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxim

Visibil

Impac

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 1.02 3 1 0.13 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.18 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 3.16 22 9 0.56 2 0 0.54 2 0 0.45 Alternative B 75 1.71 11 2 0.28 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.24 Preferred Alternative 250 1.50 9 2 0.28 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.22 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Washa

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxim

Visibil

Impac

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (ΔdvMaximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.08 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.06 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.32 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.24 Alternative B 75 0.17 0 0 0.07 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.12 Preferred Alternative 250 0.13 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.10 Note: 

Δdv = change in deciview.

F-131
Table F.10.18 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Win

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxi

Visib

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δd

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 1.14 3 1 0.15 0 0 0.24 0 0 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 3.48 28 10 0.64 3 0 0.62 2 0 0.Alternative B 75 1.90 12 4 0.32 0 0 0.34 0 0 0.Preferred Alternative 250 1.66 9 3 0.33 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Wa

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxi

Visib

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δd

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.08 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.33 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.Alternative B 75 0.17 0 0 0.07 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.Preferred Alternative 250 0.14 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

F-132
Table F.10.19 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Win

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxi

Visi

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δd

No Action -- 1.69 8 3 0.42 0 0 0.49 0 0 0.Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 1.98 12 4 0.48 0 0 0.57 1 0 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 3.65 40 11 0.76 5 0 0.85 8 0 1.Alternative B 75 2.38 21 5 0.53 2 0 0.68 4 0 0.Preferred Alternative 250 2.29 19 5 0.49 0 0 0.64 2 0 0.

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Wa

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maxi

Visi

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δd

No Action -- 0.33 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.15 0 0 0.Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.34 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.49 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.Alternative B 75 0.36 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.Preferred Alternative 250 0.34 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-133
Table F.10.20 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Win

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Max

Visi

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δ

No Action -- 1.94 11 3 0.49 0 0 0.58 1 0 0.Maximum Production - Proposed Action 0 2.26 15 4 0.56 1 0 0.66 3 0 0.Alternative A 250 4.01 46 17 0.87 7 0 0.99 16 0 1.Alternative B 75 2.71 28 7 0.61 2 0 0.78 6 0 1.Preferred Alternative 250 2.62 21 6 0.57 2 0 0.75 4 0 0.

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Wa

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Max

Visi

Imp

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δ

No Action -- 0.33 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.35 0 0 0.16 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 0.50 1 0 0.24 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.Alternative B 75 0.36 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.Preferred Alternative 250 0.35 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-134
Table F.10.21 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Maximum Production - Proposed Action 0 0.57 0 0.76 0 0.49 0 0.31 0 Alternative A 250 1.75 2 2.77 19 2.09 9 1.48 1 Alternative B 75 0.90 0 1.61 3 1.08 2 0.73 0 Preferred Alternative 250 0.79 0 1.30 1 0.95 0 0.77 0 

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.49 0 0.47 0 0.26 0 0.19 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.24 1 2.04 5 1.15 2 0.68 0 Alternative B 75 1.15 1 1.05 1 0.57 0 0.36 0 Preferred Alternative 250 1.19 1 1.03 1 0.50 0 0.30 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-135
Table F.10.22 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.66 0 0.85 0 0.56 0 0.36 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.01 6 3.05 23 2.39 12 1.70 1 Alternative B 75 1.04 1 1.79 6 1.24 3 0.85 0 Preferred Alternative 250 0.92 0 1.45 4 1.10 2 0.89 0 

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.57 0 0.55 0 0.30 0 0.22 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.56 1 2.33 6 1.32 2 0.79 0 Alternative B 75 1.32 1 1.21 3 0.66 0 0.42 0 Preferred Alternative 250 1.37 1 1.19 1 0.57 0 0.35 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-136
Table F.10.23 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

No Action -- 1.91 5 1.27 1 2.56 4 0.66 0 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 1.98 7 1.64 4 2.67 5 0.69 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.29 16 3.29 31 3.26 19 1.56 1 Alternative B 75 2.05 10 2.20 13 2.79 9 0.82 0 Preferred Alternative 250 1.99 8 1.88 9 2.72 6 0.84 0 

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

No Action -- 0.68 0 1.33 3 1.62 6 0.88 0 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.79 0 1.47 6 1.79 6 0.91 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.34 6 2.49 11 2.54 9 0.99 0 Alternative B 75 1.26 1 1.78 10 2.07 6 0.94 0 Preferred Alternative 250 1.28 1 1.63 8 2.02 6 0.93 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-137
Table F.10.24 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder Bronx 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

No Action -- 2.18 7 1.45 2 2.92 4 0.74 0 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 2.26 11 1.88 9 3.04 5 0.77 0 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.62 20 3.62 34 3.70 21 1.79 1 Alternative B 75 2.34 14 2.43 16 3.17 9 0.94 0 Preferred Alternative 250 2.28 13 2.13 12 3.09 9 0.97 0 

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna 

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv1

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

No Action -- 0.79 0 1.48 3 1.86 6 0.98 0 Maximum Production (3100 Wells) 0 0.89 0 1.69 8 2.05 6 1.01 1 Proposed Action and Alternative A 250 2.67 11 2.75 12 2.90 12 1.13 5 Alternative B 75 1.44 2 2.04 10 2.37 6 1.05 1 Preferred Alternative 250 1.47 2 1.87 10 2.30 6 1.03 1 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

F-138