FINAL AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR THE 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

(Volume 2 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 
APPENDIX G: 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

DRAFT AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT SUPPLEMENT 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Prepared by 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Laramie, Wyoming 

August 2005 

(Revised January 2006) 
JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

DRAFT AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

SUPPLEMENT 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Prepared by 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Laramie, Wyoming 

TRC Project 35982 

August 2005 

(Revised January 2006) 
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G- i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement was prepared to document additional 

air quality analyses performed for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of the 

proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP). The additional air quality modeling analyses 

supplement the air quality analyses that were performed and presented for a range of project 

alternatives 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). The additional air quality analyses quantify project-specific 

and cumulative air quality impacts from additional configurations of the proposed JIDP Preferred 

Alternative, and quantify project-specific and cumulative impacts from project and regional 

sources during the early-project-development stage of the JIDP. The additional analyses were 

deemed necessary by the BLM to 1) evaluate alternative potential mitigation strategies for the 

Preferred Alternative and 2) identify potential early-project-development stage impacts from 

JIDP and regional emissions (i.e., drilling) to determine if they would produce impacts greater 

than those projected for peak production within the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area (JIDPA). 

These analyses utilized the CALMET and CALPUFF models to assess impacts from project and 

non-project cumulative air emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 on air quality and air quality 

related values (AQRVs) at far-field and mid-field locations and within the JIDPA. Far-field 

pollutant impacts were assessed at Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas 

(Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas and Grand Teton and Yellowstone 

National Parks), and at sensitive PSD Class II areas (Popo Agie Wilderness Area and Wind 

River Roadless Area). Far-field analyses included impact assessments of concentration, 

visibility (regional haze), atmospheric deposition, and lake acidity at sensitive lakes within the 

Wilderness Areas (Black Joe, Deep, Hobbs, Lazy Boy, and Upper Frozen lakes within the 

Bridger Wilderness Area, Ross Lake in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, and Lower Saddlebag 

Lake in the Popo Agie Wilderness Area). Mid-field visibility (regional haze) impact analyses 

were performed for the Wyoming regional community locations of Big Piney, Big Sandy, 

Boulder, Bronx, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale, although these 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- ii Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

communities are classified as PSD Class II areas where no visibility protection exists under 

local, state, or federal law. In-field analyses included assessments of concentration impacts 

within the JIDPA. 

Preferred Alternative

Configurations of the Preferred Alternative that are different from those analyzed in the DEIS 

were modeled to provide a representation of a range of impacts possible under the Preferred 

Alternative. A low emissions scenario and a high emissions scenario were modeled, as were 

four potential levels of air pollution mitigation of proposed project sources through emission 

reductions within the JIDPA (emission reductions of 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%). The modeling 

analyses for these additional configurations of the Preferred Alternative follow the 

methodologies described in the AQTSD, and are directly comparable to the analyses conducted 

for the DEIS. As in the DEIS modeling, the modeling scenarios were based upon anticipated 

field characteristics in year 12 to 13 of project development (approximately 2017), the presumed 

year of peak emissions. Only project emissions differed in this analysis from those modeled for 

the DEIS; non-project emissions remained the same. 

The findings of the Preferred Alternative analyses are summarized in Tables G-ES-1 and G-ES2. These tables summarize the impacts that could occur for the range of Preferred Alternative 

scenarios. Table G-ES-1 provides a summary of the potential concentration and deposition 

impacts from the Preferred Alternative high emissions case, low emissions case, and the high 

emissions mitigation case with an 80 percent emission reduction (maximum reduction). Table 

G-ES-2 provides a summary of the potential impacts to visibility (regional haze) for these 

scenarios. Results summaries shown in green (normal text) in these tables indicate that potential 

impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM-recognized 

significant threshold values and levels of concern. Results summaries shown in red (bold text) 

indicate that potential impacts are above these levels. A complete disclosure of all modeled 

impacts from the Preferred Alternative analyses with comparisons to ambient air quality 

standards, PSD increments, and to BLM and other Federal Land Manager (FLM) significance 

threshold values and levels of concern is presented in the text of this document. 
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G- iii

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-ES-1 Preferred Alternative Air Quality Concentrations and Deposition Impacts Summary1

Air Quality 

Component Criteria 

Source Group 

& Impact Area 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

High Emissions Case 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

Low Emissions Case 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

80% Mitigation Case 

Project: 

In-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

 SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Cumulative: 

In-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Project: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

 SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Air Quality 

Standards 

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PSD Class I 

Increments2

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Concentrations 

PSD Class II 

Increments2

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Project: 

Far-Field 

Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N > DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N > DAT 

Wind River RA, N > DAT 

Grand Teton NP, N < DAT 

Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N > DAT 

Wind River RA, N > DAT 

Grand Teton NP, N < DAT 

Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N > DAT 

Wind River RA, N < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, N < DAT 

Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

N Deposition 

Cumulative: 

Far-Field N < LOC, All Areas N < LOC, All Areas N < LOC, All Areas 

Project: 

Far Field 

Bridger WA, S > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, S < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, S < DAT 

Wind River RA, S < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, S < DAT 

Teton WA, S < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, S < DAT 

Washakie WA, S < DAT 

Bridger WA, S < DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, S < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, S < DAT 

Wind River RA, S < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, S < DAT 

Teton WA, S < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, S < DAT 

Washakie WA, S < DAT 

Bridger WA, S < DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, S < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, S < DAT 

Wind River RA, S < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, S < DAT 

Teton WA, S < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, S < DAT 

Washakie WA, S < DAT 

S Deposition 

Cumulative: 

Far-Field S < LOC, All Areas S < LOC, All Areas S < LOC, All Areas 

Project: 

Far-Field ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

Atmospheric 

Deposition 

Sensitive 

Lakes Cumulative: 

Far-Field ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

 1 Results summaries shown in green (normal text) indicate impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM recognized 

 significant threshold values and levels of concerns. Results summaries shown in red (bold text) indicate that potential impacts are above these levels. 

 2

 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis. 
 G- iv Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-ES-2 Preferred Alternative Visibility (Regional Haze) Impacts Summary1

Air Quality Component Impact Area Source Group 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

High Emissions Case 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

Low Emissions Case 

Preferred Alternative: 

WDR250 

80% Mitigation Case 

Project 

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 31 days, max dv = 6.44 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 3 days, max dv = 1.54 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.36 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.22 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.66 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.28 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.31 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.48

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 9 days, max dv = 3.26 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.61 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.59 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.50 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.31 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.14 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.15 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.23

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 3 days, max dv = 1.66 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.33 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.29 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.26 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.14 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.06 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.06 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.10 PSD Class I and 

Sensitive Class II 

Areas 

Cumulative 

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 39 days, max dv = 6.82 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 3 days, max dv = 1.58 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 6 days, max dv = 1.67 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 5 days, max dv = 1.54 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.83 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.34 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.40 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.58

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 15 days, max dv = 3.78 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.85 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.97 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.19 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.49 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.23 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.25 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.33

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 6 days, max dv = 2.62 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.57 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.75 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.96 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.35 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.17 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.18 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.23

Project 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 18 days, max dv = 3.93 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 62 days, max dv = 5.76 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 33 days, max dv = 4.58 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 9 days, max dv = 3.82 

Cora, >1.0-dv 14 days, max dv = 6.70 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 16 days, max dv = 5.50 

Farson, >1.0-dv 13 days, max dv = 4.88 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 6 days, max dv = 2.59 

Merna, >1.0-dv 5 days, max dv = 1.64 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 21 days, max dv = 8.48 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 4 days, max dv = 1.89 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 21 days, max dv = 2.92 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 10 days, max dv = 2.30 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.60 

Cora, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 3.03 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 2.42 

Farson, >1.0-dv 5 days, max dv = 2.21 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.27 

Merna, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.75 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 3 days, max dv = 4.07 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.92

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 4 days, max dv = 1.45 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.10 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.89 

Cora, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.75 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.37 

Farson, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.19 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.57 

Merna, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.35 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 2.37

Visibility 

(Regional Haze) 

Wyoming 

Regional 

Communities 

Cumulative 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 36 days, max dv = 4.32 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 74 days, max dv = 6.18 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 40 days, max dv = 5.58 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 15 days, max dv = 3.88 

Cora, >1.0-dv 17 days, max dv = 6.77 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 23 days, max dv = 5.56 

Farson, >1.0-dv 21 days, max dv = 5.05 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 16 days, max dv = 3.97 

Merna, >1.0-dv 10 days, max dv = 1.93 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 27 days, max dv = 8.56 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 19 days, max dv = 2.57 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 32 days, max dv = 3.48 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 20 days, max dv = 3.60 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.68 

Cora, >1.0-dv 7 days, max dv = 3.13 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 2.52 

Farson, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 2.68 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 2.85 

Merna, >1.0-dv 4 days, max dv = 1.11 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 8 days, max dv = 4.18 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 13 days, max dv = 2.28 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 12 days, max dv = 2.13 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 9 days, max dv = 3.09 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.97 

Cora, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.86 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.47 

Farson, >1.0-dv 10 days, max dv = 1.87 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 6 days, max dv = 2.30 

Merna, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.03 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 6 days, max dv = 2.50 

1 Results summaries shown in green (normal text) indicate impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM recognized significant threshold values and levels of concerns. 

 Results summaries shown in red (bold text) indicate that potential impacts are above these levels. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G- v

Direct project and cumulative impacts from all modeled Preferred Alternative scenarios are less 

than applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at all PSD Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas. The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not 

constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as 

necessary by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

(WDEQ-AQD). 

Direct project and cumulative impacts from all modeled Preferred Alternative scenarios are less 

than applicable ambient air quality standards with in JIDPA. 

Direct project and cumulative impacts from all Preferred Alternative scenarios would result in no 

significant acidification at any acid-sensitive lake analyzed. 

Direct project sulfur deposition impacts from the Preferred Alternative high emissions scenario 

were greater than the thresholds of concern at the Bridger Wilderness Area and less than the 

thresholds at all other sensitive areas. Direct project sulfur deposition impacts from all other 

Preferred Alternative scenarios were less than the thresholds. Direct project nitrogen deposition 

impacts from all Preferred Alternative scenarios were greater than the thresholds of concern at 

the Bridger and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas. Direct project nitrogen deposition impacts were 

greater than the thresholds of concern at the Wind River Roadless Area for the “low emissions” 

scenario, and at the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area and Wind River Roadless Area for the “high 

emissions” scenario. The exceedences of these thresholds trigger a management concern but are 

not necessarily indicative of an adverse impact (National Park Service [NPS] 2004). 

Direct project and cumulative total deposition impacts from all Preferred Alternative scenarios 

were less than deposition levels of concern. 

Direct project visibility (regional haze) impacts was greater than the "just noticeable visibility 

change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the Bridger Wilderness Area for all analyzed scenarios, (ranging 

from 3 days per year up to 31 days per year), and under the high emissions scenario direct 

project visibility impacts were greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at the Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- vi Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Area (maximum of 3 days), Popo Agie Wilderness Area (maximum of 2 days) and Wind River 

Roadless Area (maximum of 1 day). 

Cumulative visibility impacts were greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at the Bridger Wilderness 

Area for all analyzed scenarios, (ranging from 6 days per year up to 39 days per year), and under 

the high emissions scenario impacts were greater than the 1.0-dv thresholds at the Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness Area (maximum of 3 days), Popo Agie Wilderness Area (maximum of 6 days) and 

Wind River Roadless Area (maximum of 5 days). 

Direct project visibility impacts were greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at most of the analyzed 

mid-field locations, with maximum potential impacts ranging from 4 days per year at Big Sandy 

under the lowest emissions scenario up to 62 days per year under the “high emissions” scenario. 

 

Cumulative visibility impacts were greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at most of the analyzed midfield locations, with maximum potential impacts ranging from 12 days per year at Big Sandy 

under the lowest emissions scenario up to 74 days per year under the “high emissions” scenario. 

Early-Project-Development Stage

An analysis of JIDP early-project-development stage air quality conditions in the vicinity of the 

JIDPA was also performed. What was modeled and presented for the Preferred Alternative is 

considered the “most likely case” maximum emissions scenario for the JIDP. However, when 

quantifying maximum cumulative impacts regionally, it is possible that peak regional impacts 

could occur prior to JIDP maximum emissions as a result of the development of other natural gas 

projects in the region, specifically the Pinedale Anticline Project (PAP), South Piney Project 

(SPP), Riley Ridge Project (RRP), and Jack Morrow Hills Project (JMHP). The BLM performed 

this analysis because 1) regional impacts appear to be greatest during the early stages of JIDP 

development due to accelerated development paces in these nearby project areas, and 2) the 

emissions from increased drilling near Pinedale had not been adequately characterized in the 

DEIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 2000) stated that if 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline gas fields reached 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-vii

693.5 tons per year, the BLM would perform further air quality analyses. The analysis for the 

Questar Year-round drilling EA (BLM 2004), published after completion of the DEIS analysis, 

indicated that NOx emissions had substantially exceeded that level, due mainly to emissions 

from drill rigs. Drill rig emissions were higher than assumed in the PAP EIS because: 

• there were more drill rigs operating than estimated; 

• conditions required drill rig engines to have larger horsepower than estimated; and 

• directional drilling required drill rigs to operate for a longer period of time per well than 

estimated. 

Results for the early-project-development stage modeling analyses are summarized in Tables GES-3 and G-ES-4. Table ES-3 provides a summary of the potential concentration and deposition 

impacts for both direct project and cumulative scenarios and Table G-ES-4 provides a summary 

of the potential impacts to visibility (regional haze) for these scenarios. Results summaries 

shown in green (normal text) in these tables indicate that potential impacts are below ambient air 

quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM-recognized significant threshold values and levels 

of concern. Results summaries shown in red (bold text) indicate that potential impacts are above 

these levels. These modeling analyses are not directly comparable to the results presented earlier 

or in the DEIS due to differences in the regional emissions inventories and the expanded 

compression estimates included in this analysis. A complete disclosure of all modeled impacts 

from the early-project-development stage modeling analyses with comparisons to ambient air 

quality standards, PSD increments, and to BLM and other FLM significance threshold values 

and levels of concern is presented in the text of this document. 

Direct project and cumulative impacts from early-project-development stage source emissions 

would be less than the applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments at all PSD 

Class I and sensitive Class II areas. The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only 

and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis, which may be 

completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- viii Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-ES-3 Early-Project-Development-Stage Air Quality Concentrations and 

Deposition Impacts1

Air Quality 

Component Criteria 

Source Group 

& Impact Area 

Early-Project-Development 

Stage: 

WDR250 

Project: 

In-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Cumulative: 

In-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Project: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

Air Quality 

Standards 

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PM2.5 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

NO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

SO2 < NAAQS&WAAQS 

PSD Class I 

Increments2

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment

Concentrations 

PSD Class II 

Increments2

Cumulative: 

Far-Field 

PM10 < increment 

NO2 < increment 

SO2 < increment 

Project: 

Far-Field 

Bridger WA, N > DAT 

Fitzpatrick WA, N < DAT 

Popo Agie WA, N > DAT 

Wind River RA, N < DAT 

Grand Teton NP, N < DAT 

Teton WA, N < DAT 

Yellowstone NP, N < DAT 

Washakie WA, N < DAT 

N Deposition 

Cumulative: 

Far-Field N < LOC, All Areas 

Project: 

Far-Field S < DAT, All Areas S Deposition Cumulative: 

Far-Field S < LOC, All Areas 

Project: 

Far-Field ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 

Atmospheric 

Deposition 

Sensitive 

Lakes Cumulative: 

Far-Field ANC Change < LAC, All Lakes 1 Results summaries shown in green (normal text) indicate impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM 

recognized significant threshold values and levels of concerns. Results summaries shown in red (bold text) indicate that potential impacts are 

above these levels. 

2 The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption analysis. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-ix

Table G-ES-4 Early-Project-Development-Stage Visibility (Regional Haze) Impacts1

Air Quality 

Component Impact Area Source Group 

Early-Project-Development Stage: 

WDR250 

Project 

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 9 days, max dv = 2.42 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0dv 0 days, max dv = 0.95 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.06 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 1 days, max dv = 1.01 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.67 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.37 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.32 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 0 days, max dv = 0.43

PSD Class I and 

Sensitive Class II 

Areas 

 

Cumulative 

Bridger WA, >1.0-dv 61 days, max dv = 6.57 

Fitzpatrick WA, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 3.37 

Popo Agie WA, >1.0-dv 23 days, max dv = 3.35 

Wind River RA, >1.0-dv 15 days, max dv = 3.39 

Grand Teton NP, >1.0-dv 8 days, max dv = 2.63 

Teton WA, >1.0-dv 4 days, max dv = 1.33 

Yellowstone NP, >1.0-dv 3 days, max dv = 1.22 

Washakie WA, >1.0-dv 2 days, max dv = 1.70 

Project 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 24 days, max dv = 6.62 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 24 days, max dv = 3.66 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 18 days, max dv = 3.37 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 8 days, max dv = 1.79 

Cora, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 2.17 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 14 days, max dv = 2.93 

Farson, >1.0-dv 33 days, max dv = 5.18 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 11 days, max dv = 5.73 

Merna, >1.0-dv 7 days, max dv = 2.46 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 14 days, max dv = 2.94 

Visibility 

(Regional Haze) 

Wyoming 

Regional 

Communities 

Cumulative 

Big Piney, >1.0-dv 85 days, max dv = 14.43 

Big Sandy, >1.0-dv 108 days, max dv = 8.42 

Boulder, >1.0-dv 131 days, max dv = 10.59 

Bronx, >1.0-dv 63 days, max dv = 9.60 

Cora, >1.0-dv 73 days, max dv = 9.95 

Daniel, >1.0-dv 88 days, max dv = 12.68 

Farson, >1.0-dv 77 days, max dv = 10.85 

Labarge, >1.0-dv 39 days, max dv = 11.12 

Merna, >1.0-dv 33 days, max dv = 6.25 

Pinedale, >1.0-dv 113 days, max dv = 10.32 1 Results summaries shown in green (normal text) indicate impacts are below ambient air quality standards, PSD increments, and BLM 

recognized significant threshold values and levels of concerns. Results summaries shown in red (bold text) indicate that potential impacts are 

above these levels. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- x Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Direct project and cumulative impacts from early-project-development stage source emissions 

would be less than the applicable ambient air quality standards with in JIDPA. 

Direct project and cumulative impacts from early-project-development stage source emissions 

would not result in significant acidification at any acid-sensitive lake analyzed. 

Direct project sulfur deposition impacts from early-project-development stage source emissions 

would be below thresholds of concern at all analyzed sensitive areas. 

Direct project nitrogen deposition impacts from early-project-development stage source 

emissions were greater than the thresholds of concern at the Bridger and Popo Agie Wilderness 

Areas. The exceedences of these thresholds trigger a management concern but are not 

necessarily indicative of an adverse impact (NPS 2004). 

Total deposition impacts from early-project-development stage source emissions and cumulative 

source emissions were less than deposition levels of concern. 

Direct project visibility (regional haze) impacts from early-project-development stage source 

emissions were greater than the "just noticeable visibility change" (1.0-dv) threshold at the 

Bridger Wilderness Area (up to 9 days per year), Popo Agie Wilderness Area (maximum of 2 

days) and at the Wind River Roadless Area (maximum of 1 day). 

Cumulative visibility impacts from early-project-development stage sources and cumulative 

sources were greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at all of the analyzed areas with maximum 

impacts occurring at the Bridger Wilderness Area, (up to 61 days per year). 

Direct project visibility impacts from early-project-development stage sources were greater than 

the 1.0-dv threshold at all of the analyzed mid-field locations, with maximum potential impacts 

occurring at Farson, where up to 33 days per year of impairment could occur. 

 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-xi

Cumulative visibility impacts from early-project-development stage and regional sources were 

greater than the 1.0-dv threshold at all of the analyzed mid-field locations, with maximum 

potential impacts occurring at Boulder, where up to 131 days per year of impairment could 

occur. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- xii Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page

G-1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 

G-2.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MODELING ANALYSES..............................................4 

G-2.1 LOW EMISSIONS CONFIGURATION ............................................................... 6 

G-2.2 HIGH EMISSIONS CONFIGURATION............................................................... 6 

G-2.3 MITIGATION ANALYSES................................................................................... 6 

G-2.4 MODEL RESULTS................................................................................................ 7 

G-2.4.1 Concentration.................................................................................. 9 

G-2.4.2 Deposition..................................................................................... 11 

G-2.4.3 Sensitive Lakes ............................................................................. 12 

G-2.4.4 Visibility ....................................................................................... 13 

G-3.0 EARLY-PROJECT-DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING.........................................19 

G-3.1 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES.............................................................................. 21 

G-3.1.1 Year 2006 Drilling and Flaring Emissions................................... 21 

G-3.1.2 Year 2002 Drilling and Flaring Emissions................................... 23 

G-3.1.3 Expanded Compression ................................................................ 24 

G-3.1.4 Permitted Source Emissions Inventory......................................... 26 

G-3.2 MODEL PARAMETERS..................................................................................... 26 

G-3.3 MODEL RESULTS.............................................................................................. 29 

G-3.3.1 Concentration................................................................................ 31 

G-3.3.2 Deposition..................................................................................... 32 

G-3.3.3 Sensitive Lakes ............................................................................. 32 

G-3.3.4 Visibility ....................................................................................... 33 

G-4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................35 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table G-2.1 Modeling Scenarios Analyzed for Preferred Alternative and Regional 

Emissions, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005...... G-8 

Table G-2.2 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

). .................................................................................................. G-9 

Table G-2.3 Background Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (μg/m3).............................. G-11 

Table G-2.4 Background ANC Values for Acid Sensitive Lakes......................................... G-13 

Table G-2.5 IMPROVE Background Aerosol Extinction Values......................................... G-14 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-xiii

Table G-2.6 FLAG Report Background Extinction Values.1................................................ G-15 

Table G-2.7 Monthly f(RH) Factors from Regional Haze Rule Guidance. .......................... G-16 

Table G-3.1 Summary of Year 2006 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations............ G-22 

Table G-3.2 Summary of Year 2002 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations............. G-25 

Table G-3.3 Summary of Expanded Field Compression Estimates...................................... G-25 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Cumulative Study Area.................................G-3 

Figure 2 JIDP and Atlantic Rim/Seminoe Road Projects Cumulative Study Areas ......G-28 

Figure 3 Source Locations for Early Project Development Stage Assessment............G-30 

LIST OF ADDENDA 

ADDENDUM G-A ............. JUNE 2005 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

ADDENDUM G-B ..........................PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

ADDENDUM G-C ............................... PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MODELING RESULTS

ADDENDUM G-D . EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

ADDENDUM G-E........ EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING RESULTS

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- xiv Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANC acid neutralizing capacity 

AQRV air quality related value 

AQTSD air quality technical support document 

BLM U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

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

Control Division 

DAT data analysis threshold (deposition) 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

dv deciview 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FLAG Federal Land Manager’s Air Quality Related Values Workgroup 

FLM Federal Land Manager 

IDEQ Idaho Division of Environmental Quality 

JMHP Jack Morrow Hills Project 

JIDP Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

JIDPA Jonah Infill Drilling Project Area 

LAC level of acceptable change (ANC) 

LOC level of concern (deposition) 

LOP life-of-project 

NAAQS national ambient air quality standard 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NP National Park 

NPS National Park Service 

PAP Pinedale Anticline Project 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

RA road-less area 

RFFA reasonably foreseeable future actions 

RFD reasonably foreseeable development 

RRP Riley Ridge Project 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPP South Piney Project 

TRC TRC Environmental Corporation 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

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

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-xv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

VOC volatile organic compound 

WA wilderness area 

WAAQS Wyoming ambient air quality standard 

WDEQ-AQD Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 

WDR well development rate 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- xvi Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G- 1

G-1.0 INTRODUCTION 

TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Air Quality Technical Support 

Document (AQTSD) supplement to summarize additional air quality analyses that have been 

performed in support of the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling project (JIDP). These air quality 

modeling analyses have been requested by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

supplement the air quality analyses that were performed and presented for a range of project 

alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming (DEIS) (BLM 2005) and provided in detail in the Draft Air Quality Technical 

Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement

(AQTSD) (TRC 2004). The information included herein has also been revised pursuant to 

public comments received during review of the draft of this document released in August 2005. 

The additional air quality analyses provided herein quantify project-specific and cumulative air 

quality impacts from additional configurations of the proposed JIDP Preferred Alternative which 

were not analyzed as part of the DEIS, and quantify project-specific and cumulative impacts 

from potential emissions which reflect early-project-development stage conditions existing in the 

region surrounding the Jonah Infill Drilling Project area (JIDPA). The additional analyses were 

deemed necessary by the BLM to evaluate alternative potential mitigation strategies for the 

Preferred Alternative in an effort to identify possible project development requirements to reduce 

adverse air quality impacts, and to identify maximum early-project-development stage regional 

emissions (i.e., drilling) which could reveal that regional impacts are more severe at this stage 

due to impacts from the development of other regional projects, which at present have not been 

adequately evaluated. 

The methodologies used for these analyses are described in the Air Quality Impact Assessment 

Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Impact Analysis 

Supplement (see Addendum G-A), which was developed by TRC with input from the BLM, 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 2 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

These analyses involve the use of the CALMET and CALPUFF models to assess impacts from 

project and non-project cumulative air emissions on air quality and air quality related values 

(AQRVs) at far-field and mid-field locations within the JIDPA cumulative study area, shown in 

Figure 1. Cumulative analyses include project impacts plus impacts from permitted sources, 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD), and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) 

which were projected to exist after a specified date and would be located within a defined 

regional area (see the AQTSD for further detail). All air emissions sources within the study 

domain were not explicitly modeled; some sources were considered to already be included in 

ambient air background values. Far-field pollutant impacts were assessed at the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas (Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie 

Wilderness Areas and Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks), and at the sensitive Class 

II Popo Agie Wilderness Area and Wind River Roadless Area. Far-field analyses include impact 

assessments of concentration, visibility, acid deposition, and lake acidity (at sensitive lakes 

within the Wilderness Areas). Mid-field visibility impact analyses were performed at the 

Wyoming regional community locations of Big Piney, Big Sandy, Boulder, Bronx, Cora, Daniel, 

Farson, LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale. 

The Preferred Alternative modeling analyses presented in this document are directly comparable 

to the analyses conducted for the EIS. Unlike the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses, 

early-project-development stage modeling is not directly comparable to either the analyses 

conducted for the EIS or the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses contained herein. 

The remainder of this AQTSD supplement summarizes the analysis of the Preferred Alternative 

additional configurations (Section G-2.0) and the analysis of early-project-development stage 

conditions in the JIDPA region (Section G-3.0). 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 4 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

G-2.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MODELING ANALYSES 

The Preferred Alternative for the JIDP consists of the development of 3,100 new natural gas 

wells on approximately 8,316 acres of new surface disturbance in the JIDPA, and assumes 

approximately 50% directionally drilled wells and 50% straight hole wells. Depending upon the 

rate of development (75, 150, or 250 wells per year), development operations are expected to last 

from approximately 12 to 42 years, with a total life-of-project (LOP) of approximately 76 to 105 

years. Modeling scenarios presented in the DEIS for Alternative F approximate the potential 

impacts for the Preferred Alternative. These modeling scenarios assumed the maximum field 

emissions which could potentially occur concurrently (i.e., the final year of construction 

representing the maximum annual construction activity rate combined with nearly full-field 

production). Three well development rates (WDRs) were analyzed--250 wells/year (WDR250), 

150 wells/year (WDR150), and 75 wells/year (WDR75). Modeling results presented in the DEIS 

for Alternative F with a WDR of 250 wells per year are assumed to represent the maximum 

impacts from the Preferred Alternative at peak year emissions. Peak year project emissions were 

assumed to occur in year 2017, and included emissions from 2,850 wells in production and 250 

wells under construction, consistent with the field configuration anticipated for year 2017 (the 

field at nearly full production and the last year of construction in the field). The modeling also 

assumed a 50/50 split between straight and directional wells (consistent with the Preferred 

Alternative) and a 50/50 split between EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 emissions levels for drilling rig 

engines. The modeling included 80 percent flareless completions (20 percent of completions 

flared) and JIDPA compression emissions at maximum levels projected at the time of the DEIS. 

Additional configurations of the Preferred Alternative were modeled herein to provide a 

representation of the range of possible impacts (low and high emissions scenarios), and a 

representation of impacts which could occur using various mitigation methods in the JIDPA. 

Each of the modeling scenarios are based upon anticipated field characteristics in year 2017, the 

presumed year of peak project emissions. For the low and high emissions scenario, WDR250, 

WDR150 and WDR75 were analyzed (i.e., 20, 12, and 6 drill rigs operating continuously). The 

low emissions scenario assumes all drilling rig engines are at EPA Tier 2 emissions levels, and 

the high emissions scenario assumes a combination of 80 percent Tier 0 (AP-42) (EPA 1995) 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-5

emission levels and 20 percent Tier 1 emission levels for the drilling rigs. Four mitigation 

scenarios were analyzed. The mitigation scenarios were based on emission reduction percentages 

of 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent from the JIDP high emissions configuration at a 250WDR. A total 

of 10 additional configurations of the Preferred Alternative were modeled to determine direct 

project impacts of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 emissions. Only JIDP emissions differ from those 

previously modeled for the DEIS; non-project emissions remain unchanged. (Note that volatile 

organic compound [VOC] emissions were not modeled for this interim report; revised VOC 

emissions and corresponding ozone impacts are included in the AQTSD and final environmental 

impact statement [FEIS].) Direct project and regional emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2

emissions were modeled for all scenarios, a total of 20 modeling scenarios. These additional 

scenarios are described in Sections G-2.1 – G-2.3. 

Non-project regional emissions include sources newly permitted by state agencies through June 

30, 2003, RFD, RFFA, and Operator-projected compressions estimates. These data were 

originally compiled as part of the DEIS using data obtained from the BLM, WDEQ-AQD, 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/Air Pollution Control Division 

(CDPHE/APCD), Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (UDEQAQD), and Idaho Division of Environment Quality (IDEQ). These non-project regional sources 

are modeled as they were in the EIS to maintain consistency and comparability with results 

reported in the EIS and AQTSD. 

Modeling analyses for these additional configurations follow the methodologies described in the 

Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming (see AQTSD Appendix A; TRC 2003) which preceded the AQTSD, and are directly 

comparable to the analyses conducted for the EIS. The CALMET (Version 5.53) and CALPUFF 

(Version 5.711) modeling system that was developed and applied for the EIS analyses was used 

to estimate both project and cumulative pollutant impacts at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive 

Class II areas, at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations, and within the JIDPA. All 

model methodologies, switch settings, source parameters, and model receptors are identical to 

analyses performed for the EIS. Model results for the Preferred Alternative scenarios are 

summarized in Section G-2.4. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 6 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

G-2.1 LOW EMISSIONS CONFIGURATION 

Project sources for the low emissions analysis included all drilling rig engine emissions at Tier 2 

emission levels. WDRs of 250, 150, and 75 were analyzed, with 20, 12, and 6 drill rigs 

operating continuously, respectively. A 50/50 split between straight and directionally drilled 

wells was assumed. All other project sources were identical to Alternative F in the DEIS. Drill 

rig engine sizes and source parameters are also consistent with assumptions in the DEIS. Tier 2 

drilling rig emissions calculations are shown in Addendum G-B. A summary of all project 

emissions modeled is provided in Table G-B.1.1 of Addendum G-B. Modeling was performed 

for both project-specific and cumulative emissions scenarios. 

G-2.2 HIGH EMISSIONS CONFIGURATION 

Project sources for the high emissions analysis included 80% of drilling rig engine emissions at 

Tier 0 emission levels (AP-42 levels) (EPA 1995) and 20% of engine emissions at Tier 1 

emission levels. WDR250, WDR150, and WDR75 were analyzed, with 20, 12, and 6 drill rigs 

operating continuously, respectively. A 50/50 split between straight and directionally drilled 

wells was assumed. All other project sources were identical to Alternative F in the DEIS. Drill 

rig engine sizes and source parameters are also consistent with assumptions in the DEIS. Tier 0 

and Tier 1 drilling rig emissions calculations are shown in Addendum G-B. A summary of all 

project emissions modeled is provided in Table G-B.1.1 of Addendum G-B. Modeling was 

performed for both project-specific and cumulative emissions scenarios. 

G-2.3 MITIGATION ANALYSES 

Because the actual mitigation methods to be utilized in the JIDPA are not yet known, four 

general mitigation scenarios were analyzed, each assuming a certain percentage of emissions 

control would occur in the field. The scenarios were based on the JIDP Preferred Alternative 

high emissions configuration at a 250WDR with a 50/50 split between straight and directionally 

drilled wells. This configuration was analyzed with emissions at: 1) 80% of Preferred 

Alternative high emissions; 2) 60% of Preferred Alternative high emissions; 3) 40% of Preferred 

Alternative high emissions; and 4) 20% of Preferred Alternative high emissions. These analyses 

are sensitivity modeling runs that can be used to identify minimum impacts levels from project35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-7

specific source emissions. Drill rig engine sizes and source parameters are consistent with 

assumptions presented in the DEIS. A summary of project emissions modeled for each 

mitigation scenario is provided in Table G-B.1 of Addendum G-B. Modeling was performed for 

both project-specific and cumulative emissions scenarios. 

G-2.4 MODEL RESULTS 

CALPUFF modeling was performed to compute direct project impacts for each of the analyzed 

scenarios and for estimating cumulative impacts from potential project and regional sources. 

Regional emission inventories of existing state-permitted RFD and RFFA sources were modeled 

in combination with project sources to provide cumulative impact estimates for each scenario. A 

total of 20 modeling scenarios were evaluated in this analysis. These model results are directly 

comparable to all other alternatives analyzed and presented in the DEIS. A list of these scenarios 

is summarized in Table G-2.1. 

For each far-field sensitive area, CALPUFF-modeled concentration impacts were post-processed 

with POSTUTIL and CALPOST to derive: 1) concentrations for comparison to Wyoming and 

National 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 acid neutralizing 

capacity (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. All post-processing 

methods and background data assumptions are consistent with the analyses presented in the EIS. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 8 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-2.1 Modeling Scenarios Analyzed for Preferred Alternative and Regional Emissions, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Modeling 

Scenario 

Source Impacts 

Evaluated Scenario Description 

Number of New Wells 

in Production 

Number of Wells under 

Construction 

1 Direct Project Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 2,850 250/year 

2 Direct Project Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 2,950 150/year 

3 Direct Project Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 3,025 75/year 

4 Direct Project High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

2,850 250/year 

5 Direct Project High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

2,950 150/year 

6 Direct Project High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

3,025 75/year 

7 Direct Project Mitigation Analysis (20 % 

Emissions Reduction) 

2,850 250/year 

8 Direct Project Mitigation Analysis (40 % 

Emissions Reduction)

2,850 250/year 

9 Direct Project Mitigation Analysis (60 % 

Emissions Reduction)

2,850 250/year 

10 Direct Project Mitigation Analysis (80 % 

Emissions Reduction)

2,850 250/year 

11 Cumulative1 Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 2,850 250/year 

12 Cumulative1 Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 2,950 150/year 

13 Cumulative1 Low Emissions – Tier 2 Drill Rigs 3,025 75/year 

14 Cumulative1 High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

2,850 250/year 

15 Cumulative1 High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

2,950 150/year 

16 Cumulative1 High Emissions – 80% Tier 0, 20% 

Tier 1 Drill Rigs 

3,025 75/year 

17 Cumulative1 Mitigation Analysis (20 % 

Emissions Reduction) 

2,850 250/year 

18 Cumulative1 Mitigation Analysis (40 % 

Emissions Reduction)

2,850 250/year 

19 Cumulative1 Mitigation Analysis (60 % 

Emissions Reduction)

2,850 250/year 

20 Cumulative1 Mitigation Analysis (80 % 

Emissions Reduction) 

2,850 250/year 

1. Includes regional source emissions inventory. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-9

G-2.4.1 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 G-2.2. 

Table G-2.2 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 Level

NO2 

 Annual2 100 100 2.5 25 0.1 1.0 

SO2

 3-hour3 1,300 1,300 25 512 1.0 25.0 

 24-hour3 365 260 5 91 0.2 5.0 

 Annual2 80 60 2 20 0.1 1.0 

PM10

 24-hour3 150 150 8 30 0.3 5.0 

 Annual2 50 50 4 17 0.2 1.0 

PM2.5

 24-hour4 65 65 -- -- -- -- 

 Annual 4 15 15 -- -- -- -- 

1

 Proposed Class I significance levels from 61 Federal Register 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996. 2 Annual arithmetic mean. 3 No more than one exceedance per year is allowed. 4 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming; -- = no current or proposed value. 

The PSD demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD 

Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD. The 

approach to this PSD screening analysis is consistent with the 2003 Protocol (see AQTSD 

Appendix A).

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 10 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

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. Consistent with the EIS analyses for 

post-processing the PM10 impacts at all far-field receptor locations, project 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). 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 20 modeled direct project and 

cumulative source scenarios, are provided in Addendum G-C. Predicted direct impacts are 

compared to applicable PSD Class I and Class II Increments and significance levels, and then 

added to representative background pollutant concentrations (Table G-2.3), the total 

concentration is compared to applicable NAAQS and WAAQS. Cumulative impacts from all 

analyzed scenarios 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 GC.1.1 – G-C.1.20 provide the maximum modeled NO2 concentrations at each of the sensitive 

areas. The maximum modeled SO2 concentrations are provided in Tables G-C.2.1 – G-C.2.20, 

and the maximum modeled PM10 and PM2.5 impacts are provided in Tables G-C.3.1 – G-C.3.20, 

and Tables G-C.4.1 – G-C.4.20, respectively. Summaries of results by scenario for NOx, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 are provided in Tables G-C.10.1 – G-C10.2, G-C.10.3 – G-C.10.4, G-C.10.5 – 

G-C.10.6, and G-C.10.7 – G-C.10.8, respectively. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-11

Table G-2.3 Background 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 (Air Resource Specialists 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. 

In-Field Results

The maximum predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 within and nearby the 

JIDPA, for each of the 20 modeled direct project and cumulative scenarios are provided in 

Addendum G-C, Tables G-C.5.1 – G-C.5.20. A summary of results by scenario is provided in 

Tables G-C.10.9 and G-C.10.10. Predicted direct project and cumulative impacts are added to 

representative background pollutant concentrations and are compared to applicable NAAQS and 

WAAQS. 

G-2.4.2 Deposition

Maximum predicted S and N deposition impacts were estimated for each analyzed direct project 

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. Total deposition impacts 

from direct project and regional sources were compared to USFS levels of concern, defined as 5 

kg/ha-yr for S and 3 kg/ha-yr for N (Fox et al. 1989). It is understood that the USFS no longer 

considers these levels of concern to be protective; however, in the absence of alternative Federal 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 12 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Land Manager (FLM)-approved values, comparisons with these values were made. The 

maximum predicted N and S deposition impacts for each of the analyzed scenarios are provided 

in Addendum G-C, Tables G-C.6.1 – G-C.6.4. A summary of results by scenario is provided in 

Tables G-C.10.11 – G-C.10.14. 

G-2.4.3 Sensitive Lakes

The CALPUFF-predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors were 

used to estimate the change in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC). A list of the sensitive lakes and 

the background ANC values is provided in Table G-2.4. The change in ANC was calculated 

following the January 2000, USFS Rocky Mountain Region's Screening Methodology for 

Calculating ANC Change to High Elevation Lakes, User's Guide (USFS 2000). The predicted 

changes in ANC are compared with the USFS 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 G-2.4 

and identified by the USFS as acid sensitive, Upper Frozen and Lazy Boy lakes are considered 

extremely acid sensitive. 

ANC calculations were performed for each of the analyzed direct project and cumulative source 

scenarios, with the results presented in Addendum G-C, Tables G-C.7.1 – G-C.7.20. A summary 

of results by scenario is provided in Tables G-C.10.15 and G-C.10.16. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-13

Table G-2.4 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 

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 

G-2.4.4 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 analyzed direct 

project 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 G-2.4.1), 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 G-2.5. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 14 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-2.5 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. 

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 

2003) were used. The natural background visibility data used with the FLAG visibility analysis 

for each area analyzed are shown in Table G-2.6. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-15

Table G-2.6 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, Fitzpatrick , Teton, and 

Waskakie Wilderness Areas, and Grand 

Teton and Yellowstone National Parks3

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. 

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 (2003). 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 measured at the Bridger Wilderness Area IMPROVE site are 

cleaner (more pristine) than the FLAG data during quarters 1 and 4. Therefore, since visibility 

impacts are calculated as percent increases of modeled light extinction above background values, 

the use of these more pristine background data will result in higher estimated visibility impacts 

than with the use of the FLAG natural background data during these quarters. 

CALPOST visibility processing method “MVISBK=6” was used in combination with the two 

sets of background visibility data and monthly relative humidity factors. These visibility 

processing methods are consistent with the EIS and AQTSD analyses. 

Background visibility data monitored at the Bridger Class I Wilderness Area IMPROVE site, an 

area more pristine than populated residential areas (i.e., lacking suburban/rural emissions such as 

those from traffic and wood stoves), were used to estimate potential visibility impairment at the 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 16 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

regional community locations. These data were used because no visibility monitoring has been 

conducted in the populated areas of the region. Since visibility impacts are calculated as percent 

increases of modeled light extinction above background values, use of a more pristine 

background likely results in an overestimate of potential visibility impacts at these locations. 

As recommended in EPA (2003), 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 G-2.7 provides the relative humidity factors 

(f[RH]) that were used in the analyses. 

Table G-2.7 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

 Used for Bridger, Fitzpatrick, and Popo Agie Wilderness Areas, Wind River Roadless Area, and regional communities. 2

 Used for Washakie Wilderness Area. 

3

 Used for Teton Wilderness Area and Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-17

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. 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 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 for protection of visibility in sensitive areas). The BLM does not use a 0.5-dv 

change as a level of concern for cumulative analyses. 

Far-Field Results 

The maximum predicted far-field visibility impacts for each of the analyzed scenarios are 

provided in Addendum G-C, Tables G-C.8.1 – G-C.8.20. A summary of results by scenario is 

provided in Tables G-C.10.17 – G-C.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. Tables that present all predicted 

impacts above the thresholds and the days when the impacts were predicted to occur are also 

provided in Addendum G-C (Tables G-C.8.21 – G-C.8.32) for each Class I and sensitive Class II 

area where the maximum predicted change in dv is estimated to exceed 0.5 and 1.0 dv 

thresholds. 

Mid-Field Results 

The maximum predicted mid-field visibility impacts for each of the analyzed Preferred 

Alternative scenarios are provided in Addendum G-C, Tables G-C.9.1 – G-C.9.20. A summary 

of results by scenario is provided in Tables G-C.10.21 – G-C.10.24. Predicted impacts are 

shown using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. The maximum 

predicted visibility impacts (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 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 18 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

using both the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data. Tables that present all 

predicted impacts above the threshold and the days when the impacts were predicted to occur are 

also provided in Addendum G-C (Tables G-C.9.21 – G-C.9.40) for each regional community 

location. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G- 19

G-3.0 EARLY-PROJECT-DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING 

At the request of the BLM, an analysis of JIDP early-project-development stage air quality 

conditions in the vicinity of the JIDPA was performed. What has been modeled and presented in 

the EIS and supplemented herein for the Preferred Alternative (see Section G-2.0) considers the 

“most likely case” emissions scenarios for the JIDP. However, when quantifying maximum 

cumulative impacts regionally, it is possible that peak regional impacts could occur prior to JIDP 

maximum emissions as a result of the development of other natural gas projects in the region, 

specifically the Pinedale Anticline Project (PAP), South Piney Project (SPP), Riley Ridge Project 

(RRP), and Jack Morrow Hills Project (JMHP). The BLM requested this analysis because it was 

considered probable that regional impacts would be greatest during the early stages of JIDP 

development due to accelerated development paces in these nearby project areas. Unlike the 

Preferred Alternative modeling analyses (see Section G-2.0), modeling analyses of the earlyproject-development stage emissions are not directly comparable to the results presented in the 

EIS, nor are they comparable to the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses for reasons 

explained below. 

The goal of this analysis was to quantify a maximum PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 emissions 

scenario that could potentially occur within the next few years in the air basin located southwest 

of the Bridger Wilderness Area, as a result of: 1) increased well drilling and flaring activities 

among several active natural gas field developments; and 2) expanded compression 

requirements, beyond what was analyzed for the EIS. To accomplish this goal a study baseline 

year, determined based on available background pollutant data, was selected. Emissions 

estimates of well drilling and flaring were quantified for this baseline year for the JIDP, PAP, 

SPP, RRP and JMHP. Emission estimates of well drilling, flaring, and expanded compression 

for these projects, and other companies operating within these project areas, which are 

representative of current year or early-project-development stage conditions, were then 

determined. Emission estimates for the baseline year were subtracted from the early-projectdevelopment stage emissions. This emissions “netting” determined the emissions changes from 

background to current conditions, and avoided “double-counting” existing background 

conditions in future air quality conditions. These emission changes were then modeled in 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 20 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

combination with other JIDP sources and regional sources to estimate both project-specific and 

cumulative pollutant impacts at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas, at mid-field 

Wyoming regional community locations, and within the JIDPA. Other JIDP sources include 

expanded compression estimates beyond what was analyzed for the EIS, production and 

construction traffic emissions and wellsite heater emission representative of early project 

emissions, and wind erosion as it was calculated and analyzed in the EIS. Non-project regional 

emissions, with the exception of the PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP, included in the EIS and as 

described in detail in the AQTSD were included in the modeling analyses. For the PAP, SPP, 

RRP, and JMHP, the well drilling and flaring emissions differences were included along with 

any emissions that were included in the permitted source and RFD inventories for the EIS 

analyses. The regional emissions include sources newly permitted by the state agencies through 

June 30, 2003, RFD, RFFA, and Operator-projected compression estimates. These data were 

originally compiled as part of the EIS using data obtained from the BLM, WDEQ-AQD, 

CDPHE/APCD, UDEQ-AQD, and IDEQ. These inventories were updated to include additional 

source emissions permitted through March 31, 2004, and these additional source emissions were 

included in the cumulative modeling analyses. 

The emissions information available for well drilling and flaring activities and expanded 

compression requirements, obtained prior to a cut-off date of May 26, 2005, were used in the 

analysis. A study baseline year of 2002 was used because background visibility data through 

2002 were available. Year 2006 was selected as representative of a maximum emissions 

scenario for regional emissions. The 2006 inventory also included recent expanded compression 

estimates, in addition to the expanded compression estimates that were obtained prior to the EIS 

analyses and included in the EIS modeling. Details on the additional emissions inventories 

developed for this analysis are provided in Section G-3.1. The modeling analyses of the earlyproject-development stage emissions are not directly comparable to the results presented in 

Section G-2.4 or in the EIS due to differences (emissions increases) in the regional (non-project) 

emissions inventories and the expanded compression estimates, monthly variation in drilling 

activities, and the more conservative wind fields included in this early-project-development stage 

analysis. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-21

The modeling analysis was performed generally following the methodologies used for the EIS 

and AQTSD. The CALMET and CALPUFF model versions that were used for the EIS analysis 

were used to estimate direct JIDP and cumulative pollutant impacts at far-field PSD Class I and 

sensitive Class II areas, and at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations and within the 

JIDPA. A discussion of the model parameters is provided in Section G-3.2. Model results for 

the early-project-development stage modeling scenarios are summarized in Section G-3.3. 

G-3.1 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES 

G-3.1.1 Year 2006 Drilling and Flaring Emissions

Emissions for drilling activities and completion flaring were developed for the JIDP, PAP, SPP, 

RRP, and JMHP based on a review of proposed well development rates and drilling activities for 

each project, from information available from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (WOGCC) for drill rig “spud” activity data, and from information and estimates 

provided by the BLM, Pinedale Field Office. Emissions were determined for monthly drilling 

activities to capture seasonal variations in drilling. Table G-3.1 provides a summary of the 

project-specific drilling rig and flare information that was used for year 2006 modeling. 

A WDR250 was used for the JIDP (i.e., 20 drill rigs operating continuously per month), with 3 

completion flares operating continuously per month. For the JIDP it was assumed that 50% of 

the wells would be directionally drilled and 50% of the wells would be straight hole, 

approximately 80% of the wells would have flareless completions, and there would be an 

80%/20% combination of drilling engines with Tier 0 and Tier 1 emissions levels, respectively. 

Drill rig engine sizes and flare assumptions are identical to those used for the EIS analyses. 

Three additional drill rigs and 1 additional completion flare were also added to account for 

potential expanded Jonah Field operations. These emissions were determined using JIDP 

emissions estimates, assuming directional drilling for each of the three rigs and an 80%/20% 

combination for Tier 0/Tier 1 drill rig emissions. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 22 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-3.1 Summary of Year 2006 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations. 

Field Months Operating Drilling Rigs Operating Flares 

JIDP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3 

JIDP – Expanded 

Jonah Field 

Operators 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

PAP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

25, 25, 25, 

25, 25, 30, 

35, 35, 35, 

30, 25, 25 

4, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 5, 

5, 5, 5, 

5, 4, 4 

SPP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 0, 0 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0 

RRP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

2, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 

6, 6, 6, 

3, 2, 2 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

JMHP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

Pinedale Field 

Office – Wildcat 

Rigs 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

3, 3, 0, 

0, 0, 0 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0 

For the PAP, the 2006 monthly well development rates were determined from well development 

rates obtained from the WOGCC for year 2004 and from drill rig estimates provided by the 

BLM, Pinedale Field Office, which include estimates from Questar, BP AMOCO, Yates, 

Anschutz, Shell, Stone Energy, and Ultra Petroleum. Emissions data were determined from drill 

rig data obtained from the WDEQ for Questar Corporation’s year-round drilling project along 

the Pinedale Anticline. Drill rig emissions were calculated using the emissions data for the 6 

year-round drilling rigs from Questar’s year-round drilling project, assuming an additional 6 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-23

5,000 horsepower (hp) drill rigs to account for other Operator’s year-round drilling projects, and 

basing the remainder of the drill rig assumptions off Questar’s data for a 3,216 hp drill rig. Since 

actual drill rig data were available, there were no additional assumptions made for 

straight/directional drill rig percentages. Emissions from Questar’s 6 year-round drilling rigs 

assumes Tier 0 emissions for 3 drill rigs, Tier 1 emissions for 2 drill rigs, and a combination of 

Tier 0/Tier 1 emissions on 1 drill rig. Emissions from the six 5,000 hp year-round drill rigs and 

the additional 3,216 hp drill rigs were determined assuming an 80%/20% Tier 0/Tier 1 emissions 

ratio. Completion flaring estimates assume approximately 80% flareless completions, with flare 

emissions estimates obtained from the Pinedale Anticline EIS (BLM 1999). Emissions 

calculations for the drill rigs and completion flares are provided in Addendum G-D. 

For the SPP, year 2006 drilling activity was assumed to occur only during the summer months 

(May-Oct) with 3 drill rigs and 1 flare operating continuously for these months. Two 2,100 hp 

rigs and one 2,600 hp rig were assumed. Flaring emissions estimates were obtained from the 

SPP Emissions Inventory for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project (BLM 2003). 

The RRP estimates include 2 to 6 drill rigs (each at 2,100 hp) and 1 flare operating throughout 

the year with an increase in activity in the summer months. JIDP flaring emissions were utilized 

for the RRP. JMHP estimates include a single operating rig (2,600 hp) and flare operating 

continuously throughout the year (JIDP flaring emissions were used). 3 additional 5,000 hp 

“wildcat” drilling rigs and 1 completion flare were added to the inventory to account for 

exploratory drilling north of the Pinedale Anticline in the summer months (July and August). 

For the SPP, RRP, JMHP, and the “wildcat” rigs it was assumed that 100% of the wells will be 

straight hole, 100% of the wells will be flared, and 100% of drilling engines will be at Tier 0 

emissions levels. Emissions calculations for each project area are provided in Addendum G-D. 

G-3.1.2 Year 2002 Drilling and Flaring Emissions

Baseline study year emissions for drilling activities and completion flaring were developed for 

the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP based on a review of actual monthly well development 

rates and drilling activities that occurred in the region during 2002. Year 2002 emissions were 

quantified to determine the level of emissions that existed in background ambient air quality 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 24 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

during 2002. Well development rates and drilling activities for each project were determined 

from WOGCC data for drill rig “spud” activity that occurred in the project areas during year 

2002. 

For each project area, drill rig engine sizes and flaring estimates were assumed to be consistent 

with the estimates used for the 2006 calculations. For the PAP year 2002 calculations, 3,216 hp 

engine sizes (Questar data) were used for each drill rig. It was assumed that during year 2002 all 

drilling engines would be at Tier 0 emissions levels. For all project areas, 100% straight hole 

drilling was assumed. Completion flaring emissions was determined from a review of actual 

well development rates and the assumption that 100% of the developed wells required flaring. A 

summary of the drilling rig and flare information that was used for the year 2002 modeling is 

provided in Table G-3.2. 

G-3.1.3 Expanded Compression

The BLM, field Operators, and other gas compression companies operating nearby were 

contacted to determine an estimate of expanded field compression requirements for the area. 

The expanded compression is in addition to the compression estimates that were obtained from 

field Operators, state permits, and RFD, and modeled for the EIS. A summary of the recent (up 

through May 26, 2005) expanded compression estimates used for this analysis and the field 

compression estimates that were included in the EIS analyses are provided in Table G-3.3. 

Emissions for expanded field compression were calculated based on best available data 

information obtained from the WDEQ-AQD. These emissions are shown in Addendum G-D, 

Tables G-D.1.54 – G-D.1.60. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-25

Table G-3.2 Summary of Year 2002 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations. 

Field Months Operating Drilling Rigs Operating Flares 

JIDP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

6, 6, 6, 

8, 5, 7, 

4, 5, 8, 

5, 4, 5 

3, 3, 3, 

4, 2, 3, 

2, 2, 4, 

2, 2, 2 

PAP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

4, 3, 3, 

1, 7, 3, 

8, 5, 3, 

3, 0, 1 

2, 1, 1, 

1, 3, 1, 

4, 2, 1, 

1, 0, 1 

SPP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 2, 

0, 2, 1 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 

0, 1, 1 

RRP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 2, 

2, 4, 2, 

2, 1, 1 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

JMHP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

Table G-3.3 Summary of Expanded Field Compression Estimates. 

Field Permitted/RFD 

Compression Included 

in DEIS Analysis 

Expanded Compression 

Included in DEIS Analysis 

Expanded Compression 

Estimates Beyond those 

included in the DEIS 

JIDP 

13,269 hp (Falcon) 

0 hp (Luman) 

9,405 hp (Bird) 

5,285 hp (Jonah) 

7,336 hp (Falcon) 

11,604 hp (Luman) 

11,004 hp (Bird) 

3,900 hp (Jonah) 

2,888 hp (Falcon) 

11,248 hp (Luman) 

30,928 hp (Bird) 

3,000 hp (Jonah) 

PAP 

12,094 hp (Paradise) 

25,110 hp (Gobblers 

Knob, Mesa 1, Mesa 2) 

7,336 hp (Paradise) 

10,000 hp (Gobblers Knob) 

9,624 hp (Paradise) 

1,160 hp (Gobblers 

Knob) 

SPP 48,500 hp 0 hp 0 hp 

RRP 0 hp 0 hp 0 hp 

JMHP 3,480 hp 0 hp 2,940 hp 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 26 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

G-3.1.4 Permitted Source Emissions Inventory

As part of the JIDP DEIS, an inventory of permitted source emissions was developed using data 

obtained from the WDEQ-AQD, CDPHE/APCD, UDEQ-AQD, and IDEQ. This inventory 

included sources that had received permits through June 30, 2003. The inventory was been 

updated to include additional source emissions permitted through March 31, 2004. These 

additional source emissions were obtained from the source inventory that was developed by TRC 

for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Project and the Seminoe Road Gas Development Project. The 

extent of the inventory domain for these projects and the JIDP study domain are shown on Figure 

2. The cross-hatched area on Figure 2 illustrates the area within the JIDP study domain where an 

additional nine months (July 1, 2003 – March 31, 2004) of permitted source emissions were 

available and included in the modeling analysis. A list of these additional sources is summarized 

in Addendum G-D, Tables G-D.1.61 and G-D.1.63. 

G-3.2 MODEL PARAMETERS 

The modeling analysis was performed generally following the methodologies used for the EIS 

and AQTSD. The CALMET (Version 5.53) and CALPUFF (Version 5.711) model versions used 

for the EIS analyses were used to estimate both project and cumulative pollutant impacts at farfield PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas, at mid-field Wyoming regional community 

locations, and within the JIDPA. All CALPUFF model methodologies, switch settings, source 

parameters, and model receptors are identical to the analyses performed for the EIS unless 

otherwise indicated. Modeled emissions included JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP well 

drilling and flaring emissions differences calculated on a monthly basis (2006 minus the baseline 

study year 2002), well drilling and flaring estimates for other expanded Jonah Field Operators 

and “wildcat” drill rigs, other JIDPA emissions, expanded compression emissions, sources 

permitted by state agencies through March 31, 2004, and the RFD and RFFA emissions that 

were determined for the EIS. The ‘other’ JIDPA emissions sources include expanded 

compression estimates, beyond what was analyzed for the EIS, production and construction 

traffic emissions and wellsite heater emissions representative of early project emissions, and 

wind erosion. For early-project-development stage analyses, production traffic, wellsite heater, 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-27

and wind erosion emissions assumed 700 wells operating in year 2006. This assumption was 

based off 198 wells (developed in the JIDPA since January 2002 – EIS assumption) and 2 years 

of well field development at a 250 WDR. Construction traffic emissions for the JIDPA were 

based on WDRs determined in Sections G-3.1.1 and G-3.1.2. Production traffic, construction 

traffic, wellsite heater, and wind erosion emissions, and assumptions determined for the EIS 

analyses were used for the early-project-development stage analyses. 

The total direct project emissions and regional emissions modeled for the early-projectdevelopment stage analyses are shown in Addendum G-D Table G-D.1.1. The calculated 

emissions differences for drilling rig and flaring activities for the JIDP, PAP, RRP, and SPP are 

given in Addendum G-D, Tables G-D.1.11, G-D.1.30, G-D.1.36, and G-D.1.45, respectively. 

For the JMHP there were no emissions changes due to drilling or flaring operations between 

years 2002 and 2006. 

Emissions differences determined for the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP were modeled as 

point sources, spread within each project area. These locations are shown in Figure 3. 

Representative source parameters consistent with the JIDP EIS analyses were used for drill rig 

engines and flares. Emissions from expanded compression were modeled as point sources 

located at existing compressor station locations using existing source characterizations or 

estimated based on best available information. 

The CALMET wind fields used for early-project-development stage analysis differ from the 

wind fields used for the EIS and Preferred Alternative modeling (Section G-2.0). The CALMET 

wind fields used for this modeling were developed without the use of the “kinematic effects” 

CALMET switch setting option, which was used for all EIS analyses and Preferred Alternative 

modeling. The change in wind field development was made to correct a potential CALMET 

model anomaly, which could produce unrealistically high wind speeds in the wind field layers 

above the surface layer. Model tests for the EIS cases indicated that the use of IKINE produced 

more conservative (slightly higher) model predictions at the Bridger Wilderness Area. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 28 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation

G- 28 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-29

Recent CALMET model peer review studies and model developer suggestions are the basis for 

this change. The switch setting was originally selected based on peer review of the 1995 

Southwest Wyoming Technical Air Forum (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 affects. 

G-3.3 MODEL RESULTS 

CALPUFF modeling was performed to calculate direct JIDP impacts for early-projectdevelopment stage conditions and for estimating cumulative impacts from potential project and 

regional sources. Regional emissions inventories of existing state-permitted, RFD, and RFFA 

sources were modeled in combination with project sources to provide cumulative impact 

estimates for each scenario. 

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 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. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
35982 TRC Environmental Corporation35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-31

G-3.3.1 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 G-2.2. The PSD 

demonstrations serve information purposes only and do not constitute a regulatory PSD 

Increment consumption analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD. The 

approach to this PSD screening analysis is consistent with the original DEIS and AQTSD 

analyses. 

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. Consistent with the DEIS analyses, 

for post-processing the PM10 impacts at all far-field receptor locations, project traffic emissions 

of PM10 were not included in the total estimated impacts, only the PM2.5 impacts were 

considered. 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 direct project and cumulative source scenarios, are 

provided in Addendum G-E. Predicted direct project impacts are compared to applicable PSD 

Class I and Class II Increments and significance levels, and then added to representative 

background pollutant concentrations (Table G-2.3), the total concentration is compared to 

applicable NAAQS and WAAQS. Cumulative impacts 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 G-E.1.1 and G-E.1.2 provide the maximum modeled NO2

concentrations at each of the sensitive areas. The maximum modeled SO2 concentrations are 

provided in Tables G-E.2.1 and G-E.2.2, and the maximum modeled PM10 and PM2.5 impacts are 

provided in Tables G-E.3.1 and G-E.3.2, and Tables G-E.4.1 and G-E.4.2, respectively. Results 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 32 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

summaries for NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are provided in Tables G-E.10.1, G-E.10.2, G-E.10.3, 

and G-E.10.4, respectively. 

In-Field Results

The maximum predicted concentrations of NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 within and nearby the 

JIDPA, for both direct project and cumulative scenarios are provided in Addendum G-E, Tables 

G-E.5.1 and G-E.5.2. Results summaries are provided in Table G-E.10.5. Predicted direct 

project and cumulative impacts are added to representative background pollutant concentrations 

and are compared to applicable NAAQS and WAAQS. 

G-3.3.2 Deposition

Maximum predicted S and N deposition impacts were estimated for both direct project and 

cumulative source scenarios. 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 (0.005 kg/ha-year) DAT for total N 

and S deposition in the western U.S. Total deposition impacts from direct project and regional 

sources were compared to USFS levels of concern, 5 kg/ha-yr for S and 3 kg/ha-yr for N. It is 

understood that the USFS no longer considers these levels of concern to be protective; however, 

in the absence of alternative FLM-approved values, comparisons with these values were made. 

The maximum predicted N and S deposition impacts for each of the analyzed scenarios are 

provided in Addendum G-E, Tables G-E.6.1 and G-E.6.2. Results summaries are provided in 

Tables G-E.10.6 and G-E.10.7. 

G-3.3.3 Sensitive Lakes

The CALPUFF-predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors were 

used to estimate the change in ANC. A list of the sensitive lakes and the background ANC 

values is provided in Table G-2.4. The change in ANC was calculated following the January 

2000, USFS guidance. The predicted changes in ANC are compared with the USFS LAC 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-33

thresholds of 10% for lakes with ANC values greater than 25 μeq/l and 1 μeq/l for lakes with 

background ANC values of 25 μeq/l or less. 

ANC calculations were performed for both direct project and cumulative source scenarios, with 

the results presented in Addendum G-E, Tables G-E.7.1 and G-E.7.2. Results summaries are 

provided in Table G-E.10.8. 

G-3.3.4 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 both direct project and 

cumulative source scenarios 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 G-2.4.1), only the impacts to visibility from PM2.5 were considered. 

Visibility impairment calculations were performed using both the FLAG and IMPROVE 

background data sets as described in Section G-2.4.4. CALPOST visibility processing methods 

“MVISBK=6” and “MVISBK=2” were used in combination with the two sets of background 

visibility data. CALPOST method “MVISBK=6”, as described in Section G-2.4.4, utilizes 

monthly relative humidity factors in combination with background visibility data to estimate 

light extinction changes. This method was used for all EIS analyses and Preferred Alternative 

modeling. CALPOST method “MVISBK=2” utilizes hourly relative humidity data from surface 

meteorological station measurements (included as part of the CALMET windfield data) in 

combination with background visibility data to compute potential light extinction change. 

Consistent with the FLAG document a relative humidity cutoff value of 98 percent was used for 

these calculations. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 34 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Far-Field Results 

The maximum predicted far-field visibility impacts for both direct project and cumulative 

scenarios are provided in Addendum G-E, Tables G-E.8.1 – G-E.8.4. Results summaries are 

provided in Tables G-E.10.9 – G-E.10.12. Predicted impacts are shown using both the FLAG 

and IMPROVE background visibility data for each of the CALPOST visibility processing 

methods. 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. Tables that present all predicted impacts above the thresholds and the days when the 

impacts were predicted to occur are also provided in Addendum G-E (Tables G-E.8.5 – GE.8.36) 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. 

Mid-Field Results 

The maximum predicted mid-field visibility impacts for both direct project and cumulative 

scenarios are provided in Addendum G-E, Tables G-E.9.1 – G-E.9.4. A summary of results by 

scenario is provided in Tables G-E.10.13 – G-E.10.16. Predicted impacts are shown using both 

the FLAG and IMPROVE background visibility data for both CALPOST processing methods. 

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. Tables that present all predicted impacts above the 

threshold and the days when the impacts were predicted to occur are also provided in Addendum 

G-E (Tables G-E.9.5 – G-E.9.44) for each regional community location. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project G-35

G-4.0 REFERENCES 

Air Resource Specialists. 2002. Green River Basin Visibility Study. Monitored Air Quality 

Data. Air Resource Specialists, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1999. 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. 

. 2000. Record of Decision, Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Bureau 

of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Pinedale Filed 

Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. BLM/WY/PL-00/026+1310. RODEIS-00-018. 53 pp. + 

append. 

 

. 2003. Emissions Inventory for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office. 

December 2003. 

_____. 2004. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Record for Questar 

Year-round Drilling Proposal. EA #WY-100-EA05-034. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

November 2004. 

. 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale 

and Rock Springs Field Offices. February 2005. 

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.

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. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP42, Volume II: Mobile Sources, Fourth Edition. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
G- 36 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), Vol. 1, Stationary Point 

and Area Sources, Fifth Edition with Supplements through 2004. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

. 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze 

Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. 

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. 

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. 

TRC. 2003. Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming. Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Wyoming State Office and Pinedale Field Office. TRC Environmental 

Corporation, Laramie, Wyoming. October 2003. 

______. 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. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 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. 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ADDENDUM G-A 

JUNE 2005 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

IMPACT ANALYSIS SUPPLEMENT

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL 

JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT 

 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

IMPACT ANALYSIS SUPPLEMENT 

 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION RUNS 

AND 

EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING 

Prepared for: 

Bureau of Land Management 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Quality Division 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Prepared by: 

James Zapert 

Peter Guernsey 

Susan Connell 

TRC Environmental Corporation 

Laramie, Wyoming 

TRC Project 35982 

June 14, 2005 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Air Quality Impact Assessment 

Protocol (Protocol) to identify the methodologies to be used to: 

• quantify project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts from additional 

configurations of the proposed Jonah Infill Drilling Project (JIDP) Preferred 

Alternative which were not analyzed as part of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS), and 

• quantify project-specific and cumulative impacts from potential emissions which 

reflect early-project-development stage conditions existing in the region surrounding 

the Jonah Infill Drilling Project area (JIDPA). 

The air quality modeling analyses defined herein have been requested by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to supplement the air quality analyses that were performed and presented 

for a range of project alternatives in the DEIS. 

The additional analyses were deemed necessary by the BLM to: 

• evaluate alternative potential mitigation strategies for the Preferred Alternative in an 

effort to identify possible project development requirements to reduce adverse air 

quality impacts, and 

• identify maximum early-project-development stage regional emissions (i.e., drilling) 

which could reveal that regional impacts are more severe at this stage due to impacts 

from the development of other regional projects, which at present have not been 

adequately evaluated. 

This Protocol presents the methodologies for these analyses prior to study initiation to ensure 

that the approach, input data, and computation methods are acceptable to the BLM and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Air Quality Division (WDEQ-AQD), and that 

other interested parties have the opportunity to review the Protocol and provide input before the 

study is initiated. 

1
The methodologies for these additional modeling analyses generally follow the approaches 

described in the October 2003, Jonah Infill Drilling Project Air Quality Impact Assessment 

Protocol and the November 2004, Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement, with any changes described herein. The 

new analyses include an assessment of pollutant concentrations in the JIDPA as well as the use 

of the CALMET and CALPUFF models to assess far-field and mid-field pollutant impacts 

within the cumulative study area, shown in Figure 1, attached. Far-field pollutant impacts will 

be assessed at the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas (Bridger, 

Fitzpatrick, Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas and Grand Teton and Yellowstone National 

Parks), and at the sensitive Class II Popo Agie Wilderness Area and Wind River Roadless Area. 

Far-field analyses will include impact assessments of concentration, visibility, acid deposition, 

and lake acidity (at sensitive lakes within the Wilderness Areas). Mid-field visibility impact 

analyses will be performed at the Wyoming regional community locations of Big Piney, Big 

Sandy, Boulder, Bronx, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, Merna, and Pinedale. 

The remainder of this Protocol describes the methodologies for analysis of the Preferred 

Alternative additional configurations (Section 2.0) and the methodologies for analysis of earlyproject-development stage conditions in the JIDPA region (Section 3.0). 

2
2.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MODELING ANALYSES 

Additional configurations of the Preferred Alternative will be modeled to provide a 

representation of the range of impacts possible under this alternative (low and high emissions 

scenarios), and a representation of impacts which could occur using various mitigation methods 

in the JIDPA. Modeling analyses for these additional configurations will generally follow the 

methodologies described in the October 2003 Jonah Infill Drilling project Air Quality Impact 

Assessment Protocol, and will be directly comparable to the analyses conducted for the DEIS. 

The CALMET (Version 5.53) and CALPUFF (Version 5.711) models used in the DEIS analyses 

will again be used to estimate both project and cumulative pollutant impacts at far-field PSD 

Class I and sensitive Class II areas, at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations, and 

within the JIDPA. 

Only project emissions will differ from those emissions modeled for the DEIS. Non-project 

cumulative emissions will be modeled as they were included in the DEIS and as described in 

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

Environmental Impact Statement. These include sources newly permitted by the state agencies 

through June 30, 2003, reasonably foreseeable development (RFD), and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions (RFFA). Project and cumulative emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

emissions will be modeled. Revised VOC emissions and resulting revised ozone impacts will be 

included in the FEIS. 

Non-project cumulative emissions will differ from those included in the early project 

development stage modeling described in Section 3.0 of this Protocol. Early project 

development stage modeling is proposed to include additional estimates of future compression 

requirements beyond those projected by regional operators and included in the DEIS analysis. 

The Preferred Alternative modeling analyses described in this section will include only the 

originally projected compression estimates to maintain consistency and comparability with the 

DEIS analysis. 

3
The Preferred Alternative for the JIDP consists of the development of 3,100 new natural gas 

wells on approximately 8,316 acres of new surface disturbance in the JIDPA, and assumes 

approximately 50% directionally drilled wells and 50% straight hole wells. Modeling results 

presented in the DEIS for Alternative F with a well development rate (WDR) of 250 wells per 

year are assumed to represent the maximum impacts from the Preferred Alternative at peak year 

emissions. Peak year emissions were assumed to occur in year 2017, and included emissions 

from 2,850 wells in production and 250 wells under construction, consistent with the field 

configuration anticipated for year 2017 (the field at nearly full production and the last year of 

construction in the field). The modeling also assumed a 50/50 split between straight and 

directional wells (consistent with the Preferred Alternative) and a 50/50 split between EPA Tier 

1 and Tier 2 emissions levels for drilling rig engines. The modeling included 80 percent 

flareless completions (20% of completions flared) and JIDPA compression emissions at 

maximum levels projected at the time of the DEIS. This analysis remains the "most likely" 

emissions/impact assessment for the Preferred Alternative based upon current knowledge and 

assuming voluntary commitments made by developers. 

Sections 2.1 through 2.3 describe the model scenarios analyzed to provide a range of impacts 

possible under the Preferred Alternative. Each of these scenarios is based upon anticipated field 

characteristics in year 2017, the presumed year of peak emissions. 

2.1 LOW EMISSIONS CONFIGURATION 

The Preferred Alternative will be modeled using the methods and inputs described in Section 

2.0, with the exception of drilling rig engine emissions. This analysis will include all drilling rig 

engine emissions at Tier 2 emission levels. Development rates of 250, 150, and 75 wells per 

year will be analyzed (i.e., 20, 12, and 6 drill rigs operating continuously). Modeling will be 

performed for both project-specific and cumulative emissions scenarios. 

4
2.2 HIGH EMISSIONS (BASE CASE) CONFIGURATION 

The Preferred Alternative will be modeled using the methods and inputs described in Section 

2.0, with the exception of drilling rig engine emissions. This analysis will include 80% of 

drilling rig engine emissions at Tier 0 emission levels (AP-42 levels), and 20% of engine 

emissions at Tier 1 emission levels. Development rates of 250, 150, and 75 wells per year will 

be analyzed. Modeling will be performed for both project-specific and cumulative emissions 

scenarios. 

2.3 MITIGATION ANALYSES 

Modeling will be performed to determine project-specific impacts based on emission reduction 

percentages from the high emissions (base case) configuration at a 250 WDR. Specifically, 

project emissions for this modeling configuration will be reduced by 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent, 

and these four emissions scenarios will be modeled. These analyses are sensitivity modeling 

runs that can be used to identify minimum impacts levels from project-specific source emissions. 

Modeling will be performed for both project-specific and cumulative emissions scenarios. 

2.4 MODEL RESULTS 

CALPUFF output will be post-processed to derive: 1) concentrations for comparison to ambient 

standards, significance thresholds, and Class I and II Increments; 2) deposition rates for 

comparison to sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition thresholds and to calculate acid neutralizing 

capacity (ANC) for sensitive lakes; and 3) light extinction for comparison to visibility impact 

thresholds in Class I and sensitive Class II areas and at regional communities. The modeling 

results will be presented in a supplemental report, summarized in the JIDP Final EIS (FEIS), and 

presented in detail in the Final JIDP Air Quality Technical Support Document. These results 

will be directly comparable to all other alternatives analyzed and presented in the DEIS.

5
Modeled concentrations combined with appropriate ambient background pollutant 

concentrations will be calculated at each far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II area and 

within the JIDPA, and will be compared to Wyoming and National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (WAAQS and NAAQS). Both JIDP-specific and cumulative source modeling results 

will be presented. 

Modeled concentrations predicted from the JIDP alone in Federal PSD Class I areas will be 

compared to Class I significance levels (Class I SILs) 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 far-field sensitive areas designated as 

PSD Class II areas will be compared to Class II Increments. The PSD demonstrations serve 

information purposes only and will not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption 

analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD. The approach to this PSD 

screening analysis is consistent with the original October 2003 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Air 

Quality Impact Assessment Protocol.

Visibility impacts (measured as change in light extinction) will be calculated using two methods, 

FLAG and IMPROVE, which differ by the background data used to derive the percent change in 

visibility. CALPOST visibility processing method MVISBK=6 will be used in combination with 

the two sets of background visibility data and monthly relative humidity factors from the 

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule. These 

visibility processing methods are consistent with the October 2003 Protocol and the analyses 

presented in the DEIS. No updates to the 2002 baseline IMPROVE data set will be made. 

Changes in light extinction will be estimated from both JIDP emissions and cumulative source 

emissions at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas, and at mid-field Class II 

Wyoming regional community locations. The 0.5 deciview change threshold value (for project 

source impacts) and the 1.0 deciview change threshold value (for cumulative source impacts) 

will be compared to far-field results modeled at PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas. A 

summary of number of days greater than each of these threshold values will be provided in the 

text and, consistent with the DEIS, a summary of far-field cumulative impacts above both the 0.5 

and 1.0 deciview change threshold values will be included in the appendices. Modeled results at 

6
mid-field Class II regional locations from both project source and cumulative source impacts 

will be compared to the 1.0 deciview change threshold. 

The total S deposition and N deposition at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas 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 threshold (DAT) defined by 

the National Park Service (NPS) for total N and total S. Estimated total deposition fluxes of S 

and N from cumulative source impacts at the sensitive areas will be compared with levels of

concern values of 5 and 3 kg/ha/yr for total S and N deposition fluxes, respectively. It is 

understood that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) no longer considers 

these levels of concern to be protective; however, in the absence of alternative Federal Land 

Manager-approved values, comparisons with these values will be made. 

Predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors from both JIDP and 

cumulative source emissions will be used to estimate the change in ANC. The predicted changes 

in ANC will be compared with the USFS'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 and less. 

7
3.0 EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING 

At the request of the BLM, an analysis of early-project-development stage air quality conditions 

in the vicinity of the JIDPA will be performed. What has been modeled and presented in the 

DEIS for the JIDP considers the “most likely case” maximum emissions scenario for the project, 

as described in greater detail in Section 2.0. However, when quantifying maximum cumulative 

impacts regionally, it is possible that peak regional impacts could occur prior to JIDP maximum

emissions as a result of the development of other natural gas projects in the region. The BLM 

requested this analysis because it was considered probable that regional impacts would be 

greatest during the early stages of JIDP development due to accelerated development paces in 

nearby project areas. Unlike the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses (see Section 2.0), the 

modeling of the early project development stage will not be directly comparable to the results 

presented in the DEIS for reasons explained below. 

The goal of this analysis is to quantify a maximum PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions 

scenario that could potentially occur within the next few years in the air basin located southwest 

of the Bridger Wilderness Area, as a result of 1) increased well drilling and flaring activities 

among several active natural gas field developments, and 2) expanded compression 

requirements, beyond what was analyzed for the DEIS. To accomplish this goal, a study 

baseline year has been selected, for which emissions will be quantified and subtracted from a 

selected year which is representative of current conditions. This accounting will allow ambient 

background concentrations to be added to modeled impacts without “double-counting” existing 

background conditions. The emissions information available for well drilling and flaring 

activities and expanded compressions requirements up through a cut-off date of May 26, 2005 

will be used in the analysis. 

A study baseline year of 2002 is proposed for use based on the availability of background 

visibility data through 2002. Year 2006 is proposed as a representative year to analyze for a 

maximum emissions scenario. The 2006 inventory would include drilling and completion flaring 

activities occurring within the JIDPA, Pinedale Anticline Project (PAP), South Piney Project 

(SPP), Riley Ridge Project (RRP), and Jack Morrow Hills Project (JMHP) areas. The 2006 

8
inventory would also include expanded compression estimates and a more recent emissions 

inventory of permitted sources for the area. 

The modeling analysis will be performed generally following the methodologies described in the 

October 2003 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Air Quality Impact Assessment Protocol. Modeled 

emissions will include expanded compression emissions, reasonably foreseeable development 

(RFD) and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA) that were determined for the DEIS, 

with the exception of the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP and JMHP emissions that were modeled for the 

DEIS. For these projects, emissions will be determined as the difference between maximum

development emission rates calculated for 2006 minus the emissions determined to be included 

in background in baseline study year 2002. This approach results in an analysis of incremental 

emissions changes on both a project-specific and cumulative basis. Emissions differences 

determined for the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP will be modeled as point sources, spread 

within each project area. Emissions from expanded compression will be modeled as point 

sources located based on best available information. Details on the revised emissions inventories 

for this analysis are provided in Section 3.1 of this Protocol. 

The CALMET and CALPUFF model versions that were used for the DEIS analysis will be used 

to estimate cumulative pollutant impacts at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas, and 

at mid-field Wyoming regional community locations. However, the CALMET wind fields used 

for this analysis will differ from the wind fields used for the DEIS and Preferred Alternative 

modeling. The CALMET wind fields used for the current conditions modeling will be 

developed without the use of the “kinematic effects” CALMET switch setting option, which was 

used for all previous DEIS analyses. The change in wind field development will be made to 

correct a potential CALMET model anomaly, which could produce unrealistically high wind 

speeds in the wind field layers above the surface layer. Recent CALMET model peer review 

studies and model developer suggestions are the basis for this change. This change was not 

made for the Preferred Alternative modeling analyses to maintain consistency and comparability 

with the DEIS analyses. 

9
3.1 EMISSIONS INVENTORIES

3.1.1 Permitted Source Emissions Inventory

As part of the JIDP DEIS, an inventory of permitted source emissions was developed using data 

obtained from the WDEQ-AQD, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/Air 

Pollution Control Division (CDPHE/APCD), Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Air 

Quality Division (UDEQ-AQD), and Idaho Division of Environment Quality (IDEQ). This 

source inventory included sources that had received permits through June 30, 2003. This 

inventory will be updated to include additional source emissions permitted through March 31, 

2004. These additional source emissions will be obtained from the source inventory that was 

developed for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Project and the Seminoe Road Gas Development 

Project. The extent of the inventory domain for these projects is shown in Figure 1, attached. 

3.1.2 Year 2006 Drilling and Flaring Emissions

Emissions for drilling activities and completion flaring have been developed for the JIDP, PAP, 

SPP, RRP, and JMHP based on a review of proposed well development rates and drilling 

activities for each project, from information available from the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (WOGCC) for drill rig “spud” activity, and from information 

provided by the BLM, Pinedale Field Office. Emissions will be determined for monthly drilling 

activities in order to capture seasonal variations in drilling. Table 1 provides a summary of the 

drilling rig and flare information that will be used for year 2006 modeling for all projects. 

A WDR of 250 will be used for the JIDP (20 drill rigs [10 at 2,100 hp and 10 at 2,600 hp], and 3 

completion flares operating continuously per month). An additional 3 drill rigs (all at 2,600 hp) 

and 1 completion flare will also be added to account for other operators expanded Jonah Field 

operations. For the JIDP it will be assumed that 50% of the wells will be directionally drilled 

and 50% of the wells will be straight hole, 80% of the wells will have flareless completions, and 

10
there will be an 80%/20% combination of drilling engines with Tier 0 and Tier 1 emissions 

levels, respectively (Tier 0 emissions will be determined using EPA AP-42 emission factors). 

For the PAP, the 2004 monthly well development rates obtained from the WOGCC, along with 

additional information provided by the BLM, Pinedale Field Office, will be used for 2006. 

Emissions are based on 6 year-round drilling rigs from Questar’s year-round drilling project, 6 

5,000 hp rigs based off of Questar’s biggest rig to account for other operator’s year-round 

drilling projects, and the remainder of the rigs based off of a representative 3,216 hp rig 

operating in the area. Emissions from Questar’s 6 year-round drilling rigs assumes Tier 0 

emissions for 3 rigs, Tier 1 emissions for 2 rigs, and a combination of Tier 0/Tier 1 emissions on 

1 rig. These estimates come from emissions data provided by WDEQ/Questar. Emissions from

the six 5,000 hp year-round drill rigs and the additional 3,216 hp drill rigs assume an 80%/20% 

Tier 0/Tier 1 emissions ratio. The analysis for the PAP also assumes 80% flareless completions. 

The SPP project year 2006 drilling activity will be assumed to occur only during the summer 

months (May-Oct) with 3 drill rigs and 1 flare operating continuously for these months. The 

RRP will include 2 to 6 drill rigs and 1 flare operating throughout the year with an increase in 

activity in the summer months. The JMHP project will include a single operating rig and flare 

operating continuously throughout the year. Three 5,000 hp “wildcat” drilling rigs and 1 

completion flare were added to the inventory to account for exploratory drilling in the BLM 

Pinedale Field Office area. It was assumed that this activity would only take place during the 

summer months (Jul-Aug). For the SPP, RRP, JMHP, and the “wildcat” rigs it will be assumed 

that 100% of the wells will be straight hole, 100% of the wells will be flared, and 100% of 

drilling engines will be Tier 0. 

11
Table 1: Summary of Year 2006 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations 

Field Months Operating Drilling Rigs Operating Flares 

JIDP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20, 

20, 20, 20 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3 

JIDP – Expanded 

Jonah Field 

Operators 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

PAP1

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

25, 25, 25, 

25, 25, 30, 

35, 35, 35, 

30, 25, 25 

4, 4, 4, 

4, 4, 5, 

5, 5, 5, 

5, 4, 4 

SPP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 3, 3, 

3, 3, 3, 

3, 0, 0 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 0, 0 

RRP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

2, 2, 2, 

2, 3, 3, 

6, 6, 6, 

3, 2, 2 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

JMHP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

Pinedale Field 

Office – Wildcat 

Rigs 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

3, 3, 0, 

0, 0, 0 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

1, 1, 0, 

0, 0, 0 

1 Drill rig estimates for PAP include 6 drilling rigs for the Questar year-round drilling program

and 2 each for Anschutz, Ultra, and Shell. 

3.1.3 Year 2002 Drilling and Flaring Emissions

Baseline study year emissions for drilling activities and completion flaring have been developed 

for the JIDP, PAP, SPP, RRP, and JMHP based on a review of monthly actual well development 

rates and drilling activities that occurred in the region during 2002. Year 2002 emissions are 

12
quantified to determine the level of emissions that existed in background ambient air quality. 

Information from the WOGCC was used to determine 2002 development rates and drill rig 

counts. It will be assumed that during year 2002 all drilling engines would be at Tier 0 

emissions levels. For all project areas, 100% straight hole drilling will be assumed. Completion 

flaring emissions will be determined from a review of actual well development rates and will 

assume 100% of the developed wells required flaring. A summary of the preliminary drilling rig 

and flare information that will be used for the year 2002 modeling is provided in Table 2. 

Table 2: Summary of Year 2002 Drilling Rigs Counts and Flaring Operations 

Field Months Operating Drilling Rigs Operating Flares 

JIDP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

6, 6, 6, 

8, 5, 7, 

4, 5, 8, 

5, 4, 5 

3, 3, 3, 

4, 2, 3, 

2, 2, 4, 

2, 2, 2 

PAP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

4, 3, 3, 

1, 7, 3, 

8, 5, 3, 

3, 0, 1 

2, 1, 1, 

1, 3, 1, 

4, 2, 1, 

1, 0, 1 

SPP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 2, 

0, 2, 1 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 0, 1, 

0, 1, 1 

RRP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 2, 

2, 4, 2, 

2, 1, 1 

0, 0, 0, 

0, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

JMHP 

Jan, Feb, Mar, 

Apr, May, Jun, 

Jul, Aug, Sep, 

Oct, Nov, Dec 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1, 

1, 1, 1 

3.1.4 Expanded Compression

The BLM, field operators, and other gas compression companies operating nearby were 

contacted to determine an estimate of expanded field compression requirements for the area. 

The expanded compression is in addition to the compression estimates that were obtained, from

13
field operators, state permits, and RFD, and modeled for the DEIS. A summary of the expanded 

compression estimates that have been obtained, and the field compression estimates included in 

the DEIS analyses are provided in Table 3. Emissions for expanded field compression were 

calculated based on best available data provided by BLM, operators, and information obtained 

from the WDEQ-AQD. 

Table 3: Summary of Expanded Field Compression Estimates 

Field Permitted/RFD

Compression Included 

in DEIS Analyses 

Expanded Compression 

Included in DEIS Analyses 

Expanded Compression 

Estimates Beyond that 

included in the DEIS 

JIDP 

13,269 hp (Falcon) 

0 hp (Luman) 

9,405 hp (Bird) 

5,285 hp (Jonah) 

7,336 hp (Falcon) 

11,604 hp (Luman) 

11,004 hp (Bird) 

3,900 hp (Jonah) 

2,888 hp (Falcon) 

11,248 hp (Luman) 

30,928 hp (Bird) 

3,000 hp (Jonah) 

PAP 

12,094 hp (Paradise) 

25,110 hp (Gobblers 

Knob, Mesa 1, Mesa 2) 

7,336 hp (Paradise) 

10,000 hp (Gobblers Knob) 

9,624 hp (Paradise) 

1,160 hp (Gobblers 

Knob) 

SPP 48,500 hp 0 hp 0 hp 

RRP 0 hp 0 hp 0 hp 

JMHP 3,480 hp 0 hp 2,940 hp 

3.2 MODEL RESULTS 

CALPUFF output will be post-processed to derive: 1) concentrations for comparison to ambient 

standards, significance thresholds, and Class I and II Increments; 2) deposition rates for 

comparison to S and N deposition thresholds and to calculate ANC change for sensitive lakes; 

and 3) light extinction for comparison to visibility impact thresholds in Class I and sensitive 

Class II areas. The modeling results will be presented in a supplemental report for the DEIS, 

summarized in the JIDP FEIS (Chapter 3.0), and presented in detail in the Final JIDP Air Quality 

Technical Support Document. It is important to note that the results of this modeling analyses 

will not be directly comparable to the results presented in the DEIS or those presented for the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 2.0) due to differences (emissions increases) in the cumulative 

emissions (non-project) inventories and the expanded compression estimates included in this 

analysis. 

14
Modeled concentrations combined with appropriate ambient background pollutant 

concentrations will be calculated for each far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II area and 

will be compared to WAAQS and NAAQS. 

Modeled concentrations predicted in Federal PSD Class I areas from project-specific sources 

alone will be compared to Class I SILs and Class I Increments, and cumulative impacts will be 

compared to Class I Increments. Impacts predicted at far-field sensitive areas designated as PSD 

Class II areas will be compared to Class II Increments. This demonstration will be for 

information purposes only and will not constitute a regulatory PSD Increment consumption 

analysis, which may be completed as necessary by WDEQ-AQD. The approach to this PSD 

screening analysis is consistent with the original October 2003 Jonah Infill Drilling Project Air 

Quality Impact Assessment Protocol.

Visibility impacts will be calculated using two methods, FLAG and IMPROVE, and using 

MVISBK=2 and MVISBK=6 visibility change estimate methods available in CALPOST. The 

MVISBK=6 method, which was used in all DEIS analyses, uses monthly relative humidity 

factors. The MVISBK=2 method uses hourly relative humidity data from the CALMET wind 

fields. Changes in light extinction will be estimated at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class 

II areas, and at mid-field Class II Wyoming regional community locations. 

The 0.5 deciview change threshold value (for project source impacts) and the 1.0 deciview 

change threshold value (for cumulative source impacts) will be compared to far-field results 

modeled at PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas. A summary of number of days greater than 

each of these threshold values will be provided in the text and, consistent with the DEIS, a 

summary of far-field cumulative impacts above both the 0.5 and 1.0 deciview change threshold 

values will be included in the appendices. Modeled results at mid-field Class II regional 

locations will be compared to a 1.0 deciview change thresholds for both project source and 

cumulative source impacts. 

15
The total S deposition and N deposition at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas 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 DAT defined by NPS for total N and total S. The 

total S deposition and N deposition impacts at far-field PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas 

will be compared with levels of concern values of 5 and 3 kg/ha/yr for total S and N deposition 

fluxes, respectively. It is understood that the USFS no longer considers these levels of concern 

to be protective; however, in the absence of alternative Federal Land Manager-approved values, 

comparisons with these values will be made. 

Predicted annual deposition fluxes of S and N at sensitive lake receptors will be used to estimate 

the change in ANC. The predicted changes in ANC will be compared with the USFS’s Level of 

Acceptable Change (LAC) thresholds of either 10% for lakes with ANC values greater than 25 

μeq/l, or 1 μeq/l for lakes with background ANC values of 25 μeq/l and less. 

16
ATTACHMENT 

Figure 1 
Fitzpatrick Wilderness

Wind River Roadless Area

Bridger Wilderness

Popo Agie Wilderness

UU tt aa hh

WW yy oo mm ii nn gg

MM oo nn tt aa nn aa

CC oo ll oo rr aa dd oo

II dd aa hh oo

Yellowstone National Park

Grand Teton National Park

Teton Wilderness Washakie Wilderness

0 20 40 60

Miles

Figure 1

Cumulative Study Area

for FEIS Modeling

Drawn:JFR

Date: March 25, 2005

Jonah Infill Project Cumulative

Modeling Domain

Atlantic Rim/Seminoe Road Projects

Cumulative Modeling Domain

Jonah

Jack Morrow Hills

Pinedale Anticline

Riley Ridge

South Piney

Merna Cora

Bronx

Farson

Daniel

Labarge

Boulder

Pinedale

Big Sandy

Big Piney
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ADDENDUM G-B 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

The following is a list of the tables included within this addendum: 

G-B.1.1 Summary of Maximum Field Wide Emissions Scenarios – Preferred Alternative 

G-B.1.2 Drilling Emissions AP-42 – Straight Drilling 

G-B.1.3 Drilling Emissions Tier 1 – Straight Drilling 

G-B.1.4 Drilling Emissions Tier 2 – Straight Drilling 

G-B.1.5 Drilling Emissions AP-42 – Directional Drilling 

G-B.1.6 Drilling Emissions Tier 1 – Directional Drilling 

G-B.1.7 Drilling Emissions Tier 2 – Directional Drilling

35982 G-B-1 TRC Environmental Corporation
Table G-B.1.1

Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Summary of Maximum Field Wide Emissions Scenarios - Preferred Alternative

(Tons Per Year)

 High Emissions Cases Low Emissions Cases Mitigation Runs7

WDR250 WDR150 WDR75 WDR250 WDR150 WDR75 80% 60% 40% 20%

Production Emissions

Wells1

NOx 129.2 133.8 137.2 129.2 133.8 137.2 103.4 77.5 51.7 25.8

SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PM10 24.7 25.6 26.3 24.7 25.6 26.3 19.8 14.8 9.9 4.9

PM2.5 24.7 25.6 26.3 24.7 25.6 26.3 19.8 14.8 9.9 4.9

Traffic2

NOx 23.9 24.7 25.4 23.9 24.7 25.4 19.1 14.3 9.6 4.8

SO2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1

PM10 652.0 674.9 692.0 652.0 674.9 692.0 521.6 391.2 260.8 130.4

PM2.5 99.1 102.6 105.2 99.1 102.6 105.2 79.3 59.5 39.7 19.8

Compression3

NOx 211.0 211.0 211.0 211.0 211.0 211.0 168.8 126.6 84.4 42.2

SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PM10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PM2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Construction Emissions

Well Drilling4

NOx 2,421.6 1,453.0 726.5 786.2 471.7 235.9 1,937.3 1,453.0 968.6 484.3

SO2 161.9 97.1 48.6 30.0 18.0 9.0 129.5 97.1 64.8 32.4

PM10 464.9 278.9 139.5 28.8 17.3 8.6 371.9 278.9 186.0 93.0

PM2.5 464.9 278.9 139.5 28.8 17.3 8.6 371.9 278.9 186.0 93.0

Traffic5

NOx 13.5 8.1 4.1 13.5 8.1 4.1 10.8 8.1 5.4 2.7

SO2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1

PM10 225.1 135.1 67.5 225.1 135.1 67.5 180.1 135.1 90.0 45.0

PM2.5 34.5 20.7 10.3 34.5 20.7 10.3 27.6 20.7 13.8 6.9

Flaring6

NOx 406.9 271.3 135.6 406.9 271.3 135.6 325.5 244.1 162.8 81.4

SO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PM10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PM2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total

NOx 3,206.1 2,101.8 1,239.7 1,570.7 1,120.6 749.1 2,564.9 1,923.7 1,282.5 641.2

SO2 162.9 98.1 49.4 31.0 18.9 9.8 130.3 97.8 65.2 32.6

PM10 1,366.8 1,114.5 925.3 930.7 852.8 794.5 1,093.4 820.1 546.7 273.4

PM2.5 623.3 427.9 281.3 187.2 166.2 150.5 498.6 374.0 249.3 124.7

1 Includes emissions from indirect heater, separator heater, and dehyrator 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, Jonah and the Jonah Water Well.

4 Includes emissions from drilling rigs operating continuously during the year.

 Well Development Rates of 250, 150 and 75 assume drill rig counts of 20, 12, and 6, respectively.

 High emissions cases assume 50% straight and 50% directional at an 80%/20% Tier 0/Tier 1 ratio.

 Low Emissions cases assume 50% straight and 50% directional with 100% Tier 2 compliant rigs.

5 Includes emissions from all traffic associated with 20, 12, and 6 drilling rigs in operation.

6 Includes emissions from 3, 2, and 1 "completion/testing" flares operating continously during the year.

7 Mitigation runs assume 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% of the high-emissions WDR250 case emissions, respectively.

G-B-2
Table G-B.1.2

Drilling Emissions AP-42 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 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: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,702.63 5.93 

NOx 0.031 2,100 0.42 19 24 12,542.17 27.50 

SO2 0.00205 2,100 0.42 19 24 829.40 1.82 

VOC 0.0025 2,100 0.42 19 24 1,011.47 2.22 

PM104 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 890.09 1.95 

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-3
Table G-B.1.3

Drilling Emissions Tier 1 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions Per Well Emissions pe

Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.42 19 24 7,581.69 16.63 

NOx 0.015 2,100 0.42 19 24 6,154.55 13.50 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 0.31 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 891.96 1.96 

PM105 0.00088 2,100 0.42 19 24 356.79 0.78 

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Non

 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 800hp and one at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-4
Table G-B.1.4

Drilling Emissions Tier 2 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 2

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per R

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0057 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,319.11 5.09 

NOx 0.0090 2,100 0.42 19 24 3,657.05 8.02 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 0.31 

VOC 0.0004 2,100 0.42 19 24 148.87 0.33 

PM105 0.00033 2,100 0.42 19 24 133.79 0.29 

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad 

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html. NOx and HC Emission Factors estimated based on Tables 3 and 5 of "Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling- Compression-Ignition," NR-009c, EPA, April 2004.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-5
Table G-B.1.5

Drilling Emissions AP-42 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA AP-42

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions Per Well Emissions P

Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 2,600 0.42 23 24 4,050.56 7.34 

NOx 0.031 2,600 0.42 23 24 18,797.53 34.05 

SO2 0.00205 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,243.06 2.25 

VOC 0.0025 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,515.93 2.75 

PM104 0.0022 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,334.02 2.42 

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-6
Table G-B.1.6

Drilling Emissions Tier 1 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per 

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0187 2,600 0.42 23 24 11,363.04 20.59 

NOx 0.015 2,600 0.42 23 24 9,224.12 16.71 

SO24 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 0.38 

VOC 0.0022 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,336.83 2.42 

PM105 0.00088 2,600 0.42 23 24 534.73 0.97 

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad 

 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 800hp and two at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-7
Table G-B.1.7

Drilling Emissions Tier 2 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 2

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per R

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0057 2,600 0.42 23 24 3,475.75 6.30 

NOx 0.0090 2,600 0.42 23 24 5,481.00 9.93 

SO24 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 0.38 

VOC 0.0004 2,600 0.42 23 24 223.12 0.40 

PM105 0.00033 2,600 0.42 23 24 200.52 0.36 

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroa

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html. NOx and HC Emission Factors estimated based on Tables 3 and 5 of "Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modelin

 Compression-Ignition," NR-009c, EPA, April 2004.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on four engines, two at 800hp and two at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-B-8
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ADDENDUM G-C 

 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MODELING RESULTS 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

LIST OF TABLES 

Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-C.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – Low 

Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.1.2 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – Low 

Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.1.3 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – Low 

Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.1.4 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – High 

Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.1.5 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – High 

Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.1.6 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – High 

Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.1.7 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – 

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.1.8 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – 

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.1.9 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – 

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.1.10 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sources – 

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 

35982 G-C-1 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.1.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low 

Emissions WDR250) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low 

Emissions WDR150) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low 

Emissions WDR075) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High 

Emissions WDR250) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High 

Emissions WDR150) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High 

Emissions WDR075) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 

20% Emissions Reduction WDR250) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 

40% Emissions Reduction WDR250) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 

60% Emissions Reduction WDR250) and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.1.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 

80% Emissions Reduction WDR250) and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-2 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-C.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR250 

Table G-C.2.2 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR150 

Table G-C.2.3 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.2.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR250 

Table G-C.2.5 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR150 

Table G-C.2.6 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.2.7 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.2.8 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.2.9 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.2.10 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.2.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-3 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.2.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 

20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 

40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 

60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.2.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 

80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-C.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR250 

Table G-C.3.2 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR150 

35982 G-C-4 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.3.4 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR250 

Table G-C.3.5 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR150 

Table G-C.3.6 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.3.7 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.3.8 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.3.9 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.3.10 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.3.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-5 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.3.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.3.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-C.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR250 

Table G-C.4.2 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR150 

Table G-C.4.3 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.4.4 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR250 

35982 G-C-6 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.4.5 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR150 

Table G-C.4.6 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR075 

Table G-C.4.7 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.4.8 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.4.9 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.4.10 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.4.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-7 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.4.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High 

Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.4.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Modeled Impacts Within the JIDPA Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Low Emissions WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Low Emissions WDR150 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.3 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Low Emissions WDR075 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.4 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

High Emissions WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.5 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

High Emissions WDR150 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.6 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

High Emissions WDR075 Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.7 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

35982 G-C-8 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.5.8 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.9 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.10 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative 

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.11 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.12 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.13 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.14 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.15 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.16 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources - 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.17 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and 

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.18 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and 

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

35982 G-C-9 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.5.19 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and 

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.5.20 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and 

Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Modeled Nitrogen (N) and Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts 

Table G-C.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Sources 

Table G-C.6.2 Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.6.3 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative 

Sources 

Table G-C.6.4 Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and 

Regional Sources 

Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

Table G-C.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.7.3 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.7.4 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.7.5 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.7.6 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 

35982 G-C-10 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.7.7 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.7.8 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.7.9 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.7.10 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.7.11 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.12 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.13 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.14 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.15 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.16 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and 

Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.17 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-11 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.7.18 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.19 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.7.20 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Table G-C.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.8.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.8.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.8.5 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.8.6 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.8.7 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.8.8 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.8.9 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

35982 G-C-12 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.8.10 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.8.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.8.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-13 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.8.21 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.22 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.23 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.24 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.25 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.26 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.27 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.28 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.29 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.30 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.8.31 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each 

Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

35982 G-C-14 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.8.32 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations 

Table G-C.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.9.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.9.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 

Table G-C.9.5 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 

Table G-C.9.6 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 

Table G-C.9.7 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.9.8 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.9.9 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.9.10 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions 

Reduction WDR250 

Table G-C.9.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR250 and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-15 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.9.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions 

WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR150 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative High Emissions 

WDR075 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% 

Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.9.21 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.22 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

35982 G-C-16 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.9.23 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.24 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.25 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.26 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.27 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.28 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.29 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

 

Table G-C.9.30 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.31 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.32 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.33 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

35982 G-C-17 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.9.34 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.35 LaBarge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.36 LaBarge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.37 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.38 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.39 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative 

Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Table G-C.9.40 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Each Preferred 

Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20) 

Summary of Maximum Modeled Impacts 

Table G-C.10.1 Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table G-C.10.2 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts 

(μg/m3

) at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project 

and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.10.3 Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table G-C.10.4 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts 

(μg/m3

) at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project 

and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-18 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.10.5 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table G-C.10.6 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts 

(μg/m3

) at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project 

and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.10.7 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at 

PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project Sources 

Table G-C.10.8 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts 

(μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas from Direct Project 

and Regional Sources 

Table G-C.10.9 Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3) 

from Direct Project Sources Within the JIDPA Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Table G-C.10.10 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative In-field Pollutant 

Concentrations (μg/m3) from Direct Project and Regional Sources 

Within the JIDPA Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-C.10.11 Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/hayr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Direct Project 

Sources 

Table G-C.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 G-C.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 G-C.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 G-C.10.15 Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC (μeq/L) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Direct Project Sources 

Table G-C.10.16 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Change in ANC (μeq/L) at 

Acid Sensitive Lakes from Direct Project and Regional Sources 

35982 G-C-19 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

Table G-C.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 G-C.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 G-C.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 G-C.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 

Table G-C.10.21 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Direct Project Sources Using FLAG 

Background Data 

Table G-C.10.22 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Direct Project Sources Using IMPROVE 

Background Data 

Table G-C.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 G-C.10.24 Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at 

Wyoming Regional Community Locations from Direct Project and 

Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

35982 G-C-20 TRC Environmental Corporation
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 0.126 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.53 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00532 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.00162 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0421 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.44 Teton WA 0.000727 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00102 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.025 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.43 Yellowstone NP 0.000543 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.

Table G-C.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-21
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 0.0872 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.49 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00379 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.00114 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0298 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.43 Teton WA 0.000508 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.000713 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0178 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Yellowstone NP 0.00038 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.

Table G-C.1.2 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-22
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 0.0546 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.45 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00251 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.000744 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0201 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Teton WA 0.000332 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.000465 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0116 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.41 Yellowstone NP 0.000247 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.

Table G-C.1.3 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-23
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 0.306 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.71 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.0116 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.00345 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0965 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.50 Teton WA 0.00157 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00209 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0581 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.46 Yellowstone NP 0.00118 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.

Table G-C.1.4 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

High Emissions WDR250

G-C-24
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 0.195 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00756 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.00225 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.063 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.46 Teton WA 0.00101 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00135 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.038 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.44 Yellowstone NP 0.000762 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.

Table G-C.1.5 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

High Emissions WDR150

G-C-25
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 0.101 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.0043 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.0013 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.038 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.44 Teton WA 0.00057 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00076 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.021 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Yellowstone NP 0.00043 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.

Table G-C.1.6 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

High Emissions WDR075

G-C-26
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 3.65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00925 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.00276 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0772 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.48 Teton WA 0.00126 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00167 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0464 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.45 Yellowstone NP 0.000944 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.

Table G-C.1.7 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-27
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 0.184 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.58 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00694 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.41 Grand Teton NP 0.00207 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0579 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.46 Teton WA 0.000942 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.00126 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0348 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.43 Yellowstone NP 0.000708 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.

Table G-C.1.8 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-28
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 0.123 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.52 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00462 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.00138 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0386 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.44 Teton WA 0.000628 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.000837 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0232 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Yellowstone NP 0.000472 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.

Table G-C.1.9 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-29
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 0.00231 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.00069 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.0193 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Teton WA 0.000314 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.000419 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0116 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.41 Yellowstone NP 0.000236 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.

Table G-C.1.10 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Prefe

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-30
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.237 2.5 3.4 3.64 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.017 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.030 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.068 25.0 3.4 3.47 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.049 25.0 3.4 3.45 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low Emissions WDR250) and Regional Sour

G-C-31
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.199 2.5 3.4 3.60 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.015 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Grand Teton NP 0.030 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.056 25.0 3.4 3.46 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.042 25.0 3.4 3.44 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low Emissions WDR150) and Regiona

G-C-32
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.167 2.5 3.4 3.57 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Grand Teton NP 0.029 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.046 25.0 3.4 3.45 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.036 25.0 3.4 3.44 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Low Emissions WDR075) and Regiona

G-C-33
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.418 2.5 3.4 3.82 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.023 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.032 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.120 25.0 3.4 3.52 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.082 25.0 3.4 3.48 100 Yellowstone NP 0.004 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High Emissions WDR250) and Regiona

G-C-34
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.307 2.5 3.4 3.71 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.019 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.031 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.087 25.0 3.4 3.49 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.062 25.0 3.4 3.46 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High Emissions WDR150) and Regiona

G-C-35
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.213 2.5 3.4 3.61 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.015 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.030 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.062 25.0 3.4 3.46 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.045 25.0 3.4 3.45 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (High Emissions WDR075) and Regiona

G-C-36
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.356 2.5 3.4 3.76 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.020 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.031 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.101 25.0 3.4 3.50 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.071 25.0 3.4 3.47 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250) an

G-C-37
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.295 2.5 3.4 3.70 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.018 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.031 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.081 25.0 3.4 3.48 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.059 25.0 3.4 3.46 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250) an

G-C-38
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.234 2.5 3.4 3.63 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.016 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Grand Teton NP 0.030 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.063 25.0 3.4 3.46 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.048 25.0 3.4 3.45 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250) an

G-C-39
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.174 2.5 3.4 3.57 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Grand Teton NP 0.029 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Popo Agie WA 0.045 25.0 3.4 3.44 100 Teton WA 0.007 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Washakie WA 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 Wind River RA 0.036 25.0 3.4 3.44 100 Yellowstone NP 0.003 2.5 3.4 3.40 100 

Table G-C.1.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative (Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250) an

G-C-40
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.079 0.21 5 43.0 43.1 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.003 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.014 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.011 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.254 1.01 25 132.0 132.3 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.021 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.009 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.090 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Teton WA 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.007 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.041 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-41
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.002 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.050 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.009 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.007 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.157 1.01 25 132.0 132.2 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.005 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.060 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Teton WA 0.005 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.004 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.026 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.002 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.2 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-42
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.000 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.000 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.024 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.005 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.004 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.081 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.029 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Teton WA 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.012 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.001 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.3 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-43
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.019 0.11 2 9.0 9.02 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 Popo Agie WA 0.006 1.0 20 9.0 9.01 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 0.004 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 60 Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.382 0.21 5 43.0 43.4 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.028 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 260 Grand Teton NP 0.012 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 260 Popo Agie WA 0.068 5.0 91 43.0 43.1 260 Teton WA 0.007 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 260 Washakie WA 0.011 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 260 Wind River RA 0.055 5.0 91 43.0 43.1 260 Yellowstone NP 0.005 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 1.232 1.01 25 132.0 133.2 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.102 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 1,300 Grand Teton NP 0.041 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,300 Popo Agie WA 0.437 25.0 512 132.0 132.4 1,300 Teton WA 0.038 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,300 Washakie WA 0.031 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,300 Wind River RA 0.196 25.0 512 132.0 132.2 1,300 Yellowstone NP 0.015 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,300 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.4 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from 

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

G-C-44
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) 

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.012 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 Popo Agie WA 0.004 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.237 0.21 5 43.0 43.2 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.018 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 Grand Teton NP 0.008 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 Popo Agie WA 0.045 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 Teton WA 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 Washakie WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 Wind River RA 0.034 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.750 1.01 25 132.0 132.8 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.065 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 Grand Teton NP 0.025 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 Popo Agie WA 0.292 25.0 512 132.0 132.3 Teton WA 0.023 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 Washakie WA 0.020 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 Wind River RA 0.124 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 Yellowstone NP 0.009 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.5 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Area

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

G-C-45
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.005 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.113 0.21 5 43.0 43.1 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.027 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.003 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.019 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.382 1.01 25 132.0 132.4 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.033 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.013 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.142 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Teton WA 0.012 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.011 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.059 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.005 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.6 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

G-C-46
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.015 0.11 2 9.0 9.02 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.005 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.003 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.306 0.21 5 43.0 43.3 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.022 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.010 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.055 5.0 91 43.0 43.1 26Teton WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.009 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.044 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.985 1.01 25 132.0 133.0 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.082 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.033 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.350 25.0 512 132.0 132.3 1,3Teton WA 0.031 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.024 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.156 25.0 512 132.0 132.2 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.012 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.7 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-47
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.012 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.004 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.229 0.21 5 43.0 43.2 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.017 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.041 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.033 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.003 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.739 1.01 25 132.0 132.7 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.061 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.025 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.262 25.0 512 132.0 132.3 1,3Teton WA 0.023 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.018 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.117 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.009 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.8 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-48
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.008 0.11 2 9.0 9.01 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.153 0.21 5 43.0 43.2 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.011 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.005 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.027 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.003 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.004 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.022 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.493 1.01 25 132.0 132.5 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.041 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.017 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.175 25.0 512 132.0 132.2 1,3Teton WA 0.015 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.012 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.078 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.006 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.9 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-49
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.000 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.076 0.21 5 43.0 43.1 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.014 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.011 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.246 1.01 25 132.0 132.2 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.020 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.087 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Teton WA 0.008 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.006 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.039 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.003 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.2.10 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fr

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-50
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 

Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 

Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.086 5 43.0 43.1 2

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 5 43.0 43.0 2Grand Teton NP 0.038 5 43.0 43.0 2Popo Agie WA 0.016 91 43.0 43.0 2Teton WA 0.012 5 43.0 43.0 2Washakie WA 0.008 5 43.0 43.0 2Wind River RA 0.015 91 43.0 43.0 2Yellowstone NP 0.013 5 43.0 43.0 2

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.269 25 132.0 132.3 1,

Fitzpatrick WA 0.023 25 132.0 132.0 1,

Grand Teton NP 0.201 25 132.0 132.2 1,

Popo Agie WA 0.091 512 132.0 132.1 1,

Teton WA 0.037 25 132.0 132.0 1,

Washakie WA 0.022 25 132.0 132.0 1,

Wind River RA 0.118 512 132.0 132.1 1,

Yellowstone NP 0.075 25 132.0 132.1 1,

Table G-C.2.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-51
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 

Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 

Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.06 5 43.0 43.1 2

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.0 2Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.0 2Popo Agie WA 0.01 91 43.0 43.0 2Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.0 2Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.0 2Wind River RA 0.01 91 43.0 43.0 2Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.0 2

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.17 25 132.0 132.2 1,

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.0 1,Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.2 1,Popo Agie WA 0.06 512 132.0 132.1 1,Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.0 1,Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.0 1,Wind River RA 0.11 512 132.0 132.1 1,Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.1 1,

Table G-C.2.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-52
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 2

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 2Popo Agie WA 0.01 91 43.0 43.01 2Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2Wind River RA 0.01 91 43.0 43.01 2Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.17 25 132.0 132.17 1,

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1,Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1,Popo Agie WA 0.03 512 132.0 132.03 1,Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1,Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1,Wind River RA 0.11 512 132.0 132.11 1,Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1,

Table G-C.2.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-53
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.014 2 9.0 9.01 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.002 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.001 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.39 5 43.0 43.39 2

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 5 43.0 43.02 2Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 2Popo Agie WA 0.07 91 43.0 43.07 2Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2Wind River RA 0.05 91 43.0 43.05 2Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 2

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 1.25 25 132.0 133.25 1,

Fitzpatrick WA 0.09 25 132.0 132.09 1,Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1,Popo Agie WA 0.44 512 132.0 132.44 1,Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1,Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1,Wind River RA 0.20 512 132.0 132.20 1,Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1,

Table G-C.2.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-54
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.006 2 9.0 9.01 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.24 5 43.0 43.24 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 5 43.0 43.02 Grand Teton NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Popo Agie WA 0.04 91 43.0 43.04 Teton WA 0.00 5 43.0 43.00 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.03 91 43.0 43.03 Yellowstone NP 0.00 5 43.0 43.00 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.75 25 132.0 132.75 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.06 25 132.0 132.06 Grand Teton NP 0.03 25 132.0 132.03 Popo Agie WA 0.29 512 132.0 132.29 Teton WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 Wind River RA 0.12 512 132.0 132.12 Yellowstone NP 0.01 25 132.0 132.01 

Table G-C.2.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-55
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.12 5 43.0 43.12 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 Popo Agie WA 0.03 91 43.0 43.03 Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.01 91 43.0 43.01 Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.39 25 132.0 132.39 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.03 25 132.0 132.03 1Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1Popo Agie WA 0.14 512 132.0 132.14 1Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Wind River RA 0.11 512 132.0 132.11 1Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1

Table G-C.2.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-56
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.010 2 9.0 9.01 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.001 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.31 5 43.0 43.31 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 5 43.0 43.02 Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 Popo Agie WA 0.06 91 43.0 43.06 Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.04 91 43.0 43.04 Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 1.00 25 132.0 133.00 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1Popo Agie WA 0.35 512 132.0 132.35 1Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Wind River RA 0.16 512 132.0 132.16 1Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1

Table G-C.2.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-57
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.006 2 9.0 9.01 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.24 5 43.0 43.24 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 Popo Agie WA 0.04 91 43.0 43.04 Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.02 91 43.0 43.02 Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.75 25 132.0 132.75 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.05 25 132.0 132.05 1Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1Popo Agie WA 0.26 512 132.0 132.26 1Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Wind River RA 0.13 512 132.0 132.13 1Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1

Table G-C.2.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-58
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.002 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.16 5 43.0 43.16 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 Popo Agie WA 0.03 91 43.0 43.03 Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.02 91 43.0 43.02 Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.51 25 132.0 132.51 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.03 25 132.0 132.03 1Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1Popo Agie WA 0.18 512 132.0 132.18 1Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Wind River RA 0.13 512 132.0 132.13 1Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1

Table G-C.2.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-59
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Grand Teton NP 0.007 2 9.0 9.01 Popo Agie WA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Teton WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 Washakie WA 0.000 2 9.0 9.00 Wind River RA 0.000 20 9.0 9.00 Yellowstone NP 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.08 5 43.0 43.08 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Grand Teton NP 0.04 5 43.0 43.04 Popo Agie WA 0.02 91 43.0 43.02 Teton WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Washakie WA 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 Wind River RA 0.01 91 43.0 43.01 Yellowstone NP 0.01 5 43.0 43.01 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.26 25 132.0 132.26 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Grand Teton NP 0.20 25 132.0 132.20 1Popo Agie WA 0.09 512 132.0 132.09 1Teton WA 0.04 25 132.0 132.04 1Washakie WA 0.02 25 132.0 132.02 1Wind River RA 0.12 512 132.0 132.12 1Yellowstone NP 0.07 25 132.0 132.07 1

Table G-C.2.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-60
Pollutant

Averagin

g Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.058 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 0.016 1.0 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 0.012 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24- hr Bridger WA 1.502 0.31 8 33.0 34.50 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.168 0.31 8 33.0 33.17 1Grand Teton NP 0.088 0.31 8 33.0 33.09 1Popo Agie WA 0.237 5.0 30 33.0 33.24 1

Teton WA 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 1

Washakie WA 0.072 0.31 8 33.0 33.07 1Wind River RA 0.182 5.0 30 33.0 33.18 1

Yellowstone NP 0.041 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-61
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.047 0.21 4 16.0 16.05 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.013 1.0 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 0.010 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.195 0.31 8 33.0 34.19 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.128 0.31 8 33.0 33.13 1Grand Teton NP 0.067 0.31 8 33.0 33.07 1Popo Agie WA 0.201 5.0 30 33.0 33.20 1

Teton WA 0.031 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

Washakie WA 0.055 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1Wind River RA 0.157 5.0 30 33.0 33.16 1

Yellowstone NP 0.031 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.2 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-62
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.038 0.21 4 16.0 16.04 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.010 1.0 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 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.937 0.31 8 33.0 33.94 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.097 0.31 8 33.0 33.10 1Grand Teton NP 0.048 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1Popo Agie WA 0.171 5.0 30 33.0 33.17 1

Teton WA 0.027 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

Washakie WA 0.040 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 1Wind River RA 0.137 5.0 30 33.0 33.14 1

Yellowstone NP 0.022 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.3 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-63
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.117 0.21 4 16.0 16.12 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.012 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.034 1.0 17 16.0 16.03 

Teton WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.023 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Yellowstone NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 3.165 0.31 8 33.0 36.17 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.396 0.31 8 33.0 33.40 1Grand Teton NP 0.182 0.31 8 33.0 33.18 1Popo Agie WA 0.414 5.0 30 33.0 33.41 1

Teton WA 0.081 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 1

Washakie WA 0.145 0.31 8 33.0 33.15 1Wind River RA 0.319 5.0 30 33.0 33.32 1

Yellowstone NP 0.081 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.4 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

G-C-64
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.082 0.21 4 16.0 16.08 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.023 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.016 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 2.199 0.31 8 33.0 35.20 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.264 0.31 8 33.0 33.26 1Grand Teton NP 0.125 0.31 8 33.0 33.12 1Popo Agie WA 0.296 5.0 30 33.0 33.30 1

Teton WA 0.055 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1

Washakie WA 0.100 0.31 8 33.0 33.10 1Wind River RA 0.215 5.0 30 33.0 33.21 1

Yellowstone NP 0.055 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.5 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

G-C-65
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.054 0.21 4 16.0 16.05 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.015 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.011 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.393 0.31 8 33.0 34.39 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.161 0.31 8 33.0 33.16 1Grand Teton NP 0.077 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 1Popo Agie WA 0.211 5.0 30 33.0 33.21 1

Teton WA 0.034 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

Washakie WA 0.061 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 1Wind River RA 0.156 5.0 30 33.0 33.16 1

Yellowstone NP 0.033 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.6 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

G-C-66
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.094 0.21 4 16.0 16.09 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.004 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.027 1.0 17 16.0 16.03 

Teton WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.018 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Yellowstone NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 2.532 0.31 8 33.0 35.53 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.317 0.31 8 33.0 33.32 1Grand Teton NP 0.146 0.31 8 33.0 33.15 1Popo Agie WA 0.331 5.0 30 33.0 33.33 1

Teton WA 0.065 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 1

Washakie WA 0.116 0.31 8 33.0 33.12 1Wind River RA 0.255 5.0 30 33.0 33.26 1

Yellowstone NP 0.065 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.7 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-67
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.070 0.21 4 16.0 16.07 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.003 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.020 1.0 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 0.014 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24 hr Bridger WA 1.899 0.31 8 33.0 34.90 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.238 0.31 8 33.0 33.24 1Grand Teton NP 0.109 0.31 8 33.0 33.11 1Popo Agie WA 0.248 5.0 30 33.0 33.25 1

Teton WA 0.049 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1

Washakie WA 0.087 0.31 8 33.0 33.09 1Wind River RA 0.191 5.0 30 33.0 33.19 1

Yellowstone NP 0.049 0.31 8 33.0 33.05 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.8 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-68
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.047 0.21 4 16.0 16.05 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Grand Teton NP 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Popo Agie WA 0.013 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Teton WA 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.002 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.009 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.001 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.266 0.31 8 33.0 34.27 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.158 0.31 8 33.0 33.16 1Grand Teton NP 0.073 0.31 8 33.0 33.07 1Popo Agie WA 0.165 5.0 30 33.0 33.17 1

Teton WA 0.032 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

Washakie WA 0.058 0.31 8 33.0 33.06 1Wind River RA 0.128 5.0 30 33.0 33.13 1

Yellowstone NP 0.032 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.9 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-69
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration W

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

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 1.0 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 1.0 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 1

Fitzpatrick WA 0.079 0.31 8 33.0 33.08 1Grand Teton NP 0.036 0.31 8 33.0 33.04 1Popo Agie WA 0.083 5.0 30 33.0 33.08 1

Teton WA 0.016 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 1

Washakie WA 0.029 0.31 8 33.0 33.03 1Wind River RA 0.064 5.0 30 33.0 33.06 1

Yellowstone NP 0.016 0.31 8 33.0 33.02 1

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-C.3.10 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-70
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.075 4 16.0 16.08 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.011 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.015 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.022 17 16.0 16.02 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.020 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24- hr Bridger WA 1.661 8 33.0 34.66 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.195 8 33.0 33.20 150 Grand Teton NP 0.136 8 33.0 33.14 150 Popo Agie WA 0.293 30 33.0 33.29 150 

Teton WA 0.077 8 33.0 33.08 150 Washakie WA 0.087 8 33.0 33.09 150 Wind River RA 0.287 30 33.0 33.29 150 Yellowstone NP 0.062 8 33.0 33.06 150 

Table G-C.3.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-71
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.064 4 16.0 16.06 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.014 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.019 17 16.0 16.02 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.017 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24 - hr Bridger WA 1.354 8 33.0 34.35 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.172 8 33.0 33.17 150 Grand Teton NP 0.133 8 33.0 33.13 150 Popo Agie WA 0.256 30 33.0 33.26 150 

Teton WA 0.067 8 33.0 33.07 150 Washakie WA 0.070 8 33.0 33.07 150 Wind River RA 0.264 30 33.0 33.26 150 Yellowstone NP 0.056 8 33.0 33.06 150 

Table G-C.3.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-72
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.055 4 16.0 16.06 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.014 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.017 17 16.0 16.02 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.016 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.096 8 33.0 34.10 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.161 8 33.0 33.16 150 Grand Teton NP 0.129 8 33.0 33.13 150 Popo Agie WA 0.226 30 33.0 33.23 150 

Teton WA 0.060 8 33.0 33.06 150 Washakie WA 0.059 8 33.0 33.06 150 Wind River RA 0.245 30 33.0 33.24 150 Yellowstone NP 0.052 8 33.0 33.05 150 

Table G-C.3.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-73
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.134 4 16.0 16.13 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.017 4 16.0 16.02 50 Grand Teton NP 0.018 4 16.0 16.02 50 Popo Agie WA 0.040 17 16.0 16.04 50 

Teton WA 0.008 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.007 4 16.0 16.01 50 Wind River RA 0.031 17 16.0 16.03 50 Yellowstone NP 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 3.319 8 33.0 36.32 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.406 8 33.0 33.41 150 Grand Teton NP 0.227 8 33.0 33.23 150 Popo Agie WA 0.462 30 33.0 33.46 150 

Teton WA 0.120 8 33.0 33.12 150 Washakie WA 0.160 8 33.0 33.16 150 Wind River RA 0.371 30 33.0 33.37 150 Yellowstone NP 0.098 8 33.0 33.10 150 

Table G-C.3.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-74
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.099 4 16.0 16.10 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.013 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.016 4 16.0 16.02 50 Popo Agie WA 0.029 17 16.0 16.03 50 

Teton WA 0.007 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Wind River RA 0.024 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.01 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 2.353 8 33.0 35.35 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.273 8 33.0 33.27 150 Grand Teton NP 0.170 8 33.0 33.17 150 Popo Agie WA 0.351 30 33.0 33.35 150 

Teton WA 0.093 8 33.0 33.09 150 Washakie WA 0.115 8 33.0 33.11 150 Wind River RA 0.316 30 33.0 33.32 150 Yellowstone NP 0.071 8 33.0 33.07 150 

Table G-C.3.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-75
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.071 4 16.0 16.07 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.015 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.021 17 16.0 16.02 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.019 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.547 8 33.0 34.55 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.179 8 33.0 33.18 150 Grand Teton NP 0.130 8 33.0 33.13 150 Popo Agie WA 0.266 30 33.0 33.27 150 

Teton WA 0.073 8 33.0 33.07 150 Washakie WA 0.077 8 33.0 33.08 150 Wind River RA 0.270 30 33.0 33.27 150 Yellowstone NP 0.058 8 33.0 33.06 150 

Table G-C.3.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-76
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.111 4 16.0 16.11 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.016 4 16.0 16.02 50 Popo Agie WA 0.033 17 16.0 16.03 50 

Teton WA 0.007 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Wind River RA 0.026 17 16.0 16.03 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.01 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 2.686 8 33.0 35.69 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.326 8 33.0 33.33 150 Grand Teton NP 0.190 8 33.0 33.19 150 Popo Agie WA 0.379 30 33.0 33.38 150 

Teton WA 0.104 8 33.0 33.10 150 Washakie WA 0.131 8 33.0 33.13 150 Wind River RA 0.335 30 33.0 33.34 150 Yellowstone NP 0.082 8 33.0 33.08 150 

Table G-C.3.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-77
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.087 4 16.0 16.09 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.012 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.015 4 16.0 16.02 50 Popo Agie WA 0.026 17 16.0 16.03 50 

Teton WA 0.007 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.005 4 16.0 16.01 50 Wind River RA 0.022 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 2.053 8 33.0 35.05 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.247 8 33.0 33.25 150 Grand Teton NP 0.154 8 33.0 33.15 150 Popo Agie WA 0.297 30 33.0 33.30 150 

Teton WA 0.088 8 33.0 33.09 150 Washakie WA 0.103 8 33.0 33.10 150 Wind River RA 0.300 30 33.0 33.30 150 Yellowstone NP 0.067 8 33.0 33.07 150 

Table G-C.3.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-78
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.064 4 16.0 16.06 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.014 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.020 17 16.0 16.02 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.017 17 16.0 16.02 50 Yellowstone NP 0.005 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 1.420 8 33.0 34.42 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.173 8 33.0 33.17 150 Grand Teton NP 0.129 8 33.0 33.13 150 Popo Agie WA 0.222 30 33.0 33.22 150 

Teton WA 0.072 8 33.0 33.07 150 Washakie WA 0.074 8 33.0 33.07 150 Wind River RA 0.265 30 33.0 33.26 150 Yellowstone NP 0.058 8 33.0 33.06 150 

Table G-C.3.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-79
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.041 4 16.0 16.04 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 4 16.0 16.01 50 Grand Teton NP 0.013 4 16.0 16.01 50 Popo Agie WA 0.013 17 16.0 16.01 50 

Teton WA 0.006 4 16.0 16.01 50 Washakie WA 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 Wind River RA 0.012 17 16.0 16.01 50 Yellowstone NP 0.004 4 16.0 16.00 50 

PM10 24-hr Bridger WA 0.787 8 33.0 33.79 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.151 8 33.0 33.15 150 Grand Teton NP 0.125 8 33.0 33.13 150 Popo Agie WA 0.180 30 33.0 33.18 150 

Teton WA 0.056 8 33.0 33.06 150 Washakie WA 0.054 8 33.0 33.05 150 Wind River RA 0.230 30 33.0 33.23 150 Yellowstone NP 0.050 8 33.0 33.05 150 

Table G-C.3.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-80
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.058 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 0.016 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 0.012 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.502 13.0 14.50 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.168 13.0 13.17 65 Grand Teton NP 0.088 13.0 13.09 65 Popo Agie WA 0.237 13.0 13.24 65 

Teton WA 0.040 13.0 13.04 65 Washakie WA 0.072 13.0 13.07 65 Wind River RA 0.182 13.0 13.18 65 Yellowstone NP 0.041 13.0 13.04 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-81
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 0.047 5.0 5.05 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.013 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 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.195 13.0 14.19 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.128 13.0 13.13 65 Grand Teton NP 0.067 13.0 13.07 65 Popo Agie WA 0.201 13.0 13.20 65 

Teton WA 0.031 13.0 13.03 65 Washakie WA 0.055 13.0 13.05 65 Wind River RA 0.157 13.0 13.16 65 Yellowstone NP 0.031 13.0 13.03 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.2 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-82
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio

n WAAQS1 NA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.038 5.0 5.04 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.010 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 0.937 13.0 13.94 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.097 13.0 13.10 65 Grand Teton NP 0.048 13.0 13.05 65 Popo Agie WA 0.171 13.0 13.17 65 

Teton WA 0.027 13.0 13.03 65 Washakie WA 0.040 13.0 13.04 65 Wind River RA 0.137 13.0 13.14 65 Yellowstone NP 0.022 13.0 13.02 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.3 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-83
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 0.117 5.0 5.12 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.012 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.034 5.0 5.03 15 

Teton WA 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.023 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 3.165 13.0 16.17 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.396 13.0 13.40 65 Grand Teton NP 0.182 13.0 13.18 65 Popo Agie WA 0.414 13.0 13.41 65 

Teton WA 0.081 13.0 13.08 65 Washakie WA 0.145 13.0 13.15 65 Wind River RA 0.319 13.0 13.32 65 Yellowstone NP 0.081 13.0 13.08 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.4 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

G-C-84
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.082 5.0 5.08 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.023 5.0 5.02 15 

Teton WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.016 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.199 13.0 15.20 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.264 13.0 13.26 65 Grand Teton NP 0.125 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.296 13.0 13.30 65 

Teton WA 0.055 13.0 13.05 65 Washakie WA 0.100 13.0 13.10 65 Wind River RA 0.215 13.0 13.21 65 Yellowstone NP 0.055 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.5 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

G-C-85
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio

n WAAQS1 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.054 5.0 5.05 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 

Teton WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.011 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.393 13.0 14.39 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.161 13.0 13.16 65 Grand Teton NP 0.077 13.0 13.08 65 Popo Agie WA 0.211 13.0 13.21 65 

Teton WA 0.034 13.0 13.03 65 Washakie WA 0.061 13.0 13.06 65 Wind River RA 0.156 13.0 13.16 65 Yellowstone NP 0.033 13.0 13.03 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.6 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

G-C-86
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.094 5.0 5.09 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.004 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.027 5.0 5.03 15 

Teton WA 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.018 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.532 13.0 15.53 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.317 13.0 13.32 65 Grand Teton NP 0.146 13.0 13.15 65 Popo Agie WA 0.331 13.0 13.33 65 

Teton WA 0.065 13.0 13.06 65 Washakie WA 0.116 13.0 13.12 65 Wind River RA 0.255 13.0 13.26 65 Yellowstone NP 0.065 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.7 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-87
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.070 5.0 5.07 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.003 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.020 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 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.899 13.0 14.90 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.238 13.0 13.24 65 Grand Teton NP 0.109 13.0 13.11 65 Popo Agie WA 0.248 13.0 13.25 65 

Teton WA 0.049 13.0 13.05 65 Washakie WA 0.087 13.0 13.09 65 Wind River RA 0.191 13.0 13.19 65 Yellowstone NP 0.049 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.8 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-88
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio

n WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.047 5.0 5.05 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Grand Teton NP 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Popo Agie WA 0.013 5.0 5.01 15 

Teton WA 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 Washakie WA 0.002 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.009 5.0 5.01 15 Yellowstone NP 0.001 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.266 13.0 14.27 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.158 13.0 13.16 65 Grand Teton NP 0.073 13.0 13.07 65 Popo Agie WA 0.165 13.0 13.17 65 

Teton WA 0.032 13.0 13.03 65 Washakie WA 0.058 13.0 13.06 65 Wind River RA 0.128 13.0 13.13 65 Yellowstone NP 0.032 13.0 13.03 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.9 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-89
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 

(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.

Table G-C.4.10 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-90
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.076 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 0.025 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 0.021 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.659 13.0 14.66 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.195 13.0 13.20 65 Grand Teton NP 0.134 13.0 13.13 65 Popo Agie WA 0.291 13.0 13.29 65 

Teton WA 0.073 13.0 13.07 65 Washakie WA 0.087 13.0 13.09 65 Wind River RA 0.278 13.0 13.28 65 Yellowstone NP 0.060 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-91
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.065 5.0 5.07 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.015 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.021 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 0.019 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.351 13.0 14.35 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.166 13.0 13.17 65 Grand Teton NP 0.125 13.0 13.13 65 Popo Agie WA 0.254 13.0 13.25 65 

Teton WA 0.063 13.0 13.06 65 Washakie WA 0.070 13.0 13.07 65 Wind River RA 0.255 13.0 13.26 65 Yellowstone NP 0.055 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-92
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.056 5.0 5.06 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.009 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.019 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 0.017 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.094 13.0 14.09 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.155 13.0 13.16 65 Grand Teton NP 0.122 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.224 13.0 13.22 65 

Teton WA 0.056 13.0 13.06 65 Washakie WA 0.059 13.0 13.06 65 Wind River RA 0.236 13.0 13.24 65 Yellowstone NP 0.051 13.0 13.05 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-93
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.135 5.0 5.14 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.017 5.0 5.02 15 Grand Teton NP 0.018 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.042 5.0 5.04 15 

Teton WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Wind River RA 0.032 5.0 5.03 15 Yellowstone NP 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 3.317 13.0 16.32 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.406 13.0 13.41 65 Grand Teton NP 0.229 13.0 13.23 65 Popo Agie WA 0.460 13.0 13.46 65 

Teton WA 0.117 13.0 13.12 65 Washakie WA 0.160 13.0 13.16 65 Wind River RA 0.361 13.0 13.36 65 Yellowstone NP 0.100 13.0 13.10 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-94
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.100 5.0 5.10 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.014 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.016 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.032 5.0 5.03 15 

Teton WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Wind River RA 0.025 5.0 5.03 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.351 13.0 15.35 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.273 13.0 13.27 65 Grand Teton NP 0.171 13.0 13.17 65 Popo Agie WA 0.349 13.0 13.35 65 

Teton WA 0.089 13.0 13.09 65 Washakie WA 0.115 13.0 13.11 65 Wind River RA 0.306 13.0 13.31 65 Yellowstone NP 0.074 13.0 13.07 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-95
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.072 5.0 5.07 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.011 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.024 5.0 5.02 15 

Teton WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.020 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.545 13.0 14.54 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.179 13.0 13.18 65 Grand Teton NP 0.123 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.264 13.0 13.26 65 

Teton WA 0.069 13.0 13.07 65 Washakie WA 0.077 13.0 13.08 65 Wind River RA 0.261 13.0 13.26 65 Yellowstone NP 0.057 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-96
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.112 5.0 5.11 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 Grand Teton NP 0.017 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.036 5.0 5.04 15 

Teton WA 0.008 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Wind River RA 0.027 5.0 5.03 15 Yellowstone NP 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.684 13.0 15.68 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.326 13.0 13.33 65 Grand Teton NP 0.192 13.0 13.19 65 Popo Agie WA 0.377 13.0 13.38 65 

Teton WA 0.100 13.0 13.10 65 Washakie WA 0.131 13.0 13.13 65 Wind River RA 0.326 13.0 13.33 65 Yellowstone NP 0.084 13.0 13.08 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-97
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.088 5.0 5.09 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.013 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.016 5.0 5.02 15 Popo Agie WA 0.029 5.0 5.03 15 

Teton WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.006 5.0 5.01 15 Wind River RA 0.023 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.01 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.051 13.0 15.05 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.247 13.0 13.25 65 Grand Teton NP 0.156 13.0 13.16 65 Popo Agie WA 0.295 13.0 13.29 65 

Teton WA 0.084 13.0 13.08 65 Washakie WA 0.103 13.0 13.10 65 Wind River RA 0.291 13.0 13.29 65 Yellowstone NP 0.068 13.0 13.07 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-98
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area Modeled Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.065 5.0 5.06 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.015 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.022 5.0 5.02 15 

Teton WA 0.007 5.0 5.01 15 Washakie WA 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.018 5.0 5.02 15 Yellowstone NP 0.005 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 1.418 13.0 14.42 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.169 13.0 13.17 65 Grand Teton NP 0.121 13.0 13.12 65 Popo Agie WA 0.216 13.0 13.22 65 

Teton WA 0.068 13.0 13.07 65 Washakie WA 0.074 13.0 13.07 65 Wind River RA 0.256 13.0 13.26 65 Yellowstone NP 0.057 13.0 13.06 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.4.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-99
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 

(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.

Table G-C.4.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cl

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-100
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 13.0 3.4 16.4 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 20.3 132 152.3 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.1 43 47.1 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 113.0 33 146.0 150 150 

Annual 15.8 16 31.8 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.3 13 34.3 651 65

Annual 2.9 5 7.9 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-101
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

NO2 Annual 11.5 3.4 14.9 100 1

SO2 3 Hour 15.4 132 147.4 1,300 1,3

24-Hour 3.8 43 46.8 260 3

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 

PM10 24-Hour 103.8 33 136.8 150 1

Annual 14.6 16 30.6 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 19.2 13 32.2 651 65

Annual 2.6 5 7.6 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-102
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 9.6 3.4 13.0 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 15.4 132 147.4 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 3.8 43 46.8 260 36

Annual 0.3 9 9.3 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 97.0 33 130.0 150 15

Annual 13.6 16 29.6 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 17.7 13 30.7 651 65

Annual 2.4 5 7.4 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.3 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Low Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-103
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 34.2 3.4 37.6 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 99.9 132 231.9 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 20.3 43 63.3 260 36

Annual 2.0 9 11.0 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 116.0 33 149.0 150 15

Annual 17.5 16 33.5 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 25.2 13 38.2 651 65

Annual 4.7 5 9.7 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.4 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative High Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-104
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 30.7 3.4 34.1 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 75.8 132 207.8 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 18.5 43 61.5 260 36

Annual 1.8 9 10.8 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 104.9 33 137.9 150 15

Annual 16.1 16 32.1 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 22.0 13 35.0 651 65

Annual 4.2 5 9.2 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.5 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative High Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-105
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 24.8 3.4 28.2 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 75.8 132 207.8 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 18.5 43 61.5 260 36

Annual 1.4 9 10.4 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 97.1 33 130.1 150 15

Annual 14.9 16 30.9 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.9 13 34.9 651 65

Annual 3.8 5 8.8 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.6 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative High Emissions W

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-106
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 27.3 3.4 30.7 100 

SO2 3 Hour 79.9 132 211.9 1,300 

24-Hour 16.2 43 59.2 260 

Annual 1.6 9 10.6 60 

PM10 24-Hour 92.9 33 125.9 150 

Annual 14.0 16 30.0 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 20.1 13 33.1 651 

Annual 3.7 5 8.7 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.7 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions R

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-107
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 20.5 3.4 23.9 100 

SO2 3 Hour 59.9 132 191.9 1,300 

24-Hour 12.2 43 55.2 260 

Annual 1.2 9 10.2 60 

PM10 24-Hour 69.7 33 102.7 150 

Annual 10.5 16 26.5 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 15.1 13 28.1 651 

Annual 2.8 5 7.8 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.8 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions R

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-108
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 13.7 3.4 17.1 100 

SO2 3 Hour 39.9 132 171.9 1,300 

24-Hour 8.1 43 51.1 260 

Annual 0.8 9 9.8 60 

PM10 24-Hour 46.5 33 79.5 150 

Annual 7.0 16 23.0 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 10.1 13 23.1 651 

Annual 1.9 5 6.9 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.9 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions R

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-109
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 6.8 3.4 10.2 100 

SO2 3 Hour 20.0 132 152.0 1,300 

24-Hour 4.1 43 47.1 260 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 

PM10 24-Hour 23.2 33 56.2 150 

Annual 3.5 16 19.5 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 5.0 13 18.0 651 

Annual 0.9 5 5.9 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.10 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions R

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-110
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 13.3 3.4 16.7 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 20.2 132 152.2 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 4.0 43 47.0 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 113.1 33 146.1 150 150 

Annual 15.8 16 31.8 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.4 13 34.4 651 65

Annual 2.9 5 7.9 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.11 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-111
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 11.7 3.4 15.1 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 15.4 132 147.4 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 3.6 43 46.6 260 365 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 103.9 33 136.9 150 150 

Annual 14.6 16 30.6 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 19.3 13 32.3 651 65

Annual 2.6 5 7.6 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.12 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-112
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 9.9 3.4 13.3 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 15.4 132 147.4 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 3.6 43 46.6 260 365 

Annual 0.3 9 9.3 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 97.1 33 130.1 150 150 

Annual 13.6 16 29.6 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 17.8 13 30.8 651 65

Annual 2.4 5 7.4 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.13 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-113
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 34.4 3.4 37.8 100 100 

SO2 3 Hour 99.8 132 231.8 1,300 1,300 

24-Hour 20.2 43 63.2 260 365 

Annual 1.9 9 10.9 60 80 

PM10 24-Hour 116.3 33 149.3 150 150 

Annual 17.5 16 33.5 50 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 25.1 13 38.1 651 65

Annual 4.7 5 9.7 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.14 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-114
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 31.0 3.4 34.4 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 75.8 132 207.8 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 18.4 43 61.4 260 36

Annual 1.8 9 10.8 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 105.0 33 138.0 150 15

Annual 16.1 16 32.1 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 22.0 13 35.0 651 65

Annual 4.2 5 9.2 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.15 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-115
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct 

Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS NAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m

NO2 Annual 25.1 3.4 28.5 100 10

SO2 3 Hour 75.8 132 207.8 1,300 1,30

24-Hour 18.4 43 61.4 260 36

Annual 1.4 9 10.4 60 8

PM10 24-Hour 97.3 33 130.3 150 15

Annual 14.9 16 30.9 50 5

PM2.5 24-Hour 21.9 13 34.9 651 65

Annual 3.8 5 8.8 151 15

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.16 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

G-C-116
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 27.6 3.4 31.0 100 

SO2 3 Hour 79.8 132 211.8 1,300 

24-Hour 16.1 43 59.1 260 

Annual 1.6 9 10.6 60 

PM10 24-Hour 93.0 33 126.0 150 

Annual 14.0 16 30.0 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 20.1 13 33.1 651 

Annual 3.8 5 8.8 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.17 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality S

G-C-117
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 20.8 3.4 24.2 100 

SO2 3 Hour 59.8 132 191.8 1,300 

24-Hour 12.1 43 55.1 260 

Annual 1.2 9 10.2 60 

PM10 24-Hour 69.8 33 102.8 150 

Annual 10.5 16 26.5 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 15.0 13 28.0 651 

Annual 2.8 5 7.8 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.18 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality S

G-C-118
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 13.9 3.4 17.3 100 

SO2 3 Hour 39.8 132 171.8 1,300 

24-Hour 8.0 43 51.0 260 

Annual 0.8 9 9.8 60 

PM10 24-Hour 46.6 33 79.6 150 

Annual 7.0 16 23.0 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 10.0 13 23.0 651 

Annual 1.9 5 6.9 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.19 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality S

G-C-119
Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration Total Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual 7.1 3.4 10.5 100 

SO2 3 Hour 19.9 132 151.9 1,300 

24-Hour 4.0 43 47.0 260 

Annual 0.4 9 9.4 60 

PM10 24-Hour 23.3 33 56.3 150 

Annual 3.5 16 19.5 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 5.0 13 18.0 651 

Annual 1.0 5 6.0 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-C.5.20 Maximum Predicted Cumulative Impacts Within the JIDPA from Preferred Alternativ

Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources - Compared to Ambient Air Quality S

G-C-120
Table G-C.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sour

Low Emissions Low Emissions Low Emissions High Emissions High Emissions High Emissions 20% Emissions Reduction 40% Emissions Reduction 60% Emissions Reduction 80% 

Receptor Area WDR250 WDR150 WDR075 WDR250 WDR150 WDR075 WDR250 WDR250 WDR250 

Bridger WA 0.0334 0.023 0.016 0.077 0.051 0.031 0.062 0.046 0.031 Fitzpatrick WA 0.00256 0.0018 0.0012 0.0055 0.0036 0.0020 0.0044 0.0033 0.0022 Grand Teton NP 0.00112 0.0008 0.00051 0.00239 0.0015 0.00088 0.00191 0.0014 0.00096 Popo Agie WA 0.0159 0.011 0.007 0.0354 0.023 0.014 0.0283 0.021 0.014 Teton WA 0.00053 0.00037 0.00024 0.00113 0.00073 0.00041 0.00090 0.00068 0.00045 Washakie WA 0.00069 0.00048 0.00031 0.00142 0.00092 0.00052 0.00114 0.00085 0.00057 Wind River RA 0.00945 0.0067 0.0043 0.0214 0.014 0.0077 0.0172 0.0129 0.0086 Yellowstone NP 0.000390 0.00027 0.00018 0.00084 0.00054 0.00031 0.00067 0.00050 0.00034 1 National Park Service (2001).

Modeling Scenario

G-C-121
Receptor Area 

Bridger WA 0.055 1.555 0.047 1.547 0.040 1.540 0.093 1.593 0.070 Fitzpatrick WA 0.0078 1.508 0.0070 1.507 0.0064 1.506 0.011 1.511 0.0088 Grand Teton NP 0.0103 1.510 0.010 1.510 0.010 1.510 0.012 1.512 0.011 Popo Agie WA 0.028 1.528 0.023 1.523 0.020 1.520 0.048 1.548 0.035 Teton WA 0.0036 1.504 0.0035 1.503 0.0033 1.503 0.0042 1.504 0.0038 Washakie WA 0.0040 1.504 0.0039 1.504 0.0037 1.504 0.0046 1.505 0.0042 Wind River RA 0.020 1.520 0.017 1.517 0.015 1.515 0.032 1.532 0.025 Yellowstone NP 0.0026 1.503 0.0025 1.503 0.0024 1.502 0.0030 1.503 0.0028 

Receptor Area 

Bridger WA 0.050 1.550 0.080 1.580 0.067 1.567 0.054 1.554 0.042 Fitzpatrick WA 0.0072 1.507 0.0096 1.510 0.0085 1.509 0.0074 1.507 0.0063 Grand Teton NP 0.010 1.510 0.011 1.511 0.011 1.511 0.010 1.510 0.010 Popo Agie WA 0.026 1.526 0.041 1.541 0.033 1.533 0.026 1.526 0.019 Teton WA 0.0035 1.503 0.0040 1.504 0.0038 1.504 0.0035 1.504 0.0033 Washakie WA 0.0039 1.504 0.0044 1.504 0.0041 1.504 0.0039 1.504 0.0037 Wind River RA 0.018 1.518 0.028 1.528 0.024 1.524 0.019 1.519 0.015 Yellowstone NP 0.0025 1.503 0.0029 1.503 0.0027 1.503 0.0026 1.503 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.

Table G-C.6.2 Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and R

Low Emissions WDR250 Low Emissions WDR150 Low Emissions WDR075 High Emissions WDR250 High Emis

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact

80% Emissions 

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2

60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Modeled Impact

High Emissions WDR075

Total Impact2 Modeled Impact

20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Total Impact Modeled Impact 2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2

Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact

G-C-122
Low Emissions Low Emissions Low Emissions High Emissions High Emissions High Emissions 20% Emissions Reduction 40% Emissions Reduction 60% Emissions Reduction 80% 

WDR250 WDR150 WDR075 WDR250 WDR150 WDR075 WDR250 WDR250 WDR250 

Bridger WA 0.0016 0.0010 0.00057 0.0077 0.0048 0.0027 0.00616 0.0046 0.0031 Fitzpatrick WA 0.00016 0.00010 0.000050 0.00079 0.00048 0.00023 0.00063 0.00047 0.00032 Grand Teton NP 0.000073 0.000044 0.000022 0.00035 0.00021 0.00010 0.00028 0.00021 0.00014 Popo Agie WA 0.00081 0.00050 0.00027 0.00390 0.0024 0.0012 0.00312 0.0023 0.0016 Teton WA 0.000041 0.000025 0.000012 0.00020 0.00012 0.000057 0.00016 0.00012 0.000078 Washakie WA 0.000047 0.000029 0.000014 0.00023 0.00014 0.000065 0.00018 0.00014 0.000091 Wind River RA 0.00047 0.00029 0.00014 0.0023 0.0014 0.00065 0.0018 0.0014 0.00091 

Yellowstone NP 0.000027 0.000016 0.000008 0.00013 0.000078 0.000038 0.00010 0.000077 0.000051 

1 National Park Service (2001).

Receptor Area

Table G-C.6.3 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative Sourc

Modeling Scenario

G-C-123
Table G-C.6.4 Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Preferred Alternative and Re

Bridger WA -0.00085 0.74915 -0.00087 0.74913 -0.00089 0.74911 0.0041 0.75408 0.0011 Fitzpatrick WA -0.00075 0.74925 -0.00078 0.74922 -0.00079 0.74921 -0.00051 0.74949 -0.00063 Grand Teton NP 0.0034 0.75345 0.0034 0.75342 0.0034 0.75340 0.0037 0.75372 0.0036 Popo Agie WA -0.0021 0.74793 -0.0023 0.74770 -0.0025 0.74753 0.00027 0.75027 -0.00089 Teton WA 0.00085 0.75085 0.00084 0.75084 0.00082 0.75082 0.00101 0.75101 0.00093 Washakie WA -0.00013 0.74987 -0.00013 0.74987 -0.00014 0.74986 -0.00008 0.74992 -0.00011 Wind River RA -0.0011 0.74892 -0.0011 0.74889 -0.0011 0.74887 -0.0004 0.74961 -0.0010 Yellowstone NP 0.0010 0.75102 0.0010 0.75101 0.0010 0.75100 0.0011 0.75110 0.0011 Bridger WA -0.00083 0.74917 0.00254 0.75254 0.0010 0.75100 -0.00054 0.74946 -0.00085 Fitzpatrick WA -0.00072 0.74928 -0.00057 0.74943 -0.00063 0.74937 -0.00069 0.74931 -0.00075 Grand Teton NP 0.0035 0.75348 0.0037 0.75365 0.0036 0.75358 0.0035 0.75351 0.0034 Popo Agie WA -0.0018 0.74823 -0.00034 0.74966 -0.00093 0.74907 -0.0015 0.74849 -0.0021 Teton WA 0.00087 0.75087 0.00097 0.75097 0.00093 0.75093 0.00089 0.75089 0.00085 Washakie WA -0.00012 0.74988 -0.00009 0.74991 -0.00011 0.74989 -0.00012 0.74988 -0.00013 Wind River RA -0.0011 0.74894 -0.0008 0.74916 -0.0010 0.74904 -0.0010 0.74898 -0.0011 Yellowstone NP 0.0010 0.75103 0.0011 0.75108 0.0011 0.75106 0.0010 0.75104 0.0010 

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 SO 2 emissions.

Receptor Area

Low Emissions WDR250 Low Emissions WDR150

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2

Low Emissions WDR075 High Emissions WDR250 High Emiss

High Emissions WDR075

Modeled Impact 

Modeled Impact Total Impact2

Total Impact2 Modeled Impact Total Impact2

Modeled Impact Total Impact2

20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Receptor Area Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact

60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 80% Emissions 

Modeled Impact Total Impact2 Modeled Impact

G-C-124
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.10 0.149%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.11 0.183%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.02 0.029%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.01 0.037%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.12 0.223%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.01 0.013%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.14 2.705%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

Table G-C.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-125
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.07 0.105%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.08 0.129%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.01 0.020%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.00 0.026%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.09 0.157%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.00 0.009%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.10 1.903%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

Table G-C.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-126
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.047 0.071%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.051 0.085%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.009 0.013%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.003 0.017%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.058 0.104%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.003 0.006%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.062 1.235%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

Table G-C.7.3 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-127
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.234 0.350%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.257 0.429%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.048 0.068%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.015 0.082%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.283 0.509%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.015 0.029%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.322 6.432%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

Table G-C.7.4 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-128
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.151 0.226%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.167 0.278%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.030 0.043%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.010 0.054%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.183 0.329%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.010 0.019%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.210 4.191%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

Table G-C.7.5 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-129
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.087 0.130%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.093 0.156%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.016 0.023%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.006 0.030%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.109 0.197%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.006 0.011%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.117 2.334%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

Table G-C.7.6 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-130
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.187 0.280%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.206 0.343%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.038 0.055%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.012 0.066%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.226 0.407%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.012 0.023%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.257 5.146%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Table G-C.7.7 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-131
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.141 0.210%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.154 0.257%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.029 0.041%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.009 0.049%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.170 0.305%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.009 0.017%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.193 3.859%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Table G-C.7.8 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-132
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.094 0.140%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.103 0.172%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.019 0.027%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.006 0.033%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.113 0.204%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.006 0.012%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.129 2.573%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Table G-C.7.9 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-133
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.7 0.047 0.070%Deep Bridger 59.9 6.0 0.051 0.086%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 7.0 0.010 0.014%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.0 0.003 0.016%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.6 0.057 0.102%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.4 0.003 0.006%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.0 0.064 1.286%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

Table G-C.7.10 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-134
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.180 0.27%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.190 0.32%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.061 0.09%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.031 0.17%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.215 0.39%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.032 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.220 4.40%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.11 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-135
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.152 0.23%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.160 0.27%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.055 0.08%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.029 0.16%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.179 0.32%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.030 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.182 3.64%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.12 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-136
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.130 0.19%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.135 0.23%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.050 0.07%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.028 0.15%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.152 0.27%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.029 0.05%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.150 3.00%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.13 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-137
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.299 0.45%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.321 0.54%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.084 0.12%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.038 0.20%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.354 0.64%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.039 0.07%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.387 7.74%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.14 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-138
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.224 0.33%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.239 0.40%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.068 0.10%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.034 0.18%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.264 0.48%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.034 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.283 5.66%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.15 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-139
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.166 0.25%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.172 0.29%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.056 0.08%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.030 0.16%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.197 0.36%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.031 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.199 3.98%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.16 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-140
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.256 0.38%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.274 0.46%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.075 0.11%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.036 0.19%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.303 0.55%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.036 0.07%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.326 6.51%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.17 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-141
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.213 0.32%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.227 0.38%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.067 0.10%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.033 0.17%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.251 0.45%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.034 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.267 5.33%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.18 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-142
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.170 0.25%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.180 0.30%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.058 0.08%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.030 0.16%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.199 0.36%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.031 0.06%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.208 4.16%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.19 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-143
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.127 0.19%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.133 0.22%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.050 0.07%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.027 0.15%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.147 0.27%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.028 0.05%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.149 2.98%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

Table G-C.7.20 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-C-144
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.96 22 9 3.26 26 Fitzpatrick WA 0.53 2 0 0.61 3 Grand Teton NP 0.31 0 0 0.31 0 Popo Agie WA 0.51 2 0 0.59 2 Teton WA 0.13 0 0 0.14 0 Washakie WA 0.23 0 0 0.23 0 Wind River RA 0.43 0 0 0.49 0 Yellowstone NP 0.15 0 0 0.15 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-145
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.23 13 5 2.46 18 Fitzpatrick WA 0.37 0 0 0.43 0 Grand Teton NP 0.22 0 0 0.23 0 Popo Agie WA 0.37 0 0 0.43 0 Teton WA 0.10 0 0 0.10 0 Washakie WA 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 Wind River RA 0.31 0 0 0.35 0 Yellowstone NP 0.11 0 0 0.11 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-146
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 1.59 9 2 1.77 10 Fitzpatrick WA 0.25 0 0 0.29 0 Grand Teton NP 0.15 0 0 0.15 0 Popo Agie WA 0.28 0 0 0.31 0 Teton WA 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 Washakie WA 0.11 0 0 0.11 0 Wind River RA 0.22 0 0 0.25 0 Yellowstone NP 0.07 0 0 0.07 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-147
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 5.92 67 23 6.44 70 Fitzpatrick WA 1.34 6 2 1.54 9 Grand Teton NP 0.65 1 0 0.66 1 Popo Agie WA 1.21 17 2 1.36 19 Teton WA 0.27 0 0 0.28 0 Washakie WA 0.47 0 0 0.48 0 Wind River RA 1.06 10 1 1.22 15 Yellowstone NP 0.30 0 0 0.31 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

G-C-148
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 4.23 38 15 4.64 46 Fitzpatrick WA 0.88 3 0 1.01 4 Grand Teton NP 0.44 0 0 0.45 0 Popo Agie WA 0.79 3 0 0.90 5 Teton WA 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 Washakie WA 0.31 0 0 0.32 0 Wind River RA 0.69 2 0 0.80 3 Yellowstone NP 0.20 0 0 0.20 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.5 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

G-C-149
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.61 17 8 2.97 21 Fitzpatrick WA 0.49 0 0 0.58 1 Grand Teton NP 0.26 0 0 0.26 0 Popo Agie WA 0.47 0 0 0.55 2 Teton WA 0.10 0 0 0.10 0 Washakie WA 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 Wind River RA 0.41 0 0 0.47 0 Yellowstone NP 0.12 0 0 0.12 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.6 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

G-C-150
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 4.98 52 19 5.45 52 Fitzpatrick WA 1.08 4 1 1.25 4 Grand Teton NP 0.53 1 0 0.53 1 Popo Agie WA 0.98 11 0 1.11 12 Teton WA 0.22 0 0 0.22 0 Washakie WA 0.38 0 0 0.38 0 Wind River RA 0.85 6 0 0.98 8 Yellowstone NP 0.24 0 0 0.25 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.7 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-151
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 3.95 37 14 4.34 39 Fitzpatrick WA 0.82 3 0 0.95 3 Grand Teton NP 0.40 0 0 0.40 0 Popo Agie WA 0.74 2 0 0.84 4 Teton WA 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 Washakie WA 0.28 0 0 0.29 0 Wind River RA 0.65 1 0 0.75 1 Yellowstone NP 0.18 0 0 0.19 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.8 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-152
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.80 20 9 3.09 20 Fitzpatrick WA 0.56 1 0 0.64 2 Grand Teton NP 0.27 0 0 0.27 0 Popo Agie WA 0.50 1 0 0.57 2 Teton WA 0.11 0 0 0.11 0 Washakie WA 0.19 0 0 0.19 0 Wind River RA 0.44 0 0 0.50 1 Yellowstone NP 0.12 0 0 0.12 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.9 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-153
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(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.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.10 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-154
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 3.43 37 11 3.78 44 Fitzpatrick WA 0.74 5 0 0.85 7 Grand Teton NP 0.48 0 0 0.49 0 Popo Agie WA 0.83 8 0 0.97 13 Teton WA 0.23 0 0 0.23 0 Washakie WA 0.33 0 0 0.33 0 Wind River RA 1.07 6 1 1.19 11 Yellowstone NP 0.24 0 0 0.25 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-155
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.74 27 8 3.03 34 Fitzpatrick WA 0.60 3 0 0.69 4 Grand Teton NP 0.40 0 0 0.40 0 Popo Agie WA 0.73 6 0 0.85 8 Teton WA 0.20 0 0 0.20 0 Washakie WA 0.28 0 0 0.28 0 Wind River RA 0.97 5 0 1.08 7 Yellowstone NP 0.20 0 0 0.20 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-156
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.30 20 4 2.63 24 Fitzpatrick WA 0.52 1 0 0.60 2 Grand Teton NP 0.36 0 0 0.36 0 Popo Agie WA 0.66 3 0 0.76 6 Teton WA 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 Washakie WA 0.24 0 0 0.24 0 Wind River RA 0.89 4 0 0.99 6 Yellowstone NP 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-157
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 6.28 80 32 6.82 90 Fitzpatrick WA 1.37 10 3 1.58 13 Grand Teton NP 0.82 3 0 0.83 3 Popo Agie WA 1.45 28 4 1.67 31 Teton WA 0.34 0 0 0.34 0 Washakie WA 0.57 1 0 0.58 1 Wind River RA 1.39 22 3 1.54 22 Yellowstone NP 0.39 0 0 0.40 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-158
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 4.66 62 18 5.09 63 Fitzpatrick WA 0.93 7 0 1.07 9 Grand Teton NP 0.61 1 0 0.62 1 Popo Agie WA 1.06 17 1 1.22 21 Teton WA 0.27 0 0 0.27 0 Washakie WA 0.41 0 0 0.42 0 Wind River RA 1.15 15 2 1.28 17 Yellowstone NP 0.29 0 0 0.30 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-159
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 3.11 32 11 3.42 40 Fitzpatrick WA 0.66 4 0 0.76 6 Grand Teton NP 0.43 0 0 0.44 0 Popo Agie WA 0.78 7 0 0.90 11 Teton WA 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 Washakie WA 0.29 0 0 0.30 0 Wind River RA 0.95 5 0 1.06 10 Yellowstone NP 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-160
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 5.38 71 25 5.87 73 Fitzpatrick WA 1.12 9 2 1.29 12 Grand Teton NP 0.70 1 0 0.70 2 Popo Agie WA 1.23 22 3 1.42 26 Teton WA 0.30 0 0 0.30 0 Washakie WA 0.48 0 0 0.48 0 Wind River RA 1.26 18 2 1.40 20 Yellowstone NP 0.33 0 0 0.34 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Source

G-C-161
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 4.39 52 16 4.80 58 Fitzpatrick WA 0.86 7 0 0.99 9 Grand Teton NP 0.57 1 0 0.58 1 Popo Agie WA 1.01 15 1 1.16 21 Teton WA 0.26 0 0 0.26 0 Washakie WA 0.38 0 0 0.39 0 Wind River RA 1.13 11 1 1.26 15 Yellowstone NP 0.27 0 0 0.28 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Source

G-C-162
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 3.29 34 11 3.62 41 Fitzpatrick WA 0.66 4 0 0.76 6 Grand Teton NP 0.44 0 0 0.45 0 Popo Agie WA 0.79 7 0 0.92 11 Teton WA 0.21 0 0 0.22 0 Washakie WA 0.30 0 0 0.30 0 Wind River RA 0.99 4 0 1.11 10 Yellowstone NP 0.21 0 0 0.22 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Source

G-C-163
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(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.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-C.8.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Source

G-C-164
Table G-C.8.21 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1 - - - 0.65 - - 0.52 - - - 0.80 0.78 0.77 1.10 0.90 0.77 0.98 0.86 0.78 0.77

2 1 2- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.72 0.58 - 0.63 0.54 - -

3 1 3 - - - 0.97 0.72 - 0.78 0.59 - - 0.53 - - 1.06 0.82 0.56 0.88 0.69 - -

5 1 5 2.77 2.06 1.46 5.70 4.08 2.61 4.79 3.79 2.68 1.43 3.05 2.62 2.30 5.91 4.33 2.89 5.02 4.05 2.96 2.29

6 1 6 1.56 1.18 0.85 3.28 2.28 1.36 2.71 2.10 1.45 0.75 2.06 1.70 1.39 3.71 2.75 1.87 3.16 2.58 1.96 1.30

16 1 16 - - - 0.77 - - 0.62 - - - 0.52 - - 0.94 0.68 - 0.80 0.65 0.50 -

17 1 17 - - - 0.86 0.54 - 0.70 0.53 ----- 0.99 0.67 - 0.82 0.65 - -

19 1 19 0.50 - - 1.21 0.83 - 0.98 0.74 0.50 - 0.61 - - 1.32 0.93 0.61 1.09 0.85 0.62 -

20 1 20 0.66 - - 1.62 1.10 0.69 1.32 1.00 0.68 - 0.85 0.67 0.54 1.79 1.28 0.87 1.49 1.19 0.87 0.54

21 1 21 - - - 0.64 - - 0.52 - ----- 0.72 0.55 - 0.59 - - -

22 1 22 1.27 0.89 0.64 2.93 1.92 1.25 2.40 1.86 1.27 0.66 1.56 1.19 0.95 3.17 2.19 1.54 2.66 2.13 1.56 0.97

23 1 23 0.63 - - 1.34 0.85 0.57 1.09 0.83 0.56 - 1.58 1.41 1.26 2.23 1.75 1.35 2.00 1.76 1.52 1.27

25 1 25 0.51 - - 1.03 0.67 - 0.83 0.63 - - 0.60 - - 1.11 0.76 - 0.91 0.72 0.51 -

26 1 26 - - - 0.91 0.60 - 0.73 0.56 - - 0.60 0.50 - 0.99 0.74 0.54 0.84 0.69 0.54 -

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - 0.91 0.85 0.84 1.07 0.88 0.86 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.85

29 1 29 1.68 1.22 0.79 4.00 2.80 1.63 3.32 2.58 1.79 0.94 1.75 1.28 0.86 4.05 2.86 1.70 3.37 2.64 1.86 1.01

38 2 7 - - - 0.95 0.66 - 0.76 0.58 ----- 0.99 0.70 - 0.80 0.62 - -

39 2 8 0.61 - - 1.39 0.93 - 1.13 0.86 0.58 - 0.64 - - 1.42 0.97 - 1.16 0.89 0.61 -

40 2 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

42 2 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.64 0.50 - 0.56 - - -

43 2 12 0.77 0.57 - 1.84 1.26 0.74 1.49 1.14 0.78 - 0.94 0.74 0.57 1.99 1.42 0.91 1.65 1.30 0.94 0.57

44 2 13 - - - 0.62 - - - - - - 0.56 - - 0.87 0.67 0.52 0.75 0.63 0.51 -

52 2 21 - - - 0.56 - - - - - - 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62

53 2 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

55 2 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.56 ------

56 2 25 - - - 0.52 - - - - ----- 0.61 - - 0.51 - - -

57 2 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.56 ------

60 3 1 - - - 0.89 0.57 - 0.72 0.54 - - 0.83 0.71 0.60 1.30 0.99 0.72 1.13 0.96 0.80 0.62

61 3 2 - - - 0.86 0.56 - 0.70 0.53 - - 0.57 - - 1.02 0.73 0.53 0.86 0.69 0.55 -

62 3 3 - - - 0.87 0.60 - 0.70 0.53 - - 0.69 0.58 - 1.08 0.82 0.59 0.91 0.75 0.58 -

73 3 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

75 3 16 - - - 0.64 - - 0.52 - ----- 0.71 0.52 - 0.58 - - -

76 3 17 - - - 0.57 - - - - ----- 0.62 - - 0.50 - - -

83 3 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.56 ------

84 3 25 - - - 0.85 0.60 - 0.69 0.52 ----- 0.91 0.65 - 0.74 0.58 - -

85 3 26 - - - 0.94 0.64 - 0.76 0.57 - - 0.65 0.53 - 1.14 0.84 0.59 0.96 0.78 0.59 -

86 3 27 - - - 0.54 - - - - ----- 0.72 0.55 - 0.61 0.51 - -

89 3 30 - - - 0.94 0.65 - 0.76 0.58 - - 0.53 - - 1.05 0.75 - 0.87 0.68 - -

91 4 1 - - - 0.75 0.52 - 0.61 - ----- 0.83 0.60 - 0.68 0.54 - -

102 4 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 ------

107 4 17 1.14 0.83 0.58 2.65 1.79 1.06 2.17 1.67 1.14 0.59 1.18 0.87 0.62 2.68 1.82 1.10 2.20 1.71 1.18 0.63

108 4 18 1.61 1.17 0.80 3.70 2.58 1.53 3.06 2.38 1.65 0.86 1.65 1.21 0.84 3.73 2.61 1.57 3.10 2.42 1.69 0.90

115 4 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.65 0.51 - 0.57 - - -

118 4 28 - - - 0.62 - - - - ----- 0.74 0.51 - 0.62 0.50 - -

131 5 11 - - - 0.98 0.74 - 0.79 0.60 - - 0.68 0.59 - 1.22 0.99 0.57 1.04 0.85 0.66 -

197 7 16 - - - 0.57 - - - - ----- 0.61 ------

200 7 19 - - - 0.73 0.51 - 0.59 - ----- 0.74 0.52 - 0.59 - - -

204 7 23 - - - 0.55 - - - - ----- 0.62 - - 0.51 - - -

253 9 10 - - - 0.58 - - - - ----- 0.63 - - 0.52 - - -

261 9 18 - - - 0.58 - - - - ----- 0.63 - - 0.52 - - -

262 9 19 - - - 0.74 - - 0.60 - ----- 0.88 0.63 - 0.74 0.60 - -

264 9 21 0.57 - - 1.32 0.94 0.57 1.07 0.81 0.55 - 0.65 0.52 - 1.40 1.02 0.65 1.15 0.90 0.64 -

265 9 22 - - - 0.62 - - 0.50 - ----- 0.82 0.59 - 0.70 0.58 - -

267 9 24 - - - 0.67 - - 0.54 - ----- 0.73 0.53 - 0.60 - - -

268 9 25 - - - 0.65 - - 0.53 - ----- 0.67 - - 0.55 - - -

273 9 30 0.94 0.67 - 2.25 1.52 0.91 1.83 1.41 0.96 - 1.25 0.99 0.78 2.52 1.81 1.22 2.12 1.70 1.27 0.82

274 10 1 - - - 0.54 - - - - ----- 0.61 - - 0.50 - - -

278 10 5 - - - 0.68 - - 0.55 - ----- 0.74 0.55 - 0.61 - - -

279 10 6 - - - 0.71 - - 0.57 - ----- 0.85 0.62 - 0.71 0.58 - -

280 10 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.63 0.50 - 0.54 - - -

281 10 8 0.64 0.52 - 1.37 1.02 0.67 1.11 0.85 0.57 - 0.69 0.57 - 1.41 1.06 0.72 1.16 0.89 0.62 -

308 11 4 - - - 1.18 0.80 0.50 0.96 0.73 - - 0.62 - - 1.34 0.97 0.69 1.12 0.89 0.66 -

319 11 15 - - - 0.84 0.61 - 0.68 0.51 ----- 0.89 0.66 - 0.73 0.57 - -

321 11 17 - - - 0.82 - - 0.66 0.50 ----- 0.88 0.56 - 0.72 0.56 - -

324 11 20 - - - 0.54 - - - - ----- 0.67 - - 0.56 - - -

325 11 21 - - - 0.57 - - - - ----- 0.76 0.57 - 0.65 0.54 - -

350 12 16 - - - 0.91 0.61 - 0.73 0.56 - - 0.52 - - 0.97 0.67 - 0.80 0.62 - -

351 12 17 1.10 0.81 0.62 2.50 1.72 1.18 2.05 1.58 1.08 0.55 1.18 0.90 0.71 2.58 1.80 1.27 2.13 1.66 1.17 0.65

352 12 18 0.85 0.63 - 1.84 1.22 0.83 1.50 1.14 0.78 - 0.89 0.68 0.54 1.88 1.26 0.88 1.54 1.19 0.82 -

353 12 19 0.70 - - 1.54 0.95 - 1.25 0.95 0.65 - 0.77 0.56 - 1.61 1.03 0.54 1.32 1.03 0.72 -

354 12 20 - - - 0.70 - - 0.56 - ----- 0.75 0.52 - 0.62 - - -

355 12 21 2.96 2.23 1.59 5.92 4.23 2.61 4.98 3.95 2.80 1.50 3.43 2.74 2.14 6.28 4.66 3.11 5.38 4.39 3.29 2.05

356 12 22 1.16 0.85 0.60 2.42 1.60 0.88 1.98 1.52 1.04 0.53 1.46 1.16 0.91 2.69 1.89 1.18 2.26 1.81 1.35 0.86

357 12 23 - - - 0.50 - - - - ----- 0.59 ------

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 - - 0.53 - - -

359 12 25 - - - 0.69 - - 0.55 - ----- 0.73 0.52 - 0.59 - - -

360 12 26 - - - 0.55 - - - - ----- 0.72 0.53 - 0.61 0.50 - -

361 12 27 0.53 - - 1.07 0.71 - 0.87 0.66 - - 0.92 0.85 0.81 1.32 0.97 0.83 1.12 0.94 0.86 0.78

362 12 28 0.70 - - 1.70 1.11 - 1.39 1.06 0.72 - 0.95 0.75 0.55 1.94 1.35 0.76 1.62 1.30 0.97 0.63

363 12 29 - - - 0.74 - - 0.60 - ----- 0.83 0.57 - 0.69 0.54 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 22 13 9 67 38 17 52 37 20 9 37 27 20 80 62 32 71 52 34 19

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 9 5 2 23 15 8 19 14 9 2 11 8 4 32 18 11 25 16 11 5

Maximum Δ dv 2.96 2.23 1.59 5.92 4.23 2.61 4.98 3.95 2.80 1.50 3.43 2.74 2.30 6.28 4.66 3.11 5.38 4.39 3.29 2.29

G-C-165
Table G-C.8.22 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1 - - - 0.75 0.51 - 0.60 - - - 0.92 0.90 0.89 1.27 1.04 0.89 1.13 0.99 0.90 0.89

2 1 2 - - - 0.54 ------ 0.52 - - 0.83 0.68 0.51 0.73 0.63 0.52 -

3 1 3 0.50 - - 1.12 0.83 0.53 0.90 0.69 - - 0.62 0.52 - 1.23 0.94 0.65 1.01 0.80 0.58 -

5 1 5 3.15 2.36 1.67 6.38 4.61 2.97 5.39 4.29 3.05 1.64 3.47 2.99 2.63 6.61 4.88 3.29 5.64 4.57 3.37 2.62

6 1 6 1.78 1.35 0.98 3.73 2.60 1.56 3.08 2.40 1.66 0.86 2.36 1.95 1.60 4.20 3.13 2.15 3.59 2.93 2.24 1.49

11 1 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.55 ------

12 1 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

13 1 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.58 - - 0.51 - - -

15 1 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

16 1 16 - - - 0.88 0.57 - 0.71 0.54 - - 0.60 - - 1.09 0.78 0.54 0.92 0.75 0.58 -

17 1 17 - - - 0.99 0.63 - 0.80 0.61 - - 0.55 - - 1.14 0.78 0.54 0.95 0.76 0.56 -

19 1 19 0.58 - - 1.39 0.95 0.58 1.13 0.86 0.58 - 0.71 0.56 - 1.51 1.08 0.71 1.25 0.99 0.71 -

20 1 20 0.76 0.55 - 1.86 1.27 0.79 1.51 1.16 0.79 - 0.98 0.78 0.62 2.05 1.48 1.01 1.71 1.36 1.00 0.63

21 1 21 - - - 0.74 0.55 - 0.60 ------ 0.83 0.64 - 0.68 0.54 - -

22 1 22 1.46 1.03 0.74 3.33 2.20 1.43 2.74 2.12 1.47 0.76 1.79 1.37 1.09 3.60 2.50 1.76 3.03 2.43 1.79 1.11

23 1 23 0.73 0.51 - 1.54 0.98 0.65 1.25 0.96 0.65 - 1.82 1.62 1.45 2.55 2.01 1.55 2.28 2.02 1.74 1.46

25 1 25 0.59 - - 1.18 0.78 - 0.96 0.73 - - 0.69 0.52 - 1.28 0.88 0.56 1.05 0.83 0.59 -

26 1 26 - - - 1.05 0.69 - 0.85 0.64 - - 0.69 0.58 - 1.15 0.86 0.63 0.97 0.80 0.63 -

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 0.98 0.97 1.23 1.02 0.99 1.17 1.11 1.04 0.98

29 1 29 1.93 1.40 0.91 4.51 3.19 1.87 3.76 2.94 2.06 1.08 2.00 1.48 0.99 4.57 3.25 1.95 3.82 3.01 2.13 1.16

38 2 7 - - - 1.10 0.76 - 0.89 0.67 - - 0.53 - - 1.14 0.81 0.54 0.93 0.72 0.50 -

39 2 8 0.70 0.52 - 1.61 1.08 0.50 1.31 0.99 0.68 - 0.74 0.56 - 1.64 1.12 0.57 1.34 1.03 0.71 -

40 2 9 - - - 0.54 --------- 0.60 - - 0.50 - - -

42 2 11 - - - 0.50 --------- 0.75 0.59 - 0.65 0.55 - -

43 2 12 0.90 0.66 - 2.11 1.45 0.86 1.72 1.32 0.90 - 1.09 0.86 0.66 2.28 1.64 1.05 1.90 1.51 1.09 0.66

44 2 13 - - - 0.72 - - 0.58 - - - 0.65 0.56 - 1.01 0.78 0.60 0.87 0.74 0.60 -

52 2 21 - - - 0.65 - - 0.53 - - - 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.80 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72

53 2 22 - - - 0.52 --------- 0.61 - - 0.51 - - -

55 2 24 - - - 0.55 --------- 0.65 - - 0.55 - - -

56 2 25 - - - 0.60 --------- 0.71 0.52 - 0.59 - - -

57 2 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.65 - - 0.56 - - -

60 3 1 - - - 1.03 0.67 - 0.83 0.63 - - 0.96 0.83 0.70 1.50 1.15 0.83 1.31 1.12 0.92 0.72

61 3 2 - - - 0.99 0.65 - 0.81 0.61 - - 0.66 0.57 - 1.18 0.84 0.61 0.99 0.80 0.64 -

62 3 3 0.54 - - 1.00 0.70 - 0.81 0.61 - - 0.80 0.67 0.56 1.25 0.95 0.69 1.06 0.87 0.67 0.51

73 3 14 - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.60 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53

74 3 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 ------

75 3 16 - - - 0.74 0.53 - 0.60 ------ 0.82 0.61 - 0.68 0.53 - -

76 3 17 - - - 0.67 - - 0.54 ------ 0.72 0.50 - 0.59 - - -

77 3 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.50 ------

83 3 24 - - - 0.57 --------- 0.65 - - 0.54 - - -

84 3 25 - - - 0.99 0.69 - 0.80 0.60 ----- 1.05 0.76 - 0.86 0.67 - -

85 3 26 0.52 - - 1.09 0.74 - 0.88 0.67 - - 0.76 0.62 0.51 1.31 0.97 0.68 1.11 0.90 0.69 -

86 3 27 - - - 0.63 - - 0.51 ------ 0.83 0.64 - 0.71 0.59 - -

89 3 30 - - - 1.09 0.75 - 0.88 0.67 - - 0.61 - - 1.21 0.87 - 1.01 0.79 0.58 -

90 3 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

91 4 1 - - - 0.68 - - 0.55 ------ 0.75 0.54 - 0.62 - - -

107 4 17 1.04 0.75 0.52 2.42 1.63 0.96 1.98 1.52 1.04 0.53 1.07 0.79 0.56 2.45 1.66 1.00 2.01 1.55 1.07 0.57

108 4 18 1.46 1.07 0.72 3.40 2.36 1.40 2.81 2.18 1.50 0.78 1.50 1.10 0.76 3.43 2.39 1.43 2.84 2.21 1.54 0.82

115 4 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 - - 0.51 - - -

118 4 28 - - - 0.56 --------- 0.67 - - 0.57 - - -

131 5 11 - - - 0.89 0.67 - 0.72 0.54 - - 0.61 0.53 - 1.11 0.89 0.52 0.94 0.77 0.60 -

197 7 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

200 7 19 - - - 0.61 --------- 0.62 ------

204 7 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

253 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

261 9 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

262 9 19 - - - 0.61 --------- 0.73 0.52 - 0.61 - - -

264 9 21 - - - 1.09 0.77 - 0.88 0.67 - - 0.54 - - 1.16 0.84 0.54 0.95 0.74 0.52 -

265 9 22 - - - 0.51 --------- 0.67 - - 0.57 - - -

267 9 24 - - - 0.55 --------- 0.60 ------

268 9 25 - - - 0.54 --------- 0.55 ------

273 9 30 0.77 0.55 - 1.87 1.26 0.75 1.52 1.16 0.79 - 1.03 0.82 0.65 2.10 1.50 1.01 1.76 1.41 1.05 0.67

274 10 1 - - - 0.61 --------- 0.69 0.50 - 0.57 - - -

278 10 5 - - - 0.77 0.56 - 0.62 ------ 0.83 0.62 - 0.68 0.53 - -

279 10 6 - - - 0.80 0.54 - 0.64 - - - 0.56 - - 0.96 0.70 0.53 0.80 0.65 0.50 -

280 10 7 - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 - - 0.71 0.57 - 0.61 0.54 - -

281 10 8 0.72 0.59 - 1.54 1.15 0.76 1.25 0.95 0.65 - 0.78 0.64 0.51 1.59 1.20 0.81 1.30 1.00 0.70 -

290 10 17 - - - 0.50 --------- 0.53 ------

308 11 4 0.50 - - 1.31 0.89 0.56 1.06 0.81 0.55 - 0.69 0.56 - 1.49 1.08 0.77 1.24 0.99 0.73 -

319 11 15 - - - 0.94 0.68 - 0.76 0.57 ----- 0.99 0.73 - 0.81 0.63 - -

321 11 17 - - - 0.91 0.54 - 0.74 0.56 ----- 0.98 0.62 - 0.80 0.62 - -

324 11 20 - - - 0.60 --------- 0.74 0.54 - 0.63 0.52 - -

325 11 21 - - - 0.64 - - 0.51 - - - 0.53 - - 0.85 0.63 - 0.72 0.60 - -

328 11 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

341 12 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

348 12 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 ------

350 12 16 0.51 - - 1.01 0.68 - 0.82 0.62 - - 0.58 - - 1.08 0.75 - 0.89 0.69 - -

351 12 17 1.22 0.90 0.69 2.77 1.90 1.32 2.27 1.75 1.20 0.62 1.32 1.00 0.79 2.85 1.99 1.41 2.36 1.84 1.30 0.72

352 12 18 0.94 0.70 0.56 2.04 1.36 0.93 1.66 1.27 0.87 - 0.99 0.76 0.61 2.09 1.41 0.98 1.71 1.32 0.92 -

353 12 19 0.78 0.54 - 1.71 1.06 0.51 1.39 1.06 0.72 - 0.86 0.63 - 1.79 1.14 0.60 1.47 1.14 0.81 -

354 12 20 - - - 0.78 0.51 - 0.63 ------ 0.84 0.58 - 0.69 0.54 - -

355 12 21 3.26 2.46 1.77 6.44 4.64 2.88 5.45 4.34 3.09 1.66 3.78 3.03 2.37 6.82 5.09 3.42 5.87 4.80 3.62 2.27

356 12 22 1.29 0.95 0.67 2.68 1.77 0.98 2.20 1.69 1.16 0.60 1.62 1.30 1.01 2.97 2.09 1.31 2.50 2.01 1.50 0.95

357 12 23 - - - 0.56 --------- 0.65 - - 0.54 - - -

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.66 0.54 - 0.59 0.52 - -

359 12 25 - - - 0.77 0.53 - 0.62 ------ 0.81 0.58 - 0.66 0.51 - -

360 12 26 - - - 0.61 --------- 0.80 0.59 - 0.68 0.56 - -

361 12 27 0.59 - - 1.19 0.79 - 0.96 0.73 - - 1.02 0.95 0.90 1.47 1.08 0.92 1.25 1.04 0.96 0.87

362 12 28 0.78 0.55 - 1.89 1.23 0.56 1.54 1.18 0.80 - 1.06 0.84 0.62 2.14 1.50 0.84 1.80 1.45 1.08 0.70

363 12 29 - - - 0.83 0.54 - 0.67 0.51 ----- 0.93 0.64 - 0.77 0.61 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 26 18 10 70 46 21 52 39 20 9 44 34 24 90 63 40 73 58 41 21

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 9 6 2 31 17 7 20 15 9 3 15 9 6 39 24 13 29 21 15 6

Maximum Δ dv 3.26 2.46 1.77 6.44 4.64 2.97 5.45 4.34 3.09 1.66 3.78 3.03 2.63 6.82 5.09 3.42 5.87 4.80 3.62 2.62

G-C-166
Table G-C.8.23 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - 0.54 ------ 0.50 - - 0.77 0.61 - 0.68 0.58 - -

6 1 6- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 - - 0.51 - - -

22 1 22 - - - 0.50 --------- 0.58 ------

25 1 25 - - - 0.93 0.60 - 0.75 0.57 - - 0.64 0.51 - 1.10 0.78 0.52 0.93 0.75 0.56 -

26 1 26 0.51 - - 1.05 0.71 - 0.85 0.64 - - 0.74 0.60 - 1.26 0.93 0.66 1.06 0.86 0.66 -

29 1 29 0.53 - - 1.34 0.88 - 1.08 0.82 0.56 - 0.57 - - 1.37 0.92 0.54 1.12 0.86 0.60 -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.63 - - 0.54 - - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.78 0.66 0.57 0.71 0.64 0.56 -

82 3 23 - - - 0.69 - - 0.56 ------ 0.79 0.58 - 0.66 0.52 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.74 0.56 - 0.65 0.56 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 0 0 6 3 0 4 3 1 0 5 3 1 10 7 4 9 7 4 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.53 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.88 0.00 1.08 0.82 0.56 0.00 0.74 0.60 0.52 1.37 0.93 0.66 1.12 0.86 0.66 0.00

G-C-167
Table G-C.8.24 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - 0.62 ------ 0.58 0.51 - 0.89 0.70 0.54 0.78 0.67 0.56 -

6 1 6- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.68 0.53 - 0.59 0.50 - -

22 1 22 - - - 0.58 --------- 0.67 - - 0.56 - - -

25 1 25 0.53 - - 1.08 0.69 - 0.87 0.66 - - 0.74 0.58 - 1.27 0.90 0.60 1.07 0.86 0.65 -

26 1 26 0.59 - - 1.21 0.82 - 0.98 0.74 0.50 - 0.85 0.69 0.56 1.45 1.07 0.76 1.22 0.99 0.76 0.52

29 1 29 0.61 - - 1.54 1.01 0.58 1.25 0.95 0.64 - 0.66 - - 1.58 1.06 0.62 1.29 0.99 0.69 -

43 2 12 - - - 0.55 --------- 0.73 0.55 - 0.63 0.52 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.90 0.77 0.66 0.82 0.74 0.66 0.57

82 3 23 - - - 0.80 0.55 - 0.65 - - - 0.52 - - 0.92 0.67 - 0.76 0.61 - -

281 10 8 - - - 0.50 --------- 0.52 ------

355 12 21 - - - 0.53 ------ 0.54 - - 0.83 0.63 0.50 0.72 0.62 0.52 -

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 - - 0.51 - - -

361 12 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 - - 0.51 - - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 0 0 9 4 1 4 3 2 0 7 4 2 13 9 6 12 9 6 2

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.61 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.01 0.58 1.25 0.95 0.64 0.00 0.85 0.69 0.60 1.58 1.07 0.76 1.29 0.99 0.76 0.57

G-C-168
Table G-C.8.25 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 ------

24 1 24 - - - 0.65 - - 0.53 ------ 0.82 0.61 - 0.70 0.57 - -

38 2 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.61 0.00 0.70 0.57 0.00 0.00

G-C-169
Table G-C.8.26 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.58 - - 0.50 - - -

24 1 24 - - - 0.66 - - 0.53 ------ 0.83 0.62 - 0.70 0.58 - -

38 2 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 ------

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.62 0.00 0.70 0.58 0.00 0.00

G-C-170
Table G-C.8.27 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 0.50 - 0.55 - - -

2 1 2- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.70 0.56 - 0.61 0.53 - -

6 1 6 0.51 - - 1.19 0.78 - 0.96 0.73 - - 0.79 0.66 0.55 1.45 1.06 0.76 1.23 1.01 0.78 0.54

17 1 17 - - - 0.65 - - 0.52 ------ 0.80 0.56 - 0.68 0.55 - -

22 1 22 - - - 0.64 - - 0.52 ------ 0.80 0.58 - 0.68 0.55 - -

23 1 23 - - - 0.69 - - 0.56 - - - 0.62 0.55 - 1.01 0.76 0.61 0.88 0.75 0.61 -

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.55 - - 0.50 - - -

29 1 29 - - - 0.67 - - 0.54 ------ 0.71 - - 0.58 - - -

42 2 11 - - - 0.51 --------- 0.74 0.58 - 0.64 0.54 - -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 - - 0.51 - - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

45 2 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

60 3 1 - - - 0.79 0.52 - 0.64 - - - 0.83 0.73 0.66 1.22 0.97 0.78 1.08 0.94 0.79 0.64

61 3 2 - - - 0.63 - - 0.51 - - - 0.59 0.51 - 0.91 0.71 0.54 0.80 0.67 0.55 -

85 3 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 ------

91 4 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.56 ------

118 4 28 - - - 0.51 --------- 0.62 - - 0.52 - - -

262 9 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 - - 0.53 - - -

273 9 30 - - - 0.67 - - 0.54 ------ 0.76 0.54 - 0.64 0.51 - -

280 10 7 - - - 0.52 ------ 0.50 - - 0.78 0.62 - 0.68 0.58 - -

308 11 4 - - - 0.67 - - 0.54 ------ 0.80 0.59 - 0.68 0.54 - -

325 11 21 - - - 0.57 --------- 0.75 0.56 - 0.64 0.53 - -

353 12 19 - - - 0.53 --------- 0.58 ------

355 12 21 - - - 0.57 --------- 0.71 0.51 - 0.60 - - -

356 12 22 0.51 - - 1.21 0.79 - 0.98 0.74 0.50 - 0.70 0.58 0.50 1.38 0.97 0.64 1.16 0.92 0.69 -

360 12 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

361 12 27 - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 0.51 - 0.80 0.65 0.54 0.71 0.62 0.53 -

362 12 28 - - - 0.75 - - 0.61 - - - 0.57 - - 0.98 0.72 0.51 0.84 0.69 0.54 -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 0 0 17 3 0 11 2 1 0 8 6 3 28 17 7 22 15 7 2

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 1 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.51 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.79 0.00 0.98 0.74 0.50 0.00 0.83 0.73 0.66 1.45 1.06 0.78 1.23 1.01 0.79 0.64

G-C-171
Table G-C.8.28 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1- - - - - - - - - - 0.51 - - 0.71 0.58 - 0.63 0.56 - -

2 1 2 - - - 0.51 --------- 0.81 0.65 0.51 0.71 0.61 0.51 -

6 1 6 0.59 - - 1.36 0.90 0.55 1.11 0.84 0.57 - 0.92 0.76 0.64 1.67 1.22 0.88 1.42 1.16 0.90 0.63

17 1 17 - - - 0.75 - - 0.60 ------ 0.93 0.65 - 0.78 0.64 - -

22 1 22 - - - 0.74 - - 0.60 - - - 0.53 - - 0.92 0.67 - 0.78 0.64 - -

23 1 23 - - - 0.80 - - 0.64 - - - 0.72 0.64 0.57 1.16 0.88 0.70 1.01 0.86 0.71 0.57

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.63 0.52 - 0.58 0.53 - -

29 1 29 - - - 0.77 - - 0.62 ------ 0.82 0.54 - 0.67 0.52 - -

42 2 11 - - - 0.59 ------ 0.56 - - 0.86 0.67 0.51 0.74 0.63 0.52 -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.67 0.54 - 0.59 0.52 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 0.52 - 0.55 0.51 - -

45 2 14 - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 - - 0.61 0.55 0.51 0.58 0.54 0.51 -

59 2 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 - - 0.50 - - -

60 3 1 - - - 0.91 0.60 - 0.74 0.56 - - 0.97 0.85 0.76 1.41 1.12 0.90 1.25 1.08 0.92 0.75

61 3 2 - - - 0.73 - - 0.59 - - - 0.69 0.59 0.51 1.06 0.83 0.63 0.92 0.78 0.64 0.50

85 3 26 - - - 0.51 --------- 0.62 - - 0.52 - - -

91 4 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.50 ------

118 4 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.56 ------

273 9 30 - - - 0.55 --------- 0.63 - - 0.53 - - -

280 10 7 - - - 0.58 ------ 0.57 0.51 - 0.88 0.70 0.56 0.77 0.66 0.55 -

304 10 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.54 ------

308 11 4 - - - 0.75 0.50 - 0.60 ------ 0.89 0.65 - 0.75 0.61 - -

321 11 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

325 11 21 - - - 0.63 - - 0.51 - - - 0.51 - - 0.83 0.62 - 0.71 0.59 - -

353 12 19 - - - 0.60 --------- 0.64 - - 0.53 - - -

355 12 21 - - - 0.64 - - 0.51 ------ 0.79 0.57 - 0.67 0.55 - -

356 12 22 0.57 - - 1.34 0.88 0.51 1.09 0.83 0.56 - 0.78 0.65 0.56 1.54 1.08 0.71 1.29 1.03 0.77 -

360 12 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 - - 0.50 - - -

361 12 27 - - - 0.53 ------ 0.64 0.57 0.53 0.90 0.73 0.60 0.80 0.70 0.60 -

362 12 28 - - - 0.84 0.55 - 0.68 0.51 - - 0.64 0.53 - 1.09 0.81 0.57 0.93 0.77 0.61 -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 0 0 19 5 2 12 4 2 0 13 8 6 31 21 11 26 21 11 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 4 3 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.59 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.90 0.55 1.11 0.84 0.57 0.00 0.97 0.85 0.76 1.67 1.22 0.90 1.42 1.16 0.92 0.75

G-C-172
Table G-C.8.29 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 ------

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

G-C-173
Table G-C.8.30 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.58 ------

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

G-C-174
Table G-C.8.31 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

6 1 6- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.67 0.52 - 0.58 - - -

15 1 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 0.55 - 0.57 0.52 - -

22 1 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.53 ------

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 - - 0.52 - - -

25 1 25 - - - 0.54 --------- 0.67 0.51 - 0.57 - - -

26 1 26 - - - 0.65 - - 0.52 - - - 0.54 - - 0.87 0.66 - 0.75 0.62 - -

29 1 29 - - - 1.06 0.69 - 0.85 0.65 ----- 1.10 0.73 - 0.89 0.69 - -

43 2 12 - - - 0.54 --------- 0.75 0.57 - 0.65 0.55 - -

44 2 13 - - - 0.63 - - 0.51 - - - 0.96 0.88 0.80 1.23 1.04 0.88 1.11 0.99 0.88 0.76

60 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - 0.62 0.56 0.51 0.88 0.72 0.59 0.79 0.70 0.61 0.51

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.69 0.54 - 0.60 0.50 - -

73 3 14 - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 0.58 0.57 0.69 0.60 0.57 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.57

82 3 23 - - - 0.50 --------- 0.59 ------

262 9 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.59 - - 0.53 - - -

273 9 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 ------

279 10 6 - - - 0.53 --------- 0.64 - - 0.54 - - -

280 10 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.74 0.59 - 0.65 0.56 - -

350 12 16 - - - 0.70 0.54 - 0.56 ------ 0.75 0.59 - 0.62 - - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.66 0.50 - 0.57 - - -

356 12 22 - - - 0.63 - - 0.51 - - - 0.58 0.51 - 0.84 0.66 0.52 0.72 0.60 - -

361 12 27 - - - 0.73 - - 0.59 - - - 1.07 0.97 0.89 1.39 1.15 0.95 1.26 1.13 0.99 0.86

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 10 2 0 6 1 0 0 6 5 4 22 15 5 18 11 4 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.69 0.00 0.85 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.97 0.89 1.39 1.15 0.95 1.26 1.13 0.99 0.86

G-C-175
Table G-C.8.32 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5- - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 - - 0.53 - - -

6 1 6 - - - 0.52 --------- 0.78 0.61 - 0.68 0.57 - -

15 1 15 - - - - - - - - - - 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.71 0.63 0.57 0.65 0.60 0.54 -

22 1 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 - - 0.52 - - -

23 1 23 - - - 0.54 --------- 0.71 - - 0.60 - - -

25 1 25 - - - 0.62 - - 0.50 ------ 0.78 0.59 - 0.66 0.54 - -

26 1 26 - - - 0.75 - - 0.60 - - - 0.63 0.53 - 1.00 0.76 0.58 0.86 0.72 0.57 -

29 1 29 - - - 1.22 0.80 - 0.98 0.75 0.50 - 0.54 - - 1.26 0.84 0.52 1.03 0.79 0.55 -

43 2 12 - - - 0.62 - - 0.50 - - - 0.54 - - 0.88 0.67 0.51 0.76 0.64 0.52 -

44 2 13 - - - 0.73 - - 0.59 - - - 1.12 1.01 0.92 1.42 1.20 1.02 1.29 1.15 1.02 0.88

60 3 1 - - - 0.57 ------ 0.72 0.65 0.59 1.02 0.84 0.68 0.92 0.81 0.70 0.59

61 3 2 - - - 0.56 ------ 0.51 - - 0.80 0.62 - 0.69 0.58 - -

73 3 14 - - - - - - - - - - 0.70 0.67 0.66 0.80 0.69 0.66 0.77 0.73 0.70 0.67

82 3 23 - - - 0.59 --------- 0.69 0.51 - 0.57 - - -

279 10 6 - - - 0.60 --------- 0.72 0.53 - 0.61 - - -

280 10 7 - - - 0.54 ------ 0.55 - - 0.84 0.67 0.54 0.73 0.63 0.53 -

308 11 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.52 ------

324 11 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 ------

350 12 16 - - - 0.78 0.60 - 0.63 ------ 0.84 0.66 - 0.69 0.54 - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.73 0.56 - 0.64 0.54 - -

356 12 22 - - - 0.70 - - 0.57 - - - 0.65 0.57 0.52 0.94 0.74 0.58 0.81 0.68 0.55 -

361 12 27 - - - 0.82 0.53 - 0.66 - - - 1.19 1.08 0.99 1.54 1.28 1.06 1.40 1.26 1.11 0.96

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 0 0 15 3 0 8 1 1 0 11 7 6 22 17 10 20 15 10 4

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 5 2 2 3 2 2 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.80 0.00 0.98 0.75 0.50 0.00 1.19 1.08 0.99 1.54 1.28 1.06 1.40 1.26 1.11 0.96

G-C-176
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 1.64 2 1.89 4Big Sandy 2.64 17 2.92 21Boulder 2.01 7 2.30 10Bronx 1.40 1 1.60 1Cora 2.66 1 3.03 1Daniel 2.12 1 2.42 1Farson 1.93 5 2.21 5Labarge 1.10 2 1.27 2Merna 0.65 0 0.75 0Pinedale 3.60 2 4.07 3

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250

G-C-177
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 1.21 1 1.40 2Big Sandy 1.97 8 2.18 13Boulder 1.46 3 1.67 4Bronx 1.01 1 1.16 1Cora 1.95 1 2.23 1Daniel 1.54 1 1.77 1Farson 1.36 3 1.57 5Labarge 0.78 0 0.90 0Merna 0.48 0 0.55 0Pinedale 2.69 1 3.07 2

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.2 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150

G-C-178
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 0.85 0 0.98 0Big Sandy 1.43 2 1.58 3Boulder 0.98 0 1.12 2Bronx 0.66 0 0.76 0Cora 1.28 1 1.47 1Daniel 1.01 1 1.17 1Farson 0.92 0 1.06 2Labarge 0.51 0 0.59 0Merna 0.32 0 0.37 0Pinedale 1.83 1 2.09 1

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075

G-C-179
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 3.45 21 3.93 18Big Sandy 5.28 56 5.76 62Boulder 4.06 33 4.58 30Bronx 3.37 7 3.82 9Cora 6.00 11 6.70 14Daniel 4.89 16 5.50 15Farson 4.33 10 4.88 13Labarge 2.27 6 2.59 5Merna 1.43 4 1.64 5Pinedale 7.66 18 8.48 21

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.4 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250

G-C-180
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 2.36 11 2.71 13Big Sandy 3.76 29 4.13 33Boulder 2.84 21 3.23 21Bronx 2.34 1 2.67 1Cora 4.32 3 4.87 5Daniel 3.46 3 3.92 5Farson 2.96 8 3.37 8Labarge 1.52 2 1.74 4Merna 0.98 0 1.13 2Pinedale 5.67 7 6.34 8

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.5 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150

G-C-181
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 1.35 2 1.56 2Big Sandy 2.49 16 2.75 20Boulder 1.75 7 2.01 7Bronx 1.35 1 1.56 1Cora 2.58 1 2.94 1Daniel 2.04 1 2.33 1Farson 1.87 4 2.14 5Labarge 0.88 0 1.02 1Merna 0.57 0 0.66 0Pinedale 3.52 1 3.98 2

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.6 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075

G-C-182
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 2.85 16 3.25 16Big Sandy 4.42 38 4.84 45Boulder 3.37 25 3.82 26Bronx 2.78 1 3.16 2Cora 5.06 6 5.68 9Daniel 4.09 9 4.61 13Farson 3.60 8 4.08 10Labarge 1.85 5 2.12 4Merna 1.16 2 1.34 3Pinedale 6.53 14 7.27 16

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.7 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-183
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 2.21 8 2.53 12Big Sandy 3.48 28 3.83 27Boulder 2.63 17 2.99 21Bronx 2.15 1 2.46 1Cora 4.01 1 4.53 3Daniel 3.21 2 3.64 4Farson 2.82 7 3.20 8Labarge 1.42 2 1.63 3Merna 0.88 0 1.02 1Pinedale 5.25 5 5.89 6

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.8 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-184
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 1.53 2 1.76 2Big Sandy 2.45 17 2.71 19Boulder 1.83 8 2.09 9Bronx 1.48 1 1.70 1Cora 2.85 1 3.24 1Daniel 2.25 1 2.57 1Farson 1.96 5 2.25 5Labarge 0.97 0 1.12 2Merna 0.60 0 0.69 0Pinedale 3.79 2 4.28 3

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.9 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-185
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 0Big Sandy 1.30 1 1.45 4Boulder 0.95 0 1.10 2Bronx 0.77 0 0.89 0Cora 1.52 1 1.75 1Daniel 1.19 1 1.37 1Farson 1.03 1 1.19 1Labarge 0.50 0 0.57 0Merna 0.30 0 0.35 0Pinedale 2.07 1 2.37 1

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.10 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations fro

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250

G-C-186
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.25 16 2.57 19Big Sandy 3.16 31 3.48 32Boulder 3.17 18 3.60 20Bronx 1.46 1 1.68 1Cora 2.75 6 3.13 7Daniel 2.20 6 2.52 11Farson 2.42 11 2.68 11Labarge 2.50 9 2.85 11Merna 0.99 0 1.11 4Pinedale 3.70 8 4.18 8

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.11 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-187
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.09 13 2.39 15Big Sandy 2.51 17 2.78 23Boulder 2.88 11 3.27 11Bronx 1.08 1 1.24 1Cora 2.04 2 2.34 5Daniel 1.63 1 1.87 6Farson 1.94 10 2.22 10Labarge 2.24 6 2.56 9Merna 0.96 0 1.07 1Pinedale 2.80 8 3.19 8

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.12 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-188
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.04 9 2.33 13Big Sandy 2.00 10 2.22 13Boulder 2.78 7 3.16 9Bronx 0.73 0 0.84 0Cora 1.38 1 1.58 3Daniel 1.11 1 1.27 1Farson 1.71 10 1.96 10Labarge 2.02 6 2.31 6Merna 0.94 0 1.04 1Pinedale 1.94 5 2.23 7

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.13 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Low Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-189
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 3.81 34 4.32 36Big Sandy 5.67 64 6.18 74Boulder 4.97 39 5.58 40Bronx 3.42 12 3.88 15Cora 6.07 16 6.77 17Daniel 4.95 21 5.56 23Farson 4.49 19 5.05 21Labarge 3.51 15 3.97 16Merna 1.68 9 1.93 10Pinedale 7.73 23 8.56 27

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.14 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-190
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.76 24 3.16 25Big Sandy 4.22 43 4.63 50Boulder 3.87 28 4.38 26Bronx 2.40 2 2.73 5Cora 4.40 12 4.96 13Daniel 3.54 14 4.00 16Farson 3.14 12 3.56 15Labarge 2.86 11 3.25 14Merna 1.26 5 1.45 6Pinedale 5.75 16 6.43 18

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.15 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR150 and Regional Sources

G-C-191
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.11 13 2.41 18Big Sandy 3.01 25 3.32 29Boulder 2.87 14 3.27 15Bronx 1.42 1 1.63 1Cora 2.67 2 3.04 7Daniel 2.13 3 2.43 7Farson 2.09 10 2.39 11Labarge 2.33 6 2.66 9Merna 0.97 0 1.08 1Pinedale 3.62 8 4.09 8

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.16 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative High Emissions WDR075 and Regional Sources

G-C-192
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 3.23 28 3.68 30Big Sandy 4.85 53 5.30 59Boulder 4.36 34 4.91 32Bronx 2.83 6 3.22 12Cora 5.13 13 5.75 16Daniel 4.15 16 4.69 19Farson 3.77 15 4.26 19Labarge 3.14 14 3.57 14Merna 1.42 6 1.64 9Pinedale 6.60 19 7.35 21

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.17 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 20% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-193
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.61 21 2.99 24Big Sandy 3.96 35 4.34 40Boulder 3.71 25 4.20 22Bronx 2.21 1 2.53 5Cora 4.09 7 4.62 12Daniel 3.29 14 3.73 16Farson 2.99 12 3.40 14Labarge 2.77 11 3.15 12Merna 1.16 4 1.35 6Pinedale 5.34 14 5.98 15

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.18 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 40% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-194
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 2.20 14 2.51 17Big Sandy 2.97 27 3.28 30Boulder 3.02 16 3.43 17Bronx 1.55 1 1.78 1Cora 2.93 6 3.33 7Daniel 2.33 3 2.66 9Farson 2.16 10 2.46 11Labarge 2.40 7 2.74 9Merna 0.97 0 1.08 2Pinedale 3.89 8 4.39 9

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.19 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 60% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-195
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 1.99 8 2.28 13Big Sandy 1.88 9 2.13 12Boulder 2.72 6 3.09 9Bronx 0.84 0 0.97 0Cora 1.62 1 1.86 2Daniel 1.28 1 1.47 2Farson 1.63 8 1.87 10Labarge 2.02 6 2.30 6Merna 0.93 0 1.03 1Pinedale 2.19 5 2.50 6

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-C.9.20 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Preferred Alternative Mitigation 80% Emissions Reduction WDR250 and Regional Sources

G-C-196
Table G-C.9.21 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - 1.97 1.33 - 1.61 1.23 - - 1.40 1.16 - 2.38 1.77 1.21 2.03 1.67 1.29 -

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.16 - - 1.01 - - -

19 1 19 - - - - - - - - - - 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27

20 1 20 - - - 1.58 1.06 - 1.28 - - - 1.33 1.14 - 2.09 1.63 1.22 1.83 1.56 1.27 -

21 1 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - -

22 1 22 - - - 2.01 1.29 - 1.64 1.25 - - 2.25 2.00 1.82 3.21 2.58 2.11 2.88 2.55 2.20 1.84

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 2.16 2.09 2.04 2.32 2.18 2.09 2.24 2.16 2.08 1.99

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.20 1.16 1.12 1.17 1.15 1.12 1.09

38 2 7 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.40 - - 1.15 - - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.72 1.13 - 1.40 1.07 - - 1.11 - - 1.98 1.40 - 1.66 1.34 1.01 -

43 2 12 - - - 1.89 1.24 - 1.54 1.18 - - 1.40 1.20 1.04 2.37 1.76 1.30 2.03 1.70 1.37 1.02

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.04 - - -

60 3 1 1.64 1.21 - 3.45 2.36 1.35 2.85 2.21 1.53 - 2.07 1.67 1.33 3.81 2.76 1.81 3.23 2.61 1.96 1.29

61 3 2 1.32 - - 2.64 1.73 1.21 2.17 1.67 1.14 - 1.47 1.08 - 2.78 1.88 1.37 2.31 1.82 1.30 -

86 3 27 - - - 1.49 1.01 - 1.21 - - - - - - 1.76 1.29 - 1.48 1.20 - -

87 3 28 - - - 1.48 1.02 - 1.20 - - - - - - 1.53 1.08 - 1.25 - - -

108 4 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.01 - 1.17 1.00 - -

117 4 27 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.25 - - 1.06 - - -

123 5 3 - - - 1.45 - - 1.18 - - - 1.11 - - 1.79 1.28 - 1.53 1.26 - -

146 5 26 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - - - - -

212 7 31 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - - - - -

215 8 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - - - - -

216 8 4 - - - 1.40 - - 1.14 - - - - - - 1.61 1.14 - 1.35 1.08 - -

251 9 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

263 9 20 - - - 1.01 - - - - - - - - - 1.35 1.04 - 1.16 - - -

350 12 16 - - - 1.68 1.26 - 1.37 1.04 - - - - - 1.79 1.38 - 1.48 1.16 - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.40 - - 1.14 - - - - - - 1.48 1.00 - 1.22 - - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.52 - - 1.23 - - - - - - 1.68 1.13 - 1.40 1.11 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 1.04 - 1.48 1.19 1.02 1.36 1.23 1.10 -

354 12 20 - - - 1.12 - - - - - - 1.01 - - 1.62 1.22 - 1.41 1.21 - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.71 1.15 - 1.39 1.06 - - 1.71 1.50 1.32 2.55 2.03 1.58 2.26 1.96 1.64 1.32

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 1.11 1.03 1.37 1.20 1.08 1.26 1.14 1.03 -

357 12 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - -

360 12 26 - - - - - - - - - - 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 2 1 0 21 11 2 16 8 2 0 16 13 9 34 24 13 28 21 14 8

Maximum Δ dv 1.64 1.21 0.00 3.45 2.36 1.35 2.85 2.21 1.53 0.00 2.25 2.09 2.04 3.81 2.76 2.11 3.23 2.61 2.20 1.99

G-C-197
Table G-C.9.22 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

5 1 5 1.09 - - 2.26 1.53 - 1.84 1.41 - - 1.61 1.33 1.09 2.72 2.03 1.39 2.33 1.92 1.49 1.04

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.05 - 1.17 - - -

19 1 19 - - - - - - - - - - 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46

20 1 20 - - - 1.81 1.22 - 1.47 1.13 - - 1.52 1.32 1.14 2.39 1.87 1.41 2.09 1.78 1.47 1.14

21 1 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.21 - - 1.05 - - -

22 1 22 1.05 - - 2.30 1.48 - 1.88 1.44 - - 2.57 2.29 2.08 3.64 2.94 2.41 3.28 2.90 2.51 2.11

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 2.47 2.39 2.33 2.65 2.49 2.39 2.56 2.47 2.37 2.28

27 1 27 - - - - - - - - - - 1.31 1.29 1.27 1.38 1.33 1.29 1.35 1.32 1.29 1.26

38 2 7 - - - 1.53 - - 1.24 - - - - - - 1.62 1.09 - 1.33 1.04 - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.98 1.30 - 1.62 1.24 - - 1.28 1.02 - 2.27 1.61 1.11 1.92 1.55 1.17 -

42 2 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

43 2 12 - - - 2.17 1.44 - 1.77 1.36 - - 1.62 1.38 1.20 2.71 2.03 1.50 2.34 1.96 1.58 1.18

44 2 13 - - - 1.08 - - - - - - - - - 1.41 1.06 - 1.21 1.00 - -

60 3 1 1.89 1.40 - 3.93 2.71 1.56 3.25 2.53 1.76 - 2.37 1.92 1.54 4.32 3.16 2.08 3.68 2.99 2.25 1.49

61 3 2 1.52 1.06 - 3.02 1.99 1.40 2.49 1.92 1.32 - 1.70 1.25 - 3.18 2.16 1.58 2.65 2.09 1.50 -

86 3 27 - - - 1.72 1.17 - 1.40 1.06 - - 1.11 - - 2.02 1.49 1.02 1.71 1.39 1.06 -

87 3 28 - - - 1.70 1.18 - 1.38 1.06 - - - - - 1.76 1.25 - 1.45 1.12 - -

88 3 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - -

108 4 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.06 - - -

117 4 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.14 - - - - - -

123 5 3 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - 1.01 - - 1.63 1.17 - 1.39 1.15 - -

146 5 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.07 - - - - - -

216 8 4 - - - 1.18 - - - - - - - - - 1.35 - - 1.13 - - -

263 9 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

324 11 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

350 12 16 - - - 1.87 1.40 - 1.52 1.16 - - 1.06 - - 1.99 1.53 1.01 1.65 1.29 - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.56 1.03 - 1.27 - - - - - - 1.65 1.12 - 1.36 1.06 - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.69 1.08 - 1.37 1.05 - - - - - 1.86 1.26 - 1.55 1.23 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - 1.28 1.15 1.08 1.65 1.33 1.13 1.51 1.37 1.22 1.08

354 12 20 - - - 1.24 - - 1.01 - - - 1.12 - - 1.80 1.36 1.07 1.57 1.34 1.11 -

355 12 21 - - - 1.90 1.27 - 1.55 1.18 - - 1.90 1.66 1.46 2.82 2.25 1.76 2.50 2.17 1.82 1.47

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - 1.35 1.24 1.15 1.52 1.34 1.20 1.40 1.27 1.15 1.02

357 12 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - 1.03 - - -

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - 1.02 - - -

360 12 26 - - - - - - - - - - 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39

Number of Days Δ d > 1 4 v = .0 2 0 18 13 2 16 12 2 0 19 15 13 36 25 18 30 24 17 13

Maximum Δ dv 1.89 1.40 0.00 3.93 2.71 1.56 3.25 2.53 1.76 0.00 2.57 2.39 2.33 4.32 3.16 2.41 3.68 2.99 2.51 2.28

G-C-198
Table G-C.9.23 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1 - - - 1.27 - - 1.03 - - - 1.23 1.10 - 1.84 1.49 1.12 1.62 1.38 1.14 -

2 1 2 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.01 - - 1.55 1.24 - 1.35 1.14 - -

3 1 3 - - - 1.94 1.43 1.07 1.58 1.21 - - 1.14 - - 2.18 1.68 1.33 1.82 1.46 1.09 -

5 1 5 - - - 2.00 1.41 1.10 1.63 1.25 - - 1.02 - - 2.13 1.56 1.25 1.77 1.39 1.00 -

6 1 6 1.54 1.15 - 3.30 2.29 1.40 2.73 2.11 1.46 - 2.14 1.77 1.46 3.81 2.85 1.99 3.26 2.68 2.06 1.40

16 1 16 - - - 1.62 1.09 - 1.32 1.01 - - 1.03 - - 1.91 1.39 - 1.61 1.31 - -

19 1 19 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.16 - - 1.56 1.27 1.15 1.36 1.16 - -

21 1 21 1.20 - - 2.60 1.96 1.27 2.13 1.64 1.12 - 1.30 1.07 - 2.69 2.06 1.37 2.22 1.74 1.22 -

22 1 22 1.85 1.31 - 4.08 2.74 1.32 3.38 2.64 1.83 - 2.28 1.76 1.26 4.42 3.14 1.75 3.76 3.04 2.27 1.43

23 1 23 1.41 1.02 - 3.14 2.22 1.54 2.59 2.00 1.38 - 2.19 1.86 1.55 3.82 2.98 2.28 3.31 2.76 2.19 1.58

27 1 27 1.38 - - 3.12 1.87 1.12 2.57 1.99 1.37 - 2.46 2.05 1.81 4.04 2.90 2.22 3.54 3.01 2.45 1.86

29 1 29 1.10 - - 2.46 1.62 - 2.01 1.55 1.06 - 1.45 1.15 - 2.76 1.95 1.31 2.33 1.88 1.41 -

38 2 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.03 - - - - - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.35 - - 1.10 - - -

40 2 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

43 2 12 1.07 - - 2.50 1.70 - 2.05 1.57 1.08 - 1.27 - - 2.67 1.88 1.18 2.23 1.76 1.27 -

52 2 21 - - - 1.37 - - 1.11 - - - - - - 1.57 1.11 - 1.32 1.06 - -

53 2 22 - - - 1.13 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 1.01 - 1.15 - - -

54 2 23 - - - 1.08 - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - - - - -

55 2 24 - - - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 1.22 1.02 - 1.04 - - -

56 2 25 - - - 1.01 - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - - - - -

59 2 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.26 - - 1.08 - - -

60 3 1 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.37 1.03 - 1.18 - - -

62 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

84 3 25 - - - 1.06 - - - - - - - - - 1.18 - - - - - -

85 3 26 - - - 2.08 1.44 - 1.70 1.30 - - 1.24 1.01 - 2.35 1.73 1.07 1.98 1.59 1.19 -

89 3 30 1.74 1.30 - 3.89 2.71 1.53 3.23 2.51 1.74 - 1.89 1.45 1.05 4.01 2.85 1.68 3.35 2.65 1.89 1.07

90 3 31 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.04 - - -

91 4 1 - - - 1.94 1.37 - 1.58 1.21 - - 1.06 - - 2.11 1.54 - 1.75 1.39 1.00 -

92 4 2 - - - 1.42 - - 1.15 - - - - - - 1.62 1.12 - 1.36 1.09 - -

114 4 24 - - - 1.24 - - 1.01 - - - - - - 1.36 1.03 - 1.12 - - -

115 4 25 - - - 1.68 1.11 - 1.37 1.04 - - 1.01 - - 1.95 1.39 - 1.64 1.33 1.00 -

118 4 28 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.49 1.07 - 1.25 - - -

131 5 11 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.41 1.05 - 1.19 - - -

183 7 2 - - - 1.24 - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.04 - - -

262 9 19 1.17 - - 2.62 1.78 1.01 2.14 1.65 1.13 - 1.30 - - 2.73 1.90 1.14 2.26 1.77 1.26 -

264 9 21 - - - 1.06 - - - - - - - - - 1.16 - - - - - -

265 9 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

272 9 29 1.35 - - 2.97 2.04 1.22 2.44 1.89 1.30 - 1.59 1.23 - 3.18 2.26 1.46 2.66 2.11 1.54 -

273 9 30 1.71 1.24 - 3.82 2.65 1.65 3.17 2.46 1.71 - 2.06 1.62 1.26 4.11 2.98 2.01 3.47 2.79 2.06 1.28

278 10 5 - - - 1.15 - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.01 - - -

280 10 7 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.54 1.10 - 1.31 1.09 - -

281 10 8 - - - 1.37 1.05 - 1.11 - - - - - - 1.44 1.12 - 1.18 - - -

296 10 23 - - - 1.18 - - - - - - - - - 1.35 - - 1.14 - - -

308 11 4 - - - 1.76 1.37 - 1.44 1.10 - - 1.07 - - 2.03 1.65 - 1.71 1.38 1.04 -

319 11 15 - - - 2.19 1.29 - 1.79 1.37 - - 1.01 - - 2.26 1.36 - 1.86 1.44 1.01 -

321 11 17 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.39 - - 1.14 - - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - 1.27 - - 1.04 - - -

325 11 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.20 - - 1.04 - - -

337 12 3 - - - 1.14 - - - - - - - - - 1.27 - - 1.05 - - -

340 12 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

349 12 15 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

351 12 17 - - - 2.21 1.49 1.04 1.81 1.39 - - 1.04 - - 2.29 1.57 1.13 1.89 1.47 1.04 -

352 12 18 - - - 1.42 - - 1.15 - - - - - - 1.47 1.02 - 1.20 - - -

353 12 19 1.43 - - 3.38 2.22 - 2.79 2.16 1.49 - 1.52 1.08 - 3.46 2.31 1.07 2.87 2.25 1.58 -

354 12 20 - - - 2.07 1.53 - 1.69 1.29 - - - - - 2.18 1.65 1.07 1.80 1.41 1.01 -

355 12 21 2.64 1.97 1.43 5.28 3.76 2.49 4.42 3.48 2.45 1.30 3.16 2.51 2.00 5.67 4.22 3.01 4.85 3.96 2.97 1.88

356 12 22 1.89 1.40 1.04 4.06 2.85 1.89 3.37 2.63 1.83 - 2.26 1.79 1.45 4.36 3.19 2.27 3.69 2.98 2.20 1.36

358 12 24 1.14 - - 2.34 1.77 - 1.92 1.47 1.00 - 1.58 1.36 1.09 2.73 2.18 1.39 2.32 1.90 1.45 -

359 12 25 1.24 - - 2.72 2.05 1.11 2.23 1.72 1.18 - 1.42 1.17 - 2.87 2.21 1.30 2.39 1.89 1.36 -

360 12 26 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - 1.00 - - 1.58 1.17 - 1.36 1.14 - -

361 12 27 - - - 1.62 1.15 - 1.31 1.00 - - 1.16 - - 1.89 1.44 1.11 1.60 1.29 - -

362 12 28 1.59 1.17 - 3.57 2.46 1.51 2.95 2.29 1.59 - 2.12 1.73 1.40 4.01 2.95 2.04 3.42 2.79 2.12 1.40

363 12 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 17 8 2 56 29 16 38 28 17 1 31 17 10 64 43 25 53 35 27 9

Maximum Δ dv 2.64 1.97 1.43 5.28 3.76 2.49 4.42 3.48 2.45 1.30 3.16 2.51 2.00 5.67 4.22 3.01 4.85 3.96 2.97 1.88

G-C-199
Table G-C.9.24 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 1 1 - - - 1.46 1.04 - 1.19 - - - 1.41 1.27 1.12 2.11 1.71 1.29 1.85 1.59 1.32 1.04

2 1 2 - - - 1.25 - - 1.02 - - - 1.16 1.04 - 1.77 1.43 1.03 1.55 1.32 1.08 -

3 1 3 1.01 - - 2.22 1.64 1.23 1.81 1.39 - - 1.31 1.10 - 2.48 1.92 1.53 2.09 1.68 1.25 -

5 1 5 1.01 - - 2.29 1.62 1.27 1.87 1.43 - - 1.18 - - 2.44 1.79 1.44 2.03 1.60 1.15 -

6 1 6 1.77 1.33 - 3.75 2.61 1.61 3.10 2.41 1.67 - 2.45 2.03 1.67 4.31 3.24 2.28 3.70 3.05 2.35 1.61

12 1 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

13 1 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

16 1 16 - - - 1.86 1.26 - 1.52 1.16 - - 1.19 - - 2.19 1.60 1.12 1.85 1.50 1.15 -

19 1 19 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - 1.33 1.15 1.08 1.79 1.46 1.32 1.56 1.33 1.09 -

21 1 21 1.38 1.11 - 2.96 2.24 1.46 2.44 1.88 1.29 - 1.50 1.23 - 3.06 2.35 1.57 2.54 1.99 1.41 -

22 1 22 2.12 1.50 - 4.60 3.12 1.51 3.84 3.01 2.10 1.11 2.61 2.02 1.45 4.98 3.56 2.01 4.25 3.45 2.59 1.64

23 1 23 1.62 1.17 - 3.57 2.54 1.76 2.95 2.29 1.58 - 2.50 2.13 1.78 4.32 3.38 2.60 3.75 3.15 2.50 1.81

27 1 27 1.58 1.06 - 3.55 2.14 1.29 2.93 2.28 1.57 - 2.80 2.34 2.07 4.56 3.30 2.54 4.00 3.42 2.79 2.13

29 1 29 1.27 - - 2.80 1.86 1.12 2.30 1.78 1.22 - 1.66 1.33 1.08 3.15 2.23 1.51 2.66 2.15 1.62 1.05

38 2 7 - - - 1.14 - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - - - - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.52 1.01 - 1.23 - - - - - - 1.55 1.04 - 1.27 - - -

40 2 9 - - - 1.02 - - - - - - - - - 1.16 - - - - - -

43 2 12 1.24 - - 2.86 1.95 1.14 2.35 1.81 1.24 - 1.46 1.13 - 3.06 2.16 1.37 2.55 2.03 1.47 -

51 2 20 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.14 - - - - - -

52 2 21 - - - 1.59 1.05 - 1.29 - - - 1.05 - - 1.81 1.29 1.11 1.52 1.22 - -

53 2 22 - - - 1.31 - - 1.06 - - - - - - 1.57 1.17 - 1.33 1.08 - -

54 2 23 - - - 1.25 - - 1.01 - - - - - - 1.35 1.10 - 1.11 - - -

55 2 24 - - - 1.16 - - - - - - - - - 1.41 1.18 - 1.20 - - -

56 2 25 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.35 1.02 - 1.13 - - -

59 2 28 - - - 1.13 - - - - - - - - - 1.46 1.12 - 1.25 1.04 - -

60 3 1 - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - 1.58 1.19 - 1.36 1.14 - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

62 3 3 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.24 - - 1.05 - - -

66 3 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

74 3 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

75 3 16 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

76 3 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

77 3 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

84 3 25 - - - 1.22 - - - - - - - - - 1.37 - - 1.14 - - -

85 3 26 1.09 - - 2.39 1.67 - 1.95 1.50 1.03 - 1.44 1.17 - 2.69 1.99 1.24 2.27 1.83 1.37 -

89 3 30 2.01 1.50 1.03 4.42 3.10 1.77 3.68 2.88 2.01 1.05 2.18 1.68 1.21 4.55 3.25 1.94 3.82 3.03 2.17 1.24

90 3 31 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.42 1.08 - 1.20 - - -

91 4 1 - - - 1.77 1.24 - 1.44 1.10 - - - - - 1.92 1.40 - 1.60 1.26 - -

92 4 2 - - - 1.29 - - 1.04 - - - - - - 1.47 1.02 - 1.23 - - -

114 4 24 - - - 1.13 - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.02 - - -

115 4 25 - - - 1.53 1.01 - 1.25 - - - - - - 1.78 1.26 - 1.50 1.21 - -

118 4 28 - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 - - 1.14 - - -

131 5 11 - - - 1.06 - - - - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.08 - - -

183 7 2 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

262 9 19 - - - 2.19 1.48 - 1.79 1.37 - - 1.07 - - 2.28 1.58 - 1.89 1.47 1.04 -

272 9 29 1.12 - - 2.49 1.69 1.01 2.04 1.57 1.07 - 1.32 1.02 - 2.67 1.88 1.21 2.22 1.76 1.27 -

273 9 30 1.42 1.03 - 3.22 2.22 1.37 2.66 2.06 1.42 - 1.72 1.34 1.04 3.47 2.50 1.67 2.92 2.34 1.72 1.05

278 10 5 - - - 1.29 - - 1.04 - - - - - - 1.38 - - 1.14 - - -

280 10 7 - - - 1.36 - - 1.11 - - - 1.03 - - 1.72 1.23 1.07 1.48 1.22 - -

281 10 8 - - - 1.53 1.18 - 1.25 - - - - - - 1.61 1.26 - 1.33 1.03 - -

294 10 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

296 10 23 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.52 1.08 - 1.28 1.03 - -

297 10 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - -

308 11 4 - - - 1.95 1.52 - 1.59 1.22 - - 1.19 1.04 - 2.24 1.82 - 1.89 1.53 1.15 -

319 11 15 1.04 - - 2.42 1.44 - 1.98 1.52 1.04 - 1.12 - - 2.49 1.51 - 2.05 1.60 1.12 -

321 11 17 - - - 1.46 - - 1.19 - - - - - - 1.54 1.02 - 1.27 - - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.33 - - 1.08 - - - - - - 1.41 1.01 - 1.16 - - -

325 11 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.33 1.06 - 1.15 - - -

337 12 3 - - - 1.27 - - 1.03 - - - - - - 1.41 1.01 - 1.17 - - -

340 12 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.04 - - -

348 12 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.07 - - - - - -

349 12 15 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.25 - - 1.03 - - -

351 12 17 1.06 - - 2.45 1.65 1.16 2.00 1.54 1.05 - 1.16 - - 2.54 1.75 1.26 2.10 1.64 1.15 -

352 12 18 - - - 1.58 1.07 - 1.28 - - - - - - 1.63 1.13 - 1.34 1.03 - -

353 12 19 1.59 1.09 - 3.72 2.46 1.09 3.08 2.40 1.66 - 1.69 1.20 - 3.80 2.55 1.19 3.17 2.49 1.76 -

354 12 20 - - - 2.29 1.70 1.05 1.87 1.44 - - 1.05 - - 2.41 1.83 1.19 2.00 1.57 1.12 -

355 12 21 2.92 2.18 1.58 5.76 4.13 2.75 4.84 3.83 2.71 1.45 3.48 2.78 2.22 6.18 4.63 3.32 5.30 4.34 3.28 2.09

356 12 22 2.09 1.55 1.16 4.46 3.15 2.09 3.71 2.90 2.03 1.07 2.50 1.98 1.62 4.78 3.51 2.51 4.06 3.28 2.44 1.52

358 12 24 1.27 1.02 - 2.59 1.96 1.05 2.12 1.63 1.12 - 1.75 1.52 1.22 3.02 2.42 1.55 2.57 2.10 1.61 1.09

359 12 25 1.38 1.10 - 3.00 2.26 1.24 2.47 1.91 1.31 - 1.58 1.30 - 3.17 2.45 1.44 2.65 2.10 1.51 -

360 12 26 - - - 1.35 - - 1.09 - - - 1.12 - - 1.76 1.31 1.04 1.51 1.27 1.02 -

361 12 27 - - - 1.79 1.28 - 1.46 1.11 - - 1.29 1.07 - 2.09 1.60 1.24 1.77 1.44 1.09 -

362 12 28 1.77 1.31 - 3.93 2.72 1.67 3.26 2.54 1.76 - 2.35 1.92 1.56 4.40 3.25 2.26 3.76 3.08 2.34 1.55

363 12 29 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.04 - - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 21 13 3 62 33 20 45 27 19 4 32 23 13 74 50 29 59 40 30 12

Maximum Δ dv 2.92 2.18 1.58 5.76 4.13 2.75 4.84 3.83 2.71 1.45 3.48 2.78 2.22 6.18 4.63 3.32 5.30 4.34 3.28 2.13

G-C-200
Table G-C.9.25 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 1 3 - - - 1.45 - - 1.17 - - - - - - 1.70 1.20 - 1.44 1.17 - -

5 1 5 2.01 1.46 - 4.05 2.80 1.64 3.36 2.62 1.82 - 3.17 2.73 2.35 4.97 3.87 2.87 4.36 3.71 3.02 2.34

6 1 6 - - - 1.49 - - 1.21 - - - 1.32 1.14 - 2.09 1.62 1.23 1.82 1.55 1.27 -

19 1 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

20 1 20 1.62 1.18 - 3.72 2.57 1.62 3.08 2.40 1.66 - 2.30 1.90 1.59 4.24 3.15 2.29 3.63 2.99 2.32 1.61

22 1 22 - - - 1.59 1.05 - 1.29 - - - 2.35 2.18 2.04 3.08 2.61 2.23 2.82 2.56 2.29 2.03

23 1 23 - - - 1.01 - - - - - - 3.00 2.88 2.78 3.34 3.06 2.84 3.19 3.03 2.88 2.72

25 1 25 - - - 1.56 1.23 - 1.26 - - - - - - 1.68 1.35 - 1.39 1.09 - -

26 1 26 - - - 1.11 - - - - - - - - - 1.27 1.00 - 1.06 - - -

28 1 28 1.00 - - 2.37 1.71 1.16 1.94 1.49 1.02 - 1.07 - - 2.42 1.76 1.22 2.00 1.55 1.08 -

29 1 29 1.77 1.29 - 4.06 2.84 1.75 3.37 2.63 1.83 - 1.96 1.50 1.12 4.22 3.02 1.95 3.54 2.81 2.02 1.17

39 2 8 - - - 1.75 1.17 - 1.42 1.09 - - - - - 1.83 1.26 - 1.51 1.17 - -

43 2 12 1.28 - - 2.88 1.98 1.25 2.36 1.82 1.25 - 1.52 1.19 - 3.08 2.20 1.49 2.57 2.04 1.49 -

60 3 1 - - - 1.91 1.33 - 1.56 1.19 - - 1.30 1.11 - 2.36 1.80 1.23 2.02 1.67 1.31 -

61 3 2 - - - 1.89 1.31 - 1.54 1.18 - - 1.06 - - 2.11 1.55 - 1.77 1.41 1.04 -

86 3 27 - - - 1.02 - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - - - - -

108 4 18 - - - 1.59 1.04 - 1.30 - - - - - - 1.62 1.07 - 1.32 1.02 - -

109 4 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

110 4 20 - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.21 - - 1.00 - - -

111 4 21 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.31 - - 1.08 - - -

131 5 11 - - - - - - - - - - 1.06 1.03 1.01 1.15 1.08 1.03 1.11 1.07 1.04 -

197 7 16 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.01 - - -

221 8 9 - - - 1.62 1.17 - 1.32 1.00 - - - - - 1.72 1.28 - 1.42 1.11 - -

261 9 18 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - - - - 1.25 - - 1.06 - - -

262 9 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.07 - - - - - -

264 9 21 - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - 1.43 1.04 - 1.22 - - -

267 9 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

268 9 25 - - - 1.73 1.17 - 1.41 1.07 - - - - - 1.83 1.27 - 1.51 1.18 - -

321 11 17 - - - 2.49 1.61 - 2.04 1.57 1.07 - 1.14 - - 2.66 1.81 1.01 2.21 1.75 1.27 -

324 11 20 - - - 2.04 1.32 - 1.66 1.27 - - 1.02 - - 2.15 1.42 - 1.78 1.39 - -

350 12 16 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - - - - 1.33 - - 1.09 - - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.90 1.29 - 1.54 1.18 - - - - - 1.97 1.37 - 1.63 1.27 - -

352 12 18 1.14 - - 2.58 1.82 1.21 2.12 1.63 1.11 - 1.21 - - 2.64 1.88 1.27 2.18 1.69 1.18 -

353 12 19 - - - 2.28 1.41 - 1.87 1.43 - - 1.10 - - 2.40 1.53 - 1.99 1.56 1.11 -

354 12 20 1.25 - - 3.02 2.00 1.06 2.49 1.92 1.32 - 1.39 1.02 - 3.13 2.12 1.19 2.60 2.04 1.45 -

355 12 21 - - - 1.63 1.09 - 1.33 1.01 - - 2.35 2.16 2.02 3.01 2.54 2.21 2.75 2.48 2.21 1.93

357 12 23 - - - 1.58 1.04 - 1.28 - - - 1.04 - - 1.72 1.19 - 1.43 1.13 - -

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - 1.02 - - -

363 12 29 - - - 1.46 - - 1.19 - - - - - - 1.53 1.01 - 1.26 - - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 7 3 0 33 21 7 25 17 8 0 18 11 7 39 28 14 34 25 16 6

Maximum Δ dv 2.01 1.46 0.00 4.06 2.84 1.75 3.37 2.63 1.83 0.00 3.17 2.88 2.78 4.97 3.87 2.87 4.36 3.71 3.02 2.72

G-C-201
Table G-C.9.26 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 1 3 - - - 1.66 1.05 - 1.35 1.03 - - 1.06 - - 1.94 1.38 - 1.65 1.35 1.04 -

5 1 5 2.30 1.67 1.12 4.57 3.19 1.88 3.81 2.99 2.09 1.10 3.60 3.10 2.68 5.58 4.38 3.27 4.91 4.20 3.43 2.67

6 1 6 - - - 1.71 1.15 - 1.39 1.06 - - 1.51 1.31 1.14 2.39 1.86 1.41 2.09 1.78 1.47 1.14

19 1 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - 1.03 - - -

20 1 20 1.86 1.36 - 4.21 2.93 1.86 3.50 2.73 1.90 - 2.62 2.17 1.82 4.78 3.58 2.62 4.11 3.40 2.65 1.84

21 1 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - - - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.83 1.20 - 1.49 1.14 - - 2.68 2.49 2.34 3.50 2.98 2.54 3.21 2.92 2.61 2.32

23 1 23 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - 3.41 3.27 3.16 3.78 3.47 3.23 3.62 3.44 3.27 3.09

25 1 25 - - - 1.79 1.41 - 1.45 1.11 - - 1.08 - - 1.92 1.55 1.02 1.59 1.25 - -

26 1 26 - - - 1.27 - - 1.03 - - - - - - 1.46 1.16 - 1.22 - - -

28 1 28 1.16 - - 2.70 1.95 1.34 2.22 1.71 1.17 - 1.23 - - 2.77 2.02 1.41 2.28 1.78 1.24 -

29 1 29 2.02 1.49 1.04 4.58 3.23 2.01 3.82 2.99 2.09 1.10 2.24 1.72 1.28 4.76 3.43 2.23 4.01 3.19 2.31 1.34

39 2 8 - - - 2.01 1.35 - 1.64 1.26 - - - - - 2.11 1.45 - 1.74 1.36 - -

43 2 12 1.48 1.09 - 3.28 2.28 1.45 2.71 2.10 1.45 - 1.75 1.37 1.09 3.51 2.52 1.72 2.94 2.35 1.71 1.04

60 3 1 - - - 2.20 1.53 - 1.79 1.37 - - 1.51 1.28 1.06 2.70 2.07 1.42 2.32 1.92 1.51 1.09

61 3 2 - - - 2.17 1.52 - 1.77 1.36 - - 1.22 - - 2.42 1.78 1.13 2.03 1.63 1.21 -

76 3 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - - - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.18 - - - - - - - - - 1.34 - - 1.11 - - -

108 4 18 - - - 1.45 - - 1.18 - - - - - - 1.48 - - 1.20 - - -

110 4 20 - - - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

111 4 21 - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - - - - -

131 5 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - 1.01 - - -

197 7 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

221 8 9 - - - 1.37 - - 1.11 - - - - - - 1.45 1.08 - 1.20 - - -

261 9 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

264 9 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.18 - - 1.00 - - -

268 9 25 - - - 1.44 - - 1.16 - - - - - - 1.52 1.05 - 1.25 - - -

319 11 15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.06 - - - - - -

321 11 17 1.04 - - 2.75 1.79 - 2.26 1.74 1.19 - 1.26 - - 2.93 2.00 1.12 2.44 1.94 1.41 -

324 11 20 1.01 - - 2.25 1.46 - 1.84 1.41 - - 1.13 - - 2.37 1.57 - 1.97 1.54 1.11 -

350 12 16 - - - 1.40 - - 1.13 - - - - - - 1.48 1.01 - 1.22 - - -

351 12 17 - - - 2.10 1.43 - 1.71 1.31 - - 1.06 - - 2.19 1.52 - 1.81 1.41 - -

352 12 18 1.27 - - 2.85 2.02 1.34 2.34 1.81 1.24 - 1.34 1.03 - 2.92 2.08 1.42 2.41 1.88 1.31 -

353 12 19 1.08 - - 2.52 1.56 - 2.07 1.59 1.09 - 1.23 - - 2.65 1.70 - 2.20 1.73 1.23 -

354 12 20 1.40 - - 3.33 2.22 1.18 2.75 2.13 1.47 - 1.54 1.13 - 3.45 2.35 1.33 2.88 2.26 1.61 -

355 12 21 - - - 1.81 1.21 - 1.48 1.13 - - 2.59 2.39 2.23 3.31 2.81 2.45 3.03 2.74 2.44 2.14

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

357 12 23 - - - 1.75 1.15 - 1.42 1.09 - - 1.16 - - 1.91 1.32 - 1.59 1.26 - -

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.14 - - -

363 12 29 - - - 1.63 1.05 - 1.32 1.01 - - - - - 1.70 1.13 - 1.40 1.09 - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 10 4 2 30 21 7 26 21 9 2 20 11 9 40 26 15 32 22 17 9

Maximum Δ dv 2.30 1.67 1.12 4.58 3.23 2.01 3.82 2.99 2.09 1.10 3.60 3.27 3.16 5.58 4.38 3.27 4.91 4.20 3.43 3.09

G-C-202
Table G-C.9.27 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.23 - - 1.08 - - -

20 1 20 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 - - 1.14 - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

29 1 29 1.40 1.01 - 3.37 2.34 1.35 2.78 2.15 1.48 - 1.46 1.08 - 3.42 2.40 1.42 2.83 2.21 1.55 -

39 2 8 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 1.04 - 1.17 - - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.07 - - - - - - - - - 1.31 - - 1.11 - - -

324 11 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.18 - - 1.01 - - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - - - - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.01 - - - - - - - - - 1.14 - - - - - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 - - - - - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 12 2 1 6 1 1 0

Maximum Δ dv 1.40 1.01 0.00 3.37 2.34 1.35 2.78 2.15 1.48 0.00 1.46 1.08 0.00 3.42 2.40 1.42 2.83 2.21 1.55 0.00

G-C-203
Table G-C.9.28 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.07 - - - - - -

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.41 1.12 - 1.24 1.07 - -

20 1 20 - - - 1.34 - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.56 1.09 - 1.31 1.05 - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.19 - - - - - - - - - 1.29 - - 1.07 - - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

29 1 29 1.60 1.16 - 3.82 2.67 1.56 3.16 2.46 1.70 - 1.68 1.24 - 3.88 2.73 1.63 3.22 2.53 1.78 -

39 2 8 - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - 1.57 1.20 - 1.35 1.13 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.20 - - 1.04 - - -

61 3 2 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - - - - 1.29 - - 1.09 - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.23 - - - - - - - - - 1.51 1.14 - 1.28 1.05 - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.31 - - 1.12 - - -

351 12 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.32 - - 1.10 - - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.12 - - - - - - - - - 1.27 - - 1.06 - - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.06 - - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 1 0 9 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 15 5 1 12 5 1 0

Maximum Δ dv 1.60 1.16 0.00 3.82 2.67 1.56 3.16 2.46 1.70 0.00 1.68 1.24 0.00 3.88 2.73 1.63 3.22 2.53 1.78 0.00

G-C-204
Table G-C.9.29 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - 1.41 1.17 - 1.28 1.14 1.01 -

6 1 6 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.08 - - 1.63 1.29 - 1.44 1.24 1.03 -

20 1 20 - - - 1.61 1.06 - 1.31 - - - - - - 1.85 1.31 - 1.56 1.26 - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.40 - - 1.13 - - - - - - 1.51 1.03 - 1.25 - - -

25 1 25 - - - 1.61 1.04 - 1.31 - - - 1.20 - - 1.96 1.41 - 1.67 1.37 1.06 -

26 1 26 - - - 1.33 - - 1.08 - - - 1.20 1.03 - 1.84 1.42 1.07 1.60 1.35 1.10 -

29 1 29 2.66 1.95 1.28 6.00 4.32 2.58 5.06 4.01 2.85 1.52 2.75 2.04 1.38 6.07 4.40 2.67 5.13 4.09 2.93 1.62

39 2 8 - - - 1.18 - - - - - - - - - 1.44 1.07 - 1.22 - - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.02 - 1.15 - - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.03 - - - - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.08 - - - - - - - - - 1.35 1.04 - 1.15 - - -

324 11 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - - - - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - - - - 1.30 - - 1.09 - - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.33 - - 1.08 - - - - - - 1.48 1.05 - 1.23 - - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.05 - - - - - - 1.01 - - 1.58 1.21 - 1.39 1.20 1.00 -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 1 1 11 3 1 6 1 1 1 6 2 1 16 12 2 13 7 6 1

Maximum Δ dv 2.66 1.95 1.28 6.00 4.32 2.58 5.06 4.01 2.85 1.52 2.75 2.04 1.38 6.07 4.40 2.67 5.13 4.09 2.93 1.62

G-C-205
Table G-C.9.30 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 - - - - - - - - - - 1.20 1.10 1.01 1.62 1.35 1.13 1.47 1.32 1.16 1.01

6 1 6 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - 1.24 1.09 - 1.87 1.48 1.14 1.65 1.42 1.19 -

20 1 20 - - - 1.85 1.22 - 1.51 1.15 - - 1.05 - - 2.12 1.51 1.01 1.79 1.44 1.09 -

22 1 22 - - - 1.61 1.06 - 1.30 - - - - - - 1.73 1.19 - 1.44 1.13 - -

25 1 25 - - - 1.85 1.19 - 1.50 1.15 - - 1.38 1.12 - 2.24 1.62 1.14 1.91 1.57 1.22 -

26 1 26 - - - 1.53 1.02 - 1.24 - - - 1.38 1.19 1.03 2.10 1.63 1.23 1.83 1.55 1.27 -

29 1 29 3.03 2.23 1.47 6.70 4.87 2.94 5.68 4.53 3.24 1.75 3.13 2.34 1.58 6.77 4.96 3.04 5.75 4.62 3.33 1.86

39 2 8 - - - 1.36 - - 1.10 - - - - - - 1.66 1.23 - 1.41 1.15 - -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.06 - - - - - -

44 2 13 - - - 1.15 - - - - - - - - - 1.54 1.18 - 1.33 1.12 - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.20 - - 1.03 - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.25 - - 1.01 - - - - - - 1.56 1.21 - 1.33 1.10 - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.09 - - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.44 1.07 - 1.22 - - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.48 - - 1.20 - - - - - - 1.64 1.17 - 1.37 1.08 - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.02 - - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - 1.13 - - 1.76 1.34 1.04 1.55 1.33 1.11 -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 1 1 14 5 1 9 3 1 1 7 5 3 17 13 7 16 12 7 2

Maximum Δ dv 3.03 2.23 1.47 6.70 4.87 2.94 5.68 4.53 3.24 1.75 3.13 2.34 1.58 6.77 4.96 3.04 5.75 4.62 3.33 1.86

G-C-206
Table G-C.9.31 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.06 - - - - - -

5 1 5 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.01 - - 1.58 1.23 - 1.38 1.18 - -

6 1 6 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.46 1.13 - 1.27 1.07 - -

20 1 20 - - - 1.87 1.21 - 1.52 1.16 - - 1.17 - - 2.25 1.62 1.10 1.91 1.57 1.21 -

21 1 21 - - - 1.07 - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.28 - - 1.04 - - - - - - 1.41 - - 1.16 - - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - 1.26 1.04 - 1.14 1.02 - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.07 - - - - - -

29 1 29 2.12 1.54 1.01 4.89 3.46 2.04 4.09 3.21 2.25 1.19 2.20 1.63 1.11 4.95 3.54 2.13 4.15 3.29 2.33 1.28

39 2 8 - - - 1.54 1.04 - 1.25 - - - 1.06 - - 1.85 1.36 - 1.57 1.28 - -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.15 - - 1.02 - - -

44 2 13 - - - 1.12 - - - - - - - - - 1.46 1.09 - 1.25 1.04 - -

61 3 2 - - - 1.27 - - 1.03 - - - - - - 1.61 1.22 - 1.38 1.14 - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.31 - - 1.06 - - - - - - 1.59 1.17 - 1.34 1.10 - -

108 4 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

252 9 9 - - - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - - - - 1.55 1.13 - 1.32 1.08 - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.49 1.12 - 1.27 1.04 - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.35 - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.56 1.07 - 1.31 1.06 - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.46 - - 1.18 - - - - - - 1.75 1.26 - 1.48 1.21 - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.16 - - - - - - 1.14 - - 1.76 1.35 1.05 1.55 1.34 1.12 -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 1 v = .0 1 1 16 3 1 9 2 1 1 6 1 1 21 14 3 16 14 3 1

Maximum Δ dv 2.12 1.54 1.01 4.89 3.46 2.04 4.09 3.21 2.25 1.19 2.20 1.63 1.11 4.95 3.54 2.13 4.15 3.29 2.33 1.28

G-C-207
Table G-C.9.32 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.05 - - -

5 1 5 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - 1.16 1.02 - 1.82 1.41 1.07 1.59 1.36 1.12 -

6 1 6 - - - 1.19 - - - - - - 1.07 - - 1.67 1.30 - 1.46 1.24 1.01 -

20 1 20 - - - 2.14 1.40 - 1.75 1.34 - - 1.34 1.09 - 2.57 1.86 1.26 2.19 1.80 1.39 -

21 1 21 - - - 1.23 - - - - - - - - - 1.30 - - 1.07 - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.48 - - 1.20 - - - - - - 1.61 1.12 - 1.34 1.06 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 1.16 1.06 - 1.45 1.20 1.02 1.32 1.18 1.05 -

24 1 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

26 1 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.24 - - 1.08 - - -

29 1 29 2.42 1.77 1.17 5.50 3.92 2.33 4.61 3.64 2.57 1.37 2.52 1.87 1.27 5.56 4.00 2.43 4.69 3.73 2.66 1.47

38 2 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.78 1.21 - 1.45 1.11 - - 1.22 1.00 - 2.13 1.57 1.09 1.81 1.48 1.14 -

43 2 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.33 1.07 - 1.18 1.03 - -

44 2 13 - - - 1.30 - - 1.05 - - - 1.03 - - 1.68 1.26 - 1.45 1.20 - -

61 3 2 - - - 1.46 - - 1.19 - - - 1.08 - - 1.86 1.41 1.03 1.59 1.32 1.04 -

86 3 27 - - - 1.52 1.03 - 1.23 - - - 1.11 - - 1.83 1.36 - 1.55 1.27 - -

108 4 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

324 11 20 - - - 1.40 - - 1.13 - - - - - - 1.71 1.25 - 1.46 1.20 - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.34 - - 1.09 - - - - - - 1.66 1.25 - 1.41 1.16 - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.50 - - 1.22 - - - - - - 1.74 1.19 - 1.46 1.18 - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.62 1.06 - 1.31 1.00 - - 1.02 - - 1.94 1.40 - 1.64 1.34 1.03 -

355 12 21 - - - 1.29 - - 1.05 - - - 1.27 1.11 - 1.96 1.50 1.17 1.73 1.49 1.25 1.00

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.06 - - - - - -

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 1 1 15 5 1 13 4 1 1 11 6 1 23 16 7 19 16 9 2

Maximum Δ dv 2.42 1.77 1.17 5.50 3.92 2.33 4.61 3.64 2.57 1.37 2.52 1.87 1.27 5.56 4.00 2.43 4.69 3.73 2.66 1.47

G-C-208
Table G-C.9.33 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1.29 1.24 1.20 1.46 1.35 1.27 1.38 1.30 1.22 1.13

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.02 - - - - - -

21 1 21 1.93 1.36 - 4.33 2.96 1.87 3.60 2.82 1.96 1.03 2.13 1.57 1.14 4.49 3.14 2.06 3.77 2.99 2.16 1.24

22 1 22 1.24 - - 2.41 1.62 - 1.97 1.51 1.03 - 1.84 1.51 1.21 2.94 2.20 1.57 2.53 2.10 1.65 1.19

27 1 27 1.17 - - 2.40 1.66 1.04 1.97 1.51 1.03 - 2.21 1.94 1.71 3.33 2.65 2.09 2.93 2.51 2.08 1.63

28 1 28 1.62 1.20 - 3.21 2.25 1.42 2.65 2.05 1.41 - 2.17 1.78 1.44 3.68 2.77 1.98 3.14 2.58 1.97 1.33

40 2 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - - - - - -

42 2 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.27 - - 1.10 - - -

85 3 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.03 - - - - - -

89 3 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

305 11 1 - - - 1.17 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 - - 1.14 - - -

331 11 27 - - - 1.52 1.06 - 1.24 - - - - - - 1.74 1.28 - 1.46 1.17 - -

353 12 19 - - - 1.75 1.12 - 1.43 1.09 - - 1.00 - - 1.95 1.33 - 1.63 1.30 - -

354 12 20 1.85 1.35 - 3.45 2.34 1.43 2.85 2.21 1.52 - 2.42 1.94 1.53 3.93 2.88 2.02 3.36 2.76 2.11 1.42

355 12 21 - - - 1.11 - - - - - - - - - 1.31 - - 1.10 - - -

356 12 22 - - - 1.65 1.12 - 1.34 1.02 - - 1.42 1.19 1.00 2.16 1.65 1.24 1.86 1.56 1.25 -

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.22 1.13 1.67 1.42 1.23 1.52 1.37 1.21 1.05

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - 1.31 1.18 1.07 1.58 1.35 1.15 1.42 1.27 1.11 -

362 12 28 - - - - - - - - - - 1.54 1.49 1.47 1.63 1.54 1.49 1.57 1.51 1.45 1.39

Number of Days Δ d > 1 5 v = .0 3 0 10 8 4 8 7 5 1 11 10 10 19 12 10 15 12 10 8

Maximum Δ dv 1.93 1.36 0.00 4.33 2.96 1.87 3.60 2.82 1.96 1.03 2.42 1.94 1.71 4.49 3.14 2.09 3.77 2.99 2.16 1.63

G-C-209
Table G-C.9.34 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1.48 1.43 1.38 1.68 1.56 1.46 1.59 1.49 1.40 1.31

6 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - 1.07 - - -

21 1 21 2.21 1.57 1.06 4.88 3.37 2.14 4.08 3.20 2.25 1.19 2.43 1.80 1.31 5.05 3.56 2.36 4.26 3.40 2.46 1.43

22 1 22 1.43 1.02 - 2.75 1.86 1.09 2.26 1.74 1.19 - 2.11 1.73 1.40 3.34 2.51 1.80 2.88 2.40 1.90 1.37

27 1 27 1.35 1.00 - 2.74 1.90 1.20 2.25 1.73 1.19 - 2.52 2.22 1.96 3.77 3.02 2.39 3.33 2.87 2.38 1.87

28 1 28 1.85 1.39 - 3.64 2.57 1.63 3.01 2.34 1.62 - 2.48 2.04 1.65 4.17 3.15 2.26 3.57 2.93 2.26 1.53

40 2 9 - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.08 - - -

42 2 11 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.47 1.14 - 1.28 1.08 - -

85 3 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - 1.02 - - -

89 3 30 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.28 - - 1.08 - - -

305 11 1 - - - 1.30 - - 1.05 - - - - - - 1.51 1.08 - 1.27 1.02 - -

321 11 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

331 11 27 - - - 1.69 1.18 - 1.37 1.05 - - - - - 1.92 1.42 1.02 1.61 1.30 - -

353 12 19 - - - 1.95 1.25 - 1.59 1.21 - - 1.12 - - 2.16 1.48 - 1.81 1.44 1.06 -

354 12 20 2.06 1.50 1.01 3.79 2.59 1.59 3.14 2.44 1.69 - 2.68 2.15 1.70 4.32 3.18 2.24 3.70 3.04 2.34 1.58

355 12 21 - - - 1.24 - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.45 1.03 - 1.22 - - -

356 12 22 - - - 1.83 1.25 - 1.49 1.14 - - 1.58 1.33 1.12 2.39 1.84 1.38 2.06 1.73 1.39 1.03

357 12 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - 1.49 1.36 1.25 1.86 1.58 1.36 1.69 1.52 1.35 1.17

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - 1.45 1.32 1.19 1.75 1.50 1.28 1.58 1.41 1.23 1.05

362 12 28 - - - - - - - - - - 1.71 1.65 1.63 1.81 1.72 1.66 1.74 1.67 1.61 1.54

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 5 5 2 13 8 5 10 8 5 1 11 10 10 21 15 11 19 14 11 10

Maximum Δ dv 2.21 1.57 1.06 4.88 3.37 2.14 4.08 3.20 2.25 1.19 2.68 2.22 1.96 5.05 3.56 2.39 4.26 3.40 2.46 1.87

G-C-210
Table G-C.9.35 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 1.08 - - 2.06 1.36 - 1.68 1.28 - - 1.21 - - 2.17 1.48 - 1.79 1.40 - -

20 1 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 - - - - - -

21 1 21 - - - - - - - - - - 1.43 1.36 1.31 1.71 1.53 1.37 1.61 1.52 1.42 1.32

22 1 22 1.10 - - 2.27 1.52 - 1.85 1.42 - - 2.50 2.24 2.02 3.51 2.86 2.33 3.14 2.77 2.40 2.02

42 2 11 - - - 1.49 - - 1.21 - - - 1.00 - - 1.88 1.30 - 1.61 1.33 1.05 -

60 3 1 - - - 1.33 - - 1.08 - - - - - - 1.55 1.12 - 1.31 1.06 - -

161 6 10 - - - 1.30 - - 1.06 - - - - - - 1.59 1.13 - 1.35 1.10 - -

263 9 20 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.25 - - 1.06 - - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - 1.09 - - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - 1.84 1.75 1.69 2.14 1.92 1.77 2.02 1.90 1.78 1.65

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - 1.39 1.14 - 1.24 1.08 - -

357 12 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.19 - - 1.03 - - -

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.16 1.11 1.08 1.14 1.11 1.08 1.06

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.31 1.29 1.46 1.38 1.32 1.42 1.37 1.33 1.28

362 12 28 - - - - - - - - - - 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.57

Number of Days Δ d > 1 2 v = .0 0 0 6 2 0 5 2 0 0 9 6 6 15 11 6 14 11 7 6

Maximum Δ dv 1.10 0.00 0.00 2.27 1.52 0.00 1.85 1.42 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.24 2.02 3.51 2.86 2.33 3.14 2.77 2.40 2.02

G-C-211
Table G-C.9.36 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

5 1 5 1.25 - - 2.35 1.56 - 1.92 1.48 1.01 - 1.39 1.03 - 2.48 1.69 1.12 2.05 1.61 1.15 -

20 1 20 - - - - - - - - - - 1.02 - - 1.26 1.07 - 1.12 - - -

21 1 21 - - - - - - - - - - 1.64 1.57 1.51 1.96 1.75 1.58 1.85 1.74 1.63 1.51

22 1 22 1.27 - - 2.59 1.74 1.02 2.12 1.63 1.12 - 2.85 2.56 2.31 3.97 3.25 2.66 3.57 3.15 2.74 2.30

42 2 11 - - - 1.72 1.02 - 1.40 1.06 - - 1.16 - - 2.16 1.50 1.07 1.85 1.54 1.21 -

60 3 1 - - - 1.53 1.02 - 1.24 - - - - - - 1.79 1.30 - 1.51 1.22 - -

161 6 10 - - - 1.21 - - - - - - - - - 1.47 1.05 - 1.25 1.02 - -

263 9 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - - - - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 1.00 - 1.32 1.10 - 1.22 1.11 - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - 2.04 1.95 1.88 2.37 2.12 1.96 2.24 2.11 1.97 1.83

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - 1.16 1.04 - 1.54 1.27 1.06 1.37 1.20 1.02 -

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 - - - - - -

357 12 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.32 1.00 - 1.14 - - -

358 12 24 - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 1.20 1.18 1.29 1.24 1.20 1.26 1.24 1.21 1.18

359 12 25 - - - - - - - - - - 1.49 1.45 1.43 1.62 1.54 1.47 1.57 1.52 1.48 1.43

362 12 28 - - - - - - - - - - 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

Number of Days Δ d > 1 2 v = .0 0 0 5 4 1 4 3 2 0 11 9 6 16 14 9 14 12 9 6

Maximum Δ dv 1.27 0.00 0.00 2.59 1.74 1.02 2.12 1.63 1.12 0.00 2.85 2.56 2.31 3.97 3.25 2.66 3.57 3.15 2.74 2.30

G-C-212
Table G-C.9.37 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.01 - 1.14 - - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.24 - - 1.09 - - -

24 1 24 - - - 1.43 - - 1.16 - - - - - - 1.61 1.16 - 1.34 1.07 - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 1.41 1.08 - 1.22 1.03 - -

61 3 2 - - - 1.38 - - 1.12 - - - - - - 1.68 1.26 - 1.42 1.16 - -

352 12 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

354 12 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - - - - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.02 - - - - - -

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 1.03 - 1.06 1.02 - -

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 6 4 0 0

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 1.26 0.00 1.42 1.16 0.00 0.00

G-C-213
Table G-C.9.38 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 1 4 - - - 1.25 - - 1.02 - - - - - - 1.54 1.16 - 1.31 1.07 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 1.04 - - 1.43 1.11 - 1.25 1.07 - -

24 1 24 - - - 1.64 1.13 - 1.34 1.02 - - - - - 1.84 1.34 - 1.54 1.23 - -

39 2 8 - - - 1.16 - - - - - - 1.07 - - 1.62 1.25 - 1.41 1.20 - -

61 3 2 - - - 1.60 1.10 - 1.30 - - - 1.09 - - 1.93 1.45 - 1.64 1.35 1.04 -

352 12 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.22 - - 1.05 - - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.05 - - - - - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.30 - - 1.11 - - -

355 12 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.14 - - 1.00 - - -

356 12 22 - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 1.07 1.04 1.23 1.14 1.08 1.18 1.13 1.08 1.03

Number of Days Δ d > 1 0 v = .0 0 0 5 2 0 3 1 0 0 4 1 1 10 6 1 9 6 2 1

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.13 0.00 1.34 1.02 0.00 0.00 1.11 1.07 1.04 1.93 1.45 1.08 1.64 1.35 1.08 1.03

G-C-214
Table G-C.9.39 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 1 3 - - - 1.09 - - - - - - - - - 1.13 - - - - - -

5 1 5 - - - 1.53 1.02 - 1.25 - - - 2.16 1.98 1.83 2.88 2.43 2.04 2.62 2.37 2.10 1.83

6 1 6 - - - 1.28 - - 1.04 - - - 1.31 1.15 1.01 1.95 1.56 1.21 1.72 1.49 1.25 1.01

20 1 20 - - - 2.17 1.44 - 1.77 1.36 - - 1.32 1.07 - 2.55 1.85 1.28 2.17 1.77 1.35 -

21 1 21 - - - 1.22 - - - - - - - - - 1.30 - - 1.07 - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.32 - - 1.07 - - - - - - 1.49 1.05 - 1.24 - - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 1.25 1.20 1.16 1.38 1.26 1.18 1.31 1.25 1.18 1.12

25 1 25 1.25 - - 2.36 1.59 - 1.93 1.48 1.01 - 1.40 1.08 - 2.48 1.72 1.07 2.06 1.62 1.18 -

26 1 26 - - - 1.55 1.06 - 1.26 - - - 1.20 1.02 - 1.89 1.43 1.06 1.63 1.36 1.09 -

29 1 29 3.60 2.69 1.83 7.66 5.67 3.52 6.53 5.25 3.79 2.07 3.70 2.80 1.94 7.73 5.75 3.62 6.60 5.34 3.89 2.19

39 2 8 - - - 1.25 - - 1.01 - - - - - - 1.49 1.10 - 1.26 1.02 - -

43 2 12 - - - 1.24 - - 1.00 - - - - - - 1.51 1.09 - 1.28 1.04 - -

44 2 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.18 - - 1.01 - - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.06 - - - - - - - - - 1.34 1.05 - 1.14 - - -

108 4 18 - - - 1.67 1.08 - 1.36 1.03 - - - - - 1.70 1.11 - 1.39 1.06 - -

111 4 21 - - - 1.22 - - - - - - - - - 1.42 - - 1.19 - - -

350 12 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.38 - - 1.12 - - - - - - 1.55 1.13 - 1.30 1.05 - -

352 12 18 - - - 1.83 1.23 - 1.49 1.13 - - - - - 1.94 1.35 - 1.60 1.26 - -

353 12 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.25 - - 1.01 - - - - - - 1.49 1.03 - 1.26 1.02 - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.45 - - 1.18 - - - 1.46 1.27 1.14 2.20 1.71 1.36 1.94 1.68 1.41 1.14

Number of Days Δ d > 1 2 v = .0 1 1 18 7 1 14 5 2 1 8 8 5 23 16 8 19 14 8 5

Maximum Δ dv 3.60 2.69 1.83 7.66 5.67 3.52 6.53 5.25 3.79 2.07 3.70 2.80 1.94 7.73 5.75 3.62 6.60 5.34 3.89 2.19

G-C-215
Table G-C.9.40 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Each Preferred Alternative Modeling Scenario (1-20)

Julian Day Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 1 3 - - - 1.26 - - 1.02 - - - - - - 1.30 - - 1.06 - - -

5 1 5 - - - 1.76 1.18 - 1.43 1.09 - - 2.46 2.27 2.10 3.27 2.77 2.33 2.99 2.70 2.40 2.09

6 1 6 - - - 1.48 - - 1.20 - - - 1.51 1.33 1.17 2.23 1.79 1.39 1.98 1.71 1.44 1.16

19 1 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.01 - - - - - -

20 1 20 1.03 - - 2.48 1.66 - 2.03 1.56 1.07 - 1.52 1.23 1.01 2.91 2.12 1.47 2.48 2.03 1.56 1.06

21 1 21 - - - 1.40 - - 1.14 - - - - - - 1.50 1.09 - 1.24 - - -

22 1 22 - - - 1.52 - - 1.23 - - - - - - 1.71 1.20 - 1.43 1.14 - -

23 1 23 - - - - - - - - - - 1.44 1.38 1.33 1.58 1.45 1.35 1.51 1.44 1.36 1.29

25 1 25 1.44 1.04 - 2.69 1.82 1.05 2.21 1.70 1.16 - 1.61 1.25 1.00 2.82 1.97 1.23 2.35 1.86 1.36 -

26 1 26 - - - 1.78 1.23 - 1.45 1.11 - - 1.38 1.17 - 2.16 1.65 1.22 1.86 1.56 1.26 -

28 1 28 - - - 1.03 - - - - - - - - - 1.08 - - - - - -

29 1 29 4.07 3.07 2.09 8.48 6.34 3.98 7.27 5.89 4.28 2.37 4.18 3.19 2.23 8.56 6.43 4.09 7.35 5.98 4.39 2.50

39 2 8 - - - 1.45 - - 1.17 - - - - - - 1.72 1.27 - 1.46 1.19 - -

43 2 12 - - - 1.43 - - 1.16 - - - - - - 1.74 1.26 - 1.47 1.21 - -

44 2 13 - - - 1.02 - - - - - - - - - 1.36 1.04 - 1.17 - - -

60 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.02 - - - - - -

61 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.17 - - - - - -

86 3 27 - - - 1.23 - - - - - - - - - 1.55 1.22 - 1.32 1.09 - -

108 4 18 - - - 1.52 - - 1.23 - - - - - - 1.55 1.01 - 1.26 - - -

111 4 21 - - - 1.11 - - - - - - - - - 1.29 - - 1.08 - - -

324 11 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - -

350 12 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - - -

351 12 17 - - - 1.53 1.04 - 1.24 - - - - - - 1.72 1.26 - 1.45 1.16 - -

352 12 18 - - - 2.02 1.37 - 1.65 1.26 - - - - - 2.15 1.50 - 1.78 1.40 1.04 -

353 12 19 - - - 1.04 - - - - - - - - - 1.20 - - 1.01 - - -

354 12 20 - - - 1.39 - - 1.13 - - - - - - 1.66 1.14 - 1.40 1.14 - -

355 12 21 - - - 1.61 1.03 - 1.31 - - - 1.62 1.42 1.27 2.43 1.90 1.52 2.15 1.86 1.57 1.27

Number of Days Δ d > 1 3 v = .0 2 1 21 8 2 16 6 3 1 8 8 7 27 18 8 21 15 9 6

Maximum Δ dv 4.07 3.07 2.09 8.48 6.34 3.98 7.27 5.89 4.28 2.37 4.18 3.19 2.23 8.56 6.43 4.09 7.35 5.98 4.39 2.50

G-C-216
Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentr

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 

250 0.126 3.53 0.005 3.41 0.042 3.44 150 0.087 3.49 0.004 3.40 0.030 3.43 

75 0.055 3.45 0.003 3.40 0.020 3.42 

250 0.306 3.71 0.012 3.41 0.097 3.50 150 0.195 3.60 0.008 3.41 0.063 3.46 

75 0.101 3.50 0.004 3.40 0.038 3.44 

20 2 0.245 3.65 0.009 3.41 0.077 3.48 

40 2 0.184 3.58 0.007 3.41 0.058 3.46 60 2 0.123 3.52 0.005 3.40 0.039 3.44 80 2 0.061 3.46 0.002 3.40 0.019 3.42 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentr

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual 

250 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 150 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 

75 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 0.000 3.40 

250 0.003 3.40 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 150 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

75 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 

20 2 0.003 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

40 2 0.002 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 60 2 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.000 3.40 80 2 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 μg/m3 on an annual basis.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

High Emissions CasesMitigation Runs

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

Low Emissions CasesHigh Emissions CasesMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.1 - Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive P

Sources 

Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Low Emissions Cases

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

G-C-217
Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total C

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual A

250 0.237 3.64 0.016 3.42 0.068 150 0.199 3.60 0.015 3.41 0.056 

75 0.167 3.57 0.014 3.41 0.046 

250 0.418 3.82 0.023 3.42 0.120 150 0.307 3.71 0.019 3.42 0.087 

75 0.213 3.61 0.015 3.42 0.062 

20 2 0.356 3.76 0.020 3.42 0.101 

40 2 0.295 3.70 0.018 3.42 0.081 60 2 0.234 3.63 0.016 3.42 0.063 80 2 0.174 3.57 0.013 3.41 0.044 

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total C

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual A

250 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 150 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

75 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

250 0.032 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.004 150 0.031 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

75 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

20 2 0.031 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

40 2 0.031 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 60 2 0.030 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 80 2 0.029 3.43 0.007 3.41 0.003 

2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Table G-C.10.2 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Clas

Direct Project and Regional Sources

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 100 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

Low Emissions CasesHigh Emissions CasesMitigation Runs

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Cl

Mitigation RunsHigh Emissions CasesLow Emissions Cases

Bridger Wilderness Class I

G-C-218
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-h

250 0.254 0.079 0.004 132.25 43.08 9.00 0.021 0.006 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.090 0.014 0.001 132.09 43.01 150 0.157 0.050 0.002 132.16 43.05 9.00 0.014 0.004 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.060 0.009 0.001 132.06 43.01 

75 0.081 0.024 0.001 132.08 43.02 9.00 0.007 0.002 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.029 0.005 0.000 132.03 43.01 

250 1.232 0.382 0.019 133.23 43.38 9.02 0.102 0.028 0.001 132.10 43.03 9.00 0.437 0.068 0.006 132.44 43.07 150 0.750 0.237 0.012 132.75 43.24 9.01 0.065 0.018 0.001 132.06 43.02 9.00 0.292 0.045 0.004 132.29 43.04 

75 0.382 0.113 0.005 132.38 43.11 9.01 0.033 0.009 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.142 0.027 0.002 132.14 43.03 

20 2 0.985 0.306 0.015 132.99 43.31 9.02 0.082 0.022 0.001 132.08 43.02 9.00 0.350 0.055 0.005 132.35 43.05 

40 2 0.739 0.229 0.012 132.74 43.23 9.01 0.061 0.017 0.001 132.06 43.02 9.00 0.262 0.041 0.004 132.26 43.04 60 2 0.493 0.153 0.008 132.49 43.15 9.01 0.041 0.011 0.000 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.175 0.027 0.002 132.17 43.03 80 2 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 

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-h

250 0.009 0.003 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 43.00 150 0.005 0.002 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.00 43.00 9.00 0.002 0.001 0.000 132.00 43.00 

75 0.003 0.001 0.000 132.00 43.00 9.00 0.003 0.000 0.000 132.00 43.00 9.00 0.001 0.000 0.000 132.00 43.00 

250 0.041 0.012 0.000 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.038 0.007 0.000 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.015 0.005 0.000 132.02 43.00 150 0.025 0.008 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.023 0.004 0.000 132.02 43.00 9.00 0.009 0.003 0.000 132.01 43.00 

75 0.013 0.004 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.012 0.002 0.000 132.01 43.00 9.00 0.005 0.001 0.000 132.00 43.00 

20 2 0.033 0.010 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.031 0.006 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.012 0.004 0.000 132.01 43.00 

40 2 0.025 0.007 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.023 0.004 0.000 132.02 43.00 9.00 0.009 0.003 0.000 132.01 43.00 60 2 0.017 0.005 0.000 132.02 43.00 9.00 0.015 0.003 0.000 132.02 43.00 9.00 0.006 0.002 0.000 132.01 43.00 80 2 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 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison with NAAQS/WAAQS which are 1,300 μg/m 3 on a 3-hour basis, 3

 and 80/60 μg/m 3 on an annual basis.

2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Clas

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Conce

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Total Concentration1

Popo Agie Wilderness Class 

Mitigation RunsHigh Emissions CasesMitigation Runs

Direct Modeled Impact

Low Emissions CasesHigh Emissions Cases

Table G-C.10.3 - Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Low Emissions Cases

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Direct Modeled 

Impact 

Total Conce

Total Concentration1 Total Concentration1

G-C-219
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

250 0.269 0.086 0.000 132.27 43.09 9.00 0.023 0.007 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.091 0.016 0.000 132.09 43150 0.170 0.056 0.000 132.17 43.06 9.00 0.020 0.007 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.062 0.011 0.000 132.06 43

75 0.167 0.042 0.000 132.17 43.04 9.00 0.020 0.006 0.000 132.02 43.01 9.00 0.032 0.010 0.000 132.03 43

250 1.246 0.388 0.014 133.25 43.39 9.01 0.086 0.023 0.000 132.09 43.02 9.00 0.438 0.070 0.002 132.44 43150 0.765 0.243 0.006 132.76 43.24 9.01 0.054 0.014 0.000 132.05 43.01 9.00 0.294 0.047 0.000 132.29 43

75 0.395 0.119 0.000 132.39 43.12 9.00 0.029 0.008 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.144 0.028 0.000 132.14 43

20 2 1.000 0.312 0.010 133.00 43.31 9.01 0.069 0.019 0.000 132.07 43.02 9.00 0.351 0.056 0.001 132.35 43

40 2 0.753 0.236 0.006 132.75 43.24 9.01 0.052 0.014 0.000 132.05 43.01 9.00 0.263 0.043 0.000 132.26 4360 2 0.507 0.159 0.002 132.51 43.16 9.00 0.034 0.009 0.000 132.03 43.01 9.00 0.176 0.029 0.000 132.18 4380 2 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

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

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 43150 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

75 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

250 0.201 0.038 0.007 132.20 43.04 9.01 0.043 0.012 0.001 132.04 43.01 9.00 0.075 0.013 0.001 132.07 43150 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

75 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

20 2 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

40 2 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 4360 2 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 4380 2 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

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison with NAAQS/WAAQS which are 1,300 μg/m 3 on a 3-hour 

 and 80/60 μg/m3 on an annual basis.

2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Mitigation Runs

Total Concentration1

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Total Concentration1

Low Emissions CasesHigh Emissions CasesMitigation RunsHigh Emissions Cases

Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park C

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Conc

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration 

1

Table G-C.10.4 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I a

Direct Project and Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Low Emissions Cases

Direct Modeled Impact

Popo Agie Wilderness Clas

Direct Modeled 

Impact Total Conc

G-C-220
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 1.502 0.058 34.50 16.06 0.168 0.006 33.17 16.01 0.237 0.016 33.24 150 1.195 0.047 34.19 16.05 0.128 0.005 33.13 16.00 0.201 0.013 33.20 

75 0.937 0.038 33.94 16.04 0.097 0.004 33.10 16.00 0.171 0.010 33.17 

250 3.165 0.117 36.17 16.12 0.396 0.012 33.40 16.01 0.414 0.034 33.41 150 2.199 0.082 35.20 16.08 0.264 0.008 33.26 16.01 0.296 0.023 33.30 

75 1.393 0.054 34.39 16.05 0.161 0.005 33.16 16.01 0.211 0.015 33.21 

20 2 2.532 0.094 35.53 16.09 0.317 0.009 33.32 16.01 0.331 0.027 33.33 

40 2 1.899 0.070 34.90 16.07 0.238 0.007 33.24 16.01 0.248 0.020 33.25 60 2 1.266 0.047 34.27 16.05 0.158 0.005 33.16 16.00 0.165 0.013 33.17 80 2 0.633 0.023 33.63 16.02 0.079 0.002 33.08 16.00 0.083 0.007 33.08 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 0.088 0.003 33.09 16.00 0.040 0.002 33.04 16.00 0.041 0.001 33.04 150 0.067 0.002 33.07 16.00 0.031 0.001 33.03 16.00 0.031 0.001 33.03 

75 0.048 0.001 33.05 16.00 0.027 0.001 33.03 16.00 0.022 0.001 33.02 

250 0.182 0.005 33.18 16.01 0.081 0.003 33.08 16.00 0.081 0.002 33.08 150 0.125 0.004 33.12 16.00 0.055 0.002 33.05 16.00 0.055 0.001 33.05 

75 0.077 0.002 33.08 16.00 0.034 0.001 33.03 16.00 0.033 0.001 33.03 

20 2 0.146 0.004 33.15 16.00 0.065 0.003 33.06 16.00 0.065 0.002 33.06 40 2 0.109 0.003 33.11 16.00 0.049 0.002 33.05 16.00 0.049 0.001 33.05 60 2 0.073 0.002 33.07 16.00 0.032 0.001 33.03 16.00 0.032 0.001 33.03 80 2 0.036 0.001 33.04 16.00 0.016 0.001 33.02 16.00 0.016 0.000 33.02 

1 Total Concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS whaich are 150 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

High Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Low Emissions Case

Direct Modeled Impact Total C

Total Concentration Direct Modeled Impact 1 Total Concentration1

Yellowstone National Park 

Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled Impact Total C

Teton Wilderness Class I

Table G-C.10.5 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sens

Sources

Mitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseLow Emissions Case

Direct Modeled Impact 

Popo Agie Wilderness Cla

G-C-221
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 1.661 0.075 34.66 16.08 0.195 0.011 33.20 16.01 0.293 0.022 33.29 150 1.354 0.064 34.35 16.06 0.172 0.010 33.17 16.01 0.256 0.019 33.26 

75 1.096 0.055 34.10 16.06 0.161 0.009 33.16 16.01 0.226 0.017 33.23 

250 3.319 0.134 36.32 16.13 0.406 0.017 33.41 16.02 0.462 0.040 33.46 150 2.353 0.099 35.35 16.10 0.273 0.013 33.27 16.01 0.351 0.029 33.35 

75 1.547 0.071 34.55 16.07 0.179 0.010 33.18 16.01 0.266 0.021 33.27 

20 2 2.686 0.111 35.69 16.11 0.326 0.014 33.33 16.01 0.379 0.033 33.38 

40 2 2.053 0.087 35.05 16.09 0.247 0.012 33.25 16.01 0.297 0.026 33.30 60 2 1.420 0.064 34.42 16.06 0.173 0.010 33.17 16.01 0.222 0.020 33.22 80 2 0.787 0.041 33.79 16.04 0.151 0.007 33.15 16.01 0.180 0.013 33.18 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 0.136 0.015 33.14 16.01 0.077 0.006 33.08 16.01 0.062 0.005 33.06 150 0.133 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.067 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.056 0.005 33.06 

75 0.129 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.060 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.052 0.004 33.05 

250 0.227 0.018 33.23 16.02 0.120 0.008 33.12 16.01 0.098 0.006 33.10 150 0.170 0.016 33.17 16.02 0.093 0.007 33.09 16.01 0.071 0.005 33.07 

75 0.130 0.015 33.13 16.01 0.073 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.058 0.005 33.06 

20 2 0.190 0.016 33.19 16.02 0.104 0.007 33.10 16.01 0.082 0.005 33.08 40 2 0.154 0.015 33.15 16.02 0.088 0.007 33.09 16.01 0.067 0.005 33.07 60 2 0.129 0.014 33.13 16.01 0.072 0.006 33.07 16.01 0.058 0.005 33.06 80 2 0.125 0.013 33.13 16.01 0.056 0.006 33.06 16.01 0.050 0.004 33.05 

1 Total Concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS whaich are 150 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis an2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

High Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Direct Modeled Impact

Total Concentration 

1 Direct Modeled Impact

Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Yellowstone National Park 

Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Popo Agie Wilderness Cla

Total Concentration1

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.6 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Clas

Direct Project and Regional Sources

Low Emissions Case

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

G-C-222
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 1.502 0.058 14.50 5.06 0.168 0.006 13.17 5.01 0.237 0.016 13.24 150 1.195 0.047 14.19 5.05 0.128 0.005 13.13 5.00 0.201 0.013 13.20 

75 0.937 0.038 13.94 5.04 0.097 0.004 13.10 5.00 0.171 0.010 13.17 

250 3.165 0.117 16.17 5.12 0.396 0.012 13.40 5.01 0.414 0.034 13.41 150 2.199 0.082 15.20 5.08 0.264 0.008 13.26 5.01 0.296 0.023 13.30 

75 1.393 0.054 14.39 5.05 0.161 0.005 13.16 5.01 0.211 0.015 13.21 

20 2 2.532 0.094 15.53 5.09 0.317 0.009 13.32 5.01 0.331 0.027 13.33 

40 2 1.899 0.070 14.90 5.07 0.238 0.007 13.24 5.01 0.248 0.020 13.25 60 2 1.266 0.047 14.27 5.05 0.158 0.005 13.16 5.00 0.165 0.013 13.17 80 2 0.633 0.023 13.63 5.02 0.079 0.002 13.08 5.00 0.083 0.007 13.08 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 0.088 0.003 13.09 5.00 0.040 0.002 13.04 5.00 0.041 0.001 13.04 150 0.067 0.002 13.07 5.00 0.031 0.001 13.03 5.00 0.031 0.001 13.03 

75 0.048 0.001 13.05 5.00 0.027 0.001 13.03 5.00 0.022 0.001 13.02 

250 0.182 0.005 13.18 5.01 0.081 0.003 13.08 5.00 0.081 0.002 13.08 150 0.125 0.004 13.12 5.00 0.055 0.002 13.05 5.00 0.055 0.001 13.05 

75 0.077 0.002 13.08 5.00 0.034 0.001 13.03 5.00 0.033 0.001 13.03 

20 2 0.146 0.004 13.15 5.00 0.065 0.003 13.06 5.00 0.065 0.002 13.06 

40 2 0.109 0.003 13.11 5.00 0.049 0.002 13.05 5.00 0.049 0.001 13.05 60 2 0.073 0.002 13.07 5.00 0.032 0.001 13.03 5.00 0.032 0.001 13.03 80 2 0.036 0.001 13.04 5.00 0.016 0.001 13.02 5.00 0.016 0.000 13.02 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 65 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 12 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

High Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Direct Modeled Impact

Total Concentration 

1 Direct Modeled Impact

Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Yellowstone National Park C

Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Popo Agie Wilderness Cla

Total Concentration1

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.7 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sens

Sources

Low Emissions Case

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

G-C-223
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 1.659 0.076 14.66 5.08 0.195 0.012 13.20 5.01 0.291 0.025 13.29 150 1.351 0.065 14.35 5.07 0.166 0.010 13.17 5.01 0.254 0.021 13.25 

75 1.094 0.056 14.09 5.06 0.155 0.009 13.16 5.01 0.224 0.019 13.22 

250 3.317 0.135 16.32 5.14 0.406 0.017 13.41 5.02 0.460 0.042 13.46 150 2.351 0.100 15.35 5.10 0.273 0.014 13.27 5.01 0.349 0.032 13.35 

75 1.545 0.072 14.54 5.07 0.179 0.011 13.18 5.01 0.264 0.024 13.26 

20 2 2.684 0.112 15.68 5.11 0.326 0.015 13.33 5.02 0.377 0.036 13.38 

40 2 2.051 0.088 15.05 5.09 0.247 0.013 13.25 5.01 0.295 0.029 13.29 60 2 1.418 0.065 14.42 5.06 0.169 0.010 13.17 5.01 0.216 0.022 13.22 80 2 0.785 0.042 13.79 5.04 0.145 0.008 13.14 5.01 0.170 0.015 13.17 

Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr 

250 0.134 0.015 13.13 5.02 0.073 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.060 0.005 13.06 150 0.125 0.015 13.13 5.01 0.063 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.055 0.005 13.06 

75 0.122 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.056 0.006 13.06 5.01 0.051 0.005 13.05 

250 0.229 0.018 13.23 5.02 0.117 0.008 13.12 5.01 0.100 0.006 13.10 150 0.171 0.016 13.17 5.02 0.089 0.007 13.09 5.01 0.074 0.005 13.07 

75 0.123 0.015 13.12 5.02 0.069 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.057 0.005 13.06 

20 2 0.192 0.017 13.19 5.02 0.100 0.008 13.10 5.01 0.084 0.006 13.08 40 2 0.156 0.016 13.16 5.02 0.084 0.007 13.08 5.01 0.068 0.005 13.07 60 2 0.121 0.015 13.12 5.01 0.068 0.007 13.07 5.01 0.057 0.005 13.06 80 2 0.118 0.014 13.12 5.01 0.052 0.006 13.05 5.01 0.050 0.004 13.05 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 65 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 12 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

High Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Low Emissions Case

Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Total Concentration Direct Modeled Impact 1 Total Concentration1

Yellowstone National Park C

Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled Impact Total Co

Teton Wilderness Class I

Table G-C.10.8 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Se

and Regional Sources

Mitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseLow Emissions Case

Direct Modeled Impact 

Popo Agie Wilderness Cla

G-C-224
Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

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 

250 13.0 16.4 100 20.3 4.1 0.4 152.3 47.1 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.0 15.8 146.0 150 11.5 14.9 100 15.4 3.8 0.4 147.4 46.8 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 103.8 14.6 136.8 

75 9.6 13.0 100 15.4 3.8 0.3 147.4 46.8 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.0 13.6 130.0 

250 34.2 37.6 100 99.9 20.3 2.0 231.9 63.3 11.0 1,300 365/260 80/60 116.1 17.5 149.1 150 30.7 34.1 100 75.8 18.5 1.8 207.8 61.5 10.8 1,300 365/260 80/60 104.9 16.1 137.9 

75 24.8 28.2 100 75.8 18.5 1.4 207.8 61.5 10.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.1 14.9 130.1 

20 2 27.3 30.7 100 79.9 16.2 1.6 211.9 59.2 10.6 1,300 365/260 80/60 92.9 14.0 125.9 

40 2 20.5 23.9 100 59.9 12.2 1.2 191.9 55.2 10.2 1,301 365/261 80/61 69.7 10.5 102.7 60 2 13.7 17.1 100 39.9 8.1 0.8 171.9 51.1 9.8 1,300 365/260 80/60 46.5 7.0 79.5 80 2 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 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

NO2 PM

Direct Modeled 

Impact

SO2

Table G-C.10.9 - Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3) from Direct Project Sources W

Mitigation RunsLow Emissions CaseHigh Emissions Case

Total Concentration 

1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

NAAQS/WAAQS 

To

Conce

G-C-225
Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

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 Annu

250 13.3 16.7 100 20.2 4.0 0.4 152.2 47.0 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 113.1 15.8 146.1 31.8 150 11.7 15.1 100 15.4 3.6 0.4 147.4 46.6 9.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 103.9 14.6 136.9 30.6 

75 9.9 13.3 100 15.4 3.6 0.3 147.4 46.6 9.3 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.1 13.6 130.1 29.6 

250 34.4 37.8 100 99.8 20.2 1.9 231.8 63.2 10.9 1,300 365/260 80/60 116.3 17.5 149.3 33.5 150 31.0 34.4 100 75.8 18.4 1.8 207.8 61.4 10.8 1,300 365/260 80/60 105.0 16.1 138.0 32.1 

75 25.1 28.5 100 75.8 18.4 1.4 207.8 61.4 10.4 1,300 365/260 80/60 97.3 14.9 130.3 30.9 

20 2 27.6 31.0 100 79.8 16.1 1.5 211.8 59.1 10.5 1,300 365/260 80/60 93.0 14.0 126.0 30.0 

40 2 20.8 24.2 100 59.8 12.1 1.2 191.8 55.1 10.2 1,301 365/261 80/61 69.8 10.5 102.8 26.5 60 2 13.9 17.3 100 39.8 8.0 0.8 171.8 51.0 9.8 1,300 365/260 80/60 46.6 7.0 79.6 23.0 80 2 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 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Mitigation RunsLow Emissions CaseHigh Emissions Case

PM10

Direct Modeled 

Impact

NO2 SO2

Table G-C.10.10 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative In-field Pollutant Concentrations ( μg/m3 ) from Direct Projec

NAAQS/WAAQS

Total 

Concentration1

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

NAAQS/WAAQS

Total 

Concentration

G-C-226
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

Yello

250 0.0334 0.0026 0.0159 0.0095 0.0011 0.0005 150 0.0235 0.0018 0.0112 0.0067 0.0008 0.0004 

75 0.0160 0.0012 0.0075 0.0043 0.0005 0.0002 

250 0.0770 0.0055 0.0354 0.0214 0.0024 0.0011 150 0.0506 0.0036 0.0232 0.0140 0.0015 0.0007 

75 0.0312 0.0020 0.0137 0.0077 0.0009 0.0004 

20 2 0.0616 0.0044 0.0283 0.0172 0.0019 0.0009 

40 2 0.0462 0.0033 0.0213 0.0129 0.0014 0.0007 60 2 0.0308 0.0022 0.0142 0.0086 0.0010 0.0005 80 2 0.0154 0.0011 0.0071 0.0043 0.0005 0.0002 

1 Nitrogen deposition analysis threshold for direct project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.11 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive P

Project Sources1

G-C-227
Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Mo

250 0.0555 1.5555 0.0078 1.5078 0.0280 1.5280 150 0.0473 1.5473 0.0070 1.5070 0.0234 1.5234 

75 0.0404 1.5404 0.0064 1.5064 0.0197 1.5197 

250 0.0929 1.5929 0.0107 1.5107 0.0476 1.5476 150 0.0697 1.5697 0.0088 1.5088 0.0354 1.5354 

75 0.0502 1.5502 0.0072 1.5072 0.0258 1.5258 

20 2 0.0801 1.5801 0.0096 1.5096 0.0405 1.5405 

40 2 0.0672 1.5672 0.0085 1.5085 0.0334 1.5334 60 2 0.0544 1.5544 0.0074 1.5074 0.0264 1.5264 80 2 0.0415 1.5415 0.0063 1.5063 0.0193 1.5193 

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Mo

250 0.0103 1.5103 0.0036 1.5036 0.0026 1.5026 150 0.0100 1.5100 0.0035 1.5035 0.0025 1.5025 

75 0.0098 1.5098 0.0033 1.5033 0.0024 1.5024 

250 0.0116 1.5116 0.0042 1.5042 0.0030 1.5030 150 0.0107 1.5107 0.0038 1.5038 0.0028 1.5028 

75 0.0101 1.5101 0.0035 1.5035 0.0025 1.5025 

20 2 0.0111 1.5111 0.0040 1.5040 0.0029 1.5029 

40 2 0.0107 1.5107 0.0038 1.5038 0.0027 1.5027 60 2 0.0102 1.5102 0.0035 1.5035 0.0026 1.5026 80 2 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 JIDP % Emissions Reductions3 Includes N deposition value of 1.5 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.12 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I 

II Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources1

Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Low Emissions Case

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

G-C-228
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

Yello

P

250 0.00160 0.00016 0.00081 0.00047 0.00007 0.00004 150 0.00100 0.00010 0.00050 0.00029 0.00004 0.00002 

75 0.00057 0.00005 0.00027 0.00014 0.00002 0.00001 

250 0.00770 0.00079 0.00390 0.00226 0.00035 0.00020 150 0.00477 0.00048 0.00239 0.00138 0.00021 0.00012 

75 0.00265 0.00023 0.00125 0.00065 0.00010 0.00006 

20 2 0.00616 0.00063 0.00312 0.00181 0.00028 0.00016 

40 2 0.00462 0.00047 0.00234 0.00136 0.00021 0.00012 60 2 0.00308 0.00032 0.00156 0.00091 0.00014 0.00008 80 2 0.00154 0.00016 0.00078 0.00045 0.00007 0.00004 

1 Sulfur deposition analysis threshold for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.13 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensit

Direct Project Sources1 

G-C-229
Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Mode

250 -0.0009 0.7491 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0021 0.7479 -0150 -0.0009 0.7491 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0023 0.7477 -0

75 -0.0009 0.7491 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0025 0.7475 -0

250 0.0041 0.7541 -0.0005 0.7495 0.0003 0.7503 -0150 0.0011 0.7511 -0.0006 0.7494 -0.0009 0.7491 -0

75 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0007 0.7493 -0.0018 0.7482 -0

20 2 0.0025 0.7525 -0.0006 0.7494 -0.0003 0.7497 -0

40 2 0.0010 0.7510 -0.0006 0.7494 -0.0009 0.7491 -060 2 -0.0005 0.7495 -0.0007 0.7493 -0.0015 0.7485 -0

80 2 -0.0009 0.7491 -0.0008 0.7492 -0.0021 0.7479 -0

Alternative WDR Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Modeled Impact Total Impact3 Mode

250 0.0034 0.7534 0.0009 0.7509 0.0010 0.7510 -0150 0.0034 0.7534 0.0008 0.7508 0.0010 0.7510 -0

75 0.0034 0.7534 0.0008 0.7508 0.0010 0.7510 -0

250 0.0037 0.7537 0.0010 0.7510 0.0011 0.7511 -0150 0.0036 0.7536 0.0009 0.7509 0.0011 0.7511 -0

75 0.0035 0.7535 0.0009 0.7509 0.0010 0.7510 -0

20 2 0.0037 0.7537 0.0010 0.7510 0.0011 0.7511 -0

40 2 0.0036 0.7536 0.0009 0.7509 0.0011 0.7511 -060 2 0.0035 0.7535 0.0009 0.7509 0.0010 0.7510 -080 2 0.0034 0.7534 0.0009 0.7509 0.0010 0.7510 -0

1 Sulfur deposition analysis level of concern for total impacts = 5.0 kg/ha-y.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions3 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 SO 2 emissions.

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.14 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Total Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and S

Areas from Direct Project and Regional Sources1

Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Was

Low Emissions Case

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Win

G-C-230
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 (meq/L)

-- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 -- 1.00 -- 5.55 

Background1 -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 -- 5.0 -- 55.5 

250 0.100 0.15% 0.109 0.18% 0.021 0.03% 0.007 0.04% 0.135 2.71% 0.124 150 0.071 0.11% 0.077 0.13% 0.014 0.02% 0.005 0.03% 0.095 1.90% 0.087 

75 0.047 0.07% 0.051 0.08% 0.009 0.01% 0.003 0.02% 0.062 1.23% 0.058 

250 0.234 0.35% 0.257 0.43% 0.048 0.07% 0.016 0.08% 0.322 6.43% 0.283 150 0.151 0.23% 0.167 0.28% 0.030 0.04% 0.010 0.05% 0.210 4.19% 0.183 

75 0.087 0.13% 0.093 0.16% 0.016 0.02% 0.006 0.03% 0.117 2.33% 0.109 

20 1 0.187 0.28% 0.206 0.34% 0.038 0.05% 0.012 0.07% 0.257 5.15% 0.226 

40 1 0.141 0.21% 0.154 0.26% 0.029 0.04% 0.009 0.05% 0.193 3.86% 0.170 60 1 0.094 0.14% 0.103 0.17% 0.019 0.03% 0.006 0.03% 0.129 2.57% 0.113 80 1 0.047 0.07% 0.051 0.09% 0.010 0.01% 0.003 0.02% 0.064 1.29% 0.057 

1 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Mitigation Runs

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Low Emissions Case

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Bridger Wilderness 

Class I

Table G-C.10.15 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC (μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive Lakes from 

Popo Agie 

Cl

High Emissions Case

Black Joe Lake Deep Lake Hobbs Lake Lazy Boy Lake Upper Frozen Lake Lower 

G-C-231
ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%)

Level of Acceptable 

Change (meq/L)

-- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- 1.00 --

Background ANC -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- 18.8 --

250 0.180 0.27% 0.190 0.32% 0.061 0.09% 0.031 0.17%

150 0.152 0.23% 0.160 0.27% 0.055 0.08% 0.029 0.16%

75 0.130 0.19% 0.135 0.23% 0.050 0.07% 0.028 0.15%

250 0.299 0.45% 0.321 0.54% 0.084 0.12% 0.038 0.20%

150 0.224 0.33% 0.239 0.40% 0.068 0.10% 0.034 0.18%

75 0.166 0.25% 0.172 0.29% 0.057 0.08% 0.030 0.16%

20 1 0.256 0.38% 0.274 0.46% 0.075 0.11% 0.036 0.19%

40 1 0.213 0.32% 0.227 0.38% 0.067 0.10% 0.033 0.17%

60 1 0.170 0.25% 0.180 0.30% 0.059 0.08% 0.030 0.16%

80 1 0.127 0.19% 0.133 0.22% 0.050 0.07% 0.028 0.15%

ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%)

Level of Acceptable 

Change (meq/L)

-- 1.00 -- 5.55 -- 5.35 --

Background ANC -- 5.0 -- 55.5 -- 53.5 --

250 0.220 4.40% 0.215 0.39% 0.032 0.06%

150 0.182 3.64% 0.179 0.32% 0.030 0.06%

75 0.150 3.00% 0.152 0.27% 0.029 0.05%

250 0.387 7.74% 0.354 0.64% 0.039 0.07%

150 0.283 5.66% 0.264 0.48% 0.034 0.06%

75 0.199 3.98% 0.197 0.36% 0.031 0.06%

20 1 0.326 6.51% 0.303 0.55% 0.036 0.07%

40 1 0.267 5.33% 0.251 0.45% 0.034 0.06%

60 1 0.208 4.16% 0.199 0.36% 0.031 0.06%

80 1 0.149 2.98% 0.147 0.27% 0.028 0.05%

1 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Low Emissions Case

High Emissions Case

Mitigation Runs

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Ross Lake

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Black Joe Lake Deep Lake Hobbs Lake

Bridger Wilderness Class I Bridger Wilderness Class I

Low Emissions Case

High Emissions Case

Mitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.16 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Change in ANC ( μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive 

Lakes from Direct Project and Regional Sources

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Lazy Boy Lake

Bridger Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

Upper Frozen Lake Lower Saddlebag

G-C-232
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

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days)

250 2.96 22 9 0.53 2 0 0.51 2 0 0.43 0 0

150 2.23 13 5 0.37 0 0 0.37 0 0 0.31 0 0

75 1.59 9 2 0.25 0 0 0.28 0 0 0.22 0 0

250 5.92 67 23 1.34 6 2 1.21 17 2 1.06 10 1

150 4.23 38 15 0.88 3 0 0.79 3 0 0.69 2 0

75 2.61 17 8 0.49 0 0 0.47 0 0 0.41 0 0

20 1 4.98 52 19 1.08 4 1 0.98 11 0 0.85 6 0

40 1 3.95 37 14 0.82 3 0 0.74 2 0 0.65 1 0

60 1 2.80 20 9 0.56 1 0 0.50 1 0 0.44 0 0

80 1 1.50 9 2 0.28 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.22 0 0

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

Maximum 

Visibility 

Impact

Number of 

Days > 0.5 

Δdv

Number of 

Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days)

250 0.31 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.15 0 0 0.23 0 0

150 0.22 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.17 0 0

75 0.15 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.07 0 0 0.11 0 0

250 0.65 1 0 0.27 0 0 0.30 0 0 0.47 0 0

150 0.44 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.20 0 0 0.31 0 0

75 0.26 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.12 0 0 0.18 0 0

20 1 0.53 1 0 0.22 0 0 0.24 0 0 0.38 0 0

40 1 0.40 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.28 0 0

60 1 0.27 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.12 0 0 0.19 0 0

80 1 0.13 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.10 0 0

Note: Δdv = change in deciview. 1 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Washakie Wilderness Area Class I

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I

Table G-C.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

Low Emissions Case

High Emissions Case

Mitigation Runs

Mitigation Runs

Wind River Roadless Area Class II

Low Emissions Case

Bridger Wilderness Class I

High Emissions Case

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

G-C-233
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

Num

Days 

Δ

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (da

250 3.26 26 9 0.61 3 0 0.59 2 0 150 2.46 18 6 0.43 0 0 0.43 0 0 

75 1.77 10 2 0.29 0 0 0.31 0 0 

250 6.44 70 31 1.54 9 3 1.36 19 2 150 4.64 46 17 1.01 4 1 0.90 5 0 

75 2.97 21 7 0.58 1 0 0.55 2 0 

20 1 5.45 52 20 1.25 4 1 1.11 12 2 

40 1 4.34 39 15 0.95 3 0 0.84 4 0 60 1 3.09 20 9 0.64 2 0 0.57 2 0 80 1 1.66 9 3 0.33 0 0 0.29 0 0 

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

Num

Days 

Δ

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (da

250 0.31 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.15 0 0 150 0.23 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.11 0 0 

75 0.15 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.07 0 0 

250 0.66 1 0 0.28 0 0 0.31 0 0 150 0.45 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.20 0 0 

75 0.26 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.12 0 0 

20 1 0.53 1 0 0.22 0 0 0.25 0 0 

40 1 0.40 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.19 0 0 60 1 0.27 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.12 0 0 80 1 0.14 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.06 0 0 

Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

1 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Popo Agie Wilderness Class 

High Emissions CaseLow Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.18 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive P

Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Clas

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I 

G-C-234
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

Numb

Days 

Δd

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (day

250 3.43 37 11 0.74 5 0 0.83 8 0 150 2.74 27 8 0.60 3 0 0.73 6 0 

75 2.30 20 4 0.52 1 0 0.66 3 0 

250 6.28 80 32 1.37 10 3 1.45 28 4 150 4.66 62 18 0.93 7 0 1.06 17 1 

75 3.11 32 11 0.66 4 0 0.78 7 0 

20 2 5.38 71 25 1.12 9 2 1.23 22 3 

40 2 4.39 52 16 0.86 7 0 1.01 15 1 60 2 3.29 34 11 0.66 4 0 0.79 7 0 80 2 2.29 19 5 0.49 0 0 0.64 2 0 

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

Numb

Days 

Δd

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (day

250 0.48 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.24 0 0 150 0.40 0 0 0.20 0 0 0.20 0 0 

75 0.36 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 0 

250 0.82 3 0 0.34 0 0 0.39 0 0 150 0.61 1 0 0.27 0 0 0.29 0 0 

75 0.43 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 0 

20 2 0.70 1 0 0.30 0 0 0.33 0 0 

40 2 0.57 1 0 0.26 0 0 0.27 0 0 60 2 0.44 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 0 80 2 0.34 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class I

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

Table G-C.10.19 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

from Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Da

High Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Yellowstone National Park Clas

Low Emissions Case

Low Emissions Case

G-C-235
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

Num

Days 

Δ

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (da

250 3.78 44 15 0.85 7 0 0.97 13 150 3.03 34 9 0.69 4 0 0.85 8 

75 2.63 24 6 0.60 2 0 0.76 6 

250 6.82 90 39 1.58 13 3 1.67 31 150 5.09 63 24 1.07 9 2 1.22 21 

75 3.42 40 13 0.76 6 0 0.90 11 

20 2 5.87 73 29 1.29 12 3 1.42 26 

40 2 4.80 58 21 0.99 9 0 1.16 21 60 2 3.62 41 15 0.76 6 0 0.92 11 80 2 2.62 21 6 0.57 2 0 0.75 4 

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

Num

Days 

Δ

Alternative WDR (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (da

250 0.49 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.25 0 150 0.40 0 0 0.20 0 0 0.20 0 

75 0.36 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.18 0 

250 0.83 3 0 0.34 0 0 0.40 0 150 0.62 1 0 0.27 0 0 0.30 0 

75 0.44 0 0 0.21 0 0 0.21 0 

20 2 0.70 2 0 0.30 0 0 0.34 0 

40 2 0.58 1 0 0.26 0 0 0.28 0 60 2 0.45 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.22 0 80 2 0.35 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.18 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Low Emissions Case

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class 

Table G-C.10.20 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and S

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Dat

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Clas

G-C-236
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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 1.64 2 2.64 17 2.01 7 1.40 150 1.21 1 1.97 8 1.46 3 1.01 

75 0.85 0 1.43 2 0.98 0 0.66 

250 3.45 21 5.28 56 4.06 33 3.37 150 2.36 11 3.76 29 2.84 21 2.34 

75 1.35 2 2.49 16 1.75 7 1.35 

20 2 2.85 16 4.42 38 3.37 25 2.78 

40 2 2.21 8 3.48 28 2.63 17 2.15 60 2 1.53 2 2.45 17 1.83 8 1.48 80 2 0.79 0 1.30 1 0.95 0 0.77 

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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.12 1 1.93 5 1.10 2 0.65 150 1.54 1 1.36 3 0.78 0 0.48 

75 1.01 1 0.92 0 0.51 0 0.32 

250 4.89 16 4.33 10 2.27 6 1.43 150 3.46 3 2.96 8 1.52 2 0.98 

75 2.04 1 1.87 4 0.88 0 0.57 

20 2 4.09 9 3.60 8 1.85 5 1.16 

40 2 3.21 2 2.82 7 1.42 2 0.88 60 2 2.25 1 1.96 5 0.97 0 0.60 80 2 1.19 1 1.03 1 0.50 0 0.30 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Low Emissions Case

Daniel Farson Labarge Mern

Bronx

High Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.21 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

Project Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder

Low Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions Case

G-C-237
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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 1.89 4 2.92 21 2.30 10 1.60 150 1.40 2 2.18 13 1.67 4 1.16 

75 0.98 0 1.58 3 1.12 2 0.76 

250 3.93 18 5.76 62 4.58 30 3.82 150 2.71 13 4.13 33 3.23 21 2.67 

75 1.56 2 2.75 20 2.01 7 1.56 

20 2 3.25 16 4.84 45 3.82 26 3.16 

40 2 2.53 12 3.83 27 2.99 21 2.46 60 2 1.76 2 2.71 19 2.09 9 1.70 80 2 0.92 0 1.45 4 1.10 2 0.89 

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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.42 1 2.21 5 1.27 2 0.75 150 1.77 1 1.57 5 0.90 0 0.55 

75 1.17 1 1.06 2 0.59 0 0.37 

250 5.50 15 4.88 13 2.59 5 1.64 150 3.92 5 3.37 8 1.74 4 1.13 

75 2.33 1 2.14 5 1.02 1 0.66 

20 2 4.61 13 4.08 10 2.12 4 1.34 

40 2 3.64 4 3.20 8 1.63 3 1.02 60 2 2.57 1 2.25 5 1.12 2 0.69 80 2 1.37 1 1.19 1 0.57 0 0.35 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Daniel Farson 

Big Piney Boulder

Labarge Mern

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.22 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

Project Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data

Mitigation RunsHigh Emissions Case

Bronx 

Low Emissions Case

Big Sandy

G-C-238
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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.25 16 3.16 31 3.17 18 1.46 150 2.09 13 2.51 17 2.88 11 1.08 

75 2.04 9 2.00 10 2.78 7 0.73 

250 3.81 34 5.67 64 4.97 39 3.42 150 2.76 24 4.22 43 3.87 28 2.40 

75 2.11 13 3.01 25 2.87 14 1.42 

20 2 3.23 28 4.85 53 4.36 34 2.83 

40 2 2.61 21 3.96 35 3.71 25 2.21 60 2 2.20 14 2.97 27 3.02 16 1.55 80 2 1.99 8 1.88 9 2.72 6 0.84 

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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.20 6 2.42 11 2.50 9 0.99 150 1.63 1 1.94 10 2.24 6 0.96 

75 1.11 1 1.71 10 2.02 6 0.94 

250 4.95 21 4.49 19 3.51 15 1.68 150 3.54 14 3.14 12 2.86 11 1.26 

75 2.13 3 2.09 10 2.33 6 0.97 

20 2 4.15 16 3.77 15 3.14 14 1.42 

40 2 3.29 14 2.99 12 2.77 11 1.16 60 2 2.33 3 2.16 10 2.40 7 0.97 80 2 1.28 1 1.63 8 2.02 6 0.93 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Big Piney

Farson

Boulder Bron

Labarge Mern

Big Sandy

Low Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.23 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regio

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data

Low Emissions CaseMitigation RunsHigh Emissions Case

Daniel

G-C-239
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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.57 19 3.48 32 3.60 20 1.68 150 2.39 15 2.78 23 3.27 11 1.24 

75 2.33 13 2.22 13 3.16 9 0.84 

250 4.32 36 6.18 74 5.58 40 3.88 150 3.16 25 4.63 50 4.38 26 2.73 

75 2.41 18 3.32 29 3.27 15 1.63 

20 2 3.68 30 5.30 59 4.91 32 3.22 

40 2 2.99 24 4.37 40 4.20 22 2.53 60 2 2.51 17 3.28 30 3.43 17 1.78 80 2 2.28 13 2.13 12 3.09 9 0.97 

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

Alternative WDR (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 

250 2.52 11 2.68 11 2.85 11 1.11 150 1.87 6 2.22 10 2.56 9 1.07 

75 1.27 1 1.96 10 2.31 6 1.04 

250 5.56 23 5.05 21 3.97 16 1.93 150 4.00 16 3.56 15 3.25 14 1.45 

75 2.43 7 2.39 11 2.66 9 1.08 

20 2 4.69 19 4.26 19 3.57 14 1.64 

40 2 3.73 16 3.40 14 3.15 12 1.35 60 2 2.66 9 2.46 11 2.74 9 1.08 80 2 1.47 2 1.87 10 2.30 6 1.03 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.2 JIDP % Emissions Reductions

Farson

Mitigation Runs

Bron

Low Emissions Case

Big Sandy Boulder

High Emissions CaseLow Emissions CaseHigh Emissions CaseMitigation Runs

Table G-C.10.24 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regio

Direct Project and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Da

Labarge Mern

Big Piney 

Daniel

G-C-240
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

ADDENDUM G-D 

 EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE 

EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

The following is a list of the tables included within this addendum: 

Table G-D.1.1 Early Project Development Stage Modeling Emissions 

Table G-D.1.2 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – Straight Drilling 

Table G-D.1.3 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Straight Drilling 

Table G-D.1.4 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – Tier 2 – Straight Drilling 

Table G-D.1.5 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – Directional Drilling 

Table G-D.1.6 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Directional Drilling 

Table G-D.1.7 Jonah Field – Drilling Emissions – Tier 2 – Directional Drilling 

Table G-D.1.8 Jonah Field – Completion Flaring Emissions 

Table G-D.1.9 Jonah Field – Summary - 2002 

Table G-D.1.10 Jonah Field – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.11 Jonah Field – Summary 2006-2002 

Table G-D.1.12 Jonah Field – Expanded Field Operators – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.13 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Manufacturer’s/AP-42 – Rig 

#232 

Table G-D.1.14 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Rig #232 

Table G-D.1.15 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Manufacturer’s/AP-42 – Rig 

#235 

Table G-D.1.16 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Rig #235 

Table G-D.1.17 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Manufacturer’s/AP-42 – Rig 

#236 

Table G-D.1.18 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Rig #236 

Table G-D.1.19 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Caza Rig 85 

Table G-D.1.20 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Caza Rig 86 

Table G-D.1.21 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier1/AP-42 – Caza Rig 24 

Table G-D.1.22 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Caza Rig 24 

Table G-D.1.23 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – Summer Rigs 

Table G-D.1.24 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Summer Rigs 

Table G-D.1.25 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – Other Winter Rigs 

Table G-D.1.26 Pinedale Anticline – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Other Winter Rigs 

35982 G-D-1 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Table G-D.1.27 Pinedale Anticline – Completion Flaring Emissions 

Table G-D.1.28 Pinedale Anticline – Summary - 2002 

Table G-D.1.29 Pinedale Anticline – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.30 Pinedale Anticline – Summary - 2006-2002 

Table G-D.1.31 Riley Ridge – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 

Table G-D.1.32 Riley Ridge – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 

Table G-D.1.33 Riley Ridge – Completion Flaring Emissions 

Table G-D.1.34 Riley Ridge – Summary - 2002 

Table G-D.1.35 Riley Ridge – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.36 Riley Ridge – Summary – 2006-2002 

Table G-D.1.37 South Piney – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – CBM Wells 

Table G-D.1.38 South Piney – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – CBM Wells 

Table G-D.1.39 South Piney – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 – Deep Wells 

Table G-D.1.40 South Piney – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 – Deep Wells 

Table G-D.1.41 South Piney – Completion Flaring Emissions – CBM Wells 

Table G-D.1.42 South Piney – Completion Flaring Emissions – Deep Wells 

Table G-D.1.43 South Piney – Summary - 2002 

Table G-D.1.44 South Piney – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.45 South Piney – Summary – 2006-2002 

Table G-D.1.46 Jack Morrow Hills – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 

Table G-D.1.47 Jack Morrow Hills – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 

Table G-D.1.48 Jack Morrow Hills – Completion Flaring Emissions 

Table G-D.1.49 Jack Morrow Hills – Summary - 2002 

Table G-D.1.50 Jack Morrow Hills – Summary - 2006 

Table G-D.1.51 Wildcat Rigs – Drilling Emissions – AP-42 

Table G-D.1.52 Wildcat Rigs – Drilling Emissions – Tier 1 

Table G-D.1.53 Wildcat Rigs – Summary – 2006 

Table G-D.1.54 Compression Increases – Falcon Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.55 Compression Increases – Luman Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.56 Compression Increases – Bird Canyon Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.57 Compression Increases – Jonah Compressor Station 

35982 G-D-2 TRC Environmental Corporation
Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Table G-D.1.58 Compression Increases – Paradise Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.59 Compression Increases – Gobblers Knob Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.60 Compression Increases – Jack Morrow Hills Compressor Station 

Table G-D.1.61 MSI Increases – CO Sources 

Table G-D.1.62 MSI Increases – WY Sources 

Table G-D.1.63 Included RFFA 

35982 G-D-3 TRC Environmental Corporation
Table G-D.1.1

Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Early Project Development Stage Modeling Emissions

(Tons Per Year)

Early Project Develepment Stage Cases

Direct Project Non-Project Regional Emissions

Production Emissions

Wells1

NOx 31.7 --

SO2 0.0 --

PM10 6.1 --

PM2.5 6.1 --

Traffic2

NOx 5.9

SO2 0.2 --

PM10 160.1 --

PM2.5 24.3 --

Compression3

NOx 503.4 189.0

SO2 0.0 0.0

PM10 0.0 0.0

PM2.5 0.0 0.0

Construction Emissions

Well Drilling4

NOx 1,728.9 6,105.0

SO2 116.1 365.0

PM10 415.7 509.6

PM2.5 415.7 509.6

Traffic5

NOx 9.6 --

SO2 0.3 --

PM10 160.4 --

PM2.5 24.6 --

Flaring6

NOx 45.2 332.0

SO2 0.0 0.0

PM10 0.0 21.9

PM2.5 0.0 21.9

Other Inventory Emissions

MSI7

NOx -- 4,059.7

SO2 -- (48.0)

PM10 -- 700.8

PM2.5 -- 605.3

RFFA8

NOx -- 810.7

SO2 -- (1,347.1)

PM10 -- (1,196.6)

PM2.5 -- (500.4)

RFD9

NOx -- 3,166.5

SO2 -- 56.1

PM10 -- 84.0

PM2.5 -- 81.9

Total

NOx 2,324.7 14,662.8

SO2 116.5 (973.9)

PM10 742.3 119.7

PM2.5 470.7 718.2

1 Includes emissions from indirect heater, separator heater, and dehyrator heater (scaled from DEIS). 2 Includes emissions from all traffic associated with full field production(scaled from DEIS). 3 Includes compression estimates from DEIS and expanded compression estimates post DEIS.

4 Includes emissions from drilling rigs operating continuously during the year.

 80% Tier 0/20% Tier 1 - Emissions breakdowns can be found in the following tables.

5 Includes emissions from all traffic for well construction from DEIS scaled by a factor of 14.25/20 to account for 

 the difference between 2006 and 2002 construction estimates.

6 Includes emissions from flares operating continuously throughout the year.

 Emissions breakdowns can be found in the following tables.

7 Includes sources from DEIS as well as post DEIS up to 3-31-04.

8 Includes sources from DEIS as well as post DEIS up to 3-31-04.

9 Includes sources from DEIS.

G-D-4
Table G-D.1.2

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions - AP-42 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 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: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,702.63 5.93 

NOx 0.031 2,100 0.42 19 24 12,542.17 27.50 

SO2 0.00205 2,100 0.42 19 24 829.40 1.82 

VOC 0.0025 2,100 0.42 19 24 1,011.47 2.22 

PM104 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 890.09 1.95 

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-5
Table G-D.1.3

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions Tier 1 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions Per Well Emissions pe

Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.42 19 24 7,581.69 16.63 

NOx 0.015 2,100 0.42 19 24 6,154.55 13.50 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 0.31 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.42 19 24 891.96 1.96 

PM105 0.00088 2,100 0.42 19 24 356.79 0.78 

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Non

 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 800hp and one at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-6
Table G-D.1.4

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions Tier 2 - Straight Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 2

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per R

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0057 2,100 0.42 19 24 2,319.11 5.09 

NOx 0.0090 2,100 0.42 19 24 3,657.05 8.02 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 19 24 139.77 0.31 

VOC 0.0004 2,100 0.42 19 24 148.87 0.33 

PM105 0.00033 2,100 0.42 19 24 133.79 0.29 

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad 

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html. NOx and HC Emission Factors estimated based on Tables 3 and 5 of "Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling- Compression-Ignition," NR-009c, EPA, April 2004.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-7
Table G-D.1.5

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions AP-42 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA AP-42

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions Per Well Emissions P

Rig

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 2,600 0.42 23 24 4,050.56 7.34 

NOx 0.031 2,600 0.42 23 24 18,797.53 34.05 

SO2 0.00205 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,243.06 2.25 

VOC 0.0025 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,515.93 2.75 

PM104 0.0022 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,334.02 2.42 

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on three engines, two at 800hp and one at 500hp.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 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-8
Table G-D.1.6

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions Tier 1 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per 

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0187 2,600 0.42 23 24 11,363.04 20.59 

NOx 0.015 2,600 0.42 23 24 9,224.12 16.71 

SO24 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 0.38 

VOC 0.0022 2,600 0.42 23 24 1,336.83 2.42 

PM105 0.00088 2,600 0.42 23 24 534.73 0.97 

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad 

 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 800hp and two at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-9
Table G-D.1.7

Jonah Field - Drilling Emissions Tier 2 - Directional Drilling

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Directional DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 2

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per R

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.0057 2,600 0.42 23 24 3,475.75 6.30 

NOx 0.0090 2,600 0.42 23 24 5,481.00 9.93 

SO24 0.00035 2,600 0.42 23 24 209.48 0.38 

VOC 0.0004 2,600 0.42 23 24 223.12 0.40 

PM105 0.00033 2,600 0.42 23 24 200.52 0.36 

1 Emission factor for Tier 2 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroa

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html. NOx and HC Emission Factors estimated based on Tables 3 and 5 of "Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modelin

 Compression-Ignition," NR-009c, EPA, April 2004.

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on four engines, two at 800hp and two at 500hp.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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-10
Table G-D.1.8

Jonah Field - Completion Flaring Emissions

U

U

o y

o y

o y

o y

o y

o y

o y

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Completion/Testing Flaring

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Gas Flaring without High Pressure

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Flowback Separator Units

Date: 6/30/2005

Flaring Specifications:

Total Volume of Gas Emitted 35000 mcf

Total Volume of Condensate Emitted 250 bbls

Average Heat Content 1092.9 BTU/scf

Flaring/Flowback Activity Duration 120 hrs/well

Flaring Duration 80 hr/well

Pre-ignition Flow-back Duration 40 hr/well

Pre-ignition Flow-back Time Involving a 

Gas Stream 10 %

Actual Hours Gas is Vented 4 hrs

Total 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/hr

Pre-flare Volume of Condensate 11.90 bbls 

Volume of Condensate Flared 238.10 bbls

Activity Volume

Volume 

Units Pollutant

Emission 

Factor

Emission 

Factor 

Units Emission Factor Source6

Total 

Emissions Duration

Hourly 

Emissions

(tons) (hours) (lb/hr)

Venting - Natural Gas 5 1,666.67 mcf VOC 4.70 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 3.91 4 1,956.87

HAP (total) 0.17 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.14 4 71.37

 n-Hexane 0.08 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.070 4 35.13

 Benzene 0.026 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.022 4 10.75

 Toluene 0.041 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.034 4 17.02

 Ethylbenzene 0.0019 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.0016 4 0.80

 Xylenes 0.018 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.015 4 7.67

Flaring - Natural Gas 33,333.33 mcf NOx 0.068 lb / 10^6 BT AP-42 Section 13.5 1.24 80 30.97

CO 0.37 lb / 10^6 BT AP-42 Section 13.5 6.74 80 168.49

VOC 2.35 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 39.14 80 978.43

HAP (total) 0.09 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 1.43 80 35.69

 n-Hexane 0.042 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.70 80 17.57

 Benzene 0.013 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.22 80 5.38

 Toluene 0.020 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.34 80 8.51

 Ethylbenzene 0.001 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.016 80 0.40

 Xylenes 0.009 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis 0.15 80 3.83

Flaring - Condensate 238.10 bbls VOC 121.98 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 14.52 80 363.03

HAP (total) 25.85 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 3.08 80 76.93

 n-hexane 4.59 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 0.55 80 13.67

 Benzene 1.42 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 0.17 80 4.22

 Toluene 6.11 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 0.73 80 18.19

 Ethylbenzene 0.74 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 0.09 80 2.19

 Xylenes 12.99 lb/bbl ndensate Constituent Anal 1.55 80 38.66

1 Calculated as 10% * 40 hrs of pre-ignition flowback + 80 hrs of flaring.

2 Calculated as 3500 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 analyzed.

6 For all emission factors that used the constituent analysis, a 50% destruction rate was assumed. 

G-D-11
Table G-D.1.9

Jonah Field - Summary - 2002

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2002 Drilling and Completion Emissions

Laramie, WY 82070 2,100 hp, 100 % Tier 0

Phone: (307) 742-3843 100% Straight Drilling

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Month Pollutant

# of 

Operating 

Drilling Rigs

# of 

Operating 

Flares

Rig Emissions 

(Tier 0)

Tier 0 

Fraction

Average Drilling 

Emissions per 

Rig1

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs1 Flaring Emissions2

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

January

NOx

6 3

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 92.90

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 -

February

NOx

6 3

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 92.90

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 -

March

NOx

6 3

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 92.90

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 -

April

NOx

8 4

27.50 1.0 27.50 220.04 123.86

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 14.55 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 15.62 -

May

NOx

5 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 137.52 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 9.09 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 9.76 -

June

NOx

7 3

27.50 1.0 27.50 192.53 92.90

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 12.73 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 13.66 -

July

NOx

4 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 110.02 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 7.28 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 7.81 -

August

NOx

5 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 137.52 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 9.09 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 9.76 -

September

NOx

8 4

27.50 1.0 27.50 220.04 123.86

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 14.55 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 15.62 -

October

NOx

5 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 137.52 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 9.09 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 9.76 -

November

NOx

4 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 110.02 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 7.28 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 7.81 -

December

NOx

5 2

27.50 1.0 27.50 137.52 61.93

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 9.09 -

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 9.76 -

1

 Emissions are calculated based on 2,100 hp 100 % Tier 0 engines.

2

 Flaring emissions taken from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement"

November, 2004.

G-D-12
Table G-D.1.10

Jonah Field - Summary - 2006

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jonah Infill Drilling P605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2006 DrilliLaramie, WY 82070 50% Straight, 50% DPhone: (307) 742-3843 80% Tier 0, 20% Tier Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Month1 Pollutant

# of Operating 

Drilling Rigs # of Operating 

Flares

Tier 0 Drilling 

Emissions - 

Straight

Tier 1 Drilling 

Emissions - 

Straight

Tier 0 Drilling 

Emissions - 

Directional

Tier 1 Drilling 

Emissions - 

Directional

Tier 0 

Fraction

Tier 1 

Fraction

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig2

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) 

NOx 27.50 13.50 34.05 16.71 0.8 0.2 27.64 

SO2 1.82 1.82 2.25 0.38 0.8 0.2 1.85 

PM10 1.95 1.95 10.59 0.97 0.8 0.2 5.31 

1 All months have equal numbers of 20 drilling rigs and 3 flares.2 Emissions based on 50% directional drilling and 50% straight drilling, as well as 80% Tier 0 engines and 20% Tier 1 compliant engines.3 Flaring emissions taken from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement", November, 2004.

All 20 3

G-D-13
Scenario:

Flaring 

Emissions 

(2006)

Emissions 

Difference - Rigs - 

(2006 - 2002)

(lb/hr) (lb/hr)

92.90 387.85

- 26.05

- 94.43

92.90 387.85

- 26.05

- 94.43

92.90 387.85

- 26.05

- 94.43

92.90 332.84

- 22.41

- 90.52

92.90 415.36

- 27.87

- 96.38

92.90 360.35

- 24.23

- 92.47

92.90 442.86

- 29.69

- 98.33

92.90 415.36

- 27.87

- 96.38

92.90 332.84

- 22.41

- 90.52

92.90 415.36

- 27.87

- 96.38

92.90 442.86

- 29.69

- 98.33

92.90 415.36

- 27.87

- 96.38

Numbers that scalars are based on. These scalars are used in model input files for modeling monthly emissions.

December

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

Month

January

NO

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Fax: (307) 745-8317

NO

SO

PM

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

TRC Environmental Corporation

Pollutant

x

2

10

552.88

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

552.88

36.96

106.14

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs 

(2006)

(lb/hr)

552.88

36.96

106.14

137.52

9.09

9.76

110.02

7.28

7.81

14.55

15.62

137.52

9.09

9.76

137.52

9.09

9.76

220.04

110.02

7.28

7.81

192.53

12.73

13.66

137.52

9.09

9.76

220.04

14.55

15.62

165.03

10.91

11.71

165.03

10.91

11.71

(lb/hr) (l

165.03

10.91

11.71

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs 

(2002)

Table G-D.1.11

Jonah Field - Summary - 2006-2002

61.93

-

-

61.93

-

-

123.86

-

-

61.93

-

-

61.93

-

-

61.93

-

-

92.90

-

-

61.93

-

-

92.90

-

-

-

-

123.86

-

-

b/hr)

92.90

-

-

92.90

Flaring 

Emissions 

(2002)

30.97

-

-

-

-

30.97

-

-

30.97

-

-

-30.97

Project:

Date:

(lb

Jonah Infill

Modeling Scalars

6/30/2005

30.97

-

-

30.97

-

-

0.00

-

-

30.97

-

-

-30.97

-

-

-

0.00

-

-

0.00

-

/hr)

0.00

-

-

Emissions 

Difference - Flares - 

(2006 - 2002)

2006-2002 Emissions and

Rig Scalar

0.8758

0.8775

0.9603

0.8758

0.8775

0.9603

0.8758

0.8775

0.9603

0.7516

0.7549

0.9206

0.9379

0.9387

0.9801

0.8137

0.8162

0.9404

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

0.9379

0.9387

0.9801

0.7516

0.7549

0.9206

0.9379

0.9387

0.9801

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

0.9379

0.9387

0.9801

Flare Scalar

0.00

-

-

0.00

-

-

0.00

-

-

-1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

0.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

-1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

1.00

-

-

G-D-14
Table G-D.1.12

Jonah Field - Expanded Field Operators - Summary - 2006

Project:

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: ate rill Comp 

Laramie, WY 82070 2600 hp Rigs

Date:

1

# of Operating 

Flares

Tier 1 

Fraction 2 

0.2 30.20.2

2 Emissions based on 2600 hp Rigs with 80% Tier 0 engines and 20% Tier 1 compliant engines.

ntal Impact Statement", Nove

1

on 

Total E

from 

(lb

9

5

2

leti

Jonah Infill Drilling Project - Expanded F

ing and 

8

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig

(lb/hr)

0.5

1.888.66

d 2006 D

80% Tier 0, 20% Tier 1

Estim

6/30/2005

Tier 0 

Fraction

0.8

0.80.8

1

Tier 1 Drilling 

Emissions

(lb/hr)

6.7

0.380.97

05 1

Tier 0 Drilling 

Emissions

(lb/hr)

34.

2.25

10.59

 Flaring emissions taken from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environme

# of Operating 

Drilling Rigs

3

 All months have equal numbers of 3 drilling rigs.

TRC Environmental Corporation

Pollutant

Ox

SO2

PM10

Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317

N

Month

All

13

G-D-15
Project:

Scenario:

Activity:

Emissions:

Date:

Horsepower2 Drilling Activity 

Duration Emissions per Rig

(hp) (hours/day) (lb/hr)

912 24 3.41

912 24 9.24

912 24 1.05

912 24 1.28

912 24 1.12

912 24 3.41

912 24 9.24

912 24 1.05

912 24 1.28

912 24 1.12

912 24 3.41

912 24 9.24

912 24 1.05

912 24 1.28

912 24 1.12

480 24 0.45

480 24 1.14

480 24 0.14

480 24 0.17

480 24 0.15

3,216 24 10.68

3,216 24 28.85

3,216 24 3.28

3,216 24 4.00

3,216 24 3.52

1 WDEQ/Questar, all other pollutants based on AP-42 ines. 

2 g g y WDEQ/Questar. 3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by ghted. 4 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

Drillin en

Rig Totals

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 3408 TA

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Engine

Cat. 398 TA

NOx based on data provided b

TRC Environmental Corporation

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Fax: (307) 745-8317

NOx

SO2

VOC

PM10

4

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

PM10

4

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

PM10

4

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

PM10

4

Pollutant

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

PM10

4

CO

y

ine horsepower based on data provided b

Emission Factor

0.0022

Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines."

0.0101

0.00205

0.0025

0.00668

0.0101

0.00205

0.0025

0.0022

0.00668

0.0024

0.00205

0.0025

0.0022

Pollutant 1

(lb/hp-hr)

0.00668

0.0101

0.00205

0.0025

0.0022

0.00668

60

(EPA, 1996

60

60

0.14 60

0.14 60

60

60

0.56 60

0.14 60

N/A 60

0.14 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

N/A 60

N/A 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

N/A 60

0.56 60

0.56 60

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(days/well)

Table G-D.1.13

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Manufacturer's/AP-42 - Rig # 232

)

 WDEQ/Questar. Load factor for NOx is accounted for in the emission factor as it is load-wei

5,066.77

, Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Eng

241.92

212.89

15,384.56

41,539.95

1,617.96

646.41

1,640.01

198.37

Pinedale Anticline

Rig # 232

Drilling

6/30/2005

4,721.31

5,757.70

1,507.65

1,838.59

1,617.96

4,912.72

13,299.98

13,299.98

1,507.65

1,838.59

1,617.96

4,912.72

4,912.72

13,299.98

1,507.65

1,838.59

Emissions per Well

(lb/well)

Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Drilling Engines - Manufacturer's and AP-42

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(tpy)

14.94

40.45

4.59

5.59

4.92

14.94

40.45

4.59

5.59

4.92

14.94

40.45

4.59

5.59

4.92

1.97

4.99

0.60

0.74

0.65

46.79

126.35

14.36

17.51

15.41

G-D-16
Table G-D.1.14

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Rig # 232

4

5

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO 4 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10

5 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO2

4 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10

5 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

CO 0.0187 480 0.14 60 24 1,813.37 1.26 5.52

NOx 0.015 480 0.14 60 24 1,472.03 1.02 4.48

SO2

4 0.00035 480 0.14 60 24 33.43 0.02 0.10

VOC 0.0022 480 0.14 60 24 213.34 0.15 0.65

PM10 0.00088 480 0.14 60 24 85.34 0.06 0.26

CO 3,216 60 24 43,158.28 29.97 131.27

NOx 3,216 60 24 35,034.37 24.33 106.56

SO2 3,216 60 24 795.64 0.55 2.42

3,216 5,077.45 3.53 15.44

10

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Rig # 232

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emis

Factor1

sion Horsepower2 Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity

Duration

 Drilling Activit

Duration

y Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Cat. 398 TA

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO2 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

Cat. 398 TA 2

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 3408 TA

5

1 Emission facto

Rig Totals 4

VOC 60 24

PM 5 3,216 60 24 2,030.98 1.41 6.18

r for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-17
Table G-D.1.15

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Manufacturer's/AP-42 - Rig # 235

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

CO 0.00668 912 0.56 60 24 4,912.72 3.41 14.94

NOx 0.0101 912 N/A 60 24 13,299.98 9.24 40.45

SO2 0.00205 912 0.56 60 24 1,507.65 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 912 0.56 60 24 1,838.59 1.28 5.59

PM10

4 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,617.96 1.12 4.92

CO 0.00668 912 0.56 60 24 4,912.72 3.41 14.94

NOx 0.0101 912 N/A 60 24 13,299.98 9.24 40.45

SO2 0.00205 912 0.56 60 24 1,507.65 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 912 0.56 60 24 1,838.59 1.28 5.59

PM10

4 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,617.96 1.12 4.92

CO 0.00668 912 0.56 60 24 4,912.72 3.41 14.94

NOx 0.0101 912 N/A 60 24 13,299.98 9.24 40.45

SO 0.00205 912 0.56 60 24 1,507.65 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 912 0.56 60 24 1,838.59 1.28 5.59

PM 4 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,617.96 1.12 4.92

CO 0.00668 725 0.14 60 24 976.35 0.68 2.97

4

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Rig # 235

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Manufacturer's and AP-42

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 398 TA 2

Cat. 3412TA

10

NOx 0.0030 725 N/A 60 24 3,140.04 2.18 9.55

SO2 0.00205 725 0.14 60 24 299.63 0.21 0.91

VOC 0.0025 725 0.14 60 24 365.40 0.25 1.11

Rig Totals

PM10 0.0022 725 0.14 60 24 321.55 0.22 0.98

CO 3,461 60 24 15,714.50 10.91 47.80

NOx 3,461 60 24 43,039.98 29.89 130.91

SO2 3,461 60 24 4,822.56 3.35 14.67

VOC 3,461 60 24 5,881.18 4.08 17.89

PM10

4 3,461 60 24 5,175.43 3.59 15.74

1 NOx based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar, all other pollutants based on AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. 

Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar. Load factor for NOx is accounted for in the emission factor as it is load-weighted.

4 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-18
Table G-D.1.16

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Rig # 235

4

5

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO 4 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10

5 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO2

4 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10

5 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

CO 0.0187 725 0.14 60 24 2,738.95 1.90 8.33

NOx 0.015 725 0.14 60 24 2,223.38 1.54 6.76

SO2

4 0.00035 725 0.14 60 24 50.49 0.04 0.15

VOC 0.0022 725 0.14 60 24 322.23 0.22 0.98

PM10 0.00088 725 0.14 60 24 128.89 0.09 0.39

CO 3,461 60 24 44,083.86 30.61 134.09

NOx 3,461 60 24 35,785.72 24.85 108.85

SO2 3,461 60 24 812.71 0.56 2.47

3,461 5,186.34 3.60 15.78

10

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Rig # 235

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Cat. 398 TA

CO 0.0187 912 0.56 60 24 13,781.64 9.57 41.92

NOx 0.015 912 0.56 60 24 11,187.45 7.77 34.03

SO2 0.00035 912 0.56 60 24 254.07 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 912 0.56 60 24 1,621.37 1.13 4.93

PM10 0.00088 912 0.56 60 24 648.55 0.45 1.97

Cat. 398 TA 2

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 3412 TA

5

1 Emission facto

Rig Totals 4

VOC 60 24

PM 5 3,461 60 24 2,074.53 1.44 6.31

r for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-19
Table G-D.1.17

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Manufacturer's/AP-42 - Rig # 236

Yearly Emissions 

CO 0.00668 975 0.52 60 24 4,918.20 3.42 14.96

NOx 0.0085 975 N/A 60 24 11,900.00 8.26 36.20

SO2 0.00205 975 0.52 60 24 1,509.33 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 975 0.52 60 24 1,840.64 1.28 5.60

PM10

4 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,619.77 1.12 4.93

CO 0.00668 975 0.52 60 24 4,918.20 3.42 14.96

NOx 0.0030 725 N/A 60 24 3,140.04 2.18 9.55

SO2 0.00205 725 0.14 60 24 299.63 0.21 0.91

VOC 0.0025 725 0.14 60 24 365.40 0.25 1.11

PM10

4 0.0022 725 0.14 60 24 321.55 0.22 0.98

CO 0.00668 725 0.41 60 24 2,880.93 2.00 8.76

NOx 4,375 60 24 44,600.02 30.97 135.66

SO2 4,375 60 24 5,711.73 3.97 17.37

VOC 4,375 60 24 6,965.52 4.84 21.19

Cat. 3412TA

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Rig # 236

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Date:

Drilling Engines - Manufacturer's and AP-42

6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission

Factor1

(lb/hp-hr)

Horsepower2

(hp)

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(days/well)

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions per Rig

(lb/hr)

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(tpy)

Cat. 398 TA

NOx 0.0085 975 N/A 60 24 11,900.00 8.26 36.20

SO2 0.00205 975 0.52 60 24 1,509.33 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 975 0.52 60 24 1,840.64 1.28 5.60

PM10

4 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,619.77 1.12 4.93

CO 0.00668 975 0.52 60 24 4,918.20 3.42 14.96

Cat. 398 TA

NOx 0.0085 975 N/A 60 24 11,900.00 8.26 36.20

Cat. 398 TA SO2 0.00205 975 0.52 60 24 1,509.33 1.05 4.59

VOC 0.0025 975 0.52 60 24 1,840.64 1.28 5.60

PM10

4 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,619.77 1.12 4.93

CO 0.00668 725 0.14 60 24 976.35 0.68 2.97

Cat. 3412TA

NOx 0.0055 725 N/A 60 24 5,760.00 4.00 17.52

SO2 0.00205 725 0.41 60 24 884.12 0.61 2.69

Rig Totals

VOC 0.0025 725 0.41 60 24 1,078.19 0.75 3.28

PM10

4 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 948.81 0.66 2.89

CO 4,375 60 24 18,611.88 12.92 56.61

PM10

4 4,375 60 24 6,129.66 4.26 18.64

1 NOx based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar, all other pollutants based on AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. 

Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar. Load factor for NOx is accounted for in the emission factor as it is load-weighted.

4 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-20
Table G-D.1.18

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Rig # 236

4

5

NOx 0.015 975 0.52 60 24 11,105.96 7.71 33.78

SO 4 0.00035 975 0.52 60 24 252.22 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,609.56 1.12 4.90

PM 5 0.00088 975 0.52 60 24 643.82 0.45 1.96

CO 0.0187 975 0.52 60 24 13,681.25 9.50 41.61

NOx 0.015 975 0.52 60 24 11,105.96 7.71 33.78

SO2

4 0.00035 975 0.52 60 24 252.22 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,609.56 1.12 4.90

PM10

5 0.00088 975 0.52 60 24 643.82 0.45 1.96

CO 0.0187 725 0.14 60 24 2,738.95 1.90 8.33

NOx 0.015 725 0.14 60 24 2,223.38 1.54 6.76

SO2

4 0.00035 725 0.14 60 24 50.49 0.04 0.15

VOC 0.0022 725 0.14 60 24 322.23 0.22 0.98

PM10

5 0.00088 725 0.14 60 24 128.89 0.09 0.39

CO 0.0187 725 0.41 60 24 8,021.21 5.57 24.40

NOx 0.015 725 0.41 60 24 6,511.33 4.52 19.81

SO2 0.00035 725 0.41 60 24 147.87 0.10 0.45

VOC 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 943.67 0.66 2.87

PM10 0.00088 725 0.41 60 24 377.47 0.26 1.15

CO 4,375 60 24 51,803.92 35.97 157.57

NOx 4,375 60 24 42,052.59 29.20 127.91

SO2 4,375 60 24 955.03 0.66 2.90

10

 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 data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheet

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Rig # 236

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Cat. 398 TA

CO 0.0187 975 0.52 60 24 13,681.25 9.50 41.61

NOx 0.015 975 0.52 60 24 11,105.96 7.71 33.78

SO2 0.00035 975 0.52 60 24 252.22 0.18 0.77

VOC 0.0022 975 0.52 60 24 1,609.56 1.12 4.90

PM10 0.00088 975 0.52 60 24 643.82 0.45 1.96

Cat. 398 TA

CO 0.0187 975 0.52 60 24 13,681.25 9.50 41.61

2

10

Cat. 398 TA

Cat. 3412 TA

Cat. 3412 TA 4

5

1 Emission facto

Rig Totals 4

VOC 4,375 60 24 6,094.58 4.23 18.54

PM 5 4,375 60 24 2,437.83 1.69 7.42

r for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

s.

G-D-21
Table G-D.1.19

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Caza Rig 85

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1 - Engines reported to be Tier 1 compliant

Engine Pollutant 1 Horsepower2 3 Emissions per Rig

Operation

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

2

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

5

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

4

PM10

5 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

SO2

4 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

CO 3,963 60 24 62,012.63 43.06 188.62

VOC 3,963 60 24 7,295.60 5.07 22.19

5

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Caza Rig 85

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Date: 6/30/2005

Yearly Emissions 

Pollutant Emission Overall Load Drilling Activity Drilling Activity Emissions per Per Rig Based on 

Factor Factor Duration Duration Well Continuous 

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

Cat. 3512 TA SO 4 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

PM10 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

Cat. 3512 TA SO2 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

Cat. 3512 TA

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

PM10

5 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

NOx 3,963 60 24 50,339.66 34.96 153.12

1 Emission fact

Rig Totals SO2

4 3,963 60 24 1,143.23 0.79 3.48

PM10 3,963 60 24 2,918.24 2.03 8.88

or for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

4 The SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-22
Table G-D.1.20

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Caza Rig 86

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Caza Rig 86

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1 - Engines reported to be Tier 1 compliant

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Cat. 3512 TA

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

SO2

4 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

PM10

5 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

Cat. 3512 TA

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

SO2

4 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

PM10

5 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

Cat. 3512 TA

CO 0.0187 1,321 0.58 60 24 20,670.88 14.35 62.87

NOx 0.015 1,321 0.58 60 24 16,779.89 11.65 51.04

SO2

4 0.00035 1,321 0.58 60 24 381.08 0.26 1.16

VOC 0.0022 1,321 0.58 60 24 2,431.87 1.69 7.40

PM10

5 0.00088 1,321 0.58 60 24 972.75 0.68 2.96

Rig Totals

CO 3,963 60 24 62,012.63 43.06 188.62

NOx 3,963 60 24 50,339.66 34.96 153.12

SO2

4 3,963 60 24 1,143.23 0.79 3.48

VOC 3,963 60 24 7,295.60 5.07 22.19

PM10

5 3,963 60 24 2,918.24 2.03 8.88

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

 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 data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-23
Table G-D.1.21

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier1/AP-42 - Caza Rig 24

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig Per Rig Based on Continuous 

SO 4 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

SO2 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

5

CO 0.0187 650 0.60 60 24 10,545.09 7.32 32.07

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

PM10

5 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

SO 4 0.00205 725 0.41 60 24 884.03 0.61 2.69

VOC 0.0025 725 0.41 60 24 1,078.09 0.75 3.28

NOx 0.0062 725 N/A 60 24 6,424.62 4.46 19.54

SO2 0.00205 725 0.41 60 24 884.03 0.61 2.69

5

CO 3,400 60 24 37,396.56 25.97 113.75

NOx 3,400 60 24 38,529.63 26.76 117.19

VOC 60 24

PM10

5 3,400 60 24 3,386.15 2.35 10.30

Cat. 3412 TA

Cat 3508 TA

TRC Environmental Corporation Project:

605 Skyline Drive Scenario:

Pinedale Anticline

Caza Rig 24

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Cat 3508s at Tier 1, 3412s at AP-42

Date: 6/30/2005

Yearly Emissions 

CO

(lb/hp-hr)

0.0187

(hp)

650 0.60

(days/well)

60

(hours/day)

24

(lb/well)

10,545.09

(lb/hr)

7.32

Operation

(tpy)

32.07

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

Cat. 3508 TA

2

PM10

5 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

CO 0.0187 650 0.60 60 24 10,545.09 7.32 32.07

4

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

Cat. 3508 TA

PM10 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

SO2

4 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

CO 0.00668 725 0.41 60 24 2,880.65 2.00 8.76

Cat. 3412 TA

NOx 0.0062 725 N/A 60 24 6,424.62 4.46 19.54

2

PM10

5 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 948.72 0.66 2.89

CO 0.00668 725 0.41 60 24 2,880.65 2.00 8.76

4

Rig Totals

VOC 0.0025 725 0.41 60 24 1,078.09 0.75 3.28

PM10 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 948.72 0.66 2.89

SO2

4 3,400 60 24 2,351.27 1.63 7.15

3,400 5,877.97 4.08 17.88

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

 Engine Emission Standards, g/kWh (g/bhp-hr)." Available on-line at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html.

For Caterpillar 3412TAs NOx based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar, all other pollutants based on AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. 

Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

4 The SO2 emission factor for the Cat. 3508TAs 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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets. Cat 3412TAs are based on AP-42.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-24
Table G-D.1.22

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Caza Rig 24

CO 0.0187 650 0.60 60 24 10,545.09 7.32 32.07

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

SO2 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

PM10 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

CO 0.0187 650 0.60 60 24 10,545.09 7.32 32.07

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

SO2

4 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

PM10

5 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

CO 0.0187 650 0.60 60 24 10,545.09 7.32 32.07

NOx 0.015 650 0.60 60 24 8,560.13 5.94 26.04

SO2

4 0.00035 650 0.60 60 24 194.40 0.14 0.59

VOC 0.0022 650 0.60 60 24 1,240.60 0.86 3.77

PM10

5 0.00088 650 0.60 60 24 496.24 0.34 1.51

CO 0.0187 725 0.41 60 24 8,081.07 5.61 24.58

NOx 0.015 725 0.41 60 24 6,559.93 4.56 19.95

SO 4 0.00035 725 0.41 60 24 148.98 0.10 0.45

VOC 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 950.71 0.66 2.89

PM 5 0.00088 725 0.41 60 24 380.29 0.26 1.16

4

5

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Caza Rig 24

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Drilling

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from 

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Engine Pollutant Pollutant Emission 

Factor1 Horsepower2 Overall Load Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well Emissions per Rig

Yearly Emissions 

Per Rig Based on 

Continuous 

Operation

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) (tpy)

Cat. 3508 TA 4

5

Cat. 3508 TA

Cat. 3508 TA

Cat. 3412 TA 2

Cat. 3412 TA

10

CO 0.0187 725 0.41 60 24 8,081.07 5.61 24.58

NOx 0.015 725 0.41 60 24 6,559.93 4.56 19.95

SO2 0.00035 725 0.41 60 24 148.98 0.10 0.45

VOC 0.0022 725 0.41 60 24 950.71 0.66 2.89

Rig Totals

PM10 0.00088 725 0.41 60 24 380.29 0.26 1.16

CO 3,400 60 24 47,797.42 33.19 145.38

NOx 3,400 60 24 38,800.26 26.94 118.02

SO2

4 3,400 60 24 881.17 0.61 2.68

VOC 3,400 60 24 5,623.23 3.91 17.10

PM10

5 3,400 60 24 2,249.29 1.56 6.84

1 Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad Diesel

 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 data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

3 The overall load factor is based on data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

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 taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-25
Table G-D.1.23

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - AP-42 - Summer Rigs

605 Skyline Drive

e, A

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 ill g ng e A -4

Pollutant 

Emission 

Factor1

Total 

Horsepower All 

En ne 2

3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day)

0.00668 3,216 60 24

0.031 3,216 60 24

2 0.00205 3,216 0 0 60 24 ,7 .1 3 8

0.0025 3,216 60 24

10

4 0.0022 3,216 60 24

AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

Drilling engine horsepower based on Rig # 232, data provided by WDEQ/Questar.The overall load factor is based on Rig #232, data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

 assumed equivalent to PM for drilling engines.

Emissions per Rig

(lb/hr)

10.68

49.58

.2

4.00

3.52

in s - P 2

8

Project: Pinedale Anticline

Scenario: Summer Rigs

ctivity: Drilling

E

Emissions per 

Well

(lb/well)

15,384.15

71,393.50

21

5,757.54

5,066.64

in

6/30/2005

4

Dr

Date:

Emissions:

Overall Load 

Factor

0.500.50

.5

0.50

0.50

gi s

10

TRC Environmental Corporation

i WY 82070

Pollutant

CO

NOx

SO

VOC

PM

am

2.5

ar

PM

L

1234

G-D-26
Table G-D.1.24

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Summer Rigs

CO 0.0187 3,216 0.50 60 24 43,157.12 29.97 

NOx 0.015 3,216 0.50 60 24 35,033.43 24.33 

SO2 0.00035 3,216 0.50 60 24 795.62 0.55 

VOC 0.0022 3,216 0.50 60 24 5,077.31 3.53 

PM10 0.00088 3,216 0.50 60 24 2,030.92 1.41 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad 

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Summer RigsLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions from Fax: (307) 745-8317 Drilling Engines - Tier 1

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant E Pollutant mission Fac

(lb/hp-hr)

tor1

Total Horsepo

All Engines

(hp)

wer 

2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(days/well)

Drilling Activity

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions per W

(lb/well)

ell Emissions per 

(lb/hr)

4

1

 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 Rig # 232, data provided by WDEQ/Questar.3 The overall load factor is based on Rig #232, data provided by WDEQ/Questar.4 The SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-27
Table G-D.1.25

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - AP-42 - Other Winter Rigs

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 5,000 0.44 60 24 21,272.86 14.77 

NOx 0.031 5,000 0.44 60 24 98,721.36 68.56 

SO2 0.00205 5,000 0.44 60 24 6,528.35 4.53 

VOC 0.0025 5,000 0.44 60 24 7,961.40 5.53 

PM104 0.0022 5,000 0.44 60 24 7,006.03 4.87 

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticl605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Other Winter RLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombusFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling En

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per Rig

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on the average load factor of Rig #236, the largest rig data on the Anticline was available for, 

data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

4 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-28
Table G-D.1.26

Pinedale Anticline - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Other Winter Rigs

CO 0.0187 5,000 0.44 60 24 59,676.71 41.44 

NOx 0.015 5,000 0.44 60 24 48,443.45 33.64 

SO24 0.00035 5,000 0.44 60 24 1,100.17 0.76 

VOC 0.0022 5,000 0.44 60 24 7,020.79 4.88 

PM10 0.00088 5,000 0.44 60 24 2,808.32 1.95 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Non

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline Project605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Other Winter RigsLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Tier 

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1

(lb/hp-hr)

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

(hp)

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity

Duration

(days/well)

 Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions pe

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.3 The overall load factor is calculated based on the average load factor of Rig #236, the largest rig data on the Anticline was available for, 

data provided by WDEQ/Questar.

4 The SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-29
Table G-D.1.27

Pinedale Anticline - Completion Flaring Emissions

3 Jonah II EIS

24 hours/day Jonah II EIS

5 MMCFD Jonah II EIS

1000 Jonah II EIS

n 

8 4

Environmental Impact Statement", Technical Report, BLM, Pinedale Field Office, November, 1999.

Emissions per Well

NO

1

2 

Ga

CO

PM

PM

SO

x

1

1

1

2

2

2

s Fl

VOCs

10

2.5

Benzene

Hexane

Toluene

2

2

2

are

Gas Heat Content:

Formaldehyde

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Assumptions:

Hours of Operation:

2

d:

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Pollutant

TRC Environmental Corporation

 AP-42, Tables 13.5-1 and 13.5-2, 9/91.

AP-42, Tables 1.4-2 and 1.4-3 (3/98).

1.80

0.0034

7.60

0.00

0.0021

0.0750

370.00

63.00

7.60

Pollutant Emi

Factor

1

(lb/MMCF)

68.00

ssio

Note: Table data presented as found in "Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft

Btu/scf

days

0.38

0.0007

1.5

0.00

0.0004

0.02

77.08

13.13

1.58

(lb/hr - Max)

14.17

27.00

0.051

11

0.00

0.03

1.13

5550

945

114

(lb/well)

1020

Project:

Scenario:

Activity:

Date:

Flaring

6/2/2005

Pinedale Anticline

Completion Flaring

(ton/well)

0.51

2.78

0.47

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.0000

0.0006

0.0135

0.0000

G-D-30
Table G-D.1.28

Pinedale Anticline - Summary - 2002

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Pinedale Anticline Project

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 14.07 3.17

2

PM10

NOx 28.85 1.0 28.85 28.85 14.17

SO2 3.28 1.0 3.28 3.28 0.00

NOx 28.85 1.0 28.85 0.00 0.00

SO 3.28 1.0 3.28 0.00 0.00

SO2 3.28 1.0 3.28 3.28 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 3.52 1.58

April 1 1

November 0 0

December 1 1

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2002 Drilling and Completion Emissions

Laramie, WY 82070

Phone: (307) 742-3843

3,216 hp, 100 % Tier 0

Date: 6/30/2005

Fax: (307) 745-8317

# of Operating Drilling #232 Rig 

Month Pollutant Rigs # of Operating Flares

Emissions 

(Tier 0) Tier 0 Fraction

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig1

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs1 Flaring Emissions2

NOx 28.85 1.0 28.85 115.39 28.33

January SO2 4 2 3.28 1.0 3.28 13.11 0.00

NOx

February SO 3 1

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85 86.54 14.17

3.28 9.84 0.00

3.52 1.0 3.52 10.56 1.58

NOx 28.85 1.0 28.85 86.54 14.17

SO2

PM10

March 3 1 3.28 1.0

3.52 1.0

3.28 9.84 0.00

3.52 10.56 1.58

PM10

NOx

May SO2 7 3

3.52 1.0 3.52 3.52 1.58

28.85 1.0 28.85 201.93 42.50

3.28 1.0 3.28 22.95 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 24.63 4.75

NOx

June SO2 3 1

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85

3.28

86.54 14.17

9.84 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 10.56 1.58

NOx

July SO 8 4

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85

3.28

230.78 56.67

2 26.23 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 28.15 6.33

NOx

August SO2 5 2

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85

3.28

144.24 28.33

16.39 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 17.59 3.17

NOx

September SO2 3 1

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85

3.28

86.54 14.17

9.84 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 10.56 1.58

NOx

October SO2 3 1

28.85 1.0

3.28 1.0

28.85

3.28

86.54 14.17

9.84 0.00

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 10.56 1.58

2

PM10 3.52 1.0 3.52 0.00 0.00

NOx 28.85 1.0 28.85 28.85 14.17

1

 Emissions are calculated based on 3,216 hp Questar Rig #232 at Tier 0 emissions.

2

 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Technical Report", BLM, November, 1999.

G-D-31
Table G-D.1.29

Pinedale Anticline - Summary - 2006

TRC Environmental Corporation Project:605 Skyline Drive EstLaramie, WY 82070 Date:Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317

Rig # 236 

(Tier 0)

Other Winter 

Rigs (Tier 0)

Tier 0 

Fraction Em

(lb/hr) (lb/hr)

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.8

4.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.8

3. 4.26 2 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

x 30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

30.97 68.56 0.8

3.97 4.53 0.84.26 4.87 0.8

 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Report", BLM, November, 1999.

Pin

Av

6/3

Scenario:

Tier 1 

Fraction

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

0.2

0.20.2

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.55

1.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

Other 

Summer Rigs 

(Tier 1)

(lb/hr)

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.55

1.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

24.33

0.551.41

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.28

3.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

Other 

Summer Rigs 

(Tier 0)

(lb/hr)

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.28

3.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

49.58

3.283.52

 the winter drilling engines and the remainder as 3,216 hp rigs based on Questar Rig #232. The 6 rigs data is availabl

Other Winter 

Rigs (Tier 1)

(lb/hr)

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.76

1.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.76

1.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

33.64

0.761.95

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.63

2.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.63

.35

Caza Rig #24 

(Tier 0/1)

(lb/hr)

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.63

2.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.632.35

26.76

1.632.35

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.79

2.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

Caza Rig # 

86 (Tier 1)

(lb/hr)

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.79

2.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

Caza Rig # 

85 (Tier 1)

(lb/hr)

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.79

2.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.79

2.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

34.96

0.792.03

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.35

3.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.35

59

Rig # 235 

(Tier 0)

(lb/hr)

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.35

3.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.353.59

29.89

3.353.59

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.28

3.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

Rig # 232 

(Tier 0)

(lb/hr)

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.28

3.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

28.85

3.283.52

44

44

 Emissions are calculated based on the 6 year-round drilling rigs from the WDEQ/Questar data, six (6) 5,000hp rigs to round out

# of Operating 

Flares

4

55

55

5

4

standards as appropriate per rig and engine from actual data. The other rigs use an 80% Tier 0, 20% Tier 1 ratio.

4

2525

2525

# of Operating 

Drilling Rigs

25

30

5

35

5

30

5

25

3

3

2

NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM

Pollutant

10

NOx

SO2

PM10NOSO2PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10NOx

SO2

PM10

Month

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

12

G-D-32
TRC Environmental Corporation

Laramie, WY 82070 Modeling Scalars

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Tot io Fla is is

(2006 - 2002) Rig Scalar

(lb/hr)

NO 1019.31 0.6825

SO 58.91 0.6581

PM 6 07 69.65 3. 0.6688

NO 1048.15 0.7018

SO 62.19 0.6947

PM 73.17 0.7026

NO 1048.15 0.7018

SO 62.19 0.6947

PM 73.17 0.7026

NO 1105.85 0.7405

SO 68.75 0.7679

PM 80.21 0.7702

NOx 932.77 0.6246

SO 49.08 0.5482

PM 59.10 0.5675

NO 1270.80 0.8509

SO 75.86 0.8473

PM 88.66 0.8513

NO 1349.21 0.9034

SO 0 23 73.13 0. 0.8169

PM 86.55 0.8311

NO 8 70 .24 1435.75 42 0.9614

SO 82.97 0.9268

PM 97.10 0.9324

NO 1493.44 1.0000

SO 89.52 1.0000

PM 104.14 1.0000

NO 1270.80 0.8509

SO 75.86 0.8473

PM 88.66 0.8513

NO 1134.70 0.7598

SO 72.03 0.8045

PM 6 83.73 6. 0.8040

NO 1105.85 0.7405

SO 68.75 0.7679

PM 80.21 0.7702

Numbers that scalars are based on. These scalars are used in model input files for modeling monthly emissions.

Month

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

605 Skyline Drive

2

10

10

x

10

x

2

10

x

2

x

2

x

2

10

2

10

10

x

x

2

2

10

2

10

x

x

2

10

2

10

10

x

x

2

Pollutant

72.03

83.73

99.21

1134.70

72.03

114.70

1357.34

85.69

15

9

8

al 

83.73

1134.70

1579.98

99.36

79

99.36

114.70

9.

114.70

1579.98

1357.34

85.69

99.21

72.03

83.73

83.73

1134.70

1134.70

72.03

1134.70

72.03

83.73

72.03

83.73

3.

1134.70

1134.70

72.03

Em

from all Rigs 

(2006)

(lb/hr)

.9

36

73

iss ns 

0.00

6.33

.33

56.67

7.92

56.67

0.00

7.92

70.83

0.00

70.83

0.00

.8

0.00

7.92

.00

7.92

70.83

70.83

0.00

7.92

0.00

6.33

6.33

56.67

56.67

0.00

56.67

0.00

6.33

0.00

6.33

.33

56.67

56.67

0.00

rin

Emissions 

(2006)

(lb/hr)

3

g 

3.28

3.52

10.56

0.00

0.00

10.56

86.54

9.84

Tot

1

2

1

al 

0.00

28.85

86.54

9.84

44

16.39

17.59

6.

28.15

230.78

86.54

9.84

10.56

22.95

24.63

3.52

201.93

28.85

3.28

86.54

9.84

10.56

9.84

10.56

4.

86.54

115.39

13.11

Em

from all Rigs 

(2002)

(lb/hr)

sio

Table G-D.1.30

Pinedale Anticline - Summary - 2006-2002

ns 

0.00

1.58

1.58

0.00

0.00

1.58

14.17

0.00

28

0

3

Fla

0.00

14.17

14.17

0.00

.3

0.00

3.17

.00

6.33

56.67

14.17

0.00

1.58

0.00

4.75

1.58

42.50

14.17

0.00

14.17

0.00

1.58

0.00

1.58

.17

14.17

28.33

0.00

rin

Emissions 

(2002)

(lb/hr)

3

g Em sio

Difference - Rigs - 

ns

Project:

Scenario:

Date: 6/30/2005

0.00

4.75

33

42.50

6.33

56.67

0.00

6.33

56.67

0.00

56.67

0.00

.50

0.00

4.75

00

1.58

14.17

56.67

0.00

6.33

0.00

1.58

4.75

14.17

42.50

0.00

42.50

0.00

4.75

0.00

4.75

17

42.50

28.33

0.00

Emissions Difference 

Flares - (2006 - 2002)

(lb/hr)

Pinedale Anticline Project

2006-2002 Emissions and

-

Flare Scalar

0.50

N/A

0.50

0.75

N/A

0.75

0.75

N/A

0.75

0.75

N/A

0.75

0.25

N/A

0.25

1.00

N/A

1.00

0.25

N/A

0.25

0.75

N/A

0.75

1.00

N/A

1.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

0.75

N/A

0.75

G-D-33
Table G-D.1.31

Riley Ridge - Drilling Emissions - AP-42

605 Skyline Drive

e, 70 Act Drilling

Emissions:

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

Duration

(hp) (days/well)

2,100 --

0.0 2,100 --

2 2,100 --

2,100 --

4 0.0 2,100 --

Drilling engine horsepower based on 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.

3 The overall load factor is calculated based on average throttle setting of 65% and a load factor of 65%.

 assumed equivalent to PM

Emissions p

50

Rig

(lb/hr)

5.93

27.

1.822.221.95

e 

from Drilling Engines - EPA AP

Diesel Combustion Emissions 

Riley Ridge

Straight Drilling

Emissions per 

Well

(lb/well)

--

--

------

6/30/2005

Project:

Scenario:

ivity:

Date:

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

24

24

242424

Drilling Activity 

AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasolin

3

2

2

Overall Load 

Factor

0.4

0.42

0.420.420.4

2

 for drilling engines.

All Engines

10

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

2

Pollutant 

(lb/hp-hr)

0.00668

31

0.00205

0.0025

02

TRC Environmental Corporation

WY 820

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317Larami

Pollutant

CO

NOx

SO

VOC

M10

2.5

P

PM

124

G-D-34
Table G-D.1.32

Riley Ridge - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 16.63 

NOx 0.015 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 13.50 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 0.31 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 1.96 

PM10 0.00088 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 0.78 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 N

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Riley Ridge605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Ti

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1

(lb/hp-hr)

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

(hp)

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity

Duration

(days/well)

 Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions 

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.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 SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-35
Table G-D.1.33

Riley Ridge - Completion Flaring Emissions

TRC Environmental Corporation605 Skyline DrivLaramie, WY 82070Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317Assumptions:

Pollutant

NOx 0.068 - 2974.00 - 2.81 202.23 VOCs - - - - 2.10 151.20 

TSP - 7.60 - 2.50 0.26 19.00 

Benzene - 0.0021 - 2.50 0.0001 0.0053 

TolueneHexaneFormaldehyde

1

Note: Table data given as found in "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development PEnvironmental Impact Statement", August, 2004. - Riley Ridge assumed to be similar to South Piney.

Emission Factor1 Operational Rate Emissions per 

Pro

e Scena

Acti

D

Hours of Operation:

Amount of Gas Flared:Average Heat Content:Average VOC Content:

3 days

2.5 MMSC

1189.6 Btu/scf

6.50% weight

F/well

Average Mol. Weight 17.705 lb/lb-mol

(lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMscf) (MMBtu) (MMscf) (lb/hr - Max) (lb/well) 

CO 0.37 - 2974.00 - 15.28 1100.38 SO2 - - - - 0.00 0.00 PM10PM2.5

--

7.607.60

--

2.502.50

0.260.26

19.0019.00

- 0.0034 - 2.50 0.0001 0.0085 - 1.8 - 2.50 0.06 4.50 - 0.075 - 2.50 0.00 0.19 

 AP-42, Volume I, Section 13.5 (9/91).

ro

G-D-36
Table G-D.1.34

Riley Ridge - Summary - 2002

# of Operating Drilling

Rigs 1 Flaring Emissions

2

 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project 

Environmental Impact Statement", August, 2004. Riley Ridge is assumed to be equivalent to South Piney.

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

4

2

2

1

1

1

February

November

December

Month

January

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Fax: (307) 745-8317

NO

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

NO

SO

PM

Phone: (307) 742-3843

TRC Environmental Corporation

Pollutant

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

x

2

10

 Emissions are calculated based on 2,100 hp 100 % Tier 0 engines.

1

1

1

1

# of Operating 

Flares

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

Rig Emissions 

(Tier 0)

(lb/hr)

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Tier 0 Fraction

1.0

1.0

1.0

0

Project:

Scenario:

Date:

Riley Ridge

6/30/2005

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig

(lb/hr)

27.50

1.82

1.95

2,100 hp, 100 % Tier 0

1

3.90

27.50

1.82

1.95

27.50

1.82

1.95

55.01

3.64

3.90

55.01

3.64

55.01

3.64

3.90

110.02

7.28

7.81

1.

1.95

55.01

3.64

3.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

27.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

from all Rigs

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

0.00

Estimated 2002 Drilling and Completion Emissions

82

Total Emissions 

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2.81

0.00

0.26

2

G-D-37
Table G-D.1.35

Riley Ridge - Summary - 2006

NO 27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

NO 27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

NO 27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Riley Ridge

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2006 Drilling and Completion Emissions

Laramie, WY 82070 2,100 hp, 100 % Tier 0

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Date: 6/30/2005

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Month Pollutant

# of Operating Drilling

Rigs # of Operating 

Flares

Rig Emissions 

(Tier 0) Tier 0 Fraction

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig1

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs1 Flaring Emissions2

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

January

x

SO2 2 1 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

February

x

SO2 2 1 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

March

x

SO2 2 1 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

April

NOx

2 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

May

NOx

3 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 82.51 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 5.46 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 5.86 0.26

June

NOx

3 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 82.51 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 5.46 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 5.86 0.26

July

NOx

6 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 0.26

August

NOx

6 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 0.26

September

NOx

6 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 165.03 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 10.91 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 11.71 0.26

October

NOx

3 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 82.51 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 5.46 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 5.86 0.26

November

NOx

2 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

December

NOx

2 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 55.01 2.81

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 3.64 0.00

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 3.90 0.26

1

 Emissions are calculated based on 2,100 hp 100 % Tier 0 engines.

2

 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project 

Environmental Impact Statement", August, 2004. Riley Ridge is assumed to be equivalent to South Piney.

G-D-38
Table G-D.1.36

Riley Ridge - Summary - 2006-2002

Total Emissions Flaring Total Emissions Flaring Emissions 

10

PM10 3.90 0.26 0.00 0.00 3.90 0.26 0.50 1.00

PM10 3.90 0.26 0.00 0.00 3.90 0.26 0.50 1.00

PM10 5.86 0.26 1.95 0.26 3.90 0.00 0.50 0.00

PM10 5.86 0.26 3.90 0.26 1.95 0.00 0.25 0.00

PM10 11.71 0.26 3.90 0.26 7.81 0.00 1.00 0.00

2

PM 11.71 0.26 7.81 0.26 3.90 0.00 0.50 0.00

SO2 10.91 0.00 3.64 0.00 7.28 0.00 1.00 N/A

SO2 5.46 0.00 3.64 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.25 N/A

SO2 3.64 0.00 1.82 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.25 N/A

SO2 3.64 0.00 1.82 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.25 N/A

September

October

November

December

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Riley Ridge Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: 2006-2002 Emissions and

Laramie, WY 82070 Modeling Scalars

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Date: 6/30/2005

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Month Pollutant

from all Rigs 

(2006)

E

(lb/hr)

missions 

(2006)

from a

(20

(lb/hr) (lb

ll Rigs 

02)

Em

(2

/hr) (l

issions 

002)

Differe

(200

b/hr)

nce - Rigs - 

6 - 2002)

Emissio

Flares -

(lb/hr)

ns Difference -

 (2006 - 2002) Rig S

(lb/hr)

calar Flare Scalar

January

NOx 55.01 2.81 0.00 0.00 55.01 2.81 0.50 1.00

SO2 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

PM10 3.90 0.26 0.00 0.00 3.90 0.26 0.50 1.00

February

NO 55.01

3.64

2.81

0.00 0.

x 0.00 0.00 55.01 2.81 0.50 1.00

SO2 00 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

PM 3.90 0.26 0.00 0.00 3.90 0.26 0.50 1.00

March

NOx 55.01 2.81 0.00 0.00 55.01 2.81 0.50 1.00

SO2 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

April

NOx 55.01 2.81 0.00 0.00 55.01 2.81 0.50 1.00

SO2 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

May

NOx 82.51 2.81 27.50 2.81 55.01 0.00 0.50 0.00

SO2 5.46 0.00 1.82 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

June

NOx 82.51 2.81 55.01 2.81 27.50 0.00 0.25 0.00

SO2 5.46 0.00 3.64 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.25 N/A

July

NOx 165.03 2.81 55.01 2.81 110.02 0.00 1.00 0.00

SO2 10.91 0.00 3.64 0.00 7.28 0.00 1.00 N/A

August

NOx 165.03 2.81 110.02 2.81 55.01 0.00 0.50 0.00

SO 10.91 0.00 7.28 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.50 N/A

10

NOx 165.03 2.81 55.01 2.81 110.02 0.00 1.00 0.00

PM10 11.71 0.26 3.90 0.26 7.81 0.00 1.00 0.00

NOx 82.51 2.81 55.01 2.81 27.50 0.00 0.25 0.00

PM10 5.86 0.26 3.90 0.26 1.95 0.00 0.25 0.00

NOx 55.01 2.81 27.50 2.81 27.50 0.00 0.25 0.00

PM10 3.90 0.26 1.95 0.26 1.95 0.00 0.25 0.00

NOx 55.01 2.81 27.50 2.81 27.50 0.00 0.25 0.00

PM10 3.90 0.26 1.95 0.26 1.95 0.00 0.25 0.00

Numbers that scalars are based on. These scalars are used in model input files for modeling monthly emissions.

G-D-39
Table G-D.1.37

South Piney - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Deep Wells

Project: South Piney

605 Skyline Drive CBM Drill RigLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: g

Drillin 

Date:

Pollutant 

Emission Factor Emissions per R

(lb/hp-hr) (lb/hr)

0.00668 5.61

0.031 0 6 26.04

0.00205 1.72

0.0025 2.10

4 0.0022 0 1.85

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasolin

 en se se 6/2 ail f ol LM

Load factor taken from "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project EIS" (

 assumed equivalent to PM

Diesel Combust

En

McVehil-Mon

g 

Drillin

m 

6/30/2005

e 

fro

Scenario:

Emissions:

60

2

Emissions per Well

(lb/well)

1,346.69

9.

413.28504.00

3.5

,24

44

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

24

24

242424

.

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(days/well)

10

10

101010

ar Kruse, B

3

0

0

m C

Overall Load 

Factor

0.4

0.40

0.400.400.4

5 e-m ro

2

00

 for drilling engines.

Total Horsepower 

All Engines

(hp)

2,100

10

2,100

2,100

10

/2

2,

2,

d on 5

10

1

power ba

TRC Environmental Corporation

hor

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

ne 

Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317

gi

Pollutant

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

10

ing

2.5

PM

rill

PM

2 D34

G-D-40
Table G-D.1.38

South Piney - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Deep Wells

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.40 10 24 3,777.86 15.74 

NOx 0.015 2,100 0.40 10 24 3,066.73 12.78 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.40 10 24 69.65 0.29 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.40 10 24 444.45 1.85 

PM10 0.00088 2,100 0.40 10 24 177.78 0.74 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroa

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: South Piney605 Skyline Drive Scenario: CBM Drill RigLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombustiFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Eng

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor

(lb/hp-hr)

1

Total Horsepowe

All Engines2

(hp)

r Overall Load

Factor3

Drilling Activ

Duration

(days/well)

ity Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions per 

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.3 Load factor taken from "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project EIS" (McVehil-M4 The SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-41
Table G-D.1.39

South Piney - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Deep Wells

Date: 6/30/2005

(lb/hp-hr) (hp) (days/well) (hours/day) (lb/well) (lb/hr) 

CO 0.00668 2,600 0.40 12 24 2,000.79 6.95 

NOx 0.031 2,600 0.40 12 24 9,285.12 32.24 

SO 0.00205 2,600 0.40 12 24 614.02 2.13 

4

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: South Piney605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Deep Drill RigLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombustFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling En

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1 Total Horsepower All Engines2 Overall Load Factor3 Drilling Activity Duration Drilling Activity Duration Emissions per Well Emissions per R

2

VOC 0.0025 2,600 0.40 12 24 748.80 2.60 

PM10 0.0022 2,600 0.40 12 24 658.94 2.29 

1 AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.3 Load factor taken from "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project EIS" (McVehil-Mon4 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-42
Table G-D.1.40

South Piney - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1 - Deep Wells

CO 0.0187 2,600 0.40 12 24 5,612.82 19.49 

NOx 0.015 2,600 0.40 12 24 4,556.29 15.82 

SO24 0.00035 2,600 0.40 12 24 103.48 0.36 

VOC 0.0022 2,600 0.40 12 24 660.33 2.29 

PM10 0.00088 2,600 0.40 12 24 264.13 0.92 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroa

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: South Piney605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Deep Drill RigLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombustFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Eng

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor

(lb/hp-hr)

1

Total Horsepowe

All Engines2

(hp)

r Overall Loa

Factor3

d Drilling Activ

Duration

(days/well

ity Drilling Activity 

Duration

) (hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions per 

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.3 Load factor taken from "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project EIS" (McVehil-M4 The SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-43
Table G-D.1.41

South Piney - Completion Flaring Emissions - CBM Wells

Assumptions:

(lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMscf) (MMBtu) (MMscf) (lb/hr - Max) (lb/well) 

NOx 0.068 - 262.10 - 0.25 17.82 VOCs - - - - 0.08 5.90 

TSP - 7.60 - 0.25 0.03 1.90 

Benzene - 0.0021 - 0.25 0.0000 0.0005 

1

TRC Environmental Corporation Pro

605 Skyline Drive ScenaLaramie, WY 82070

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Acti

Format

Fax: (307) 745-8317 DHours of Operation:

Amount of Gas Flared:Average Heat Content:

3 days

0.25 MMS

1048.413 Btu/s

CF/well

cf

Average VOC Content:Average Mol. Weight

2.50%

17.705

weightlb/lb-mol

Pollutant Emission Factor1 Operational Rate Emissions per 

CO 0.37 - 262.10 - 1.35 96.98 SO2 - - - - 0.00 0.00 PM10PM2.5

--

7.607.60

--

0.250.25

0.030.03

1.901.90

Toluene - 0.0034 - 0.25 0.0000 0.0009 Hexane - 1.8 - 0.25 0.01 0.45 Formaldehyde - 0.075 - 0.25 0.00 0.02 

 AP-42, Volume I, Section 13.5 (9/91).

Note: Data taken from "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Environmental Impact Statement", August, 2004.

G-D-44
Table G-D.1.42

South Piney - Completion Flaring Emissions - Deep Wells

TRC Environmental Corporation Pro

605 Skyline Drive ScenaLaramie, WY 82070 Acti

Phone: (307) 742-3843 FormatFax: (307) 745-8317 DAssumptions:Hours of Operation: 3 daysAmount of Gas Flared: 2.5 MMSCF/wellAverage Heat Content: 1189.6 Btu/scfAverage VOC Content: 6.50% weightAverage Mol. Weight 17.705 lb/lb-mol

Pollutant Emission Factor1 Operational Rate Emissions per 

(lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMscf) (MMBtu) (MMscf) (lb/hr - Max) (lb/well) 

NOx 0.068 - 2974.00 - 2.81 202.23 CO 0.37 - 2974.00 - 15.28 1100.38 VOCs - - - - 2.10 151.20 SO2 - - - - 0.00 0.00 TSP - 7.60 - 2.50 0.26 19.00 PM10 - 7.60 - 2.50 0.26 19.00 PM2.5 - 7.60 - 2.50 0.26 19.00 Benzene - 0.0021 - 2.50 0.0001 0.0053 Toluene - 0.0034 - 2.50 0.0001 0.0085 Hexane - 1.8 - 2.50 0.06 4.50 Formaldehyde - 0.075 - 2.50 0.00 0.19 

1 AP-42, Volume I, Section 13.5 (9/91).

Note: Table data given as found in "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development ProEnvironmental Impact Statement", August, 2004.

G-D-45
Table G-D.1.43

South Piney - Summary - 2002

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: South Piney

Month Pollutant Drilling Rigs Flares 0) (Tier 0) CBM Flaring Deep Flaring CBM Fraction Fraction Fraction Emissions per Rig1 from all Rigs1 

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 3.90 SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 1.82 PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 1.95 

January 0 0

February 0 0

May 0 0

December 1 1

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2002 Drilling and CompleLaramie, WY 82070Phone: (307) 742-3843

77% CBM Wells, 23%2100 hp CBM, 2,600 h

 Deep Gas We

p Deep

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

# of 

Operating 

# of 

Operating CBM Rig (Tier Deep Rig Deep Tier 0 Average Drilling Total Emissions 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

2

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2

PM10

March 0 0 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

NOx

April SO2 0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2

PM10

June 0 0 1.72 2.13

1.85 2.29

0.000.03

0.00 0.770.26 0.77

0.230.23

1.0 1.821.0 1.95

0.00 0.00 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

July SO2 0 0 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 NOx

August SO 0 0

26.04 32.24

1.72 2.13

0.250.00

2.81 0.770.00 0.77

0.230.23

1.0 27.471.0 1.82

0.00 

2 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 54.93 

SO2

PM10

September 2 1 1.72 2.13

1.85 2.29

0.000.03

0.00 0.770.26 0.77

0.230.23

1.0 1.821.0 1.95

3.63 3.90 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

October SO2 0 0 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 NOx

November SO2 2 1

26.04 32.24

1.72 2.13

0.250.00

2.81 0.770.00 0.77

0.230.23

1.0 27.471.0 1.82

54.93 

3.63 

NOx 26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 27.47 

1 Emissions are calculated based on all Tier 0 rigs, 77% of which are 2,100 hp CBM rigs and 23% are 2,600 hp deep gas rigs.2 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Environmental Impact Statement", August, 2004.

Flaring is also ratioed to 77% CBM completions and 23% deep gas completions.

G-D-46
TableG-D.1.44

South Piney - Summary - 2006

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: South Piney605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2006 Drilling and CompletiLaramie, WY 82070 77% CBM Wells, 23% Deep Gas WellsPhone: (307) 742-3843 2100 hp CBM, 2,600 hp DeepFax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Month Pollutant

# of Operating 

Drilling Rigs # of Operati Flares ng CBM Rig (T 0) ier Deep Rig (Tier 0) CBM Flaring Deep Flaring CBM Fraction Deep Fraction Tier 0 Fraction Average Drilling Emissions per Rig1 Total Emissions from all Rigs1 

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) 

January

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

February

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

March

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

April

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

May

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

June

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

July

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

August

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

September

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

October

NOx

3 1

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 82.40 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 5.45 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 5.85 

November

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

December

NOx

0 0

26.04 32.24 0.25 2.81 0.77 0.23 1.0 27.47 0.00 

SO2 1.72 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.82 0.00 

PM10 1.85 2.29 0.03 0.26 0.77 0.23 1.0 1.95 0.00 

1 Emissions are calculated based on all Tier 0 rigs, 77% of which are 2,100 hp CBM rigs and 23% are 2,600 hp deep gas rigs.2 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Environmental Impact Statement", August, 2004.

Flaring is also ratioed to 77% CBM completions and 23% deep gas completions.

G-D-47
Project:

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Date:

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs 

(2006) Rig Scalar

(lb/hr)

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

S 0.00 0. 0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

S 0.00 0. 0 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

82.40 1.00

5.45 1.00

5.85 1.00

82.40 1.00

5.45 1.00

5.85 1.00

82.40 1.00

5.45 1.00

5.85 1.00

82.40 1.00

5.45 1.00

5.85 1.00

82.40 0.33

5.45 0.33

5.85 0.33

82.40 1.00

5.45 1.00

5.85 1.00

0.00 -0.67

0.00 -0.67

0.00 -0.67

0.00 -0.33

0.00 -0.33

0.00 -0.33

Numbers that scalars are based on. These scalars are used in model input files for modeling monthly emissions.

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

January

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

NOx

SO2

PM10

NOx

SO2

PM10

10

NOx

SO2

PM10

PM10

NOx

SO2

PM

PM10

NOx

SO2

2

PM10

NOx

SO2

2

PM10

NOx

SO

2

PM10

NOx

SO

O2

PM10

NOx

SO

O2

PM10

NOx

2

PM10

NOx

Pollutant

NOx

SO

TRC Environmental Corporation

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2006)

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

Flaring 

Emissions 

0

0

27.47

1.82

1.95

54.93

3.63

3.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

54.93

3.63

3.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2002)

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

Total Emissions 

from all Rigs 

Table G-D.1.45

South Piney - Summary - 2006-2002

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2002)

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

Flaring 

Emissions 

-27.47

-1.82

-1.95

82.40

5.45

5.85

5.85

27.47

1.82

1.95

0.

0.

-54.93

-3.63

-3.90

5.85

82.40

5.45

5.85

82.40

5.45

5.85

82.40

5.45

0.00

82.40

5.45

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2006 - 2002)

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

Emissions 

Difference - Rigs - 

Scenario:

6/30/2005

-0.84

0.00

-0.08

-0.84

0.00

-0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.08

0.84

0.00

0.00

0.84

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

(2006 - 2002)

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

Emissions 

Difference - Flares - 

Modeling Scalars

0

0

South Piney Project

2006-2002 Emissions and

Flare Scalar

0.00

N/A

0.00

0.00

N/A

0.00

0.00

N/A

0.00

0.00

N/A

0.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

0.00

N/A

0.00

1.00

N/A

1.00

-1.00

N/A

-1.00

-1.00

N/A

-1.00

G-D-48
Table G-D.1.46

Jack Morrow Hills - Drilling Emissions - AP-42

Jack Morrow Hills

605 Skyline Drive

ie, 70 : D

1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines 3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well

(hp) (hours/day) (lb/well)

2,100 2 24 --

0. 2,100 24 --

2 2,100 24 --

C 0. 2,100 2 24 --

10

4 2,100 24 --

 ( 96) n 3 olin ie stri es 3.3 ssi ors on asoli

Drilling engine horsepower based on 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.

3 ve fa alc as er ttle of d a cto .

 Therefore, the overall load factor = 0.65 * 0.65 = 0.42.

Emissions p

Rig

(lb/hr)

.93

27.50

1.822.22

1.95

5

ne 

from Drilling Engines - EPA AP

d G

Diesel Combustion Emissions 

trolle

Straight Drilling

rilling

nc

6/30/2005

 for U

Project:

Scenario:

Activity

Date:

ct

5%

 Fa

f 6

Emissions:

on

r o

mi

 fa

 "E

ad

-1,

 lo

e 

an

abl

% 

Drilling Activity 

Duration

(days/well)

----

----

--

. T

65

ginng 

En

tti

al 

 se

Overall Load 

Factor

.4

0.42

0.42

.4

0.42

du

ro

0

0

 In

e th

sel

ag

d D

 av

2

an

on

 for drilling engines.

e 

ed 

as

 b

 G

ted

10

.3,

ula

tio

 c

1

5

ec

r is

Pollutant 

Emission Factor

(lb/hp-hr)

0.00668

03

0.00205

002

0.0022

, S

cto

 assumed equivalent to PM

TRC Environmental Corporation

 WY 820

19

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

ad

Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317

A, 

 lo

EP

rall

Laram

Pollutant

CO

NOx

SO

O

PM

-42

e o

2.5

V

APThPM

124

G-D-49
Table G-D.1.47

Jack Morrow Hills - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1

CO 0.0187 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 16.63 

NOx 0.015 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 13.50 

SO24 0.00035 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 0.31 

VOC 0.0022 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 1.96 

PM10 0.00088 2,100 0.42 -- 24 -- 0.78 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 N

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jack Morrow Hills605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Straight DrillingLaramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Ti

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1

(lb/hp-hr)

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

(hp)

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity

Duration

(days/well)

 Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions 

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.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 SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-50
Table G-D.1.48

Jack Morrow Hills - Completion Flaring Emissions

Project:

Scenario:

Activity:

Emissions:

Date:

Emission 

Factor

Emission 

Factor Units Emission Factor Source

4.70 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.17 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.08 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.026 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.041 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.0019 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.018 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.068 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5

0.37 lb / 10^6 BTU AP-42 Section 13.5

2.35 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.09 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.042 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.013 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.020 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.001 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

0.009 lb / 1000 scf Gas Constituent Analysis

121.98 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

25.85 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

4.59 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

1.42 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

6.11 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

0.74 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

12.99 lb/bbl Condensate Constituent Analysi

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

 this condensate is not analyzed.

6 

Flaring

Flaring

Gas Stream

Flared

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Flaring Specifications:

Average Heat Content

 Duration

1

Calculated as 3500 mcf / 84 hrs.

Average Flowrate of Condensate

Pre-flare Volume of Condensate

Volume of Condensate Flared

TRC Environmental Corporation

Fax: (307) 745-8317

Total Volume of Gas Emitted

/Flowback Activit

Pre-ignition Flow-back Duration

Actual Hours Gas is Vented

Average Flowrate of Gas

Total Volume of Gas Vented

Total Volume of Flared Gas

Venting - Natural Gas 

Calculated as 416.67 mcf/hr * 4 hrs.

Calculated as 416.67 mcf/hr * 80 hrs.

Activity

Flaring - Natural Gas

Flaring - Condensate

Phone: (307) 742-3843 

Total Volume of Condensate Emitted

y

Pre-ignition Flow-back Time Involving a 

Total Hours in which Gas is Vented or 

 Duration

2

3

4

5

Calculated as 10% * 40 hrs of pre-ignition flowback + 80 hrs of flaring.

An estimated 11.9 bbl of condensate are captured prior to flare ignition. Flashing from

For all emission factors that used the constituent analysis, a 50% destruction rate was assumed. 

Note: Jack Morrow Hills completion flaring assumed to be similar to Jonah Infill Project estimated flaring.

HAP (total)

 n-hexane

 Benzene

 Toluene

 Xylenes

HAP (total)

 n-Hexane

 Benzene

 Toluene

 Xylenes

238.10 bbls VOC

 Xylenes

33,333.33 mcf NOx

CO

VOC

1,666.67 mcf VOC

HAP (total)

 n-Hexane

 Benzene

 Toluene

2.98 bbls/hr

11.90 bbls 

238.10 bbls

Volume

Volume 

Units

10 %

4 hrs

84 hrs 

416.67 mcf/hr

1,666.67 mcf

33,333.33 mcf

35000 mcf

250 bbls

1092.9 BTU/scf

120 hrs/well

80 hr/well

40 hr/well

 Ethylbenzene

 Ethylbenzene

 Ethylbenzene

Pollutant 6

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

All Scenarios

6/30/2005

Total 

Emissions

(tons)

3.91

0.14

0.070

0.022

0.034

0.0016

0.015

1.24

6.74

39.14

1.43

0.70

0.22

0.34

0.016

0.15

14.52

3.08

0.55

0.17

0.73

0.09

1.55

Jack Morrow Hills

Completion/Testing Flaring

Gas Flaring without High Pressure

Flowback Separator Units

Duration

(hours)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

Hourly 

Emissions

(lb/hr)

1,956.87

71.37

35.13

10.75

17.02

0.80

7.67

30.97

168.49

978.43

35.69

17.57

5.38

8.51

0.40

3.83

363.03

76.93

13.67

4.22

18.19

2.19

38.66

G-D-51
Table G-D.1.49

Jack Morrow Hills - Summary - 2002

TRC Environmental Corporation Project:

Scenario:

2,600 hp, 100% Tier 0

Phone: (307) 742-3843Fax: (307) 745-8317

of O # of Operating 

Flares

Tier 0 

Fraction

Total Emissions 

(lb/hr)

NO 1.0 27.50SO 1.0 1.82

PM 1.0 1.95

 All months have equal numbers of 1 drilling rig and 1 flare. Flaring emissions taken from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact S

1

2 from all Rigs

Estimated 2002 Drilling and Completio

2

Jack Morrow Hills

Average Drilling 

Emissions per Rig

(lb/hr)

27.50

1.821.95

Date: 6/30/2005

Drill Rig 

(Tier 0)

(lb/hr)

27.50

1.82

1.95

November, 2004. Jack Morrow Hills flaring assumed to be equivalent to that calculated for the Jonah Infill Project.

perating

Drilling Rigs

1

# 

nt

 Emissions based on 100% Tier 0 engines.

Polluta

x

2

10

Laramie, WY 82070

1

605 Skyline Drive

Month

All

123

G-D-52
Table G-D.1.50

Jack Morrow Hills - Summary - 2006

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Jack Morrow Hills605 Skyline Drive Scenario: Estimated 2006 Drilling and CompletioLaramie, WY 82070 2,600 hp, 100% Tier 0Phone: (307) 742-3843 Date: 6/30/2005Fax: (307) 745-8317

Month1 Pollutant

# of Operating 

Drilling Rigs # of Operating Flares Drill Rig (Tier 0) Tier 0 Fraction Average Drilling Emissions per Rig2 Total Emissions from all Rigs2 

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) 

All

NOx

1 1

27.50 1.0 27.50 27.50 

SO2 1.82 1.0 1.82 1.82 

PM10 1.95 1.0 1.95 1.95 

1 All months have equal numbers of 1 drilling rig and 1 flare.2 Emissions based on 100% Tier 0 engines.3 Flaring emissions taken from the "Draft Air Quality Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact S

November, 2004. Jack Morrow Hills flaring assumed to be equivalent to that calculated for the Jonah Infill Project.

G-D-53
Table G-D.1.51

Wildcat Rigs - Drilling Emissions - AP-42

Pollutant Pollutant 

Emission Factor1

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Drilling Activity 

Duration

Emissions per 

Well

Emissions per 

Rig

SO 0.00205 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 4.33 

14

TRC Environmental Corporation605 Skyline Drive

Project: Wildcat Rigs

Scenario:

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel CombusFax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling En

Date: 6/30/2005

CO

(lb/hp-hr)

0.00668

(hp)

5,000 0.42

(days/well)

--

(hours/day)

24

(lb/well)

--

(lb/hr)

14.11

NOx 0.031 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 65.49 

2

VOC

PM104

0.0025 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 5.28 

0.0022 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 4.65 

AP-42 (EPA, 1996), Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Table 3.3-1, "Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline 

 and Diesel Industrial Engines."

2 Drilling engine horsepower based on 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.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.

PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-54
Table G-D.1.52

Wildcat Rigs - Drilling Emissions - Tier 1

CO 0.0187 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 39.59 

NOx 0.015 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 32.14 

SO24 0.00035 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 0.73 

VOC 0.0022 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 4.66 

PM10 0.00088 5,000 0.42 -- 24 -- 1.86 

Emission factor for Tier 1 engine taken from Diesel Net, Emissions Standards: USA: Nonroad Diesel Engines, Table 1, "EPA Tier 1-3 N

TRC Environmental Corporation Project: Wildcat Rigs605 Skyline Drive Scenario:Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: DrillingPhone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Diesel Combustion Emissions Fax: (307) 745-8317 from Drilling Engines - EPA Ti

Date: 6/30/2005

Pollutant Pollutant Emission Factor1

(lb/hp-hr)

Total Horsepower 

All Engines2

(hp)

Overall Load 

Factor3

Drilling Activity

Duration

(days/well)

 Drilling Activity 

Duration

(hours/day)

Emissions Per 

Well

(lb/well)

Emissions 

Rig

(lb/hr)

5

1

 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 5/26/2005 e-mail from Carol Kruse, BLM.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 SO emission factor is calculated assuming 26.4 gal/hr fuel consumption, with 0.05% sulfur content of #2 diesel fuel, and fuel 2

 density of 7.001 lb/gal. Fuel consumption rate taken from Caterpillar "Oilfield Mechanical Rig Power" specification sheets.

5 PM2.5 assumed equivalent to PM10 for drilling engines.

G-D-55
Table G-D.1.53

Wildcat Rigs - Summary - 2006

Project:

Date:

Other 

Summer Rigs 

(Tier 0) Emissions per Rig1

(lb/hr) (lb/hr)

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

65.49 65.49

4.33 4.33

4.65 4.65

2

 Flaring Emissions based on data from the "Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statemen

1

May

December

Month

January

February

March

April

June

July

August

September

October

November

605 Skyline Drive

Laramie, WY 82070

Phone: (307) 742-3843

Fax: (307) 745-8317

NOx

2

x

2

x

2

x

2

x

2

x

2

x

2

NOx

SO2

PM10

NOx

SO2

PM10

NOx

SO2

PM10

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

NO

SO

PM10

TRC Environmental Corporation

NOx

SO2

PM10

NOx

SO2

PM10

Pollutant

 Emissions are calculated based on a 5,000 hp Drill Rig at Tier 0 emission factors and a 0.42 load facto

Technical Report", BLM, November, 1999. Wildcat flaring assumed to be equivalent to Pinedale Anticline flaring.

0

0

0

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

# of Operating Drilling

Rigs

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

# of Operating Flares

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Tier 0 

Fraction

r

Average Drilling 

Scenario:

Wildcat Rigs

6/30/2005

from all Rigs

5,000 hp Tier 0 engines

Total Emissions 

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

196.46

12.99

13.94

196.46

12.99

13.94

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Estimated 2006 Drilling Emissions

1 Flaring Emissions

(lb/hr)

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

14.17

0.00

1.58

14.17

0.00

1.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

G-D-56
Table G-D.1.54

Compression Increases - Falcon Compressor Station

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field Increase

Date: 6/30/2005

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Capacity (%) 100

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 167.00 MMSCF

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Emission Data: Method of Emission 

Nitrogen oxides 4.0 17.6 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

VOC 2.9 12.5 Permitted Emissions 0.500 g/hp-hr

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

Phone: (307) 742-3843 in Compression

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Emissions: Falcon C.S.

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Descriptio

Engine design

n Falcon Compressor Station

 increases (hp) 2,888

Operating Parameters:

Operating hours 8760

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

PM10

 lb/hr TPY

0.0 0.0

Determination Factor1 Units

AP-42 7.71E-05 lb/MMscf

PM2.5

Sulfur dioxide

0.0 0.00

0.0 0.0

AP-43 7.71E-05 lb/MMscf

Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Carbon monoxide 1.7 7.5 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr 2

Formaldehyde 0.5 2.0 2 Permitted Emissions 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline Permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hphr NOx.

G-D-57
Table G-D.1.55

Compression Increases - Luman Compressor Station

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Luman C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Luman Compressor Station

Engine design increases (hp) 11,248

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Operating hours 8760

Capacity (%) 100

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 650.41 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Emission Data: 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 15.6 68.4 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide 6.7 29.3 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 11.2 48.9 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 1.8 7.8 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline Permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hphr NOx.

G-D-58
Table G-D.1.56

Compression Increases - Bird Canyon Compressor Station

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Bird Canyon C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Bird Canyon Compressor Station

Engine design increases (hp) 30,928

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Operating hours 8760

Capacity (%) 100

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 1788.40 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Emission Data: 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 43.0 188.1 BACT 20.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide 18.4 80.6 Permitted Emissions2

0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 30.7 134.4 Permitted Emissions

Permitted Emissions2

0.500 g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 4.9 21.5 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from Bird Canyon Permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hp-hr NOx.

G-D-59
Table G-D.1.57

Compression Increases - Jonah Compressor Station

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Formaldehyde 0.5 2.1 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Jonah Field Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Jonah C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Jonah Compressor Station

Engine design increases (hp) 3,000

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Operating hours 8760

Capacity (%) 100

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 173.47 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Emission Data:

 Method of Emission 1 lb/hr TPY Determination Factor 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 4.2 18.3 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide 1.8 7.8 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 3.0 13.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline Permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hp-hr NOx.

G-D-60
Table G-D.1.58

Compression Increases - Paradise Compressor Station

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3.

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Pinedale Anticline Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Paradise C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Paradise Compressor Station

Engine design increases (hp) 9,624

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Operating hours 8760

Capacity (%) 100

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 556.51 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Emission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr TPY Determination Factor

1 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 13.4 58.5 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide 5.7 25.1 Permitted Emissions

2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 9.5 41.8 Permitted Emissions

2 0.500 g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 1.5 6.7 Permitted Emissions

2 0.080 g/hp-hr

2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline WDEQ permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hp-hr NOx

G-D-61
Table G-D.1.59

Compression Increases - Gobblers Knob Compressor Station

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Formaldehyde 0.2 0.8 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Compression Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Gobblers Knob C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Gobblers Knob Compressor Station (Comprised of Pinedale, Mesa 1, and Mesa 2)

Engine design increases (hp) 1,160

Operating Parameters:

Operated 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Operating hours 8760

Capacity (%) 100

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 67.08 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Emission Data: 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 1.6 7.1 BACT 0.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide 0.7 3.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.300 g/hp-hr

VOC 1.2 5.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.500 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from a Pinedale Anticline WDEQ permit for an engine with 0.7 g/hp-hr NOx.

G-D-62
Table G-D.1.60

Compression Increases - Jack Morrow Hills Compressor Station

Potential Fuel Combustion for the Year for Unit:

1

TRC Environmental Project: Jonah Infill Drilling Project

605 Skyline Drive Scenario: All Scenarios

Laramie, WY 82070 Activity: Projected Compression Increases

Phone: (307) 742-3843 Emissions: Jack Morrow Hills C.S.

Fax: (307) 745-8317 Date: 6/30/2005

Fuel Combustion Source:

Unit Description Jack Morrow Hills Compressor Station

Engine design increases (hp) 2,940

Operating Parameters:

Operated

Operating hours 

24

8760

hr/day, 7 days/wk, 365 days/yr.

Capacity (%) 100

Annual Engine Load Factor: 0.9

Volume of Natural Gas Combusted 170.00 MMSCF

Assumes gas consumed at rate of 6601 Btu/hp-hr

Heat Content 1000 Btu/scf

Emission Data: Method of Emission 

 lb/hr TPY Determination Factor 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

Sulfur dioxide 0.0 0.0 Fuel Analysis 0.00 lb/MMscf

Nitrogen oxides 4.1 17.9 BACT 20.7 g/hp-hr

Carbon monoxide

VOC

1.8

2.9

7.7

12.8

Permitted Emissions

Permitted Emissions2

0.300

0.500

g/hp-hr

g/hp-hr

Formaldehyde 0.5 2.0 Permitted Emissions2 0.080 g/hp-hr

1 Based on a 4-stroke lean burn engine, taken from AP-42 Table 3.2-3. 

2 Emission rates taken from surrounding area compression permits for an engine with 0.7 g/hp-hr NOx

G-D-63
Table G-D.1.61

Permitted Source Inventory Increases - CO Sources

Permit Height Temperature Velocity Diameter NOx 

Number (m) (m/s) (tpy) 

Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 3-1 03MF0434 3.05 14.73 23.04 

03MF0662 4.57 12.50 14.30 

03MF0808 3.05 12.50 11.50 

03MF0809 2.13 12.50 31.23 

03MF0810 2.13 12.50 31.23 

Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 3-2 03MF0811 2.13 12.50 31.23 

Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 3-4 03MF0812 2.13 12.50 31.23 

Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 3-3 03MF0943 2.13 11.34 31.23 

03MF0962 9.05 11.34 

03MF0963 32.93 12.50 

Tom Brown, Inc. - Schroeder 33-32 03MF1025 9.05 12.50 Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 03RB0569F 0.00 0.00 

Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 03RB0570 0.00 0.00 

KLT Gas Inc. - Pinyon Ridge Field 03RB0578 2.44 12.50 24.00 

Blue Mountain Energy - Deserado Mine 12RB802-3F 22.38 7.77 

233.60 

1.441.44

1.73

0.00

0.000.00

(m)

0.10

0.30

0.10

0.100.100.100.100.100.760.76

0.76

0.000.00

0.20

0.67

Total Colorado State-Permitted Source Emissions

(K)

808.15

866.48

808.15

833.15833.15833.15833.15833.15294.26829.82

810.93

294.26294.26

255.37

294.26

County

Rio BlancoRio Blanco

Rio Blanco

Rio Blanco

Moffat

Moffat

Moffat

MoffatMoffat

MoffatMoffatMoffatMoffatMoffatMoffat

169

161

168177178223224228225226

229

14

14

232

14

Site ID

Questar Gas Management Co. - Lion C.S.Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 12-5Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 12-2Koch Exploration Co. LLC - Walker 12-4Tom Brown, Inc. - Federal Land Bank 21-14Tom Brown, Inc. - Federal Land Bank 33-15Facility Name

G-D-64
Table G-D.1.62

Permitted Source Inventory Increases - WY Sources

Permit Height Temperature Velocity Diameter 

Company Facility Number County (m) (K) (m/s) (m) Williams Field Services Opal Gas Plant MD-917 Lincoln 16.69 742.00 1.37 34.17 Bill Barrett Corporation Wallace Creek Compressor Station MD-954 Natrona 7.32 734.80 35.40 0.30 CREDO Petroleum Company Marianne Compressor Station MD-971 Sweetwater 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 Double Eagle Petroleum Company Cow Creek Central Production Facility MD-951 Carbon 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 Mountain Gas Resources Granger Gas Plant MD-963 Sweetwater 7.92 904.00 32.90 0.38 Mountain Gas Resources Hay Reservoir Central Compressor Station MD-975 Sweetwater 13.11 880.40 20.00 0.46 Mountain Gas Resources Storm Shelter Compressor Station MD-935 Sweetwater 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 Tom Brown Incorporated Frenchie Draw Graham Unit Central Tank Battery CT-3436 Sweetwater 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 Tom Brown Incorporated Fuller Compressor Station CT-3449 Fremont 8.23 895.37 15.70 0.30 Warren E & P, Inc. Pacific Rim Generator Station #1 CT-3472 Sweetwater 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 Western Gas Resources, Inc. Wild Rose Compressor Station CT-3412 Sweetwater 6.70 903.70 32.90 0.38 

Total Wyoming State-Permitted Source Emissions 

 

G-D-65
Table G-D.1.63

Included RFFA

Permit 

Company Facility Name NumberTom Brown Incorporated Frenchie Draw/Graham Unit #5 CT-3467 Fremont 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 36.00 

Warren E & P, Inc. Pacific Rim Compressor Station #1 CT-3471 Sweetwater 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 17.10 

Height

County

Tempe

(m)

rature

(K)

Velocity Diame

(m/s) (m)

ter NOx

(tpy)

Exxon Mobil Corporation Shute Creek Treating Facility MD-913 Lincoln 60.66 355.00 54.78 1.83 (33.20) Sinclair Oil Company SincAnadarko Gathering Company Blue

lair Refinery MD-976

 Sky MD-950

Carbon

Carbon

17.77

11.00

389.37 5.24

730.00 71.60

1.830.25

(85.70)

17.50

Anadarko Gathering Company DotyAnadarko Gathering Company Mud

 Mountain Compressor Station CT-3349

dy Mountain Compressor Station CT-3352

CarbonCarbon

11.0011.00

730.40 71.60

730.40 71.60

0.250.25

46.70 

46.70

Anadarko Gathering Company Red Rim Compressor Station CT-3393 Carbon 11.00 730.40 71.60 0.25 53.00 Bill Barrett Corporation CooDuke Energy Field Services, LP Yate

per Reservoir Unit Compressor Station MD-904

s Bicycle Federal Compressor #18 CT-3477

Natrona

Sweetwa

5.80

ter 9.05

648.70 45.84

509.82 12.50

0.30

0.76

25.40 

6.30

Duke Energy Field Services, LP YateDuke Energy Field Services, LP Yate

s Bicycle Federal Compressor #6 CT-3507s Huffy State Compressor #16 CT-3508

Sweetwa

Sweetwa

ter 9.05

ter 9.05

509.82 12.50

509.82 12.50

0.76

0.76

6.30 

6.30

FMC Wyoming Corporation Soda Ash Facility - Green River Plant MD-964 Sweetwater 25.49 361.71 17.29 1.04 24.30 Jonah Gas Gathering Company JGGLeGrand Johnson Hot 

C/OTTCO Interconnect MD-925

Mix Asphalt Plant CT-3416 CT-3416

Lincoln

Uinta

15.00

14.12

422.00 10.00

350.04 10.03

0.31

0.91

4.10 

65.20

McMurry Ready Mix Hot Merit Energy Company Sou

Mix Asphalt Plant MD-899

th Baggs Compressor Station CT-3542

Carbon

Carbon

14.12

9.05

350.04 10.03

509.82 12.50

0.91

0.76

23.50 

16.20

New Mexico Resources, LLC Bitter Creek Zeolite Mine/Processing Plant CT-3490 Sweetwater 15.00 422.00 10.00 0.31 38.00 Rees's Enterprise CTSinclair Oil Company Sinc3465 CT-3465 lair Refinery MD-976 Uinta Carbon 11.68 17.77 326.21 15.37 389.37 5.24 0.73 1.83 98.20 

0.00 

Tom Brown Incorporated Frenchie Draw Satellite/Graham West Station MD-980 Fremont 9.05 509.82 12.50 0.76 18.00 

Total Wyoming RFFA Source Emissions 429.90 

G-D-66
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

ADDENDUM G-E 

EARLY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE MODELING RESULTS 

35982 TRC Environmental Corporation
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-1 TRC Environmental Corporation

LIST OF TABLES 

Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-E.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development 

Stage Sources 

Table G-E.1.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 

Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-E.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development 

Stage Sources 

Table G-E.2.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class 

I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 

Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-E.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development 

Stage Sources 

Table G-E.3.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 

Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts 

Table G-E.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development 

Stage Sources 

Table G-E.4.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-2 TRC Environmental Corporation

Modeled Impacts Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-E.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Early Jonah Infill 

Project Development Stage Sources Compared to Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Table G-E.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Early Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources Compared to Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

Modeled Nitrogen (N) and Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts 

Table G-E.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage Sources – Direct and Total 

Table G-E.6.2 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD 

Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project 

Development Stage Sources – Direct and Total 

Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

Table G-E.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage 

Sources 

Table G-E.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas 

Table G-E.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources 

– MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD 

Class II Areas from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources 

– MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-3 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.8.4 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.5 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.6 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.7 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.8 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.9 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.10 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.11 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.12 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.13 Teton Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – MVISBK=6 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-4 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.8.14 Teton Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.15 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.16 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.17 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.18 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.19 Yellowstone National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.20 Yellowstone National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.8.21 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.22 Bridger Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-5 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.8.23 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.24 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.25 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.26 Grand Teton National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.27 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.28 Popo Agie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.29 Teton Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.30 Teton Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds 

Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.31 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-6 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.8.32 Washakie Wilderness Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.33 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.34 Wind River Roadless Area – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.35 Yellowstone National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early 

Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.8.36 Yellowstone National Park – Summary of Days Above Visibility 

Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for 

Early Project Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations

Table G-E.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage 

and Regional Sources – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community 

Locations from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.4 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage 

and Regional Sources – MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-7 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.9.5 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.6 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.7 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.8 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.9 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.10 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.11 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.12 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.13 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.14 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.15 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-8 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.9.16 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.17 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.18 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.19 La Barge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.20 La Barge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.21 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.22 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.23 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.24 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.9.25 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-9 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.9.26 Big Piney – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.27 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.28 Big Sandy – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.29 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.30 Boulder – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.31 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.32 Bronx – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.33 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.34 Cora – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.35 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.36 Daniel – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-10 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.9.37 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.38 Farson – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.39 La Barge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.40 La Barge – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.41 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.42 Merna – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.43 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG 

Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project Development 

Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.9.44 Pinedale – Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using 

IMPROVE Background Data Predicted Δdv Shown for Early Project 

Development Stage – Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios – 

MVISBK=2 

Summary of Maximum Modeled Impacts 

Table G-E.10.1 Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional 

Sources 

Table G-E.10.2 Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3

) at 

PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional 

Sources 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-11 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.10.3 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at 

PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional 

Sources 

Table G-E.10.4 Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at 

PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional 

Sources 

Table G-E.10.5 Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3) 

from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources Within the 

JIDPA Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Table G-E.10.6 Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/hayr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 

Table G-E.10.7 Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) 

at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project 

Development Stage and Regional Sources 

Table G-E.10.8 Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC (μeq/L) at Acid 

Sensitive Lakes from Early Project Development Stage and Regional 

Sources 

Table G-E.10.9 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.10.10 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.10.11 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.10.12 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and 

Sensitive PSD Class II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.10.13 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data – MVISBK=6 
 Air Quality Technical Support Document Supplement, Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

35982 G-E-12 TRC Environmental Corporation

Table G-E.10.14 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data – MVISBK=6 

Table G-E.10.15 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data – MVISBK=2 

Table G-E.10.16 Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional 

Community Locations from Early Project Development Stage and 

Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data – MVISBK=2 
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 0.049 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.45 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.0040 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Grand Teton NP 0.0027 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Popo Agie WA 0.015 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.42 Teton WA 0.0014 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Washakie WA 0.0012 0.11 2.5 3.4 3.40 Wind River RA 0.0065 1.0 25.0 3.4 3.41 Yellowstone NP 0.0009 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.

Table G-E.1.1 Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Are

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources

G-E-13
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

NO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.33 2.5 3.4 3.73 100 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.035 2.5 3.4 3.43 100 Grand Teton NP 0.045 2.5 3.4 3.44 100 Popo Agie WA 0.085 25.0 3.4 3.49 100 Teton WA 0.016 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Washakie WA 0.017 2.5 3.4 3.42 100 Wind River RA 0.050 25.0 3.4 3.45 100 Yellowstone NP 0.010 2.5 3.4 3.41 100 

Table G-E.1.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative NO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PS

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

G-E-14
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Significance 

Level

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAA

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Grand Teton NP 0.0004 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Popo Agie WA 0.002 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Teton WA 0.0002 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Washakie WA 0.0003 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6Wind River RA 0.001 1.0 20 9.0 9.00 6Yellowstone NP 0.0001 0.11 2 9.0 9.00 6

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.064 0.21 5 43.0 43.1 26

Fitzpatrick WA 0.015 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Grand Teton NP 0.011 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Popo Agie WA 0.018 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Teton WA 0.007 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Washakie WA 0.005 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26Wind River RA 0.015 5.0 91 43.0 43.0 26Yellowstone NP 0.006 0.21 5 43.0 43.0 26

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.224 1.01 25 132.0 132.2 1,3

Fitzpatrick WA 0.066 1.01 25 132.0 132.1 1,3Grand Teton NP 0.037 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Popo Agie WA 0.081 25.0 512 132.0 132.1 1,3Teton WA 0.019 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Washakie WA 0.018 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3Wind River RA 0.048 25.0 512 132.0 132.0 1,3Yellowstone NP 0.015 1.01 25 132.0 132.0 1,3

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-E.2.1 Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources

G-E-15
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQ

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

SO2 Annual Bridger WA 0.014 2 9.0 9.01 60 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Grand Teton NP 0.008 2 9.0 9.01 60 

Popo Agie WA 0.002 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Teton WA 0.003 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Washakie WA 0.001 2 9.0 9.00 60 

Wind River RA 0.002 20 9.0 9.00 60 

Yellowstone NP 0.002 2 9.0 9.00 60 

SO2 24-hr Bridger WA 0.210 5 43.0 43.2 260 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.064 5 43.0 43.1 260 

Grand Teton NP 0.093 5 43.0 43.1 260 Popo Agie WA 0.047 91 43.0 43.0 260 Teton WA 0.029 5 43.0 43.0 260 Washakie WA 0.019 5 43.0 43.0 260 Wind River RA 0.056 91 43.0 43.1 260 Yellowstone NP 0.024 5 43.0 43.0 260 

SO2 3-hr Bridger WA 0.847 25 132.0 132.8 1,300 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.249 25 132.0 132.2 1,300 

Grand Teton NP 0.354 25 132.0 132.4 1,300 

Popo Agie WA 0.204 512 132.0 132.2 1,300 

Teton WA 0.093 25 132.0 132.1 1,300 

Washakie WA 0.076 25 132.0 132.1 1,300 

Wind River RA 0.230 512 132.0 132.2 1,300 

Yellowstone NP 0.096 25 132.0 132.1 1,300 

Table G-E.2.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative SO2 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class 

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

G-E-16
Pollutant

Averagin

g 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 0.010 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Grand Teton NP 0.007 0.21 4 16.0 16.01 Popo Agie WA 0.022 1.0 17 16.0 16.02 

Teton WA 0.0044 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

Washakie WA 0.0042 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 Wind River RA 0.013 1.0 17 16.0 16.01 

Yellowstone NP 0.0029 0.21 4 16.0 16.00 

PM10 24- hr Bridger WA 0.96 0.31 8 33.0 33.96 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.27 0.31 8 33.0 33.27 Grand Teton NP 0.30 0.31 8 33.0 33.30 Popo Agie WA 0.32 5.0 30 33.0 33.32 

Teton WA 0.25 0.31 8 33.0 33.25 

Washakie WA 0.15 0.31 8 33.0 33.15 Wind River RA 0.30 5.0 30 33.0 33.30 

Yellowstone NP 0.21 0.31 8 33.0 33.21 

1 Proposed Class I significance level, Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 142, pg. 38292, July 23, 1996.

Table G-E.3.1 Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources

G-E-17
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Applicable 

PSD 

Increment 

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 

PM10 Annual Bridger WA 0.17 4 16.0 16.17 50 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.044 4 16.0 16.04 50 Grand Teton NP 0.039 4 16.0 16.04 50 Popo Agie WA 0.073 17 16.0 16.07 50 

Teton WA 0.024 4 16.0 16.02 50 Washakie WA 0.020 4 16.0 16.02 50 Wind River RA 0.053 17 16.0 16.05 50 Yellowstone NP 0.015 4 16.0 16.02 50 

PM10 24- hr Bridger WA 2.56 8 33.0 35.56 150 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.97 8 33.0 33.97 150 Grand Teton NP 0.79 8 33.0 33.79 150 Popo Agie WA 0.98 30 33.0 33.98 150 

Teton WA 0.39 8 33.0 33.39 150 Washakie WA 0.53 8 33.0 33.53 150 Wind River RA 0.99 30 33.0 33.99 150 Yellowstone NP 0.34 8 33.0 33.34 150 

Table G-E.3.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM10 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

G-E-18
Pollutant

Averaging 

Time Receptor Area

Direct 

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS1 N

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μ

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.047 5.0 5.05 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.010 5.0 5.01 15 Grand Teton NP 0.0062 5.0 5.01 15 Popo Agie WA 0.022 5.0 5.02 15 

Teton WA 0.0040 5.0 5.00 15 

Washakie WA 0.0042 5.0 5.00 15 Wind River RA 0.013 5.0 5.01 15 

Yellowstone NP 0.0027 5.0 5.00 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 0.96 13.0 13.96 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.27 13.0 13.27 65 Grand Teton NP 0.21 13.0 13.21 65 Popo Agie WA 0.32 13.0 13.32 65 

Teton WA 0.14 13.0 13.14 65 Washakie WA 0.15 13.0 13.15 65 Wind River RA 0.30 13.0 13.30 65 Yellowstone NP 0.12 13.0 13.12 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-E.4.1 Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources

G-E-19
Pollutant Averaging Time Receptor Area

Modeled 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentratio WAAQS

(μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual Bridger WA 0.17 5.0 5.17 15 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.045 5.0 5.05 15 Grand Teton NP 0.039 5.0 5.04 15 Popo Agie WA 0.076 5.0 5.08 15 

Teton WA 0.024 5.0 5.02 15 Washakie WA 0.021 5.0 5.02 15 Wind River RA 0.054 5.0 5.05 15 Yellowstone NP 0.015 5.0 5.02 15 

PM2.5 24-hr Bridger WA 2.55 13.0 15.55 65 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.96 13.0 13.96 65 Grand Teton NP 0.79 13.0 13.79 65 Popo Agie WA 0.97 13.0 13.97 65 

Teton WA 0.38 13.0 13.38 65 Washakie WA 0.53 13.0 13.53 65 Wind River RA 0.98 13.0 13.98 65 Yellowstone NP 0.34 13.0 13.34 65 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

Table G-E.4.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

G-E-20
Table G-E.5.1 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Early Jonah Infill Project Developmen

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) 

NO2 Annual 18.8 3.4 22.2 100 

SO2 3 Hour 30.5 132 162.5 1,300 

24-Hour 9.7 43 52.7 260 

Annual 1.2 9 10.2 60 

PM10 24-Hour 82.6 33 115.6 150 

Annual 12.9 16 28.9 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 36.2 13 49.2 651 

Annual 6.2 5 11.2 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

G-E-21
Table G-E.5.2 Maximum Predicted Impacts Within the JIDPA from Early Project Development Stage and 

Compared to Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time

Direct Predicted 

Impact

Background 

Concentration 

Total 

Concentration WAAQS 

(μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) (μg/m3

) 

NO2 Annual 27.1 3.4 30.5 100 

SO2 3 Hour 37.7 132 169.7 1,300 

24-Hour 12.1 43 55.1 260 

Annual 1.7 9 10.7 60 

PM10 24-Hour 89.0 33 122.0 150 

Annual 15.0 16 31.0 50 

PM2.5 24-Hour 49.4 13 62.4 651 

Annual 8.2 5 13.2 151 

1 Standard not yet enforced in Wyoming.

G-E-22
Direct Cumulative Total Deposition Analysis 

Receptor Area Project Impact Modeled Impact Impact1 Threshold for Direct Project2 

Bridger WA 0.0136 0.096 1.596 0.005 Fitzpatrick WA 0.0032 0.025 1.525 0.005 Grand Teton NP 0.0019 0.020 1.520 0.005 Popo Agie WA 0.0094 0.049 1.549 0.005 Teton WA 0.0011 0.011 1.511 0.005 Washakie WA 0.0013 0.012 1.512 0.005 Wind River RA 0.0049 0.033 1.533 0.005 Yellowstone NP 0.0007 0.008 1.508 0.005 1 Total impact includes N deposition value of 1.5 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

2 National Park Service (2001)3 Fox et al. (1989)

Table G-E.6.1 Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Cla

 Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - Direct and Total

G-E-23
Direct Cumulative Total Deposition Analysis 

Project Impact Modeled Impact Impact1 Threshold for Direct Project2 

Bridger WA 0.0018 0.0062 0.7562 0.005 

Fitzpatrick WA 0.00050 0.0010 0.7510 0.005 Grand Teton NP 0.00030 0.0048 0.7548 0.005 Popo Agie WA 0.0013 0.0012 0.7512 0.005 Teton WA 0.00018 0.0023 0.7523 0.005 Washakie WA 0.00020 0.00089 0.7509 0.005 

Wind River RA 0.00077 0.0010 0.7510 0.005 

Yellowstone NP 0.00011 0.0015 0.7515 0.005 

1 Total impact includes S deposition value of 0.75 k

g/hayr measured at the CASTNET/NADP site near Pinedale for the 

year 2001. 2 National Park Service (2001) 3 Fox et al. (1989)

Table G-E.6.2 Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

 Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - Direct and Total

G-E-24
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.064 0.10%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.068 0.11%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.040 0.06%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.021 0.11%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.079 0.14%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.019 0.04%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.073 1.45%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources

Table G-E.7.1 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-E-25
Lake Wilderness Area

Background 

ANC

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change1 ANC Change

Percent A

Change

(μeq/L) (μeq/L) (μeq/L) (%)

Black Joe Bridger 67.0 6.70 0.350 0.52%Deep Bridger 59.9 5.99 0.371 0.62%Hobbs Bridger 69.9 6.99 0.278 0.40%Lazy Boy Bridger 18.8 1.00 0.141 0.75%Lower Saddlebag Popo Agie 55.5 5.55 0.394 0.71%Ross Fitzpatrick 53.5 5.35 0.136 0.26%Upper Frozen Bridger 5.0 1.00 0.398 7.96%

1 USFS Level of Acceptable Change (USFS 2000).

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

Table G-E.7.2 Maximum Modeled Change in Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC) at Acid Sensitive Lakes 

G-E-26
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 2.19 28 8 2.42 34 Fitzpatrick WA 0.86 4 0 0.95 5 Grand Teton NP 0.66 1 0 0.67 1 Popo Agie WA 0.95 6 0 1.06 10 Teton WA 0.36 0 0 0.37 0 Washakie WA 0.42 0 0 0.43 0 Wind River RA 0.91 2 0 1.01 3 Yellowstone NP 0.32 0 0 0.32 0 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-E.8.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - MVISBK=6

G-E-27
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 6.04 124 61 6.57 128 Fitzpatrick WA 3.06 25 11 3.37 27 Grand Teton NP 2.60 24 8 2.63 20 Popo Agie WA 3.04 50 20 3.35 51 Teton WA 1.31 15 4 1.33 12 Washakie WA 1.66 9 2 1.70 10 Wind River RA 3.08 32 12 3.39 31 Yellowstone NP 1.21 6 3 1.22 5 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-E.8.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources - MVISBK=6

G-E-28
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 5.92 46 22 5.95 47 Fitzpatrick WA 2.40 9 3 2.42 8 Grand Teton NP 1.59 8 2 1.32 5 Popo Agie WA 1.46 21 1 1.08 18 Teton WA 1.18 5 1 0.97 3 Washakie WA 0.81 2 0 0.80 2 Wind River RA 1.16 3 2 1.11 3 Yellowstone NP 1.04 2 1 0.85 2 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-E.8.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - MVISBK=2

G-E-29
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days 

> 0.5 Δdv

Number of Days > 

1.0 Δdv

Maximum 

Visibility Impact

Number of D

> 0.5 Δdv

(Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) 

Bridger WA 13.51 147 94 13.56 143 Fitzpatrick WA 8.12 53 26 8.15 52 Grand Teton NP 4.46 52 31 3.76 46 Popo Agie WA 4.98 93 50 3.67 89 Teton WA 3.94 44 28 3.32 36 Washakie WA 3.79 23 13 3.02 20 Wind River RA 6.39 33 17 3.83 32 Yellowstone NP 3.54 33 16 2.98 29 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data1 IMPROVE Backgro

Table G-E.8.4 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources - MVISBK=2

G-E-30
Table G-E.8.5 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 0.52

6 1 6 1.19 5.17

8 1 8 0.63 1.33

9 1 9 0.64 1.26

10 1 10 0.60 1.46

11 1 11 - 1.44

12 1 12 0.57 1.40

13 1 13 0.52 1.57

14 1 14 - 0.54

15 1 15 0.71 1.91

16 1 16 1.87 5.47

20 1 20 - 0.80

21 1 21 - 0.82

22 1 22 0.59 2.15

23 1 23 0.88 4.17

25 1 25 - 1.34

29 1 29 - 1.87

39 2 8 - 3.12

40 2 9 - 0.86

41 2 10 - 0.63

42 2 11 0.66 2.83

43 2 12 - 1.79

44 2 13 - 2.09

45 2 14 - 0.68

47 2 16 - 0.69

48 2 17 - 0.56

52 2 21 - 1.44

55 2 24 - 0.75

57 2 26 - 0.51

58 2 27 - 1.70

59 2 28 - 1.69

60 3 1 1.11 3.79

61 3 2 - 1.83

62 3 3 - 1.76

64 3 5 - 0.81

66 3 7 0.56 3.17

67 3 8 0.55 2.50

68 3 9 0.78 2.38

69 3 10 - 0.90

70 3 11 - 0.59

71 3 12 - 0.71

72 3 13 - 0.77

73 3 14 - 0.97

76 3 17 - 0.50

77 3 18 - 0.65

79 3 20 - 0.55

80 3 21 - 0.84

81 3 22 - 0.60

83 3 24 - 0.77

85 3 26 0.75 2.76

86 3 27 - 1.13

89 3 30 - 1.49

91 4 1 - 0.92

95 4 5 - 0.51

96 4 6 - 0.73

97 4 7 - 0.68

98 4 8 - 1.04

104 4 14 - 0.58

110 4 20 - 1.08

G-E-31
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

114 4 24 - 0.57

115 4 25 - 2.02

117 4 27 - 0.99

118 4 28 - 0.77

119 4 29 - 0.78

131 5 11 - 0.87

132 5 12 - 0.55

133 5 13 - 1.10

135 5 15 - 0.71

183 7 2 - 0.57

217 8 5 - 0.70

223 8 11 - 0.67

236 8 24 - 0.75

251 9 8 - 0.54

253 9 10 - 0.74

261 9 18 - 0.56

262 9 19 - 1.08

263 9 20 - 1.03

264 9 21 - 1.02

268 9 25 - 1.59

270 9 27 - 0.67

273 9 30 - 2.05

274 10 1 - 1.17

276 10 3 - 0.51

279 10 6 - 1.05

280 10 7 0.55 1.44

284 10 11 - 1.17

289 10 16 - 0.61

294 10 21 - 0.87

297 10 24 - 0.98

303 10 30 - 0.64

304 10 31 0.87 1.91

305 11 1 - 1.13

308 11 4 - 0.71

309 11 5 - 1.34

310 11 6 - 0.51

312 11 8 - 0.51

313 11 9 - 0.51

319 11 15 - 1.08

320 11 16 - 0.69

322 11 18 - 1.04

324 11 20 0.58 2.42

325 11 21 - 2.06

328 11 24 - 0.83

329 11 25 - 0.55

330 11 26 - 1.08

335 12 1 - 0.68

337 12 3 - 2.08

338 12 4 - 0.57

341 12 7 0.89 3.18

343 12 9 - 0.61

344 12 10 - 1.73

345 12 11 - 0.91

346 12 12 - 0.74

349 12 15 0.59 2.57

352 12 18 1.33 4.70

353 12 19 2.14 5.47

354 12 20 0.87 3.94

355 12 21 0.88 4.46

356 12 22 2.19 6.04

358 12 24 - 0.61

359 12 25 - 0.81

G-E-32
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

360 12 26 - 0.59

361 12 27 1.45 4.21

362 12 28 1.32 3.76

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 28 124

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 8 61

Maximum Δ dv 2.19 6.04

G-E-33
Table G-E.8.6 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

1 1 1 - 0.52

4 1 4 - 0.60

6 1 6 1.37 5.80

8 1 8 0.73 1.53

9 1 9 0.74 1.45

10 1 10 0.70 1.67

11 1 11 - 1.65

12 1 12 0.66 1.60

13 1 13 0.60 1.80

14 1 14 - 0.62

15 1 15 0.82 2.19

16 1 16 2.14 6.13

20 1 20 - 0.92

21 1 21 - 0.94

22 1 22 0.68 2.46

23 1 23 1.02 4.71

25 1 25 0.53 1.54

26 1 26 - 0.54

29 1 29 - 2.14

39 2 8 0.54 3.56

40 2 9 - 0.99

41 2 10 - 0.73

42 2 11 0.77 3.23

43 2 12 - 2.06

44 2 13 0.50 2.40

45 2 14 - 0.79

47 2 16 - 0.80

48 2 17 - 0.65

52 2 21 - 1.67

55 2 24 - 0.88

57 2 26 - 0.59

58 2 27 - 1.96

59 2 28 - 1.95

60 3 1 1.29 4.30

61 3 2 0.52 2.10

62 3 3 0.58 2.02

63 3 4 - 0.52

64 3 5 - 0.94

66 3 7 0.65 3.61

67 3 8 0.64 2.86

68 3 9 0.91 2.73

69 3 10 - 1.04

70 3 11 - 0.69

71 3 12 - 0.82

72 3 13 - 0.89

73 3 14 - 1.13

74 3 15 - 0.51

76 3 17 - 0.58

77 3 18 - 0.76

79 3 20 - 0.64

80 3 21 - 0.97

81 3 22 - 0.70

83 3 24 - 0.89

85 3 26 0.87 3.16

86 3 27 - 1.31

89 3 30 - 1.72

91 4 1 - 0.84

96 4 6 - 0.66

97 4 7 - 0.62

G-E-34
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

98 4 8 - 0.94

104 4 14 - 0.52

110 4 20 - 0.98

114 4 24 - 0.52

115 4 25 - 1.84

117 4 27 - 0.90

118 4 28 - 0.70

119 4 29 - 0.71

131 5 11 - 0.79

133 5 13 - 1.00

135 5 15 - 0.64

217 8 5 - 0.59

223 8 11 - 0.56

236 8 24 - 0.63

253 9 10 - 0.61

262 9 19 - 0.89

263 9 20 - 0.85

264 9 21 - 0.84

268 9 25 - 1.32

270 9 27 - 0.55

273 9 30 - 1.71

274 10 1 - 1.32

276 10 3 - 0.58

279 10 6 - 1.18

280 10 7 0.62 1.62

284 10 11 - 1.32

289 10 16 - 0.68

294 10 21 - 0.98

297 10 24 - 1.10

298 10 25 - 0.51

301 10 28 - 0.54

303 10 30 - 0.72

304 10 31 0.98 2.14

305 11 1 - 1.25

308 11 4 - 0.78

309 11 5 - 1.49

310 11 6 - 0.57

311 11 7 - 0.54

312 11 8 - 0.57

313 11 9 - 0.57

319 11 15 - 1.20

320 11 16 - 0.76

321 11 17 - 0.50

322 11 18 - 1.16

324 11 20 0.65 2.67

325 11 21 - 2.27

328 11 24 - 0.92

329 11 25 - 0.61

330 11 26 - 1.20

335 12 1 - 0.76

337 12 3 0.55 2.30

338 12 4 - 0.64

341 12 7 1.00 3.50

343 12 9 - 0.69

344 12 10 - 1.92

345 12 11 - 1.01

346 12 12 - 0.82

347 12 13 - 0.51

349 12 15 0.66 2.83

352 12 18 1.48 5.14

353 12 19 2.37 5.97

354 12 20 0.97 4.32

G-E-35
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

355 12 21 0.98 4.88

356 12 22 2.42 6.57

358 12 24 - 0.68

359 12 25 - 0.90

360 12 26 - 0.66

361 12 27 1.61 4.62

362 12 28 1.47 4.13

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 34 128

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 9 59

Maximum Δ dv 2.42 6.57

G-E-36
Table G-E.8.7 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.54

22 1 22 - 0.69

23 1 23 - 1.12

39 2 8 - 0.71

40 2 9 - 0.60

43 2 12 - 0.68

60 3 1 0.66 2.54

61 3 2 - 1.68

62 3 3 - 0.68

67 3 8 - 0.76

86 3 27 - 0.76

115 4 25 - 0.92

117 4 27 - 0.62

217 8 5 - 0.57

262 9 19 - 0.93

268 9 25 - 0.79

324 11 20 - 1.35

349 12 15 - 0.58

352 12 18 - 1.27

353 12 19 0.86 2.91

354 12 20 - 2.26

355 12 21 - 1.73

356 12 22 0.77 3.06

361 12 27 0.67 2.09

362 12 28 - 0.68

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 4 25

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 11

Maximum Δ dv 0.86 3.06

G-E-37
Table G-E.8.8 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.77

22 1 22 - 0.79

23 1 23 - 1.29

39 2 8 - 0.83

40 2 9 - 0.70

43 2 12 - 0.78

60 3 1 0.77 2.91

61 3 2 0.58 1.93

62 3 3 - 0.79

67 3 8 - 0.89

68 3 9 - 0.51

86 3 27 - 0.89

115 4 25 - 0.84

117 4 27 - 0.56

262 9 19 - 0.77

268 9 25 - 0.65

279 10 6 - 0.54

284 10 11 - 0.53

324 11 20 - 1.50

349 12 15 - 0.64

352 12 18 - 1.41

353 12 19 0.95 3.21

354 12 20 - 2.50

355 12 21 - 1.92

356 12 22 0.85 3.37

361 12 27 0.75 2.31

362 12 28 - 0.76

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 5 27

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 11

Maximum Δ dv 0.95 3.37

G-E-38
Table G-E.8.9 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.97

5 1 5 - 0.82

23 1 23 - 0.77

24 1 24 0.66 2.60

25 1 25 - 1.25

26 1 26 - 1.46

38 2 7 - 0.64

39 2 8 - 0.77

43 2 12 - 1.24

106 4 16 - 0.89

121 5 1 - 0.54

124 5 4 - 0.72

196 7 15 - 0.52

234 8 22 - 0.75

246 9 3 - 0.64

247 9 4 - 0.54

260 9 17 - 0.79

269 9 26 - 0.66

350 12 16 - 0.63

352 12 18 - 1.12

353 12 19 - 0.62

354 12 20 - 1.22

355 12 21 - 0.96

356 12 22 - 1.20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 1 24

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 8

Maximum Δ dv 0.66 2.60

G-E-39
Table G-E.8.10 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.99

5 1 5 - 0.83

23 1 23 - 0.78

24 1 24 0.67 2.63

25 1 25 - 1.27

26 1 26 - 1.48

38 2 7 - 0.65

39 2 8 - 0.78

43 2 12 - 1.26

106 4 16 - 0.80

124 5 4 - 0.64

234 8 22 - 0.58

260 9 17 - 0.60

269 9 26 - 0.50

350 12 16 - 0.64

352 12 18 - 1.15

353 12 19 - 0.64

354 12 20 - 1.25

355 12 21 - 0.98

356 12 22 - 1.23

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 1 20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 8

Maximum Δ dv 0.67 2.63

G-E-40
Table G-E.8.11 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.72

11 1 11 - 0.67

13 1 13 - 0.56

22 1 22 - 1.73

23 1 23 - 0.97

29 1 29 - 0.80

40 2 9 - 0.61

42 2 11 - 2.05

43 2 12 - 0.64

47 2 16 - 0.51

52 2 21 - 1.05

58 2 27 - 0.69

59 2 28 - 1.08

60 3 1 0.67 2.66

61 3 2 - 1.84

64 3 5 - 0.50

66 3 7 - 1.31

81 3 22 - 0.50

83 3 24 - 0.54

85 3 26 0.52 1.91

86 3 27 - 0.90

91 4 1 - 0.76

104 4 14 - 0.55

115 4 25 - 1.49

118 4 28 - 0.54

131 5 11 - 0.63

135 5 15 - 0.55

262 9 19 - 0.93

264 9 21 - 0.74

273 9 30 - 0.92

279 10 6 - 0.74

280 10 7 - 1.18

297 10 24 - 0.72

303 10 30 - 0.54

304 10 31 - 0.53

305 11 1 - 1.30

308 11 4 - 0.57

319 11 15 - 0.68

322 11 18 - 0.69

324 11 20 - 1.18

325 11 21 - 1.64

337 12 3 - 0.60

341 12 7 - 1.29

349 12 15 - 0.63

353 12 19 0.86 2.61

354 12 20 0.54 2.35

355 12 21 - 1.31

356 12 22 0.95 3.04

361 12 27 - 0.99

362 12 28 0.92 2.56

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 6 50

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 20

Maximum Δ dv 0.95 3.04

G-E-41
Table G-E.8.12 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.97

11 1 11 - 0.78

13 1 13 - 0.65

22 1 22 0.52 1.98

23 1 23 - 1.12

29 1 29 - 0.92

40 2 9 - 0.71

42 2 11 - 2.36

43 2 12 - 0.74

47 2 16 - 0.59

52 2 21 - 1.21

58 2 27 - 0.80

59 2 28 - 1.25

60 3 1 0.78 3.04

61 3 2 0.50 2.12

64 3 5 - 0.59

66 3 7 - 1.51

81 3 22 - 0.59

83 3 24 - 0.63

85 3 26 0.61 2.20

86 3 27 - 1.05

91 4 1 - 0.69

104 4 14 - 0.50

115 4 25 - 1.36

131 5 11 - 0.57

135 5 15 - 0.50

262 9 19 - 0.77

264 9 21 - 0.61

273 9 30 - 0.75

279 10 6 - 0.83

280 10 7 0.54 1.33

297 10 24 - 0.81

303 10 30 - 0.61

304 10 31 - 0.60

305 11 1 - 1.44

308 11 4 - 0.64

319 11 15 - 0.76

322 11 18 - 0.77

324 11 20 - 1.31

325 11 21 - 1.81

337 12 3 - 0.67

341 12 7 0.56 1.44

349 12 15 - 0.71

353 12 19 0.96 2.88

354 12 20 0.60 2.60

355 12 21 - 1.46

356 12 22 1.06 3.35

358 12 24 - 0.52

359 12 25 - 0.55

361 12 27 - 1.10

362 12 28 1.03 2.82

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 10 51

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 2 23

Maximum Δ dv 1.06 3.35

G-E-42
Table G-E.8.13 Teton Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

24 1 24 - 1.18

25 1 25 - 1.19

26 1 26 - 1.31

39 2 8 - 0.68

43 2 12 - 0.71

246 9 3 - 0.55

251 9 8 - 0.51

260 9 17 - 0.53

350 12 16 - 0.52

352 12 18 - 0.74

353 12 19 - 0.67

354 12 20 - 0.77

355 12 21 - 0.56

356 12 22 - 0.93

361 12 27 - 1.20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 15

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 4

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.31

G-E-43
Table G-E.8.14 Teton Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

24 1 24 - 1.19

25 1 25 - 1.20

26 1 26 - 1.33

39 2 8 - 0.69

43 2 12 - 0.72

350 12 16 - 0.53

352 12 18 - 0.76

353 12 19 - 0.69

354 12 20 - 0.79

355 12 21 - 0.57

356 12 22 - 0.96

361 12 27 - 1.23

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 12

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 4

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.33

G-E-44
Table G-E.8.15 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

25 1 25 - 0.73

43 2 12 - 0.51

44 2 13 - 0.78

61 3 2 - 1.66

251 9 8 - 0.69

353 12 19 - 0.81

354 12 20 - 0.68

356 12 22 - 0.87

361 12 27 - 1.56

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 9

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 2

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.66

G-E-45
Table G-E.8.16 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

25 1 25 - 0.74

43 2 12 - 0.52

44 2 13 - 0.79

61 3 2 - 1.70

251 9 8 - 0.53

353 12 19 - 0.84

354 12 20 - 0.70

355 12 21 - 0.51

356 12 22 - 0.90

361 12 27 - 1.61

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 10

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 2

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.70

G-E-46
Table G-E.8.17 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.75

15 1 15 - 0.53

22 1 22 - 0.95

23 1 23 - 0.93

40 2 9 - 0.58

42 2 11 - 0.63

43 2 12 - 0.57

52 2 21 - 0.51

60 3 1 - 2.61

61 3 2 - 1.32

85 3 26 - 0.58

86 3 27 - 0.89

104 4 14 - 0.60

115 4 25 - 1.43

117 4 27 - 0.55

251 9 8 - 0.56

262 9 19 - 1.69

273 9 30 - 0.86

279 10 6 - 0.64

280 10 7 - 0.67

305 11 1 - 0.66

324 11 20 - 1.27

337 12 3 - 0.61

341 12 7 - 0.60

349 12 15 - 0.57

352 12 18 - 0.73

353 12 19 0.87 2.69

354 12 20 - 2.27

355 12 21 - 1.46

356 12 22 0.91 3.08

361 12 27 - 1.15

362 12 28 - 1.13

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 32

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 12

Maximum Δ dv 0.91 3.08

G-E-47
Table G-E.8.18 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

2 1 2 - 0.56

6 1 6 - 2.00

15 1 15 - 0.61

22 1 22 - 1.09

23 1 23 - 1.07

40 2 9 - 0.67

42 2 11 - 0.73

43 2 12 - 0.66

52 2 21 - 0.59

60 3 1 0.54 2.99

61 3 2 - 1.52

85 3 26 - 0.67

86 3 27 - 1.03

104 4 14 - 0.54

115 4 25 - 1.30

262 9 19 - 1.40

273 9 30 - 0.71

279 10 6 - 0.72

280 10 7 - 0.76

305 11 1 - 0.73

324 11 20 - 1.41

337 12 3 - 0.68

341 12 7 - 0.67

349 12 15 - 0.64

352 12 18 - 0.81

353 12 19 0.97 2.97

354 12 20 - 2.51

355 12 21 - 1.63

356 12 22 1.01 3.39

361 12 27 - 1.28

362 12 28 - 1.25

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 31

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 15

Maximum Δ dv 1.01 3.39

G-E-48
Table G-E.8.19 Yellowstone National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.04

24 1 24 - 1.21

25 1 25 - 0.84

26 1 26 - 1.16

260 9 17 - 0.51

352 12 18 - 0.51

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 6

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 3

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.21

G-E-49
Table G-E.8.20 Yellowstone National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.06

24 1 24 - 1.22

25 1 25 - 0.85

26 1 26 - 1.18

352 12 18 - 0.53

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 0 5

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 3

Maximum Δ dv 0.00 1.22

G-E-50
Table G-E.8.21 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 1.36 5.87

7 1 7 - 0.56

8 1 8 1.20 2.67

9 1 9 1.48 2.78

10 1 10 1.49 3.57

11 1 11 1.29 3.59

12 1 12 1.25 2.84

13 1 13 1.62 3.84

14 1 14 - 1.68

15 1 15 1.04 3.48

16 1 16 1.52 4.48

20 1 20 - 0.72

22 1 22 - 1.26

23 1 23 0.79 3.74

25 1 25 0.84 2.44

26 1 26 - 1.44

27 1 27 - 1.67

29 1 29 0.54 2.57

39 2 8 0.84 5.20

40 2 9 0.53 1.96

41 2 10 - 1.82

42 2 11 0.74 3.12

43 2 12 - 2.12

44 2 13 0.51 2.68

45 2 14 - 2.01

47 2 16 - 0.88

52 2 21 - 1.06

57 2 26 - 0.87

58 2 27 1.02 5.11

59 2 28 - 2.33

60 3 1 1.25 3.93

61 3 2 0.78 3.01

62 3 3 1.53 5.13

63 3 4 - 0.76

64 3 5 - 1.45

66 3 7 - 2.47

67 3 8 - 1.53

68 3 9 - 1.47

69 3 10 - 1.10

70 3 11 0.71 2.12

71 3 12 0.74 2.35

72 3 13 - 0.92

73 3 14 - 1.12

74 3 15 - 0.63

75 3 16 - 0.59

76 3 17 - 0.87

77 3 18 - 0.53

80 3 21 - 0.98

81 3 22 1.26 2.19

83 3 24 0.94 2.38

85 3 26 0.67 2.48

86 3 27 - 1.43

89 3 30 - 1.11

91 4 1 - 0.57

96 4 6 - 0.71

G-E-51
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

97 4 7 - 0.62

98 4 8 0.99 3.20

102 4 12 - 0.55

104 4 14 - 1.15

106 4 16 - 0.67

109 4 19 - 1.26

110 4 20 - 2.09

114 4 24 - 1.05

115 4 25 0.70 4.22

117 4 27 - 0.91

118 4 28 - 2.72

119 4 29 0.77 2.55

120 4 30 - 0.87

122 5 2 - 0.76

124 5 4 - 0.70

130 5 10 - 0.56

131 5 11 1.49 3.35

132 5 12 - 1.34

133 5 13 0.92 2.43

135 5 15 - 0.73

140 5 20 - 0.71

152 6 1 - 0.59

156 6 5 - 1.21

157 6 6 - 0.93

162 6 11 - 1.60

169 6 18 0.80 2.14

179 6 28 - 0.98

183 7 2 - 0.82

191 7 10 - 0.65

201 7 20 - 0.55

202 7 21 - 0.56

204 7 23 - 0.65

217 8 5 - 0.53

223 8 11 - 1.11

235 8 23 - 1.75

236 8 24 - 1.91

248 9 5 - 1.61

251 9 8 0.85 1.96

252 9 9 - 1.76

253 9 10 - 0.88

261 9 18 - 0.77

262 9 19 0.63 3.89

263 9 20 - 2.73

264 9 21 - 4.58

268 9 25 - 1.18

269 9 26 - 0.74

270 9 27 0.85 2.67

273 9 30 0.55 3.00

274 10 1 - 0.98

279 10 6 - 1.05

280 10 7 - 0.99

281 10 8 - 0.77

284 10 11 - 0.70

296 10 23 - 0.99

297 10 24 - 2.95

303 10 30 - 2.05

304 10 31 0.68 2.48

305 11 1 - 3.18

G-E-52
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

309 11 5 - 0.81

310 11 6 - 0.62

311 11 7 - 0.77

312 11 8 - 1.14

313 11 9 - 1.07

316 11 12 - 1.09

319 11 15 - 0.90

321 11 17 - 1.05

322 11 18 - 0.87

324 11 20 - 1.16

325 11 21 - 1.33

328 11 24 - 0.85

330 11 26 - 0.62

336 12 2 - 0.65

337 12 3 - 1.04

338 12 4 - 0.76

340 12 6 - 0.52

341 12 7 0.87 2.23

343 12 9 - 0.58

344 12 10 - 3.81

345 12 11 1.08 2.20

346 12 12 - 1.76

347 12 13 - 1.12

349 12 15 0.74 3.36

352 12 18 2.23 7.26

353 12 19 5.21 11.29

354 12 20 2.16 7.95

355 12 21 1.46 6.84

356 12 22 5.92 13.51

358 12 24 - 0.59

359 12 25 - 0.51

360 12 26 - 1.19

361 12 27 2.04 5.65

362 12 28 1.14 3.08

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 46 147

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 22 94

Maximum Δ dv 5.92 13.51

G-E-53
Table G-E.8.22 Bridger Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 1.55 6.51

7 1 7 - 0.60

8 1 8 1.27 2.80

9 1 9 1.59 2.99

10 1 10 1.54 3.68

11 1 11 1.35 3.66

12 1 12 1.41 3.16

13 1 13 1.75 4.10

14 1 14 - 1.65

15 1 15 1.11 3.67

16 1 16 1.75 5.06

20 1 20 - 0.80

21 1 21 - 0.54

22 1 22 - 1.49

23 1 23 0.91 4.20

25 1 25 0.83 2.41

26 1 26 - 1.43

27 1 27 - 1.65

29 1 29 0.58 2.75

39 2 8 0.86 5.29

40 2 9 0.60 2.00

41 2 10 - 2.01

42 2 11 0.85 3.53

43 2 12 - 2.41

44 2 13 0.58 3.00

45 2 14 - 2.05

47 2 16 - 1.00

52 2 21 - 1.22

57 2 26 - 1.00

58 2 27 1.12 5.51

59 2 28 0.55 2.63

60 3 1 1.44 4.45

61 3 2 0.88 3.35

62 3 3 1.48 5.00

63 3 4 - 0.84

64 3 5 - 1.47

66 3 7 0.52 2.88

67 3 8 - 1.81

68 3 9 0.59 1.74

69 3 10 - 1.16

70 3 11 0.71 2.11

71 3 12 0.81 2.53

72 3 13 - 1.05

73 3 14 - 1.20

74 3 15 - 0.67

75 3 16 - 0.62

76 3 17 - 0.97

77 3 18 - 0.62

80 3 21 - 1.09

81 3 22 1.27 2.19

83 3 24 0.97 2.44

85 3 26 0.77 2.82

86 3 27 - 1.62

89 3 30 - 1.31

G-E-54
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

91 4 1 - 0.55

96 4 6 - 0.63

97 4 7 - 0.57

98 4 8 0.79 2.60

104 4 14 - 0.98

109 4 19 - 1.06

110 4 20 - 1.62

114 4 24 - 0.75

115 4 25 0.59 3.69

117 4 27 - 0.82

118 4 28 - 1.85

119 4 29 0.52 1.76

120 4 30 - 0.73

122 5 2 - 0.59

124 5 4 - 0.52

131 5 11 0.94 2.17

132 5 12 - 0.90

133 5 13 0.56 1.59

135 5 15 - 0.63

140 5 20 - 0.50

156 6 5 - 0.98

157 6 6 - 0.68

162 6 11 - 1.26

169 6 18 0.55 1.48

179 6 28 - 0.57

183 7 2 - 0.68

204 7 23 - 0.54

223 8 11 - 0.92

235 8 23 - 1.34

236 8 24 - 1.26

248 9 5 - 1.00

251 9 8 0.58 1.35

252 9 9 - 1.12

253 9 10 - 0.72

261 9 18 - 0.56

262 9 19 - 2.22

263 9 20 - 1.51

264 9 21 - 3.12

268 9 25 - 1.00

269 9 26 - 0.60

270 9 27 0.57 1.84

273 9 30 - 1.82

274 10 1 - 1.07

279 10 6 - 1.17

280 10 7 - 1.06

281 10 8 - 0.73

284 10 11 - 0.81

294 10 21 - 0.56

296 10 23 - 1.04

297 10 24 - 2.87

303 10 30 - 1.99

304 10 31 0.75 2.32

305 11 1 - 3.15

309 11 5 - 0.93

310 11 6 - 0.68

311 11 7 - 0.79

312 11 8 - 1.20

G-E-55
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

313 11 9 - 1.01

315 11 11 - 0.51

316 11 12 - 0.98

319 11 15 - 1.01

321 11 17 - 1.15

322 11 18 - 0.99

324 11 20 - 1.34

325 11 21 - 1.53

328 11 24 - 0.92

330 11 26 - 0.67

336 12 2 - 0.67

337 12 3 - 1.21

338 12 4 - 0.74

340 12 6 - 0.58

341 12 7 0.89 2.28

343 12 9 - 0.67

344 12 10 - 3.80

345 12 11 1.13 2.30

346 12 12 - 1.64

347 12 13 - 1.11

349 12 15 0.79 3.55

350 12 16 - 0.50

352 12 18 2.35 7.59

353 12 19 5.19 11.25

354 12 20 2.17 8.00

355 12 21 1.52 7.09

356 12 22 5.95 13.56

358 12 24 - 0.67

359 12 25 - 0.58

360 12 26 - 1.29

361 12 27 2.20 6.04

362 12 28 1.27 3.41

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 47 143

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 21 95

Maximum Δ dv 5.95 13.56

G-E-56
Table G-E.8.23 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 1.91

10 1 10 - 0.95

11 1 11 - 1.37

12 1 12 - 0.58

13 1 13 - 0.70

15 1 15 - 0.54

23 1 23 - 1.27

25 1 25 - 0.52

39 2 8 - 2.17

40 2 9 - 1.66

43 2 12 - 0.81

44 2 13 - 0.65

60 3 1 0.75 2.73

61 3 2 0.94 3.08

62 3 3 0.61 2.67

68 3 9 - 0.51

69 3 10 - 0.70

70 3 11 - 0.88

71 3 12 - 1.17

76 3 17 - 0.71

80 3 21 - 0.73

86 3 27 - 0.73

98 4 8 - 1.08

115 4 25 - 0.96

117 4 27 - 0.62

119 4 29 - 1.28

131 5 11 - 1.07

132 5 12 - 0.92

152 6 1 - 0.58

162 6 11 - 1.50

191 7 10 - 0.53

193 7 12 - 0.73

194 7 13 - 0.71

217 8 5 - 0.78

223 8 11 - 1.02

236 8 24 - 0.99

238 8 26 - 1.80

250 9 7 - 0.67

251 9 8 - 2.44

252 9 9 - 1.18

253 9 10 - 1.05

262 9 19 0.52 4.27

263 9 20 - 1.50

268 9 25 - 0.69

324 11 20 - 0.63

349 12 15 - 0.72

352 12 18 0.71 2.15

353 12 19 2.22 6.68

354 12 20 0.87 4.86

355 12 21 - 2.92

356 12 22 2.40 8.12

361 12 27 1.08 3.28

362 12 28 - 0.60

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 9 53

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 3 26

Maximum Δ dv 2.40 8.12

G-E-57
Table G-E.8.24 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 2.17

10 1 10 - 0.89

11 1 11 - 1.37

12 1 12 - 0.66

13 1 13 - 0.75

15 1 15 - 0.57

23 1 23 - 1.44

25 1 25 - 0.51

39 2 8 - 2.22

40 2 9 - 1.72

43 2 12 - 0.93

44 2 13 - 0.67

60 3 1 0.87 3.11

61 3 2 1.06 3.43

62 3 3 0.59 2.59

67 3 8 - 0.52

68 3 9 - 0.56

69 3 10 - 0.74

70 3 11 - 0.87

71 3 12 - 1.23

76 3 17 - 0.79

80 3 21 - 0.74

83 3 24 - 0.54

86 3 27 - 0.85

98 4 8 - 0.86

115 4 25 - 0.86

117 4 27 - 0.54

119 4 29 - 0.80

131 5 11 - 0.74

132 5 12 - 0.72

162 6 11 - 1.18

193 7 12 - 0.54

194 7 13 - 0.55

217 8 5 - 0.64

223 8 11 - 0.71

236 8 24 - 0.61

238 8 26 - 1.45

251 9 8 - 1.62

252 9 9 - 0.74

253 9 10 - 0.74

262 9 19 - 2.56

263 9 20 - 0.87

268 9 25 - 0.58

324 11 20 - 0.73

349 12 15 - 0.77

352 12 18 0.76 2.27

353 12 19 2.21 6.65

354 12 20 0.88 4.90

355 12 21 - 3.05

356 12 22 2.42 8.15

361 12 27 1.17 3.53

362 12 28 - 0.65

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 8 52

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 4 19

Maximum Δ dv 2.42 8.15

G-E-58
Table G-E.8.25 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.55

5 1 5 - 0.81

15 1 15 - 0.65

19 1 19 - 1.76

23 1 23 - 0.72

24 1 24 0.68 2.74

25 1 25 0.55 1.96

26 1 26 1.59 4.45

27 1 27 0.50 2.00

38 2 7 - 0.69

39 2 8 - 2.14

43 2 12 - 1.29

61 3 2 - 0.51

73 3 14 - 0.56

82 3 23 - 0.65

106 4 16 - 0.95

107 4 17 - 0.69

110 4 20 - 0.72

117 4 27 - 0.61

121 5 1 - 1.98

124 5 4 1.05 3.04

125 5 5 - 1.05

126 5 6 0.65 2.16

127 5 7 - 0.73

130 5 10 - 1.45

146 5 26 - 1.72

153 6 2 - 1.58

162 6 11 - 1.97

172 6 21 - 0.78

179 6 28 - 1.12

193 7 12 - 0.70

196 7 15 - 2.09

198 7 17 - 0.67

201 7 20 - 0.75

203 7 22 - 0.59

234 8 22 0.67 4.46

235 8 23 - 1.28

237 8 25 - 1.07

238 8 26 - 0.51

246 9 3 - 2.42

247 9 4 - 1.69

251 9 8 - 1.89

260 9 17 - 0.85

269 9 26 - 0.68

271 9 28 - 1.24

350 12 16 - 1.23

352 12 18 - 1.74

353 12 19 - 1.68

354 12 20 0.56 3.26

355 12 21 - 1.73

356 12 22 - 3.44

361 12 27 - 0.72

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 8 52

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 2 31

Maximum Δ dv 1.59 4.46

G-E-59
Table G-E.8.26 Grand Teton National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.60

5 1 5 - 0.82

15 1 15 - 0.54

19 1 19 - 1.44

23 1 23 - 0.73

24 1 24 0.68 2.77

25 1 25 0.54 1.93

26 1 26 1.32 3.76

27 1 27 - 1.66

38 2 7 - 0.59

39 2 8 - 1.89

43 2 12 - 1.32

61 3 2 - 0.50

82 3 23 - 0.63

106 4 16 - 0.86

110 4 20 - 0.58

117 4 27 - 0.54

121 5 1 - 1.53

124 5 4 0.78 2.31

125 5 5 - 0.83

126 5 6 - 1.49

127 5 7 - 0.55

130 5 10 - 1.09

146 5 26 - 1.26

153 6 2 - 1.14

162 6 11 - 1.48

172 6 21 - 0.57

179 6 28 - 0.93

196 7 15 - 1.47

198 7 17 - 0.50

234 8 22 - 2.91

235 8 23 - 0.82

237 8 25 - 0.63

246 9 3 - 1.68

247 9 4 - 1.16

251 9 8 - 1.14

260 9 17 - 0.66

269 9 26 - 0.53

271 9 28 - 0.93

350 12 16 - 1.17

352 12 18 - 1.70

353 12 19 - 1.53

354 12 20 0.52 3.03

355 12 21 - 1.66

356 12 22 - 3.20

361 12 27 - 0.72

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 5 46

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 26

Maximum Δ dv 1.32 3.76

G-E-60
Table G-E.8.27 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 2.34

7 1 7 - 0.51

8 1 8 - 0.59

9 1 9 0.56 1.02

11 1 11 0.91 2.80

13 1 13 - 1.73

14 1 14 - 0.73

15 1 15 - 0.71

16 1 16 - 0.71

22 1 22 0.51 1.98

23 1 23 - 1.10

27 1 27 - 1.11

29 1 29 - 1.33

40 2 9 - 1.75

41 2 10 - 0.54

42 2 11 - 2.17

43 2 12 - 0.64

45 2 14 - 1.67

47 2 16 - 0.74

52 2 21 - 0.91

58 2 27 - 0.89

59 2 28 - 1.33

60 3 1 0.51 2.09

61 3 2 - 1.44

66 3 7 - 0.80

71 3 12 - 1.42

72 3 13 - 0.55

73 3 14 - 0.80

75 3 16 - 0.59

81 3 22 0.97 1.92

83 3 24 0.64 1.73

85 3 26 0.52 1.88

86 3 27 - 1.19

96 4 6 - 0.51

97 4 7 - 0.65

98 4 8 0.55 1.83

104 4 14 - 1.25

106 4 16 - 0.98

110 4 20 - 1.66

114 4 24 - 0.57

115 4 25 0.52 4.98

118 4 28 - 1.79

119 4 29 0.75 2.21

131 5 11 1.46 3.16

132 5 12 - 0.94

133 5 13 0.59 1.72

135 5 15 - 0.51

140 5 20 - 0.52

142 5 22 - 0.73

156 6 5 - 0.69

157 6 6 - 0.79

169 6 18 0.76 1.83

179 6 28 - 1.02

183 7 2 - 0.64

G-E-61
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

236 8 24 - 1.83

248 9 5 - 1.48

251 9 8 0.80 1.90

252 9 9 - 2.03

253 9 10 - 0.52

261 9 18 - 0.85

262 9 19 0.83 4.24

263 9 20 - 2.17

264 9 21 - 4.08

270 9 27 0.58 1.87

273 9 30 - 2.34

274 10 1 - 0.68

279 10 6 - 0.93

280 10 7 - 0.81

281 10 8 - 0.57

296 10 23 - 0.62

297 10 24 - 2.21

303 10 30 - 1.38

304 10 31 0.65 2.44

305 11 1 - 3.70

311 11 7 - 0.81

312 11 8 - 0.84

313 11 9 - 1.06

316 11 12 - 0.96

319 11 15 - 0.66

321 11 17 - 0.54

322 11 18 - 0.56

324 11 20 - 0.66

325 11 21 - 1.06

328 11 24 - 0.56

336 12 2 - 0.62

338 12 4 - 0.69

341 12 7 0.54 1.40

353 12 19 0.99 2.92

354 12 20 - 2.10

355 12 21 - 1.31

356 12 22 0.75 2.43

361 12 27 - 0.73

362 12 28 0.75 2.03

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 21 93

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 50

Maximum Δ dv 1.46 4.98

G-E-62
Table G-E.8.28 Popo Agie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 0.50 2.61

7 1 7 - 0.55

8 1 8 - 0.56

9 1 9 0.53 0.97

11 1 11 0.88 2.73

13 1 13 - 1.67

14 1 14 - 0.68

15 1 15 - 0.80

16 1 16 - 0.76

22 1 22 0.57 2.23

23 1 23 - 1.23

27 1 27 - 1.09

29 1 29 - 1.43

40 2 9 - 1.77

41 2 10 - 0.60

42 2 11 - 2.48

43 2 12 - 0.75

45 2 14 - 1.70

47 2 16 - 0.84

52 2 21 - 1.05

58 2 27 - 1.02

59 2 28 - 1.51

60 3 1 0.59 2.40

61 3 2 - 1.67

66 3 7 - 0.95

71 3 12 - 1.38

72 3 13 - 0.59

73 3 14 - 0.83

75 3 16 - 0.63

81 3 22 0.97 1.92

83 3 24 0.66 1.77

85 3 26 0.59 2.15

86 3 27 - 1.35

97 4 7 - 0.57

98 4 8 - 1.17

104 4 14 - 1.06

106 4 16 - 0.66

110 4 20 - 1.27

115 4 25 - 3.66

118 4 28 - 1.20

119 4 29 0.50 1.52

131 5 11 0.92 2.04

132 5 12 - 0.63

133 5 13 - 1.06

156 6 5 - 0.56

157 6 6 - 0.57

169 6 18 0.52 1.26

179 6 28 - 0.59

183 7 2 - 0.54

236 8 24 - 1.09

248 9 5 - 0.92

251 9 8 0.54 1.30

252 9 9 - 1.30

261 9 18 - 0.65

G-E-63
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

262 9 19 - 2.43

263 9 20 - 1.30

264 9 21 - 2.75

270 9 27 - 1.27

273 9 30 - 1.40

274 10 1 - 0.74

279 10 6 - 1.03

280 10 7 - 0.87

281 10 8 - 0.54

296 10 23 - 0.65

297 10 24 - 2.14

303 10 30 - 1.40

304 10 31 0.60 2.28

305 11 1 - 3.67

310 11 6 - 0.54

311 11 7 - 0.83

312 11 8 - 0.89

313 11 9 - 0.99

316 11 12 - 0.86

319 11 15 - 0.74

321 11 17 - 0.59

322 11 18 - 0.63

324 11 20 - 0.76

325 11 21 - 1.21

328 11 24 - 0.61

336 12 2 - 0.64

338 12 4 - 0.67

341 12 7 0.56 1.44

353 12 19 1.08 3.18

354 12 20 0.55 2.33

355 12 21 - 1.46

356 12 22 0.85 2.73

358 12 24 - 0.51

361 12 27 - 0.83

362 12 28 0.85 2.26

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 18 89

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 49

Maximum Δ dv 1.08 3.67

G-E-64
Table G-E.8.29 Teton Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

15 1 15 - 0.92

24 1 24 - 1.19

25 1 25 0.62 1.90

26 1 26 1.18 3.94

27 1 27 - 1.82

39 2 8 - 1.92

43 2 12 - 0.74

73 3 14 - 0.53

74 3 15 - 1.30

82 3 23 - 0.70

110 4 20 - 1.30

119 4 29 - 0.95

121 5 1 - 1.51

124 5 4 0.68 1.70

126 5 6 0.58 1.90

127 5 7 - 0.93

130 5 10 - 0.51

162 6 11 - 2.13

172 6 21 - 0.70

179 6 28 - 1.04

193 7 12 - 0.60

196 7 15 - 1.13

201 7 20 - 0.54

204 7 23 - 0.67

234 8 22 - 1.56

235 8 23 - 1.29

237 8 25 - 1.13

238 8 26 - 0.95

246 9 3 - 2.32

247 9 4 - 1.22

251 9 8 - 2.53

260 9 17 - 0.57

262 9 19 - 1.01

263 9 20 - 0.68

270 9 27 - 0.50

271 9 28 - 1.23

279 10 6 - 0.73

350 12 16 - 1.08

352 12 18 - 1.15

353 12 19 0.56 1.83

354 12 20 - 2.02

355 12 21 - 1.14

356 12 22 - 2.83

361 12 27 - 1.81

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 5 44

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 28

Maximum Δ dv 1.18 3.94

G-E-65
Table G-E.8.30 Teton Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

15 1 15 - 0.77

24 1 24 - 1.20

25 1 25 0.52 1.87

26 1 26 0.97 3.32

27 1 27 - 1.51

39 2 8 - 1.69

43 2 12 - 0.76

74 3 15 - 1.03

82 3 23 - 0.67

110 4 20 - 1.05

119 4 29 - 0.61

121 5 1 - 1.16

124 5 4 - 1.27

126 5 6 - 1.30

127 5 7 - 0.70

162 6 11 - 1.60

172 6 21 - 0.51

179 6 28 - 0.87

196 7 15 - 0.78

234 8 22 - 0.97

235 8 23 - 0.82

237 8 25 - 0.67

238 8 26 - 0.60

246 9 3 - 1.61

247 9 4 - 0.83

251 9 8 - 1.63

262 9 19 - 0.56

271 9 28 - 0.92

279 10 6 - 0.69

350 12 16 - 1.02

352 12 18 - 1.12

353 12 19 0.51 1.68

354 12 20 - 1.88

355 12 21 - 1.08

356 12 22 - 2.62

361 12 27 - 1.81

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 36

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 20

Maximum Δ dv 0.97 3.32

G-E-66
Table G-E.8.31 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

15 1 15 - 0.68

25 1 25 - 1.56

44 2 13 - 0.89

61 3 2 0.81 3.08

62 3 3 - 1.92

110 4 20 - 0.60

118 4 28 - 0.81

119 4 29 - 1.29

162 6 11 - 1.22

179 6 28 - 0.61

193 7 12 - 0.74

236 8 24 - 0.66

238 8 26 - 0.94

251 9 8 - 3.79

262 9 19 - 2.28

263 9 20 - 1.12

350 12 16 - 0.82

352 12 18 - 0.81

353 12 19 0.68 2.30

354 12 20 - 1.82

355 12 21 - 1.05

356 12 22 - 2.77

361 12 27 - 2.48

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 23

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 13

Maximum Δ dv 0.81 3.79

G-E-67
Table G-E.8.32 Washakie Wilderness Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

15 1 15 - 0.60

25 1 25 - 1.22

44 2 13 - 0.90

61 3 2 0.80 3.02

62 3 3 - 1.54

118 4 28 - 0.59

119 4 29 - 0.82

162 6 11 - 1.02

193 7 12 - 0.52

238 8 26 - 0.71

251 9 8 - 2.49

262 9 19 - 1.30

263 9 20 - 0.63

350 12 16 - 0.77

352 12 18 - 0.78

353 12 19 0.62 2.11

354 12 20 - 1.69

355 12 21 - 0.99

356 12 22 - 2.57

361 12 27 - 2.48

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 10

Maximum Δ dv 0.80 3.02

G-E-68
Table G-E.8.33 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 2.29

15 1 15 - 0.93

16 1 16 - 0.69

40 2 9 - 1.49

42 2 11 - 0.60

60 3 1 - 2.04

61 3 2 - 1.30

85 3 26 - 0.58

86 3 27 - 1.03

104 4 14 - 0.54

110 4 20 - 0.61

115 4 25 - 2.35

118 4 28 - 0.51

119 4 29 - 0.89

142 5 22 - 0.86

143 5 23 - 0.52

145 5 25 - 0.60

179 6 28 - 0.88

251 9 8 - 1.21

252 9 9 - 2.03

262 9 19 1.16 6.39

263 9 20 - 2.06

264 9 21 - 1.98

273 9 30 - 2.30

305 11 1 - 0.71

324 11 20 - 0.60

352 12 18 - 0.77

353 12 19 1.01 3.04

354 12 20 - 2.03

355 12 21 - 1.48

356 12 22 0.74 2.48

361 12 27 - 0.84

362 12 28 - 1.07

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 33

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 2 17

Maximum Δ dv 1.16 6.39

G-E-69
Table G-E.8.34 Wind River Roadless Area - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 2.61

15 1 15 - 1.05

16 1 16 - 0.78

22 1 22 - 0.52

39 2 8 - 0.52

40 2 9 - 1.68

42 2 11 - 0.69

43 2 12 - 0.55

60 3 1 - 2.35

61 3 2 - 1.51

85 3 26 - 0.66

86 3 27 - 1.19

110 4 20 - 0.56

115 4 25 - 2.08

119 4 29 - 0.62

142 5 22 - 0.54

179 6 28 - 0.51

251 9 8 - 0.84

252 9 9 - 1.29

262 9 19 0.62 3.83

263 9 20 - 1.13

264 9 21 - 1.30

273 9 30 - 1.37

305 11 1 - 0.78

324 11 20 - 0.69

352 12 18 - 0.86

353 12 19 1.11 3.32

354 12 20 - 2.26

355 12 21 - 1.65

356 12 22 0.84 2.79

361 12 27 - 0.95

362 12 28 - 1.20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 3 32

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 17

Maximum Δ dv 1.11 3.83

G-E-70
Table G-E.8.35 Yellowstone National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 0.81

15 1 15 - 0.72

24 1 24 - 1.66

25 1 25 0.85 2.89

26 1 26 1.04 3.54

27 1 27 - 1.49

38 2 7 - 0.89

39 2 8 - 1.57

74 3 15 - 0.53

82 3 23 - 0.66

107 4 17 - 0.78

110 4 20 - 1.09

121 5 1 - 1.25

124 5 4 - 1.93

126 5 6 - 1.09

127 5 7 - 0.93

153 6 2 - 0.97

162 6 11 - 1.11

172 6 21 - 0.55

196 7 15 - 0.90

234 8 22 - 2.21

235 8 23 - 0.84

246 9 3 - 1.77

247 9 4 - 1.12

251 9 8 - 1.86

260 9 17 - 0.56

271 9 28 - 0.65

350 12 16 - 0.71

352 12 18 - 0.79

353 12 19 - 0.55

354 12 20 - 1.27

355 12 21 - 0.60

356 12 22 - 1.23

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 33

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 1 16

Maximum Δ dv 1.04 3.54

G-E-71
Table G-E.8.36 Yellowstone National Park - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 0.84

15 1 15 - 0.60

24 1 24 - 1.56

25 1 25 0.66 2.29

26 1 26 0.85 2.98

27 1 27 - 1.23

38 2 7 - 0.75

39 2 8 - 1.34

82 3 23 - 0.63

107 4 17 - 0.55

110 4 20 - 0.88

121 5 1 - 0.95

124 5 4 - 1.44

126 5 6 - 0.74

127 5 7 - 0.70

153 6 2 - 0.69

162 6 11 - 0.82

196 7 15 - 0.62

234 8 22 - 1.39

235 8 23 - 0.53

246 9 3 - 1.22

247 9 4 - 0.76

251 9 8 - 1.12

350 12 16 - 0.67

352 12 18 - 0.77

353 12 19 - 0.50

354 12 20 - 1.18

355 12 21 - 0.56

356 12 22 - 1.13

Number of Days Δ dv >= 0.5 2 29

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 0 11

Maximum Δ dv 0.85 2.98

G-E-72
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 5.91 24 6.62 24Big Sandy 3.33 21 3.66 24Boulder 3.06 13 3.37 18Bronx 1.56 4 1.79 8Cora 1.96 9 2.17 11Daniel 2.65 13 2.93 14Farson 4.74 31 5.18 33Labarge 5.11 10 5.73 11Merna 2.15 6 2.46 7Pinedale 2.67 12 2.94 14

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-E.9.1 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - MVISBK=6

G-E-73
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

1.0 Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 13.31 85 14.43 79Big Sandy 7.60 107 8.42 108Boulder 9.83 131 10.59 130Bronx 8.92 63 9.60 56Cora 9.25 71 9.95 73Daniel 11.88 88 12.68 86Farson 9.89 77 10.85 77Labarge 10.14 37 11.12 39Merna 5.58 33 6.25 33Pinedale 9.38 107 10.32 113

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-E.9.2 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources - MVISBK=6

G-E-74
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 8.34 44 8.61 34Big Sandy 7.64 27 7.67 29Boulder 7.70 18 7.74 20Bronx 2.66 16 2.66 16Cora 3.22 16 3.39 20Daniel 4.26 20 4.48 21Farson 7.44 47 7.64 46Labarge 7.67 24 8.27 17Merna 3.24 11 3.24 11Pinedale 4.87 21 4.90 22

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-E.9.3 Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locations from 

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage Sources - MVISBK=2

G-E-75
Receptor Area

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Days > 1.0 

Δdv

Maximum Visibility 

Impact

Number of Da

1.0 Δdv

(Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days)

Big Piney 17.65 110 18.55 105Big Sandy 15.89 91 15.94 98Boulder 19.09 126 19.14 123Bronx 13.04 73 13.08 65Cora 15.34 74 15.39 71Daniel 17.51 96 17.56 89Farson 13.46 95 14.12 91Labarge 14.23 67 15.06 53Merna 10.88 46 10.93 41Pinedale 17.91 115 17.96 113

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

FLAG Background Data IMPROVE Background Data

Table G-E.9.4 Maximum Modeled Cumulative Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Community Locatio

Early Jonah Infill Project Development Stage and Regional Sources - MVISBK=2

G-E-76
Table G-E.9.5 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 2.31 4.00

5 1 5 3.06 13.31

6 1 6 3.98 10.96

19 1 19 - 1.16

20 1 20 - 5.69

21 1 21 - 3.43

22 1 22 1.35 4.95

23 1 23 2.83 8.17

24 1 24 3.69 4.93

26 1 26 1.65 4.31

27 1 27 - 3.90

29 1 29 - 1.43

38 2 7 2.33 4.70

39 2 8 1.21 3.62

42 2 11 2.21 3.22

43 2 12 1.24 2.21

52 2 21 - 2.67

56 2 25 - 1.18

60 3 1 5.91 10.59

61 3 2 1.67 2.69

73 3 14 1.05 3.50

74 3 15 1.41 2.58

76 3 17 - 1.01

86 3 27 - 1.46

98 4 8 - 1.56

105 4 15 - 1.64

108 4 18 - 2.63

110 4 20 - 1.46

111 4 21 - 1.85

112 4 22 - 2.04

116 4 26 - 1.61

117 4 27 1.09 3.45

118 4 28 - 2.83

121 5 1 - 1.53

122 5 2 - 1.33

123 5 3 - 1.53

124 5 4 2.05 3.11

127 5 7 - 1.55

130 5 10 - 1.55

131 5 11 - 1.75

142 5 22 - 1.14

149 5 29 - 1.11

152 6 1 - 1.85

153 6 2 - 1.04

161 6 10 - 2.62

162 6 11 - 3.07

171 6 20 - 1.51

179 6 28 - 1.12

182 7 1 - 1.13

195 7 14 - 1.58

196 7 15 - 1.56

197 7 16 - 1.10

198 7 17 - 1.08

200 7 19 - 1.33

201 7 20 - 1.03

212 7 31 - 1.16

G-E-77
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

215 8 3 - 1.23

216 8 4 - 2.05

217 8 5 - 1.38

231 8 19 - 1.48

234 8 22 - 1.53

237 8 25 - 1.50

242 8 30 - 1.02

243 8 31 - 1.00

252 9 9 - 2.14

261 9 18 - 1.48

262 9 19 - 2.68

263 9 20 - 2.21

264 9 21 - 1.62

267 9 24 - 1.42

279 10 6 - 3.35

280 10 7 - 1.67

324 11 20 - 2.67

325 11 21 - 1.64

349 12 15 - 1.57

350 12 16 2.53 5.08

351 12 17 3.01 6.31

352 12 18 4.09 6.30

353 12 19 2.22 8.85

354 12 20 2.72 9.45

355 12 21 4.00 10.50

356 12 22 1.48 5.36

357 12 23 - 1.30

361 12 27 - 3.37

362 12 28 - 3.16

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 24 85

Maximum Δ dv 5.91 13.31

G-E-78
Table G-E.9.6 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 2.63 4.52

5 1 5 3.48 14.43

6 1 6 4.50 11.98

19 1 19 - 1.33

20 1 20 1.04 6.36

21 1 21 - 3.89

22 1 22 1.55 5.56

23 1 23 3.21 9.03

24 1 24 4.17 5.54

26 1 26 1.89 4.85

27 1 27 - 4.41

29 1 29 - 1.64

38 2 7 2.67 5.31

39 2 8 1.40 4.11

42 2 11 2.54 3.67

43 2 12 1.44 2.54

52 2 21 - 3.05

56 2 25 - 1.36

60 3 1 6.62 11.62

61 3 2 1.92 3.08

73 3 14 1.21 3.98

74 3 15 1.62 2.95

76 3 17 - 1.17

86 3 27 - 1.68

88 3 29 - 1.10

98 4 8 - 1.42

105 4 15 - 1.50

108 4 18 - 2.40

110 4 20 - 1.33

111 4 21 - 1.69

112 4 22 - 1.86

116 4 26 - 1.46

117 4 27 - 3.16

118 4 28 - 2.59

121 5 1 - 1.40

122 5 2 - 1.21

123 5 3 - 1.40

124 5 4 1.87 2.85

127 5 7 - 1.41

130 5 10 - 1.41

131 5 11 - 1.59

142 5 22 - 1.04

149 5 29 - 1.01

152 6 1 - 1.72

161 6 10 - 2.43

162 6 11 - 2.86

171 6 20 - 1.40

179 6 28 - 1.04

195 7 14 - 1.33

196 7 15 - 1.31

200 7 19 - 1.12

215 8 3 - 1.03

216 8 4 - 1.74

217 8 5 - 1.17

231 8 19 - 1.25

234 8 22 - 1.29

G-E-79
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

237 8 25 - 1.26

252 9 9 - 1.78

261 9 18 - 1.23

262 9 19 - 2.24

263 9 20 - 1.84

264 9 21 - 1.34

267 9 24 - 1.17

279 10 6 - 3.72

280 10 7 - 1.87

289 10 16 - 1.09

324 11 20 - 2.94

325 11 21 - 1.81

349 12 15 - 1.75

350 12 16 2.79 5.54

351 12 17 3.32 6.86

352 12 18 4.49 6.84

353 12 19 2.45 9.53

354 12 20 3.00 10.16

355 12 21 4.39 11.25

356 12 22 1.64 5.85

357 12 23 - 1.45

361 12 27 - 3.70

362 12 28 - 3.48

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 24 79

Maximum Δ dv 6.62 14.43

G-E-80
Table G-E.9.7 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

1 1 1 - 1.10

3 1 3 - 3.05

6 1 6 2.05 7.60

7 1 7 - 1.06

8 1 8 1.03 2.53

9 1 9 - 2.15

11 1 11 1.02 3.82

12 1 12 - 3.03

13 1 13 1.38 4.60

16 1 16 2.12 5.94

19 1 19 - 2.14

20 1 20 - 2.38

21 1 21 - 2.89

22 1 22 1.96 5.44

23 1 23 1.35 4.51

27 1 27 - 1.10

29 1 29 - 4.32

30 1 30 - 1.26

40 2 9 - 1.47

41 2 10 - 3.31

42 2 11 - 3.26

45 2 14 - 2.30

47 2 16 - 2.83

48 2 17 - 1.14

52 2 21 - 2.07

55 2 24 - 1.01

57 2 26 - 1.83

58 2 27 1.28 4.61

59 2 28 - 3.87

60 3 1 - 2.64

61 3 2 - 1.00

63 3 4 - 1.28

64 3 5 - 2.00

66 3 7 2.45 6.68

67 3 8 - 2.51

71 3 12 - 1.12

76 3 17 - 1.40

77 3 18 - 1.33

81 3 22 - 1.01

83 3 24 - 1.55

85 3 26 1.06 2.69

89 3 30 1.15 3.72

91 4 1 - 1.55

96 4 6 - 1.22

97 4 7 - 1.01

98 4 8 - 1.68

107 4 17 - 1.28

110 4 20 - 2.16

114 4 24 - 1.41

115 4 25 - 2.92

118 4 28 - 1.65

131 5 11 - 1.04

133 5 13 - 2.50

253 9 10 - 1.30

264 9 21 - 1.92

270 9 27 - 1.12

G-E-81
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

273 9 30 - 1.33

274 10 1 - 1.78

279 10 6 - 1.13

280 10 7 - 1.73

291 10 18 - 1.30

296 10 23 - 1.17

297 10 24 - 3.53

301 10 28 - 1.30

303 10 30 - 1.37

304 10 31 2.34 4.17

306 11 2 - 1.19

307 11 3 - 1.86

308 11 4 - 1.73

309 11 5 1.04 2.93

310 11 6 - 1.56

312 11 8 - 1.89

313 11 9 - 1.16

315 11 11 - 1.35

319 11 15 - 1.86

320 11 16 - 1.14

321 11 17 - 1.10

322 11 18 - 2.36

324 11 20 - 1.69

325 11 21 - 3.37

327 11 23 - 1.18

328 11 24 - 2.95

329 11 25 - 1.07

330 11 26 - 1.76

335 12 1 - 2.24

336 12 2 - 1.54

337 12 3 - 1.56

339 12 5 - 2.14

340 12 6 - 2.26

341 12 7 2.24 5.48

343 12 9 - 3.03

344 12 10 - 2.86

345 12 11 - 2.76

346 12 12 - 1.55

347 12 13 - 1.37

348 12 14 - 3.89

349 12 15 1.06 3.09

352 12 18 - 1.55

353 12 19 3.33 7.12

354 12 20 1.34 5.38

355 12 21 2.13 5.60

356 12 22 3.00 7.56

359 12 25 - 2.09

360 12 26 - 1.74

361 12 27 2.18 4.29

362 12 28 2.65 6.56

364 12 30 - 1.82

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 21 107

Maximum Δ dv 3.33 7.60

G-E-82
Table G-E.9.8 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

1 1 1 - 1.26

3 1 3 1.05 3.46

6 1 6 2.35 8.42

7 1 7 - 1.22

8 1 8 1.18 2.89

9 1 9 1.12 2.46

10 1 10 - 1.02

11 1 11 1.17 4.32

12 1 12 - 3.44

13 1 13 1.59 5.17

16 1 16 2.42 6.64

19 1 19 - 2.44

20 1 20 - 2.71

21 1 21 - 3.29

22 1 22 2.24 6.09

23 1 23 1.56 5.07

27 1 27 - 1.26

29 1 29 - 4.87

30 1 30 - 1.44

40 2 9 - 1.70

41 2 10 - 3.76

42 2 11 - 3.71

45 2 14 - 2.64

46 2 15 - 1.09

47 2 16 1.05 3.23

48 2 17 - 1.32

52 2 21 - 2.37

55 2 24 - 1.17

57 2 26 - 2.11

58 2 27 1.48 5.21

59 2 28 - 4.40

60 3 1 - 3.02

61 3 2 - 1.16

63 3 4 - 1.48

64 3 5 - 2.30

66 3 7 2.80 7.46

67 3 8 - 2.87

71 3 12 - 1.29

76 3 17 - 1.61

77 3 18 - 1.53

81 3 22 - 1.17

83 3 24 - 1.78

85 3 26 1.23 3.08

86 3 27 - 1.15

89 3 30 1.33 4.22

91 4 1 - 1.41

96 4 6 - 1.11

98 4 8 - 1.53

107 4 17 - 1.16

110 4 20 - 1.97

114 4 24 - 1.28

115 4 25 - 2.67

118 4 28 - 1.50

133 5 13 - 2.28

253 9 10 - 1.07

264 9 21 - 1.60

G-E-83
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

273 9 30 - 1.10

274 10 1 - 1.99

279 10 6 - 1.27

280 10 7 - 1.94

291 10 18 - 1.46

296 10 23 - 1.32

297 10 24 - 3.91

298 10 25 - 1.09

301 10 28 - 1.45

303 10 30 - 1.54

304 10 31 2.61 4.61

306 11 2 - 1.32

307 11 3 - 2.06

308 11 4 - 1.92

309 11 5 1.15 3.22

310 11 6 - 1.73

312 11 8 - 2.10

313 11 9 - 1.29

315 11 11 - 1.49

319 11 15 - 2.06

320 11 16 - 1.27

321 11 17 - 1.22

322 11 18 - 2.60

324 11 20 - 1.87

325 11 21 - 3.70

327 11 23 - 1.31

328 11 24 - 3.24

329 11 25 - 1.19

330 11 26 - 1.94

335 12 1 - 2.47

336 12 2 - 1.71

337 12 3 - 1.73

339 12 5 - 2.37

340 12 6 - 2.50

341 12 7 2.48 5.98

343 12 9 - 3.34

344 12 10 - 3.15

345 12 11 - 3.05

346 12 12 - 1.73

347 12 13 - 1.52

348 12 14 - 4.27

349 12 15 1.18 3.41

352 12 18 - 1.72

353 12 19 3.66 7.71

354 12 20 1.49 5.87

355 12 21 2.36 6.10

356 12 22 3.30 8.18

359 12 25 - 2.31

360 12 26 - 1.93

361 12 27 2.41 4.70

362 12 28 2.93 7.12

364 12 30 - 2.02

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 24 108

Maximum Δ dv 3.66 8.42

G-E-84
Table G-E.9.9 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

3 1 3 - 1.43

6 1 6 2.40 9.64

7 1 7 - 2.32

8 1 8 - 2.65

9 1 9 - 1.41

10 1 10 - 2.14

11 1 11 - 4.47

12 1 12 - 3.64

13 1 13 1.22 4.99

14 1 14 - 1.56

15 1 15 - 2.99

16 1 16 - 6.20

20 1 20 - 3.65

21 1 21 - 2.38

22 1 22 - 5.21

23 1 23 1.83 8.15

25 1 25 - 1.13

29 1 29 - 3.92

39 2 8 - 2.85

40 2 9 - 1.34

42 2 11 - 1.93

43 2 12 - 1.32

44 2 13 - 2.02

45 2 14 - 2.79

46 2 15 - 1.50

47 2 16 - 2.15

48 2 17 - 3.84

52 2 21 - 2.62

55 2 24 - 1.76

57 2 26 - 2.10

58 2 27 - 2.86

59 2 28 - 2.08

60 3 1 1.61 5.09

61 3 2 - 3.04

64 3 5 - 1.79

66 3 7 - 7.98

67 3 8 - 4.76

68 3 9 1.30 2.86

71 3 12 - 2.87

72 3 13 - 2.49

73 3 14 - 1.64

76 3 17 - 2.23

77 3 18 - 1.72

80 3 21 - 1.07

83 3 24 - 1.11

85 3 26 - 2.65

86 3 27 - 1.35

88 3 29 - 3.41

89 3 30 - 3.68

91 4 1 - 2.33

95 4 5 - 1.26

96 4 6 - 2.74

97 4 7 - 1.23

98 4 8 - 2.23

109 4 19 - 1.13

110 4 20 - 1.98

G-E-85
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

114 4 24 - 1.14

115 4 25 - 2.62

118 4 28 - 2.21

119 4 29 - 1.95

131 5 11 - 1.46

133 5 13 - 2.98

183 7 2 - 1.10

211 7 30 - 1.27

222 8 10 - 1.34

223 8 11 - 1.26

229 8 17 - 1.06

235 8 23 - 1.86

236 8 24 - 1.04

240 8 28 - 1.00

253 9 10 - 1.15

261 9 18 - 1.03

262 9 19 - 1.98

263 9 20 - 2.48

264 9 21 - 1.62

267 9 24 - 1.09

268 9 25 - 2.36

270 9 27 - 2.51

271 9 28 - 1.07

273 9 30 - 3.13

274 10 1 - 1.01

276 10 3 - 1.39

279 10 6 - 1.85

280 10 7 - 2.37

284 10 11 - 1.60

285 10 12 - 1.76

291 10 18 - 1.14

294 10 21 - 1.58

297 10 24 - 3.52

302 10 29 - 1.15

303 10 30 - 2.59

304 10 31 - 5.26

306 11 2 - 1.26

307 11 3 - 1.38

308 11 4 - 1.99

309 11 5 - 3.89

310 11 6 - 1.13

312 11 8 - 1.53

315 11 11 - 1.12

319 11 15 - 2.24

322 11 18 - 1.55

324 11 20 - 3.17

325 11 21 - 3.15

327 11 23 - 2.22

328 11 24 - 2.11

329 11 25 - 2.37

330 11 26 - 2.47

332 11 28 - 1.12

334 11 30 - 1.09

335 12 1 - 2.84

336 12 2 - 1.32

337 12 3 1.29 4.97

338 12 4 - 1.35

339 12 5 - 4.44

341 12 7 - 5.11

G-E-86
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

343 12 9 - 4.01

344 12 10 - 4.99

345 12 11 - 2.83

346 12 12 - 2.23

347 12 13 - 1.47

348 12 14 - 2.83

349 12 15 1.07 4.60

352 12 18 2.82 6.15

353 12 19 1.90 7.75

354 12 20 1.13 6.91

355 12 21 1.47 8.88

356 12 22 3.06 9.83

357 12 23 - 1.07

360 12 26 - 2.05

361 12 27 2.51 6.25

362 12 28 - 2.42

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 13 131

Maximum Δ dv 3.06 9.83

G-E-87
Table G-E.9.10 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

3 1 3 - 1.64

6 1 6 2.73 10.59

7 1 7 - 2.65

8 1 8 - 3.02

9 1 9 - 1.62

10 1 10 1.11 2.45

11 1 11 - 5.03

12 1 12 - 4.12

13 1 13 1.40 5.60

14 1 14 - 1.79

15 1 15 - 3.40

16 1 16 - 6.92

20 1 20 - 4.13

21 1 21 - 2.72

22 1 22 - 5.84

23 1 23 2.10 9.00

25 1 25 - 1.30

29 1 29 - 4.43

30 1 30 - 1.03

39 2 8 - 3.25

40 2 9 - 1.55

42 2 11 - 2.22

43 2 12 - 1.53

44 2 13 - 2.32

45 2 14 - 3.18

46 2 15 - 1.73

47 2 16 - 2.47

48 2 17 - 4.36

52 2 21 - 2.99

55 2 24 - 2.03

57 2 26 - 2.41

58 2 27 - 3.27

59 2 28 - 2.38

60 3 1 1.85 5.73

61 3 2 1.11 3.47

62 3 3 - 1.13

64 3 5 - 2.06

66 3 7 - 8.85

67 3 8 1.13 5.38

68 3 9 1.50 3.27

70 3 11 - 1.11

71 3 12 - 3.27

72 3 13 - 2.85

73 3 14 - 1.89

76 3 17 - 2.56

77 3 18 - 1.98

79 3 20 - 1.05

80 3 21 - 1.23

83 3 24 - 1.28

85 3 26 - 3.03

86 3 27 - 1.56

88 3 29 - 3.88

89 3 30 - 4.18

91 4 1 - 2.13

95 4 5 - 1.14

96 4 6 - 2.51

G-E-88
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

97 4 7 - 1.12

98 4 8 - 2.04

109 4 19 - 1.03

110 4 20 - 1.81

114 4 24 - 1.04

115 4 25 - 2.39

118 4 28 - 2.02

119 4 29 - 1.78

131 5 11 - 1.33

133 5 13 - 2.73

211 7 30 - 1.07

222 8 10 - 1.12

223 8 11 - 1.06

235 8 23 - 1.57

262 9 19 - 1.64

263 9 20 - 2.07

264 9 21 - 1.34

268 9 25 - 1.97

270 9 27 - 2.09

273 9 30 - 2.63

274 10 1 - 1.13

276 10 3 - 1.56

278 10 5 - 1.04

279 10 6 - 2.07

280 10 7 - 2.64

284 10 11 - 1.80

285 10 12 - 1.98

291 10 18 - 1.29

294 10 21 - 1.78

297 10 24 - 3.90

298 10 25 - 1.06

302 10 29 - 1.29

303 10 30 - 2.89

304 10 31 1.01 5.78

306 11 2 - 1.40

307 11 3 - 1.53

308 11 4 - 2.20

309 11 5 - 4.26

310 11 6 - 1.25

312 11 8 - 1.70

315 11 11 - 1.25

319 11 15 - 2.47

322 11 18 - 1.71

324 11 20 1.07 3.48

325 11 21 - 3.46

327 11 23 - 2.45

328 11 24 - 2.33

329 11 25 - 2.61

330 11 26 - 2.72

332 11 28 - 1.24

334 11 30 - 1.21

335 12 1 - 3.13

336 12 2 - 1.47

337 12 3 1.44 5.43

338 12 4 - 1.50

339 12 5 - 4.86

340 12 6 - 1.08

341 12 7 - 5.58

343 12 9 - 4.40

G-E-89
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

344 12 10 - 5.45

345 12 11 - 3.12

346 12 12 - 2.46

347 12 13 - 1.63

348 12 14 - 3.13

349 12 15 1.19 5.04

352 12 18 3.11 6.68

353 12 19 2.11 8.38

354 12 20 1.26 7.49

355 12 21 1.63 9.56

356 12 22 3.37 10.55

357 12 23 - 1.19

360 12 26 - 2.27

361 12 27 2.77 6.79

362 12 28 - 2.68

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 18 130

Maximum Δ dv 3.37 10.59

G-E-90
Table G-E.9.11 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 2.57

6 1 6 - 1.88

10 1 10 - 1.13

11 1 11 - 1.18

13 1 13 - 1.34

23 1 23 1.56 6.80

24 1 24 - 3.75

25 1 25 1.52 4.10

26 1 26 - 3.26

38 2 7 - 2.18

39 2 8 - 3.93

42 2 11 - 1.22

43 2 12 - 3.86

44 2 13 - 1.91

60 3 1 - 3.68

61 3 2 - 4.13

62 3 3 - 3.68

73 3 14 - 2.55

74 3 15 - 1.11

86 3 27 - 2.42

98 4 8 - 1.46

103 4 13 - 1.50

105 4 15 - 1.01

106 4 16 - 1.41

108 4 18 - 1.13

109 4 19 - 2.74

115 4 25 - 1.24

117 4 27 - 1.28

118 4 28 - 1.22

119 4 29 - 1.65

126 5 6 - 1.01

130 5 10 - 1.36

183 7 2 - 1.15

186 7 5 - 1.07

204 7 23 - 1.12

217 8 5 - 1.07

233 8 21 - 1.05

234 8 22 - 1.34

236 8 24 - 1.97

237 8 25 - 1.11

238 8 26 - 1.23

240 8 28 - 1.03

245 9 2 - 1.00

251 9 8 - 1.08

253 9 10 - 1.36

262 9 19 - 4.10

263 9 20 - 1.02

267 9 24 - 1.48

268 9 25 - 2.59

270 9 27 - 1.63

279 10 6 - 2.69

280 10 7 - 1.94

284 10 11 - 1.52

324 11 20 - 3.20

325 11 21 - 1.11

349 12 15 - 3.32

G-E-91
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

350 12 16 - 1.54

352 12 18 1.52 8.92

353 12 19 - 5.62

354 12 20 - 4.78

355 12 21 - 5.67

356 12 22 - 6.02

361 12 27 1.20 6.49

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 4 63

Maximum Δ dv 1.56 8.92

G-E-92
Table G-E.9.12 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 2.93

6 1 6 - 2.16

10 1 10 - 1.30

11 1 11 - 1.36

13 1 13 - 1.54

15 1 15 - 1.12

23 1 23 1.79 7.57

24 1 24 - 4.24

25 1 25 1.74 4.63

26 1 26 - 3.70

38 2 7 - 2.50

39 2 8 1.03 4.45

42 2 11 - 1.41

43 2 12 - 4.37

44 2 13 - 2.19

60 3 1 - 4.18

61 3 2 1.07 4.68

62 3 3 1.16 4.18

69 3 10 - 1.06

73 3 14 - 2.92

74 3 15 - 1.28

76 3 17 - 1.16

86 3 27 - 2.77

98 4 8 - 1.33

103 4 13 - 1.36

106 4 16 - 1.28

108 4 18 - 1.03

109 4 19 - 2.50

115 4 25 - 1.13

117 4 27 - 1.16

118 4 28 - 1.11

119 4 29 - 1.50

130 5 10 - 1.24

234 8 22 - 1.13

236 8 24 - 1.67

238 8 26 - 1.04

253 9 10 - 1.13

262 9 19 - 3.47

267 9 24 - 1.23

268 9 25 - 2.17

270 9 27 - 1.35

279 10 6 - 3.00

280 10 7 - 2.17

284 10 11 - 1.70

294 10 21 - 1.01

304 10 31 - 1.02

324 11 20 - 3.51

325 11 21 - 1.23

349 12 15 - 3.66

350 12 16 - 1.72

352 12 18 1.69 9.60

353 12 19 1.10 6.12

354 12 20 - 5.23

355 12 21 - 6.18

356 12 22 - 6.55

361 12 27 1.33 7.05

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 8 56

Maximum Δ dv 1.79 9.60

G-E-93
Table G-E.9.13 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.48

6 1 6 - 3.35

8 1 8 - 1.60

9 1 9 - 1.41

10 1 10 - 3.00

11 1 11 - 1.50

12 1 12 - 1.78

13 1 13 - 2.09

14 1 14 - 1.26

15 1 15 - 1.40

23 1 23 1.66 7.44

24 1 24 - 1.67

25 1 25 1.22 3.77

26 1 26 - 2.32

38 2 7 - 1.08

39 2 8 1.00 4.09

42 2 11 - 1.26

43 2 12 - 2.95

44 2 13 - 2.68

52 2 21 - 1.12

55 2 24 - 1.27

60 3 1 1.24 4.64

61 3 2 - 3.86

62 3 3 1.02 3.22

64 3 5 - 1.50

67 3 8 - 3.57

68 3 9 - 2.70

69 3 10 - 2.01

71 3 12 - 2.25

73 3 14 - 2.22

74 3 15 - 1.02

79 3 20 - 1.00

83 3 24 - 1.19

86 3 27 - 2.67

94 4 4 - 1.42

95 4 5 - 1.31

98 4 8 - 1.47

105 4 15 - 1.11

109 4 19 - 3.03

115 4 25 - 2.24

117 4 27 - 1.35

118 4 28 - 1.29

119 4 29 - 1.70

223 8 11 - 1.45

236 8 24 - 1.54

253 9 10 - 1.66

262 9 19 - 3.70

263 9 20 - 1.97

264 9 21 - 1.84

267 9 24 - 1.38

268 9 25 - 1.80

270 9 27 - 1.60

279 10 6 - 2.12

280 10 7 - 1.65

284 10 11 - 2.50

294 10 21 - 3.15

G-E-94
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

304 10 31 - 4.43

319 11 15 - 1.08

324 11 20 - 4.27

325 11 21 - 1.88

337 12 3 - 1.17

339 12 5 - 1.63

345 12 11 - 1.10

346 12 12 - 1.56

349 12 15 - 4.78

352 12 18 1.96 9.25

353 12 19 1.23 6.70

354 12 20 - 4.86

355 12 21 - 6.86

356 12 22 1.05 7.36

361 12 27 1.73 7.16

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 9 71

Maximum Δ dv 1.96 9.25

G-E-95
Table G-E.9.14 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.70

6 1 6 - 3.80

8 1 8 - 1.83

9 1 9 - 1.62

10 1 10 - 3.41

11 1 11 - 1.72

12 1 12 - 2.04

13 1 13 - 2.39

14 1 14 - 1.45

15 1 15 - 1.61

23 1 23 1.90 8.26

24 1 24 - 1.91

25 1 25 1.40 4.26

26 1 26 - 2.64

38 2 7 - 1.25

39 2 8 1.16 4.63

42 2 11 - 1.45

43 2 12 - 3.36

44 2 13 - 3.06

52 2 21 - 1.29

55 2 24 - 1.46

60 3 1 1.43 5.24

61 3 2 1.13 4.38

62 3 3 1.18 3.66

64 3 5 - 1.73

67 3 8 - 4.06

68 3 9 - 3.09

69 3 10 - 2.31

71 3 12 - 2.58

73 3 14 - 2.55

74 3 15 - 1.18

79 3 20 - 1.16

83 3 24 - 1.37

86 3 27 - 3.05

94 4 4 - 1.30

95 4 5 - 1.19

98 4 8 - 1.34

105 4 15 - 1.01

109 4 19 - 2.77

115 4 25 - 2.05

117 4 27 - 1.23

118 4 28 - 1.17

119 4 29 - 1.55

223 8 11 - 1.22

236 8 24 - 1.30

253 9 10 - 1.37

262 9 19 - 3.12

263 9 20 - 1.64

264 9 21 - 1.53

267 9 24 - 1.14

268 9 25 - 1.49

270 9 27 - 1.32

279 10 6 - 2.37

280 10 7 - 1.85

284 10 11 - 2.79

294 10 21 - 3.50

G-E-96
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

304 10 31 - 4.89

319 11 15 - 1.19

324 11 20 1.06 4.67

325 11 21 - 2.07

335 12 1 - 1.07

337 12 3 - 1.30

339 12 5 - 1.81

345 12 11 - 1.22

346 12 12 - 1.74

349 12 15 - 5.23

352 12 18 2.17 9.95

353 12 19 1.37 7.27

354 12 20 - 5.31

355 12 21 - 7.43

356 12 22 1.17 7.96

361 12 27 1.92 7.75

362 12 28 - 1.02

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 11 73

Maximum Δ dv 2.17 9.95

G-E-97
Table G-E.9.15 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 4.50

5 1 5 - 2.11

6 1 6 - 5.21

20 1 20 - 2.05

22 1 22 - 1.50

23 1 23 2.20 9.19

24 1 24 1.18 5.79

25 1 25 1.63 4.37

26 1 26 1.19 4.90

38 2 7 - 4.32

39 2 8 1.20 4.73

42 2 11 - 2.27

43 2 12 - 4.05

44 2 13 - 1.60

52 2 21 - 2.88

55 2 24 - 2.93

60 3 1 1.36 8.52

61 3 2 1.42 6.02

62 3 3 1.12 5.22

67 3 8 - 1.85

69 3 10 - 1.12

73 3 14 - 5.27

74 3 15 - 2.11

75 3 16 - 1.32

76 3 17 - 1.68

79 3 20 - 1.80

82 3 23 - 1.20

86 3 27 - 3.38

95 4 5 - 1.73

96 4 6 - 1.19

97 4 7 - 1.17

98 4 8 - 2.68

102 4 12 - 1.03

103 4 13 - 2.44

105 4 15 - 2.09

106 4 16 - 2.88

108 4 18 - 2.59

109 4 19 - 3.40

115 4 25 - 4.17

116 4 26 - 1.09

117 4 27 - 2.76

118 4 28 - 2.92

119 4 29 - 2.03

121 5 1 - 1.11

124 5 4 - 1.72

126 5 6 - 1.36

130 5 10 - 2.28

135 5 15 - 1.22

146 5 26 - 1.43

162 6 11 - 1.09

165 6 14 - 1.94

168 6 17 - 1.25

169 6 18 - 2.44

204 7 23 - 1.28

213 8 1 - 1.08

216 8 4 - 1.25

G-E-98
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

236 8 24 - 2.20

244 9 1 - 1.15

245 9 2 - 1.35

251 9 8 - 1.25

253 9 10 - 2.23

261 9 18 - 1.04

262 9 19 - 5.28

263 9 20 - 3.24

264 9 21 - 1.20

267 9 24 - 2.15

268 9 25 - 3.14

269 9 26 - 1.44

270 9 27 - 3.37

271 9 28 - 1.48

279 10 6 - 5.22

280 10 7 - 3.84

284 10 11 - 2.17

289 10 16 - 1.74

294 10 21 - 1.96

319 11 15 - 2.75

324 11 20 1.20 7.36

325 11 21 - 2.23

349 12 15 - 4.52

350 12 16 - 3.36

351 12 17 - 3.16

352 12 18 2.65 11.88

353 12 19 1.33 9.05

354 12 20 - 7.92

355 12 21 - 8.06

356 12 22 1.15 9.26

361 12 27 1.30 9.68

362 12 28 - 1.31

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 13 88

Maximum Δ dv 2.65 11.88

G-E-99
Table G-E.9.16 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 5.07

5 1 5 - 2.41

6 1 6 - 5.84

13 1 13 - 1.10

20 1 20 - 2.35

22 1 22 - 1.72

23 1 23 2.51 10.11

24 1 24 1.36 6.47

25 1 25 1.87 4.93

26 1 26 1.37 5.51

38 2 7 - 4.88

39 2 8 1.38 5.33

42 2 11 - 2.60

43 2 12 - 4.59

44 2 13 - 1.84

52 2 21 - 3.29

55 2 24 - 3.35

60 3 1 1.57 9.43

61 3 2 1.64 6.74

62 3 3 1.29 5.88

67 3 8 - 2.12

68 3 9 - 1.04

69 3 10 - 1.29

73 3 14 - 5.93

74 3 15 - 2.42

75 3 16 - 1.52

76 3 17 - 1.94

79 3 20 - 2.07

81 3 22 - 1.11

82 3 23 - 1.39

86 3 27 - 3.84

95 4 5 - 1.58

96 4 6 - 1.08

97 4 7 - 1.06

98 4 8 - 2.45

103 4 13 - 2.23

105 4 15 - 1.90

106 4 16 - 2.64

108 4 18 - 2.37

109 4 19 - 3.12

115 4 25 - 3.83

117 4 27 - 2.53

118 4 28 - 2.67

119 4 29 - 1.85

121 5 1 - 1.01

124 5 4 - 1.56

126 5 6 - 1.24

130 5 10 - 2.08

135 5 15 - 1.11

146 5 26 - 1.31

162 6 11 - 1.01

165 6 14 - 1.80

168 6 17 - 1.16

169 6 18 - 2.27

204 7 23 - 1.08

216 8 4 - 1.06

G-E-100
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

236 8 24 - 1.86

245 9 2 - 1.12

251 9 8 - 1.03

253 9 10 - 1.86

262 9 19 - 4.50

263 9 20 - 2.73

267 9 24 - 1.79

268 9 25 - 2.64

269 9 26 - 1.19

270 9 27 - 2.83

271 9 28 - 1.22

279 10 6 - 5.75

280 10 7 - 4.26

284 10 11 - 2.43

288 10 15 - 1.03

289 10 16 - 1.95

294 10 21 - 2.19

319 11 15 - 3.03

324 11 20 1.33 7.95

325 11 21 - 2.47

349 12 15 - 4.94

350 12 16 - 3.70

351 12 17 - 3.48

352 12 18 2.93 12.68

353 12 19 1.48 9.74

354 12 20 - 8.56

355 12 21 1.09 8.70

356 12 22 1.28 9.96

361 12 27 1.45 10.40

362 12 28 - 1.46

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 14 86

Maximum Δ dv 2.93 12.68

G-E-101
Table G-E.9.17 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

2 1 2 - 3.37

3 1 3 - 1.23

6 1 6 - 2.64

16 1 16 - 1.47

20 1 20 - 1.17

21 1 21 4.27 9.89

22 1 22 1.98 5.59

23 1 23 - 1.20

27 1 27 1.72 5.36

28 1 28 - 1.56

29 1 29 1.84 4.63

40 2 9 1.92 3.82

42 2 11 - 1.53

45 2 14 - 2.15

51 2 20 - 1.14

52 2 21 1.61 3.23

53 2 22 2.35 5.20

54 2 23 - 1.99

56 2 25 2.93 5.78

58 2 27 - 1.35

59 2 28 - 1.53

75 3 16 1.45 4.79

85 3 26 - 1.63

89 3 30 - 1.93

91 4 1 - 2.49

93 4 3 - 1.02

95 4 5 - 1.66

96 4 6 - 1.19

114 4 24 - 1.11

118 4 28 1.12 2.55

119 4 29 - 2.42

122 5 2 - 1.88

127 5 7 - 1.54

132 5 12 - 1.92

136 5 16 - 2.32

138 5 18 1.31 2.79

139 5 19 1.53 3.82

141 5 21 1.34 2.77

146 5 26 - 1.46

147 5 27 1.19 2.26

156 6 5 - 1.36

183 7 2 - 1.43

187 7 6 1.08 2.09

230 8 18 - 1.38

255 9 12 - 1.28

266 9 23 - 1.32

273 9 30 - 2.82

274 10 1 - 1.21

275 10 2 2.36 5.60

278 10 5 - 1.54

281 10 8 - 2.60

282 10 9 - 1.91

283 10 10 2.51 4.63

288 10 15 - 2.46

289 10 16 - 2.33

290 10 17 1.35 3.85

G-E-102
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

296 10 23 - 1.80

308 11 4 - 1.80

320 11 16 1.04 2.50

321 11 17 1.24 2.85

322 11 18 - 1.08

323 11 19 1.01 3.32

324 11 20 - 1.93

325 11 21 1.08 2.15

326 11 22 - 1.18

331 11 27 1.29 4.01

353 12 19 2.12 4.45

354 12 20 4.74 9.29

355 12 21 1.07 3.38

356 12 22 1.06 3.10

357 12 23 1.96 4.27

358 12 24 1.16 3.52

359 12 25 1.35 3.52

360 12 26 - 1.12

361 12 27 - 1.09

362 12 28 1.39 4.15

363 12 29 - 1.90

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 31 77

Maximum Δ dv 4.74 9.89

G-E-103
Table G-E.9.18 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

2 1 2 1.11 3.82

3 1 3 - 1.41

6 1 6 - 3.00

16 1 16 - 1.69

20 1 20 - 1.35

21 1 21 4.82 10.85

22 1 22 2.27 6.26

23 1 23 - 1.38

27 1 27 1.97 6.00

28 1 28 - 1.79

29 1 29 2.11 5.21

40 2 9 2.21 4.33

42 2 11 - 1.76

45 2 14 - 2.46

51 2 20 - 1.32

52 2 21 1.86 3.68

53 2 22 2.69 5.86

54 2 23 - 2.28

56 2 25 3.34 6.48

58 2 27 - 1.56

59 2 28 - 1.76

75 3 16 1.67 5.41

77 3 18 - 1.11

85 3 26 - 1.88

89 3 30 - 2.21

91 4 1 - 2.27

95 4 5 - 1.51

96 4 6 - 1.08

114 4 24 - 1.01

118 4 28 1.02 2.33

119 4 29 - 2.21

122 5 2 - 1.72

127 5 7 - 1.40

132 5 12 - 1.75

136 5 16 - 2.12

138 5 18 1.19 2.55

139 5 19 1.39 3.51

141 5 21 1.22 2.54

146 5 26 - 1.33

147 5 27 1.08 2.06

156 6 5 - 1.26

183 7 2 - 1.20

187 7 6 - 1.77

230 8 18 - 1.17

255 9 12 - 1.06

266 9 23 - 1.09

273 9 30 - 2.36

274 10 1 - 1.36

275 10 2 2.64 6.15

278 10 5 - 1.73

281 10 8 - 2.89

282 10 9 1.02 2.14

283 10 10 2.79 5.11

288 10 15 - 2.74

289 10 16 1.00 2.60

290 10 17 1.51 4.26

G-E-104
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

296 10 23 - 2.02

308 11 4 - 2.00

320 11 16 1.16 2.76

321 11 17 1.38 3.14

322 11 18 - 1.20

323 11 19 1.12 3.64

324 11 20 - 2.13

325 11 21 1.20 2.37

326 11 22 - 1.31

331 11 27 1.44 4.39

353 12 19 2.34 4.87

354 12 20 5.18 9.99

355 12 21 1.20 3.72

356 12 22 1.18 3.42

357 12 23 2.17 4.68

358 12 24 1.29 3.87

359 12 25 1.50 3.87

360 12 26 - 1.24

361 12 27 - 1.21

362 12 28 1.54 4.55

363 12 29 - 2.11

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 33 77

Maximum Δ dv 5.18 10.85

G-E-105
Table G-E.9.19 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

5 1 5 5.11 10.14

6 1 6 1.95 5.64

20 1 20 - 2.56

21 1 21 - 3.19

22 1 22 3.07 9.37

23 1 23 - 2.67

27 1 27 1.87 4.34

29 1 29 - 2.42

38 2 7 - 1.90

39 2 8 - 1.16

52 2 21 - 1.28

60 3 1 - 1.29

86 3 27 - 1.04

88 3 29 - 1.02

108 4 18 - 1.70

111 4 21 - 1.66

117 4 27 - 1.23

123 5 3 - 1.46

149 5 29 - 1.03

159 6 8 1.29 1.39

161 6 10 - 2.09

162 6 11 - 1.18

179 6 28 1.30 1.63

200 7 19 - 1.59

201 7 20 - 1.05

212 7 31 - 1.56

215 8 3 - 1.28

261 9 18 - 1.47

263 9 20 - 2.95

272 9 29 - 2.55

324 11 20 - 1.45

351 12 17 1.37 2.49

353 12 19 2.09 4.81

354 12 20 3.17 8.44

355 12 21 2.69 6.72

356 12 22 - 1.88

362 12 28 - 2.24

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 10 37

Maximum Δ dv 5.11 10.14

G-E-106
Table G-E.9.20 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

1 1 1 - 1.01

5 1 5 5.73 11.12

6 1 6 2.24 6.31

20 1 20 - 2.92

21 1 21 - 3.62

22 1 22 3.48 10.31

23 1 23 1.15 3.04

24 1 24 - 1.12

27 1 27 2.14 4.89

29 1 29 - 2.76

38 2 7 - 2.19

39 2 8 - 1.35

52 2 21 - 1.48

60 3 1 - 1.49

86 3 27 - 1.20

88 3 29 - 1.18

108 4 18 - 1.55

111 4 21 - 1.51

117 4 27 - 1.12

123 5 3 - 1.33

159 6 8 1.19 1.29

161 6 10 - 1.94

162 6 11 - 1.10

179 6 28 1.21 1.51

200 7 19 - 1.34

212 7 31 - 1.32

215 8 3 - 1.08

261 9 18 - 1.22

263 9 20 - 2.47

272 9 29 - 2.13

279 10 6 - 1.01

280 10 7 - 1.10

324 11 20 - 1.60

351 12 17 1.52 2.75

353 12 19 2.31 5.26

354 12 20 3.49 9.10

355 12 21 2.97 7.29

356 12 22 - 2.08

362 12 28 - 2.48

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 11 39

Maximum Δ dv 5.73 11.12

G-E-107
Table G-E.9.21 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 1.55 5.25

5 1 5 - 2.41

6 1 6 - 1.12

23 1 23 1.30 4.92

24 1 24 2.15 5.58

25 1 25 - 1.86

26 1 26 1.15 3.02

38 2 7 - 2.37

39 2 8 - 2.59

43 2 12 - 4.27

60 3 1 - 2.83

61 3 2 - 3.24

73 3 14 - 1.05

74 3 15 - 1.19

86 3 27 1.03 3.31

105 4 15 - 1.60

106 4 16 - 2.52

108 4 18 - 1.81

109 4 19 - 1.44

117 4 27 - 1.88

124 5 4 - 1.86

262 9 19 - 3.23

268 9 25 - 1.64

269 9 26 - 1.29

324 11 20 - 1.20

350 12 16 - 2.20

351 12 17 - 1.04

352 12 18 1.30 5.44

353 12 19 - 4.42

354 12 20 - 4.79

355 12 21 - 5.24

356 12 22 - 4.36

361 12 27 - 2.61

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 6 33

Maximum Δ dv 2.15 5.58

G-E-108
Table G-E.9.22 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 1.78 5.89

5 1 5 - 2.75

6 1 6 - 1.29

23 1 23 1.50 5.53

24 1 24 2.46 6.25

25 1 25 - 2.13

26 1 26 1.33 3.43

38 2 7 - 2.72

39 2 8 - 2.96

43 2 12 1.07 4.84

60 3 1 - 3.24

61 3 2 - 3.69

73 3 14 - 1.22

74 3 15 - 1.38

86 3 27 1.19 3.77

105 4 15 - 1.46

106 4 16 - 2.30

108 4 18 - 1.65

109 4 19 - 1.31

117 4 27 - 1.71

124 5 4 - 1.70

262 9 19 - 2.71

268 9 25 - 1.36

269 9 26 - 1.06

324 11 20 - 1.33

350 12 16 - 2.44

351 12 17 - 1.16

352 12 18 1.44 5.93

353 12 19 - 4.83

354 12 20 - 5.23

355 12 21 - 5.72

356 12 22 - 4.77

361 12 27 - 2.88

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 7 33

Maximum Δ dv 2.46 6.25

G-E-109
Table G-E.9.23 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.26

6 1 6 1.22 5.96

7 1 7 - 1.44

8 1 8 - 2.89

9 1 9 - 2.33

10 1 10 - 3.38

11 1 11 - 1.69

12 1 12 - 3.17

13 1 13 - 3.31

14 1 14 - 2.67

15 1 15 - 2.57

20 1 20 - 2.12

22 1 22 - 2.59

23 1 23 1.84 9.38

25 1 25 1.07 3.07

26 1 26 - 1.78

29 1 29 - 1.33

38 2 7 - 1.09

39 2 8 - 4.50

42 2 11 - 2.61

43 2 12 - 2.94

44 2 13 - 3.20

45 2 14 - 2.25

48 2 17 - 1.83

52 2 21 - 2.37

55 2 24 - 1.96

59 2 28 - 1.09

60 3 1 1.66 5.39

61 3 2 1.04 3.82

62 3 3 - 2.42

64 3 5 - 2.03

66 3 7 - 2.37

67 3 8 1.62 4.63

68 3 9 1.90 4.27

69 3 10 - 1.25

70 3 11 - 1.18

71 3 12 - 2.74

72 3 13 - 2.39

73 3 14 - 2.44

74 3 15 - 1.15

77 3 18 - 1.39

79 3 20 - 1.28

80 3 21 - 1.13

85 3 26 - 1.07

86 3 27 - 2.73

91 4 1 - 1.15

92 4 2 - 1.01

95 4 5 - 1.45

96 4 6 - 1.72

98 4 8 - 1.70

109 4 19 - 2.59

110 4 20 - 1.22

114 4 24 - 1.29

115 4 25 - 3.01

117 4 27 - 1.35

118 4 28 - 1.61

G-E-110
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

119 4 29 - 2.45

131 5 11 - 1.16

169 6 18 - 1.15

223 8 11 - 1.97

235 8 23 - 1.58

236 8 24 - 1.50

251 9 8 - 1.02

253 9 10 - 1.48

261 9 18 - 1.27

262 9 19 - 4.37

263 9 20 - 3.68

264 9 21 - 2.07

267 9 24 - 1.63

268 9 25 - 2.06

270 9 27 - 1.88

276 10 3 - 1.05

278 10 5 - 1.44

279 10 6 - 2.19

280 10 7 - 2.16

284 10 11 - 2.50

285 10 12 - 1.45

289 10 16 - 1.06

294 10 21 - 2.95

304 10 31 - 5.43

309 11 5 - 2.64

310 11 6 - 1.20

311 11 7 - 1.01

319 11 15 - 1.87

324 11 20 1.04 3.98

325 11 21 - 2.32

327 11 23 - 1.68

329 11 25 - 1.50

330 11 26 - 1.82

335 12 1 - 2.36

337 12 3 - 2.97

338 12 4 - 1.08

339 12 5 - 2.95

341 12 7 - 3.46

343 12 9 - 1.79

344 12 10 - 4.16

345 12 11 - 1.89

346 12 12 - 2.50

349 12 15 - 5.19

352 12 18 2.67 8.45

353 12 19 1.56 8.08

354 12 20 - 5.48

355 12 21 - 8.63

356 12 22 1.79 9.04

357 12 23 - 1.03

361 12 27 2.24 6.97

362 12 28 - 1.32

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 12 107

Maximum Δ dv 2.67 9.38

G-E-111
Table G-E.9.24 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=6

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.45

5 1 5 - 1.10

6 1 6 1.41 6.66

7 1 7 - 1.65

8 1 8 - 3.29

9 1 9 - 2.66

10 1 10 - 3.83

11 1 11 - 1.93

12 1 12 - 3.60

13 1 13 - 3.75

14 1 14 - 3.04

15 1 15 - 2.93

20 1 20 - 2.43

21 1 21 - 1.13

22 1 22 - 2.95

23 1 23 2.11 10.32

24 1 24 - 1.14

25 1 25 1.23 3.49

26 1 26 - 2.04

29 1 29 - 1.53

38 2 7 - 1.26

39 2 8 1.10 5.09

42 2 11 - 2.98

43 2 12 - 3.36

44 2 13 - 3.64

45 2 14 - 2.58

48 2 17 - 2.10

52 2 21 - 2.72

55 2 24 - 2.25

57 2 26 - 1.14

59 2 28 - 1.27

60 3 1 1.91 6.06

61 3 2 1.21 4.33

62 3 3 - 2.77

64 3 5 - 2.33

66 3 7 - 2.71

67 3 8 1.86 5.23

68 3 9 2.19 4.84

69 3 10 - 1.45

70 3 11 - 1.36

71 3 12 - 3.13

72 3 13 - 2.73

73 3 14 - 2.79

74 3 15 - 1.33

77 3 18 - 1.60

79 3 20 - 1.48

80 3 21 - 1.31

83 3 24 - 1.01

85 3 26 - 1.24

86 3 27 - 3.12

91 4 1 - 1.04

95 4 5 - 1.32

96 4 6 - 1.57

98 4 8 - 1.55

109 4 19 - 2.37

110 4 20 - 1.11

G-E-112
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

114 4 24 - 1.17

115 4 25 - 2.76

117 4 27 - 1.23

118 4 28 - 1.47

119 4 29 - 2.24

131 5 11 - 1.06

169 6 18 - 1.06

223 8 11 - 1.67

235 8 23 - 1.33

236 8 24 - 1.26

253 9 10 - 1.23

261 9 18 - 1.05

262 9 19 - 3.70

263 9 20 - 3.10

264 9 21 - 1.72

267 9 24 - 1.35

268 9 25 - 1.71

270 9 27 - 1.56

276 10 3 - 1.18

278 10 5 - 1.62

279 10 6 - 2.45

280 10 7 - 2.41

284 10 11 - 2.79

285 10 12 - 1.62

289 10 16 - 1.20

294 10 21 - 3.29

304 10 31 - 5.97

309 11 5 - 2.90

310 11 6 - 1.33

311 11 7 - 1.12

313 11 9 - 1.09

319 11 15 - 2.07

320 11 16 - 1.02

324 11 20 1.16 4.35

325 11 21 - 2.56

327 11 23 - 1.86

329 11 25 - 1.66

330 11 26 - 2.01

334 11 30 - 1.01

335 12 1 - 2.61

337 12 3 - 3.27

338 12 4 - 1.21

339 12 5 - 3.25

341 12 7 - 3.81

343 12 9 - 1.98

344 12 10 - 4.57

345 12 11 - 2.10

346 12 12 - 2.77

349 12 15 - 5.66

352 12 18 2.94 9.12

353 12 19 1.73 8.72

354 12 20 - 5.98

355 12 21 1.02 9.30

356 12 22 1.98 9.73

357 12 23 - 1.15

361 12 27 2.47 7.56

362 12 28 - 1.47

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 14 113

Maximum Δ dv 2.94 10.32

G-E-113
Table G-E.9.25 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 1.33 2.25

5 1 5 4.76 17.65

6 1 6 6.68 16.11

13 1 13 - 1.05

16 1 16 - 1.50

19 1 19 - 3.12

20 1 20 1.56 9.09

21 1 21 - 1.98

22 1 22 - 2.55

23 1 23 1.46 4.57

24 1 24 2.25 3.02

25 1 25 1.05 1.32

26 1 26 5.79 12.24

27 1 27 2.58 11.83

30 1 30 - 1.21

38 2 7 2.31 3.88

39 2 8 2.65 7.98

40 2 9 - 1.78

42 2 11 2.69 3.92

43 2 12 1.47 2.63

45 2 14 - 1.04

52 2 21 - 1.58

60 3 1 6.24 10.99

61 3 2 2.29 3.61

72 3 13 - 1.68

73 3 14 3.74 10.22

74 3 15 2.06 4.00

86 3 27 - 1.13

88 3 29 - 1.06

96 4 6 - 1.04

97 4 7 - 1.66

98 4 8 1.83 6.37

105 4 15 - 1.77

106 4 16 - 1.23

107 4 17 - 3.31

108 4 18 - 3.40

109 4 19 1.26 1.99

110 4 20 - 2.58

111 4 21 - 5.39

112 4 22 2.34 7.37

116 4 26 1.72 4.77

117 4 27 2.56 6.33

118 4 28 1.46 8.12

119 4 29 - 3.43

121 5 1 1.88 5.42

122 5 2 1.44 6.28

123 5 3 1.10 3.87

124 5 4 7.83 11.00

126 5 6 1.03 1.66

127 5 7 - 2.22

130 5 10 3.59 5.57

131 5 11 - 6.55

132 5 12 - 1.69

133 5 13 - 2.04

134 5 14 - 2.54

140 5 20 - 1.11

G-E-114
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

142 5 22 - 2.94

145 5 25 2.15 3.11

146 5 26 1.35 4.04

147 5 27 - 3.28

148 5 28 - 2.28

149 5 29 - 2.40

152 6 1 - 1.80

153 6 2 - 1.44

154 6 3 - 1.99

155 6 4 1.16 3.59

160 6 9 - 2.09

161 6 10 1.26 8.29

162 6 11 - 5.45

169 6 18 - 2.74

171 6 20 - 2.16

179 6 28 - 1.62

182 7 1 - 1.28

183 7 2 - 1.06

195 7 14 - 1.56

196 7 15 - 1.62

200 7 19 - 3.04

201 7 20 - 2.80

204 7 23 - 1.38

216 8 4 - 1.64

217 8 5 - 1.13

231 8 19 - 1.13

234 8 22 1.55 2.50

236 8 24 - 1.34

237 8 25 - 1.37

246 9 3 - 1.28

252 9 9 - 1.68

261 9 18 - 1.48

262 9 19 1.17 3.19

263 9 20 - 2.18

264 9 21 1.56 5.76

267 9 24 1.08 5.99

272 9 29 - 3.09

273 9 30 - 1.33

279 10 6 - 2.96

280 10 7 - 1.67

304 10 31 - 1.37

324 11 20 - 1.31

325 11 21 - 1.04

341 12 7 - 1.43

349 12 15 - 1.65

350 12 16 1.92 4.21

351 12 17 3.97 7.97

352 12 18 8.34 11.41

353 12 19 2.00 7.83

354 12 20 2.63 8.95

355 12 21 3.16 8.43

356 12 22 1.31 4.83

361 12 27 - 3.80

362 12 28 - 3.32

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 44 110

Maximum Δ dv 8.34 17.65

G-E-115
Table G-E.9.26 Big Piney - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 1.59 2.66

5 1 5 5.18 18.55

6 1 6 7.16 16.88

13 1 13 - 1.02

16 1 16 - 1.58

19 1 19 - 3.15

20 1 20 1.71 9.67

21 1 21 - 2.33

22 1 22 - 3.01

23 1 23 1.74 5.30

24 1 24 2.64 3.52

25 1 25 1.09 1.38

26 1 26 5.65 12.01

27 1 27 2.57 11.82

29 1 29 - 1.15

30 1 30 - 1.27

38 2 7 2.50 4.17

39 2 8 2.75 8.23

40 2 9 - 1.74

42 2 11 2.99 4.32

43 2 12 1.68 2.98

45 2 14 - 1.08

52 2 21 - 1.87

60 3 1 6.97 12.03

61 3 2 2.60 4.07

72 3 13 - 1.59

73 3 14 3.62 9.98

74 3 15 2.11 4.09

86 3 27 - 1.31

87 3 28 - 1.03

88 3 29 - 1.21

97 4 7 - 1.37

98 4 8 1.12 4.22

105 4 15 - 1.56

107 4 17 - 2.13

108 4 18 - 2.92

109 4 19 - 1.20

110 4 20 - 1.80

111 4 21 - 4.63

112 4 22 1.51 5.16

116 4 26 1.29 3.70

117 4 27 2.17 5.50

118 4 28 - 5.83

119 4 29 - 2.14

121 5 1 1.13 3.47

122 5 2 1.03 4.79

123 5 3 - 2.60

124 5 4 5.93 8.61

126 5 6 - 1.04

127 5 7 - 1.95

130 5 10 2.23 3.59

131 5 11 - 4.25

132 5 12 - 1.05

133 5 13 - 1.20

134 5 14 - 1.56

142 5 22 - 1.92

G-E-116
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

145 5 25 1.27 1.86

146 5 26 - 2.49

147 5 27 - 1.98

148 5 28 - 1.39

149 5 29 - 1.99

152 6 1 - 1.68

153 6 2 - 1.20

154 6 3 - 1.21

155 6 4 - 2.42

160 6 9 - 1.23

161 6 10 - 5.77

162 6 11 - 4.92

169 6 18 - 1.87

171 6 20 - 1.99

179 6 28 - 1.33

182 7 1 - 1.07

195 7 14 - 1.33

196 7 15 - 1.37

200 7 19 - 2.50

201 7 20 - 2.11

204 7 23 - 1.11

216 8 4 - 1.42

234 8 22 1.24 2.01

237 8 25 - 1.17

246 9 3 - 1.00

252 9 9 - 1.45

261 9 18 - 1.23

262 9 19 - 2.61

263 9 20 - 1.80

264 9 21 - 3.93

267 9 24 - 3.99

272 9 29 - 1.95

279 10 6 - 3.34

280 10 7 - 1.75

304 10 31 - 1.23

324 11 20 - 1.51

325 11 21 - 1.16

341 12 7 - 1.30

349 12 15 - 1.82

350 12 16 2.01 4.38

351 12 17 4.21 8.38

352 12 18 8.61 11.73

353 12 19 2.17 8.35

354 12 20 2.93 9.70

355 12 21 3.56 9.25

356 12 22 1.49 5.37

357 12 23 - 1.06

361 12 27 - 4.16

362 12 28 - 3.65

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 34 105

Maximum Δ dv 8.61 18.55

G-E-117
Table G-E.9.27 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

3 1 3 - 2.02

6 1 6 2.25 8.28

7 1 7 - 1.50

8 1 8 1.95 5.02

9 1 9 2.09 4.44

10 1 10 - 2.19

11 1 11 1.22 4.09

12 1 12 1.34 3.99

13 1 13 3.07 7.27

14 1 14 - 1.44

16 1 16 1.73 4.91

19 1 19 - 2.27

20 1 20 - 1.76

21 1 21 - 1.71

22 1 22 1.26 3.60

23 1 23 - 2.51

29 1 29 - 4.02

30 1 30 - 2.58

40 2 9 - 1.93

41 2 10 - 3.41

42 2 11 - 3.83

45 2 14 1.31 3.74

47 2 16 - 2.57

49 2 18 - 1.35

52 2 21 - 1.40

57 2 26 - 3.32

58 2 27 3.22 11.61

59 2 28 1.20 5.48

60 3 1 - 2.56

62 3 3 - 1.62

63 3 4 - 1.69

64 3 5 - 2.33

66 3 7 2.02 5.63

67 3 8 - 1.80

71 3 12 - 1.73

77 3 18 - 1.19

83 3 24 - 2.00

85 3 26 - 1.95

89 3 30 - 2.82

96 4 6 - 1.08

98 4 8 2.08 4.92

110 4 20 - 1.77

114 4 24 - 1.05

115 4 25 - 2.91

118 4 28 - 1.48

119 4 29 - 2.65

131 5 11 - 1.57

132 5 12 - 1.35

133 5 13 1.46 3.99

223 8 11 - 1.10

235 8 23 1.11 3.36

253 9 10 - 1.08

263 9 20 - 1.03

264 9 21 - 1.41

273 9 30 - 1.19

274 10 1 - 1.22

G-E-118
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

275 10 2 - 1.30

280 10 7 - 1.00

297 10 24 - 2.09

303 10 30 - 4.61

304 10 31 1.76 3.41

307 11 3 - 1.01

309 11 5 - 1.91

310 11 6 - 1.14

312 11 8 - 1.14

322 11 18 - 1.17

325 11 21 - 1.71

328 11 24 - 1.63

330 11 26 - 1.30

335 12 1 - 1.46

339 12 5 - 1.27

340 12 6 - 1.79

341 12 7 1.34 3.36

343 12 9 - 2.45

344 12 10 - 6.64

345 12 11 1.61 5.17

346 12 12 1.62 3.08

347 12 13 - 3.31

348 12 14 - 5.73

349 12 15 1.25 3.88

352 12 18 1.33 2.66

353 12 19 7.62 13.85

354 12 20 3.23 9.57

355 12 21 3.30 8.21

356 12 22 7.64 15.89

359 12 25 - 1.99

360 12 26 - 3.12

361 12 27 2.77 5.42

362 12 28 2.19 6.09

363 12 29 - 1.60

364 12 30 - 4.30

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 27 91

Maximum Δ dv 7.64 15.89

G-E-119
Table G-E.9.28 Big Sandy - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

3 1 3 - 2.37

6 1 6 2.54 9.09

7 1 7 - 1.62

8 1 8 2.05 5.23

9 1 9 2.25 4.74

10 1 10 - 2.26

11 1 11 1.28 4.27

12 1 12 1.50 4.41

13 1 13 3.29 7.70

14 1 14 - 1.41

16 1 16 1.99 5.54

19 1 19 - 2.59

20 1 20 - 2.05

21 1 21 - 2.02

22 1 22 1.49 4.17

23 1 23 - 2.95

27 1 27 - 1.07

29 1 29 - 4.59

30 1 30 - 2.88

32 2 1 - 1.02

40 2 9 - 2.20

41 2 10 - 3.93

42 2 11 1.07 4.31

44 2 13 - 1.12

45 2 14 1.48 4.18

47 2 16 - 2.98

48 2 17 - 1.05

49 2 18 - 1.47

52 2 21 - 1.66

57 2 26 - 3.78

58 2 27 3.50 12.29

59 2 28 1.35 6.04

60 3 1 - 2.92

61 3 2 - 1.12

62 3 3 - 1.67

63 3 4 - 1.87

64 3 5 1.03 2.65

66 3 7 2.36 6.40

67 3 8 - 2.12

71 3 12 - 1.86

77 3 18 - 1.39

81 3 22 - 1.14

83 3 24 - 2.20

85 3 26 - 2.24

86 3 27 - 1.10

89 3 30 1.06 3.30

96 4 6 - 1.01

98 4 8 1.67 4.05

110 4 20 - 1.67

115 4 25 - 2.63

118 4 28 - 1.32

119 4 29 - 2.04

131 5 11 - 1.29

132 5 12 - 1.18

133 5 13 1.24 3.46

235 8 23 - 2.63

G-E-120
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

264 9 21 - 1.05

274 10 1 - 1.40

275 10 2 - 1.34

280 10 7 - 1.15

297 10 24 - 2.40

303 10 30 - 4.50

304 10 31 1.94 3.73

306 11 2 - 1.06

307 11 3 - 1.16

308 11 4 - 1.09

309 11 5 - 2.18

310 11 6 - 1.30

312 11 8 - 1.31

315 11 11 - 1.00

319 11 15 - 1.05

322 11 18 - 1.35

325 11 21 - 1.95

328 11 24 - 1.87

330 11 26 - 1.40

335 12 1 - 1.67

336 12 2 - 1.13

339 12 5 - 1.46

340 12 6 - 2.01

341 12 7 1.54 3.80

343 12 9 - 2.77

344 12 10 - 6.62

345 12 11 1.69 5.36

346 12 12 1.51 2.88

347 12 13 - 3.30

348 12 14 - 6.08

349 12 15 1.33 4.09

352 12 18 1.41 2.81

353 12 19 7.59 13.81

354 12 20 3.25 9.63

355 12 21 3.44 8.49

356 12 22 7.67 15.94

359 12 25 - 2.19

360 12 26 - 3.36

361 12 27 2.98 5.78

362 12 28 2.38 6.51

363 12 29 - 1.59

364 12 30 - 4.20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 29 98

Maximum Δ dv 7.67 15.94

G-E-121
Table G-E.9.29 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 2.92 11.42

7 1 7 - 3.53

8 1 8 - 5.40

9 1 9 - 2.74

10 1 10 2.42 5.43

11 1 11 1.74 6.06

12 1 12 - 5.20

13 1 13 3.39 9.73

14 1 14 - 4.10

15 1 15 1.93 5.95

16 1 16 - 5.07

20 1 20 - 2.94

21 1 21 - 1.41

22 1 22 - 3.42

23 1 23 1.02 4.95

26 1 26 - 1.37

29 1 29 - 3.75

30 1 30 - 2.64

39 2 8 - 3.66

40 2 9 - 1.68

42 2 11 - 2.28

43 2 12 - 1.51

44 2 13 - 2.44

45 2 14 - 4.87

46 2 15 - 1.13

47 2 16 - 1.90

48 2 17 - 2.62

52 2 21 - 1.67

55 2 24 - 1.04

57 2 26 - 2.85

58 2 27 - 7.50

59 2 28 - 2.02

60 3 1 1.70 5.14

61 3 2 - 3.06

62 3 3 - 2.29

63 3 4 - 1.24

64 3 5 - 2.01

66 3 7 - 6.78

67 3 8 - 3.51

68 3 9 - 1.84

70 3 11 1.23 2.60

71 3 12 1.93 6.58

72 3 13 - 3.04

73 3 14 - 1.59

76 3 17 - 1.27

77 3 18 - 1.31

80 3 21 - 1.76

83 3 24 - 1.98

85 3 26 - 2.12

86 3 27 - 1.10

88 3 29 - 2.46

89 3 30 - 2.85

91 4 1 - 1.34

96 4 6 - 2.37

97 4 7 - 1.13

98 4 8 1.77 6.74

G-E-122
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

109 4 19 - 2.85

110 4 20 - 1.78

115 4 25 - 3.10

117 4 27 - 1.03

118 4 28 - 2.89

119 4 29 - 5.10

120 4 30 - 1.30

122 5 2 - 1.12

131 5 11 - 2.52

133 5 13 - 4.53

157 6 6 - 1.00

169 6 18 - 1.07

183 7 2 - 1.55

211 7 30 - 1.10

222 8 10 - 1.78

223 8 11 - 1.87

229 8 17 - 1.06

235 8 23 - 6.46

236 8 24 - 2.06

251 9 8 - 1.10

261 9 18 - 1.61

262 9 19 - 1.87

263 9 20 - 3.26

264 9 21 - 2.20

268 9 25 - 1.59

270 9 27 - 2.53

273 9 30 - 2.56

276 10 3 - 1.03

278 10 5 - 1.03

279 10 6 - 1.24

280 10 7 - 1.38

284 10 11 - 1.01

285 10 12 - 1.14

297 10 24 - 2.19

302 10 29 - 4.00

303 10 30 - 5.76

304 10 31 - 3.90

306 11 2 - 1.04

308 11 4 - 1.11

309 11 5 - 2.40

319 11 15 - 1.12

324 11 20 - 1.58

325 11 21 - 1.58

327 11 23 - 1.34

328 11 24 - 1.21

329 11 25 - 1.50

330 11 26 - 1.54

335 12 1 - 1.83

337 12 3 - 2.78

339 12 5 - 2.96

340 12 6 - 1.19

341 12 7 - 3.14

343 12 9 - 3.78

344 12 10 - 9.55

345 12 11 1.68 5.02

346 12 12 - 5.00

347 12 13 - 3.40

348 12 14 - 4.09

349 12 15 1.44 6.00

G-E-123
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

352 12 18 4.49 9.12

353 12 19 4.63 14.15

354 12 20 2.93 11.94

355 12 21 2.45 12.22

356 12 22 7.70 19.09

357 12 23 - 1.76

360 12 26 - 3.61

361 12 27 4.13 8.84

362 12 28 - 2.22

363 12 29 - 1.25

364 12 30 - 1.82

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 18 126

Maximum Δ dv 7.70 19.09

G-E-124
Table G-E.9.30 Boulder - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage- Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

3 1 3 - 1.06

6 1 6 3.29 12.39

7 1 7 - 3.77

8 1 8 - 5.63

9 1 9 - 2.94

10 1 10 2.49 5.58

11 1 11 1.83 6.29

12 1 12 - 5.72

13 1 13 3.63 10.24

14 1 14 - 4.04

15 1 15 2.05 6.25

16 1 16 - 5.71

20 1 20 - 3.41

21 1 21 - 1.66

22 1 22 - 3.97

23 1 23 1.22 5.72

26 1 26 - 1.36

29 1 29 - 4.29

30 1 30 - 2.95

39 2 8 - 4.17

40 2 9 - 1.91

42 2 11 - 2.59

43 2 12 - 1.72

44 2 13 - 2.73

45 2 14 - 5.41

46 2 15 - 1.31

47 2 16 - 2.21

48 2 17 - 3.03

52 2 21 - 1.96

55 2 24 - 1.24

57 2 26 - 3.25

58 2 27 - 8.02

59 2 28 - 2.27

60 3 1 1.95 5.78

61 3 2 1.10 3.46

62 3 3 - 2.35

63 3 4 - 1.37

64 3 5 - 2.29

66 3 7 - 7.67

67 3 8 - 4.08

68 3 9 1.01 2.17

70 3 11 1.22 2.59

71 3 12 2.08 6.99

72 3 13 - 3.43

73 3 14 - 1.84

76 3 17 - 1.50

77 3 18 - 1.53

80 3 21 - 1.94

83 3 24 - 2.18

85 3 26 - 2.43

86 3 27 - 1.28

88 3 29 - 2.87

89 3 30 - 3.33

91 4 1 - 1.29

96 4 6 - 2.23

97 4 7 - 1.04

G-E-125
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

98 4 8 1.42 5.64

109 4 19 - 2.44

110 4 20 - 1.68

115 4 25 - 2.81

118 4 28 - 2.60

119 4 29 - 4.02

120 4 30 - 1.10

131 5 11 - 2.09

133 5 13 - 3.95

183 7 2 - 1.30

222 8 10 - 1.48

223 8 11 - 1.57

235 8 23 - 5.20

236 8 24 - 1.64

261 9 18 - 1.19

262 9 19 - 1.44

263 9 20 - 2.22

264 9 21 - 1.66

268 9 25 - 1.38

270 9 27 - 2.10

273 9 30 - 2.09

276 10 3 - 1.18

278 10 5 - 1.05

279 10 6 - 1.43

280 10 7 - 1.58

284 10 11 - 1.17

285 10 12 - 1.31

294 10 21 - 1.10

297 10 24 - 2.51

302 10 29 - 4.38

303 10 30 - 5.63

304 10 31 - 4.26

306 11 2 - 1.17

308 11 4 - 1.28

309 11 5 - 2.73

310 11 6 - 1.01

312 11 8 - 1.11

319 11 15 - 1.29

324 11 20 - 1.81

325 11 21 - 1.81

327 11 23 - 1.54

328 11 24 - 1.39

329 11 25 - 1.72

330 11 26 - 1.67

335 12 1 - 2.09

337 12 3 - 3.18

339 12 5 - 3.37

340 12 6 - 1.34

341 12 7 - 3.56

343 12 9 - 4.25

344 12 10 - 9.54

345 12 11 1.75 5.21

346 12 12 - 4.70

347 12 13 - 3.39

348 12 14 - 4.36

349 12 15 1.53 6.30

352 12 18 4.72 9.49

353 12 19 4.61 14.11

354 12 20 2.95 12.00

G-E-126
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

355 12 21 2.56 12.57

356 12 22 7.74 19.14

357 12 23 - 1.91

360 12 26 - 3.88

361 12 27 4.43 9.35

362 12 28 - 2.41

363 12 29 - 1.24

364 12 30 - 1.77

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 20 123

Maximum Δ dv 7.74 19.14

G-E-127
Table G-E.9.31 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.31

6 1 6 - 2.69

10 1 10 - 3.74

11 1 11 1.30 4.67

13 1 13 - 4.45

14 1 14 - 2.02

15 1 15 1.05 3.62

23 1 23 - 4.09

24 1 24 - 2.08

25 1 25 1.15 3.18

26 1 26 2.33 8.41

38 2 7 - 2.77

39 2 8 1.14 4.53

42 2 11 - 1.55

43 2 12 - 4.61

44 2 13 - 2.24

60 3 1 - 4.01

61 3 2 1.25 5.44

62 3 3 1.73 5.65

71 3 12 - 3.29

73 3 14 - 2.56

83 3 24 - 2.18

86 3 27 - 2.20

98 4 8 - 4.21

106 4 16 - 1.21

109 4 19 - 5.88

115 4 25 - 1.72

117 4 27 - 1.55

118 4 28 - 2.75

119 4 29 - 4.04

122 5 2 - 1.72

123 5 3 - 1.61

124 5 4 - 2.72

126 5 6 - 1.78

130 5 10 - 1.98

146 5 26 - 1.52

169 6 18 - 2.00

183 7 2 - 1.13

186 7 5 - 1.03

201 7 20 - 1.11

204 7 23 - 1.08

217 8 5 - 1.01

222 8 10 - 1.01

223 8 11 - 1.42

233 8 21 - 1.01

234 8 22 - 1.35

235 8 23 - 2.59

236 8 24 - 3.69

237 8 25 - 1.12

238 8 26 - 1.18

240 8 28 - 1.03

251 9 8 - 1.61

253 9 10 - 1.23

261 9 18 - 1.04

262 9 19 1.16 8.34

263 9 20 - 1.67

G-E-128
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

264 9 21 - 1.69

267 9 24 - 1.07

268 9 25 - 1.87

270 9 27 - 2.75

279 10 6 - 1.95

280 10 7 - 1.12

324 11 20 - 1.56

346 12 12 - 1.14

349 12 15 1.35 5.84

350 12 16 1.24 3.98

351 12 17 - 2.58

352 12 18 2.52 12.58

353 12 19 2.66 11.74

354 12 20 1.40 10.77

355 12 21 1.05 8.91

356 12 22 2.03 13.04

361 12 27 1.68 9.51

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 16 73

Maximum Δ dv 2.66 13.04

G-E-129
Table G-E.9.32 Bronx - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 1.55

6 1 6 - 3.04

10 1 10 - 3.85

11 1 11 1.37 4.86

12 1 12 - 1.09

13 1 13 - 4.75

14 1 14 - 1.98

15 1 15 1.12 3.82

23 1 23 1.01 4.74

24 1 24 - 2.46

25 1 25 1.34 3.67

26 1 26 2.33 8.41

38 2 7 - 3.16

39 2 8 1.32 5.12

42 2 11 - 1.77

43 2 12 - 5.16

44 2 13 - 2.51

60 3 1 - 4.54

61 3 2 1.43 6.06

62 3 3 1.78 5.77

71 3 12 - 3.53

73 3 14 - 2.94

82 3 23 - 1.04

83 3 24 - 2.39

86 3 27 - 2.54

98 4 8 - 3.45

106 4 16 - 1.13

109 4 19 - 5.14

115 4 25 - 1.55

117 4 27 - 1.39

118 4 28 - 2.47

119 4 29 - 3.15

122 5 2 - 1.36

123 5 3 - 1.08

124 5 4 - 2.10

126 5 6 - 1.49

130 5 10 - 1.57

146 5 26 - 1.12

169 6 18 - 1.80

223 8 11 - 1.18

234 8 22 - 1.14

235 8 23 - 2.01

236 8 24 - 2.98

238 8 26 - 1.02

251 9 8 - 1.33

253 9 10 - 1.05

262 9 19 - 6.85

263 9 20 - 1.11

264 9 21 - 1.26

268 9 25 - 1.62

270 9 27 - 2.28

279 10 6 - 2.23

280 10 7 - 1.29

284 10 11 - 1.08

324 11 20 - 1.80

346 12 12 - 1.06

G-E-130
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

349 12 15 1.43 6.13

350 12 16 1.28 4.09

351 12 17 - 2.73

352 12 18 2.66 13.03

353 12 19 2.64 11.70

354 12 20 1.42 10.83

355 12 21 1.10 9.20

356 12 22 2.04 13.08

361 12 27 1.82 10.04

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 16 65

Maximum Δ dv 2.66 13.08

G-E-131
Table G-E.9.33 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 4.54

7 1 7 - 1.27

8 1 8 - 3.21

9 1 9 - 3.14

10 1 10 1.68 7.53

11 1 11 2.03 5.89

12 1 12 - 3.41

13 1 13 1.72 6.05

14 1 14 - 3.04

15 1 15 - 4.54

23 1 23 - 4.56

25 1 25 - 2.79

26 1 26 1.23 6.09

38 2 7 - 1.46

39 2 8 1.39 4.92

42 2 11 - 1.59

43 2 12 - 3.47

44 2 13 - 3.22

60 3 1 1.38 5.06

61 3 2 1.22 4.50

62 3 3 1.70 5.12

64 3 5 - 1.94

67 3 8 - 2.31

68 3 9 - 1.72

69 3 10 - 1.82

70 3 11 - 2.94

71 3 12 1.17 7.22

73 3 14 - 2.24

83 3 24 - 3.60

86 3 27 - 2.36

95 4 5 - 1.04

98 4 8 - 4.70

109 4 19 - 6.59

115 4 25 - 2.97

117 4 27 - 1.39

118 4 28 - 2.78

119 4 29 - 4.62

122 5 2 - 1.44

123 5 3 - 1.31

124 5 4 - 1.76

130 5 10 - 1.43

131 5 11 - 1.61

133 5 13 - 1.17

146 5 26 - 1.01

169 6 18 - 1.72

223 8 11 - 2.29

235 8 23 - 2.06

236 8 24 - 3.18

251 9 8 - 1.42

253 9 10 - 1.43

261 9 18 - 1.16

262 9 19 - 7.97

263 9 20 - 2.72

264 9 21 - 5.64

268 9 25 - 1.24

269 9 26 - 1.12

G-E-132
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

270 9 27 - 2.57

279 10 6 - 1.55

284 10 11 - 1.59

294 10 21 - 1.87

304 10 31 - 3.14

324 11 20 - 2.17

339 12 5 - 1.04

345 12 11 - 2.53

346 12 12 - 3.36

349 12 15 1.16 6.67

350 12 16 - 1.37

351 12 17 - 2.06

352 12 18 3.21 13.09

353 12 19 3.22 13.44

354 12 20 1.68 10.41

355 12 21 1.20 10.03

356 12 22 3.03 15.34

361 12 27 2.42 9.54

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 16 74

Maximum Δ dv 3.22 15.34

G-E-133
Table G-E.9.34 Cora - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

6 1 6 - 5.08

7 1 7 - 1.37

8 1 8 - 3.36

9 1 9 - 3.37

10 1 10 1.73 7.71

11 1 11 2.12 6.12

12 1 12 - 3.78

13 1 13 1.86 6.42

14 1 14 - 2.99

15 1 15 1.03 4.78

23 1 23 1.11 5.28

24 1 24 - 1.04

25 1 25 1.04 3.23

26 1 26 1.23 6.09

38 2 7 - 1.68

39 2 8 1.61 5.55

42 2 11 - 1.81

43 2 12 - 3.91

44 2 13 1.01 3.59

60 3 1 1.58 5.69

61 3 2 1.39 5.04

62 3 3 1.75 5.23

64 3 5 - 2.22

67 3 8 - 2.71

68 3 9 - 2.03

69 3 10 - 2.10

70 3 11 - 2.93

71 3 12 1.27 7.66

73 3 14 - 2.57

83 3 24 - 3.94

86 3 27 - 2.72

98 4 8 - 3.87

109 4 19 - 5.79

115 4 25 - 2.69

117 4 27 - 1.24

118 4 28 - 2.50

119 4 29 - 3.62

122 5 2 - 1.13

124 5 4 - 1.34

130 5 10 - 1.13

131 5 11 - 1.33

169 6 18 - 1.54

223 8 11 - 1.93

235 8 23 - 1.59

236 8 24 - 2.56

251 9 8 - 1.18

253 9 10 - 1.22

262 9 19 - 6.52

263 9 20 - 1.84

264 9 21 - 4.42

268 9 25 - 1.07

270 9 27 - 2.13

279 10 6 - 1.77

280 10 7 - 1.08

284 10 11 - 1.83

294 10 21 - 2.15

G-E-134
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

304 10 31 - 3.44

324 11 20 - 2.49

325 11 21 - 1.02

339 12 5 - 1.19

345 12 11 - 2.64

346 12 12 - 3.15

349 12 15 1.23 6.99

350 12 16 - 1.42

351 12 17 - 2.18

352 12 18 3.39 13.55

353 12 19 3.20 13.40

354 12 20 1.69 10.46

355 12 21 1.26 10.34

356 12 22 3.04 15.39

361 12 27 2.61 10.08

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 20 71

Maximum Δ dv 3.39 15.39

G-E-135
Table G-E.9.35 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 2.47

5 1 5 - 2.35

6 1 6 1.06 7.13

10 1 10 - 2.29

11 1 11 - 2.56

13 1 13 1.12 3.32

14 1 14 - 1.47

15 1 15 - 2.89

20 1 20 - 1.45

23 1 23 1.25 5.81

24 1 24 - 3.42

25 1 25 1.27 3.39

26 1 26 3.46 11.60

38 2 7 - 4.97

39 2 8 1.53 4.79

42 2 11 - 2.82

43 2 12 - 4.82

44 2 13 - 1.87

52 2 21 - 1.64

55 2 24 - 2.04

60 3 1 1.48 9.10

61 3 2 1.92 7.80

62 3 3 1.81 6.70

67 3 8 - 1.25

71 3 12 - 1.68

73 3 14 - 5.27

74 3 15 - 1.62

76 3 17 - 1.27

79 3 20 - 1.15

82 3 23 - 1.09

83 3 24 - 1.36

86 3 27 - 3.33

95 4 5 - 1.36

96 4 6 - 1.05

97 4 7 - 1.30

98 4 8 - 6.78

103 4 13 - 1.66

105 4 15 - 1.45

106 4 16 - 2.52

108 4 18 - 1.81

109 4 19 1.01 6.31

115 4 25 - 5.62

116 4 26 - 1.18

117 4 27 - 3.55

118 4 28 - 6.06

119 4 29 - 4.61

121 5 1 - 1.79

122 5 2 - 3.01

123 5 3 - 2.71

124 5 4 1.39 5.65

125 5 5 - 1.03

126 5 6 - 2.28

130 5 10 - 3.17

131 5 11 - 1.77

133 5 13 - 1.12

145 5 25 - 1.14

G-E-136
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

146 5 26 - 3.61

160 6 9 - 1.53

165 6 14 - 1.35

168 6 17 - 1.42

169 6 18 - 4.80

194 7 13 - 1.01

201 7 20 - 1.25

204 7 23 - 1.22

216 8 4 - 1.04

236 8 24 - 4.24

245 9 2 - 1.16

251 9 8 - 1.86

253 9 10 - 1.97

261 9 18 - 1.97

262 9 19 1.96 9.70

263 9 20 - 4.90

264 9 21 - 3.61

267 9 24 - 1.70

268 9 25 - 2.29

269 9 26 - 1.80

270 9 27 - 5.32

271 9 28 - 1.07

279 10 6 - 4.13

280 10 7 - 2.37

284 10 11 - 1.37

289 10 16 - 1.05

294 10 21 - 1.14

319 11 15 - 1.47

324 11 20 - 4.11

325 11 21 - 1.08

349 12 15 1.71 7.02

350 12 16 1.87 7.14

351 12 17 - 6.93

352 12 18 4.26 16.31

353 12 19 3.43 16.85

354 12 20 2.33 15.87

355 12 21 1.69 11.74

356 12 22 3.19 17.51

361 12 27 1.87 11.88

362 12 28 - 1.20

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 20 96

Maximum Δ dv 4.26 17.51

G-E-137
Table G-E.9.36 Daniel - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 2.91

5 1 5 - 2.66

6 1 6 1.21 7.87

10 1 10 - 2.36

11 1 11 - 2.68

13 1 13 1.21 3.55

14 1 14 - 1.44

15 1 15 1.02 3.06

20 1 20 - 1.69

23 1 23 1.49 6.67

24 1 24 - 3.99

25 1 25 1.49 3.90

26 1 26 3.46 11.59

38 2 7 - 5.59

39 2 8 1.76 5.41

42 2 11 - 3.19

43 2 12 1.05 5.39

44 2 13 - 2.10

52 2 21 - 1.94

55 2 24 - 2.40

60 3 1 1.70 10.03

61 3 2 2.19 8.60

62 3 3 1.86 6.83

67 3 8 - 1.49

69 3 10 - 1.06

71 3 12 - 1.82

73 3 14 - 5.95

74 3 15 - 1.90

76 3 17 - 1.49

79 3 20 - 1.36

82 3 23 - 1.27

83 3 24 - 1.50

86 3 27 - 3.81

95 4 5 - 1.28

97 4 7 - 1.20

98 4 8 - 5.67

103 4 13 - 1.61

105 4 15 - 1.37

106 4 16 - 2.36

108 4 18 - 1.72

109 4 19 - 5.53

115 4 25 - 5.14

116 4 26 - 1.04

117 4 27 - 3.22

118 4 28 - 5.52

119 4 29 - 3.62

121 5 1 - 1.57

122 5 2 - 2.40

123 5 3 - 1.85

124 5 4 1.05 4.49

126 5 6 - 1.92

130 5 10 - 2.56

131 5 11 - 1.46

146 5 26 - 2.72

160 6 9 - 1.16

165 6 14 - 1.32

G-E-138
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

168 6 17 - 1.31

169 6 18 - 4.37

201 7 20 - 1.02

204 7 23 - 1.04

236 8 24 - 3.44

251 9 8 - 1.54

253 9 10 - 1.69

261 9 18 - 1.46

262 9 19 1.51 8.04

263 9 20 - 3.43

264 9 21 - 2.76

267 9 24 - 1.35

268 9 25 - 1.99

269 9 26 - 1.47

270 9 27 - 4.51

279 10 6 - 4.65

280 10 7 - 2.70

284 10 11 - 1.58

289 10 16 - 1.21

294 10 21 - 1.31

319 11 15 - 1.69

324 11 20 - 4.65

325 11 21 - 1.24

349 12 15 1.82 7.35

350 12 16 1.92 7.32

351 12 17 - 7.25

352 12 18 4.48 16.82

353 12 19 3.41 16.81

354 12 20 2.35 15.94

355 12 21 1.77 12.08

356 12 22 3.21 17.56

361 12 27 2.03 12.48

362 12 28 - 1.31

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 21 89

Maximum Δ dv 4.48 17.56

G-E-139
Table G-E.9.37 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

2 1 2 1.37 5.11

3 1 3 - 2.46

6 1 6 1.81 5.25

16 1 16 - 3.14

17 1 17 - 2.01

20 1 20 - 2.48

21 1 21 6.40 13.46

22 1 22 3.06 8.23

23 1 23 - 2.65

27 1 27 3.08 8.73

28 1 28 - 2.35

29 1 29 3.00 7.18

40 2 9 3.72 6.88

42 2 11 - 2.15

45 2 14 2.26 5.18

51 2 20 2.12 4.25

52 2 21 5.81 10.14

53 2 22 6.39 12.73

54 2 23 2.03 5.67

55 2 24 - 2.93

56 2 25 7.44 12.62

57 2 26 - 1.46

58 2 27 - 2.08

59 2 28 1.23 4.13

73 3 14 - 1.35

75 3 16 3.73 11.46

77 3 18 - 1.22

85 3 26 - 1.32

89 3 30 - 1.58

91 4 1 - 2.40

95 4 5 - 1.39

97 4 7 - 1.71

99 4 9 - 1.12

108 4 18 - 2.04

110 4 20 - 1.52

112 4 22 - 1.73

114 4 24 - 1.44

115 4 25 - 1.82

118 4 28 1.91 4.04

119 4 29 3.87 9.25

120 4 30 - 1.73

121 5 1 - 1.37

122 5 2 2.63 5.69

123 5 3 - 1.63

127 5 7 1.25 3.05

132 5 12 4.24 8.11

136 5 16 1.17 2.69

138 5 18 1.40 2.97

139 5 19 1.96 4.66

141 5 21 1.92 3.98

146 5 26 2.18 4.97

147 5 27 5.24 8.94

156 6 5 - 1.80

160 6 9 - 1.42

161 6 10 - 1.22

183 7 2 - 3.30

G-E-140
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

187 7 6 1.32 2.58

230 8 18 - 1.28

255 9 12 - 1.16

266 9 23 - 1.53

272 9 29 - 1.04

273 9 30 1.22 4.12

274 10 1 - 1.49

275 10 2 2.28 5.44

278 10 5 1.19 3.15

281 10 8 - 2.02

282 10 9 - 1.59

283 10 10 2.49 4.58

288 10 15 - 1.97

289 10 16 - 1.84

290 10 17 1.17 3.38

296 10 23 2.66 6.53

308 11 4 - 2.23

318 11 14 - 1.36

319 11 15 - 1.63

320 11 16 2.86 6.17

321 11 17 4.71 9.13

322 11 18 - 1.75

323 11 19 1.45 5.73

324 11 20 2.04 4.84

325 11 21 - 1.81

326 11 22 - 1.80

331 11 27 1.35 4.19

349 12 15 - 2.05

353 12 19 4.07 7.92

354 12 20 7.21 13.14

355 12 21 2.16 6.09

356 12 22 1.60 4.32

357 12 23 2.39 5.19

358 12 24 1.79 5.13

359 12 25 1.68 4.36

360 12 26 - 1.36

361 12 27 - 1.48

362 12 28 1.42 4.38

363 12 29 1.37 3.70

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 47 95

Maximum Δ dv 7.44 13.46

G-E-141
Table G-E.9.38 Farson - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

2 1 2 1.48 5.43

3 1 3 - 2.63

6 1 6 1.90 5.48

16 1 16 - 3.17

17 1 17 - 2.06

20 1 20 - 2.63

21 1 21 6.83 14.12

22 1 22 3.29 8.72

23 1 23 - 2.76

27 1 27 3.18 8.95

28 1 28 - 2.53

29 1 29 3.24 7.65

40 2 9 4.06 7.42

42 2 11 - 2.39

45 2 14 2.34 5.32

51 2 20 2.16 4.32

52 2 21 5.59 9.82

53 2 22 6.42 12.78

54 2 23 2.07 5.76

55 2 24 - 2.97

56 2 25 7.64 12.89

57 2 26 - 1.59

58 2 27 - 2.23

59 2 28 1.29 4.30

73 3 14 - 1.38

75 3 16 4.06 12.17

77 3 18 - 1.41

85 3 26 - 1.54

89 3 30 - 1.85

91 4 1 - 2.27

95 4 5 - 1.33

97 4 7 - 1.47

108 4 18 - 1.34

110 4 20 - 1.12

112 4 22 - 1.19

114 4 24 - 1.11

115 4 25 - 1.27

118 4 28 1.43 3.10

119 4 29 3.04 7.62

120 4 30 - 1.30

122 5 2 1.72 3.91

123 5 3 - 1.27

127 5 7 1.06 2.61

132 5 12 3.32 6.59

136 5 16 1.05 2.43

138 5 18 1.29 2.75

139 5 19 1.81 4.36

141 5 21 1.64 3.43

146 5 26 1.51 3.59

147 5 27 4.06 7.17

156 6 5 - 1.67

160 6 9 - 1.21

161 6 10 - 1.01

183 7 2 - 2.70

187 7 6 1.11 2.20

230 8 18 - 1.10

G-E-142
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

266 9 23 - 1.27

273 9 30 - 3.46

274 10 1 - 1.67

275 10 2 2.54 5.97

278 10 5 1.31 3.43

281 10 8 - 2.30

282 10 9 - 1.82

283 10 10 2.82 5.13

288 10 15 - 2.24

289 10 16 - 2.09

290 10 17 1.34 3.81

296 10 23 2.70 6.61

308 11 4 - 2.48

318 11 14 - 1.28

319 11 15 - 1.55

320 11 16 2.78 6.01

321 11 17 4.73 9.17

322 11 18 - 1.91

323 11 19 1.51 5.94

324 11 20 2.15 5.08

325 11 21 - 2.01

326 11 22 - 1.95

331 11 27 1.48 4.56

349 12 15 - 2.13

353 12 19 4.21 8.14

354 12 20 7.49 13.52

355 12 21 2.31 6.42

356 12 22 1.72 4.60

357 12 23 2.58 5.55

358 12 24 1.94 5.50

359 12 25 1.82 4.67

360 12 26 - 1.50

361 12 27 - 1.62

362 12 28 1.54 4.72

363 12 29 1.38 3.74

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 46 91

Maximum Δ dv 7.64 14.12

G-E-143
Table G-E.9.39 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

5 1 5 7.67 14.23

6 1 6 3.58 9.37

16 1 16 - 1.39

19 1 19 - 1.43

20 1 20 1.39 4.28

21 1 21 - 1.65

22 1 22 1.57 5.34

23 1 23 - 1.19

26 1 26 - 1.62

27 1 27 6.73 12.81

29 1 29 - 1.81

38 2 7 - 1.17

39 2 8 1.12 1.68

60 3 1 - 1.44

73 3 14 - 1.85

88 3 29 - 1.23

98 4 8 - 1.56

107 4 17 - 1.27

108 4 18 - 3.61

111 4 21 - 3.24

112 4 22 1.12 2.42

113 4 23 - 2.16

116 4 26 - 1.35

117 4 27 - 2.66

118 4 28 - 1.77

121 5 1 1.44 3.81

122 5 2 - 1.63

123 5 3 2.59 4.80

124 5 4 1.33 2.15

129 5 9 - 1.12

130 5 10 - 1.03

131 5 11 - 3.44

133 5 13 - 1.70

134 5 14 - 1.10

142 5 22 1.29 2.43

143 5 23 - 1.31

146 5 26 - 1.34

147 5 27 - 4.16

148 5 28 1.21 3.02

149 5 29 - 2.35

154 6 3 - 1.44

155 6 4 1.69 3.51

159 6 8 1.29 1.85

160 6 9 - 1.70

161 6 10 3.23 7.33

162 6 11 - 2.38

171 6 20 - 1.02

174 6 23 - 1.24

179 6 28 1.22 1.48

200 7 19 1.35 2.84

201 7 20 - 3.11

204 7 23 - 1.08

212 7 31 - 1.26

215 8 3 - 1.01

234 8 22 - 1.11

261 9 18 - 1.51

G-E-144
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

263 9 20 - 3.17

264 9 21 1.64 2.42

267 9 24 1.14 1.97

272 9 29 1.12 8.02

273 9 30 - 1.19

351 12 17 2.16 3.96

353 12 19 1.41 3.37

354 12 20 2.75 7.30

355 12 21 1.87 5.05

356 12 22 - 1.57

362 12 28 - 1.93

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 24 67

Maximum Δ dv 7.67 14.23

G-E-145
Table G-E.9.40 La Barge - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

5 1 5 8.27 15.06

6 1 6 3.88 9.96

16 1 16 - 1.47

19 1 19 - 1.44

20 1 20 1.52 4.62

21 1 21 - 1.95

22 1 22 1.87 6.16

23 1 23 - 1.42

26 1 26 - 1.57

27 1 27 6.72 12.81

29 1 29 - 2.12

38 2 7 - 1.27

39 2 8 1.17 1.75

60 3 1 1.03 1.65

73 3 14 - 1.79

86 3 27 - 1.10

88 3 29 - 1.41

108 4 18 - 3.10

111 4 21 - 2.74

112 4 22 - 1.57

113 4 23 - 1.62

116 4 26 - 1.00

117 4 27 - 2.26

118 4 28 - 1.15

121 5 1 - 2.37

122 5 2 - 1.17

123 5 3 1.70 3.28

124 5 4 - 1.52

131 5 11 - 2.11

142 5 22 - 1.57

147 5 27 - 2.55

148 5 28 - 1.87

149 5 29 - 1.95

155 6 4 1.11 2.37

159 6 8 - 1.08

161 6 10 2.08 5.03

162 6 11 - 2.11

179 6 28 1.00 1.21

200 7 19 1.09 2.34

201 7 20 - 2.36

212 7 31 - 1.10

261 9 18 - 1.25

263 9 20 - 2.64

264 9 21 1.04 1.56

267 9 24 - 1.22

272 9 29 - 5.50

351 12 17 2.31 4.21

353 12 19 1.54 3.65

354 12 20 3.06 7.97

355 12 21 2.13 5.63

356 12 22 - 1.77

361 12 27 - 1.04

362 12 28 - 2.14

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 17 53

Maximum Δ dv 8.27 15.06

G-E-146
Table G-E.9.41 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 2.92

5 1 5 - 2.28

6 1 6 - 1.66

23 1 23 - 2.81

24 1 24 1.24 3.26

25 1 25 - 1.29

26 1 26 3.24 7.89

38 2 7 - 2.87

39 2 8 - 2.55

43 2 12 1.10 5.10

60 3 1 - 3.08

61 3 2 - 4.55

73 3 14 - 1.04

86 3 27 1.08 3.47

98 4 8 - 1.00

105 4 15 - 1.16

106 4 16 - 2.14

108 4 18 - 1.37

109 4 19 - 1.89

117 4 27 - 2.00

118 4 28 - 1.01

121 5 1 - 1.68

122 5 2 - 1.59

123 5 3 - 1.52

124 5 4 2.04 6.12

125 5 5 - 1.11

126 5 6 - 1.20

130 5 10 - 1.40

133 5 13 - 1.01

146 5 26 - 2.40

160 6 9 - 1.33

179 6 28 - 1.07

262 9 19 1.01 6.88

263 9 20 - 2.07

264 9 21 - 1.10

268 9 25 - 1.15

269 9 26 - 1.33

349 12 15 - 1.29

350 12 16 - 4.04

351 12 17 - 2.61

352 12 18 2.16 8.29

353 12 19 2.14 9.52

354 12 20 1.58 10.88

355 12 21 1.27 8.29

356 12 22 1.48 9.90

361 12 27 - 4.15

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 11 46

Maximum Δ dv 3.24 10.88

G-E-147
Table G-E.9.42 Merna - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

4 1 4 - 3.42

5 1 5 - 2.58

6 1 6 - 1.88

23 1 23 - 3.29

24 1 24 1.47 3.80

25 1 25 - 1.50

26 1 26 3.24 7.88

38 2 7 - 3.27

39 2 8 - 2.92

43 2 12 1.25 5.70

60 3 1 - 3.50

61 3 2 1.14 5.10

73 3 14 - 1.21

74 3 15 - 1.04

86 3 27 1.26 3.98

105 4 15 - 1.10

106 4 16 - 2.00

108 4 18 - 1.30

109 4 19 - 1.61

117 4 27 - 1.80

121 5 1 - 1.48

122 5 2 - 1.25

123 5 3 - 1.02

124 5 4 1.56 4.89

125 5 5 - 1.00

126 5 6 - 1.00

130 5 10 - 1.11

146 5 26 - 1.78

160 6 9 - 1.00

262 9 19 - 5.58

263 9 20 - 1.38

269 9 26 - 1.09

349 12 15 - 1.37

350 12 16 - 4.15

351 12 17 - 2.76

352 12 18 2.28 8.65

353 12 19 2.12 9.49

354 12 20 1.59 10.93

355 12 21 1.33 8.57

356 12 22 1.49 9.94

361 12 27 - 4.45

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 11 41

Maximum Δ dv 3.24 10.93

G-E-148
Table G-E.9.43 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using FLAG Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

5 1 5 - 1.19

6 1 6 1.57 7.62

7 1 7 - 2.68

8 1 8 - 5.69

9 1 9 - 4.52

10 1 10 1.80 7.63

11 1 11 2.02 6.00

12 1 12 1.50 5.89

13 1 13 2.25 7.71

14 1 14 - 7.01

15 1 15 1.34 5.52

20 1 20 - 1.63

22 1 22 - 1.68

23 1 23 1.05 5.92

25 1 25 - 2.27

26 1 26 - 4.52

29 1 29 - 1.27

38 2 7 - 1.55

39 2 8 1.31 5.04

40 2 9 - 1.07

42 2 11 - 3.06

43 2 12 - 3.32

44 2 13 - 3.95

45 2 14 - 4.13

48 2 17 - 1.31

52 2 21 - 1.46

55 2 24 - 1.29

59 2 28 - 1.73

60 3 1 1.80 5.75

61 3 2 1.13 4.03

62 3 3 1.19 3.89

63 3 4 - 1.46

64 3 5 - 2.52

66 3 7 - 1.95

67 3 8 1.07 3.11

68 3 9 1.26 2.79

69 3 10 - 1.20

70 3 11 - 3.03

71 3 12 1.69 7.18

72 3 13 - 2.89

73 3 14 - 2.41

77 3 18 - 1.01

80 3 21 - 1.52

83 3 24 - 2.53

85 3 26 - 1.05

86 3 27 - 2.52

95 4 5 - 1.09

96 4 6 - 1.54

98 4 8 - 5.47

109 4 19 - 5.50

110 4 20 - 1.29

114 4 24 - 1.04

115 4 25 - 3.99

117 4 27 - 1.37

118 4 28 - 3.06

119 4 29 - 6.57

120 4 30 - 2.70

G-E-149
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

122 5 2 - 1.37

123 5 3 - 1.11

124 5 4 - 1.49

130 5 10 - 1.05

131 5 11 - 2.37

133 5 13 - 1.41

146 5 26 - 1.07

169 6 18 - 2.17

222 8 10 - 1.25

223 8 11 - 2.97

235 8 23 - 5.50

236 8 24 - 2.96

248 9 5 - 1.12

251 9 8 - 1.47

253 9 10 - 1.29

261 9 18 - 1.89

262 9 19 - 7.21

263 9 20 - 4.71

264 9 21 - 5.04

267 9 24 - 1.22

268 9 25 - 1.40

269 9 26 - 1.51

270 9 27 - 2.54

278 10 5 - 1.41

279 10 6 - 1.47

280 10 7 - 1.24

284 10 11 - 1.64

294 10 21 - 2.02

303 10 30 - 1.68

304 10 31 - 3.96

309 11 5 - 1.93

310 11 6 - 1.23

311 11 7 - 1.11

313 11 9 - 1.00

324 11 20 - 2.00

325 11 21 - 1.09

327 11 23 - 1.11

330 11 26 - 1.20

335 12 1 - 1.55

337 12 3 - 1.63

339 12 5 - 2.07

341 12 7 - 2.12

343 12 9 - 2.68

344 12 10 - 8.80

345 12 11 - 3.69

346 12 12 - 5.39

347 12 13 - 1.11

349 12 15 1.09 6.84

351 12 17 - 1.53

352 12 18 4.27 12.00

353 12 19 3.97 14.82

354 12 20 2.27 11.03

355 12 21 1.58 11.88

356 12 22 4.87 17.91

357 12 23 - 1.58

360 12 26 - 1.52

361 12 27 3.24 9.35

362 12 28 - 1.14

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 21 115

Maximum Δ dv 4.87 17.91

G-E-150
Table G-E.9.44 Pinedale - Summary of Days Above Visibility Thresholds Using IMPROVE Background Data

Predicted Δ dv Shown for Early Project Development Stage - Direct and Cumulative Modeled Scenarios - MVISBK=2

Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

5 1 5 - 1.36

6 1 6 1.78 8.39

7 1 7 - 2.88

8 1 8 - 5.93

9 1 9 - 4.82

10 1 10 1.86 7.81

11 1 11 2.11 6.23

12 1 12 1.68 6.47

13 1 13 2.42 8.15

14 1 14 - 6.90

15 1 15 1.43 5.81

20 1 20 - 1.90

22 1 22 - 1.99

23 1 23 1.25 6.79

25 1 25 - 2.63

26 1 26 - 4.52

29 1 29 - 1.48

38 2 7 - 1.79

39 2 8 1.51 5.68

40 2 9 - 1.22

42 2 11 - 3.46

43 2 12 - 3.74

44 2 13 1.07 4.38

45 2 14 - 4.61

48 2 17 - 1.53

52 2 21 - 1.72

55 2 24 - 1.53

59 2 28 - 1.95

60 3 1 2.07 6.44

61 3 2 1.29 4.53

62 3 3 1.22 3.99

63 3 4 - 1.61

64 3 5 - 2.87

66 3 7 - 2.28

67 3 8 1.26 3.62

68 3 9 1.49 3.27

69 3 10 - 1.39

70 3 11 - 3.02

71 3 12 1.83 7.62

72 3 13 - 3.26

73 3 14 - 2.77

74 3 15 - 1.05

77 3 18 - 1.19

80 3 21 - 1.67

83 3 24 - 2.78

85 3 26 - 1.22

86 3 27 - 2.90

95 4 5 - 1.03

96 4 6 - 1.45

98 4 8 - 4.53

109 4 19 - 4.80

110 4 20 - 1.22

115 4 25 - 3.63

117 4 27 - 1.23

118 4 28 - 2.75

119 4 29 - 5.25

G-E-151
Scenario

Julian Day Month Day 1 2

120 4 30 - 2.30

122 5 2 - 1.07

124 5 4 - 1.13

131 5 11 - 1.96

133 5 13 - 1.20

169 6 18 - 1.96

222 8 10 - 1.04

223 8 11 - 2.50

235 8 23 - 4.39

236 8 24 - 2.38

251 9 8 - 1.22

253 9 10 - 1.10

261 9 18 - 1.40

262 9 19 - 5.86

263 9 20 - 3.28

264 9 21 - 3.92

268 9 25 - 1.21

269 9 26 - 1.23

270 9 27 - 2.11

278 10 5 - 1.43

279 10 6 - 1.69

280 10 7 - 1.42

284 10 11 - 1.88

285 10 12 - 1.12

294 10 21 - 2.31

303 10 30 - 1.64

304 10 31 - 4.33

309 11 5 - 2.20

310 11 6 - 1.40

311 11 7 - 1.26

313 11 9 - 1.14

319 11 15 - 1.08

324 11 20 - 2.30

325 11 21 - 1.25

327 11 23 - 1.28

329 11 25 - 1.13

330 11 26 - 1.31

335 12 1 - 1.77

337 12 3 - 1.87

339 12 5 - 2.37

341 12 7 - 2.42

343 12 9 - 3.03

344 12 10 - 8.79

345 12 11 - 3.84

346 12 12 - 5.07

347 12 13 - 1.11

349 12 15 1.16 7.17

351 12 17 - 1.62

352 12 18 4.49 12.44

353 12 19 3.95 14.78

354 12 20 2.29 11.09

355 12 21 1.65 12.23

356 12 22 4.90 17.96

357 12 23 - 1.72

360 12 26 - 1.64

361 12 27 3.48 9.88

362 12 28 - 1.24

Number of Days Δ dv >= 1.0 22 113

Maximum Δ dv 4.90 17.96

G-E-152
Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

D

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Early Project Development -- 0.049 3.45 0.004 3.40 0.016 3.42 

Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.333 3.73 0.035 3.43 0.085 3.49 

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

D

Alternative WDR Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Early Project Development -- 0.003 3.40 0.001 3.40 0.001 3.40 

Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.045 3.44 0.016 3.42 0.010 3.41 

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 100 μg/m3 on an annual b

Table G-E.10.1 - Summary of Maximum Modeled NO2 Concentration Impacts (μg/m3) at PSD Class I and 

Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources

Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

G-E-153
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

Early Project Development -- 0.224 0.064 0.004 132.2 43.1 9.0 0.066 0.015 0.001 132.1 43.0 9.0 0.082 0.018 0.002 132.1 43.0 9.0 0.Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.847 0.210 0.014 132.8 43.2 9.0 0.249 0.064 0.001 132.2 43.1 9.0 0.204 0.048 0.002 132.2 43.0 9.0 0.2Alternative 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 3Early Project Development -- 0.037 0.011 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.0 0.019 0.007 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.0 0.015 0.006 0.000 132.0 43.0 9.0 0.Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.354 0.093 0.008 132.4 43.1 9.0 0.093 0.029 0.003 132.1 43.0 9.0 0.096 0.025 0.002 132.1 43.0 9.0 0.

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 1,300 μg/m 3 on a 3-hour basis, 365/260 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour ba

 and 80/60 μg/m3 on an annual basis.

Table G-E.10.2 - Summary of Maximum Modeled SO2 Concentration (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Areas fro

Stage and Regional Sources

Direct Modeled Impact

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total Concentration1

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I

Direct Modeled 

Direct Modeled Impact Impact

Total Concentration1 Total Concentration1

Total Concentration1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total Concentration1

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

Total Concentration1

G-E-154
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 2

Early Project Development -- 0.956 0.047 34.0 16.0 0.269 0.010 33.3 16.0 0.318 0.022 33.3 16.0 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 2.560 0.171 35.6 16.2 0.968 0.044 34.0 16.0 0.976 0.073 34.0 16.1 0Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 2Early Project Development -- 0.303 0.007 33.3 16.0 0.255 0.004 33.3 16.0 0.208 0.003 33.2 16.0 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.792 0.039 33.8 16.0 0.385 0.024 33.4 16.0 0.339 0.015 33.3 16.0 0

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS whaich are 150 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 50 μg/m 3 on an annual ba

Direct Modeled Impact

Total Concentration1

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Total Concentration1

Total Concentration1

Dir

Direct Modeled Impact

Table G-E.10.3 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM10 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Development Stage and Regional Sources

Dir

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact

Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact

G-E-155
Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 2

Early Project Development -- 0.956 0.047 14.0 5.1 0.269 0.010 13.3 5.0 0.318 0.022 13.3 5.0 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 2.550 0.173 15.5 5.2 0.962 0.045 14.0 5.1 0.972 0.076 14.0 5.1 0Alternative WDR 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 24-hr Annual 2Early Project Development -- 0.213 0.006 13.2 5.0 0.145 0.004 13.1 5.0 0.120 0.003 13.1 5.0 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.788 0.039 13.8 5.0 0.384 0.024 13.4 5.0 0.338 0.015 13.3 5.0 0

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration for comparison to NAAQS/WAAQS which are 65 μg/m 3 on a 24-hour basis and 15 μg/m 3 on an annual bas

Dir

Dir

Teton Wilderness Class I

Total Concentration1

Yellowstone National Park Class I

Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact

Grand Teton National Park Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Table G-E.10.4 - Summary of Maximum Modeled PM2.5 Concentration Impacts (

μg/m3) at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Clas

Development Stage and Regional Sources

Bridger Wilderness Class I

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Direct Modeled Impact Total Concentration1

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II

Total Concentration1 Direct Modeled Impact Direct Modeled Impact

G-E-156
Direct Modeled 

Impact

Total 

Concentration1

NAAQS/

WAAQS

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-

Early Project Development -- 18.8 22.2 100 30.5 9.7 1.2 162.5 52.7 10.2 1,300 365/260 80/60 82.6 12.9 115.6 28.9 150 50 36.Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 27.1 30.5 100 37.7 12.1 1.7 169.7 55.1 10.7 1,300 365/260 80/60 89.0 15.0 122.0 31.0 150 50 49.

1 Total concentration includes direct modeled impact and background concentration.

PM10

Direct Modeled 

Impact

SO2

Table G-E.10.5 - Summary of Maximum Modeled In-field Pollutant Concentrations (μg/m3) from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources 

NAAQS/WAAQS

Total Concentration 

1

Direct Modeled 

Impact

Dire

NAAQS/WAAQS 

Total 

Concentration1 NAAQS/WAAQS

NO2 

G-E-157
Alternative WDR Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Early Project Development -- 0.0134 0.0031 0.0093 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.0961 0.0249 0.0491 Total Impact2 -- 1.5961 1.5249 1.5491 

Alternative WDR Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Early Project Development -- 0.0019 0.0011 0.0007 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.0202 0.0113 0.0076 Total Impact2 -- 1.5202 1.5113 1.5076 

1 Nitrogen deposition analysis threshold for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr, level of concern for total impacts is 3.00 kg/ha-yr.2 Total impact includes N deposition value of 1.5 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

Table G-E.10.6 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Nitrogen (N) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I and Sensiti

Project Development Stage and Regional Sources1

G-E-158
Alternative WDR Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Early Project Development -- 0.00176 0.00051 0.00135 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.0062 0.0010 0.0012 Total Impact2 -- 0.7562 0.7510 0.7512 

Alternative WDR Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I Early Project Development -- 0.00030 0.00018 0.00011 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.0048 0.0023 0.0015 Total Impact2 -- 0.7548 0.7523 0.7515 

1 Sulfur deposition analysis threshold for direct Project impacts = 0.005 kg/ha-yr, level of concern for total impacts is 5.00 kg/ha-yr.2 Total impact includes S deposition value of 0.75 kg/ha-yr measured at the CASTNET NADP site near Pinedale for the year 2001.

Table G-E.10.7 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Sulfur (S) Deposition Impacts (kg/ha-yr) at PSD Class I a

II Areas from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources1

G-E-159
ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC 

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μ

Level of Acceptable Change (meq/L) -- 6.70 -- 5.99 -- 6.99 -- Background -- 67.0 -- 59.9 -- 69.9 -- Early Project Development -- 0.064 0.10% 0.068 0.11% 0.040 0.06% 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.350 0.52% 0.371 0.62% 0.278 0.40% 0

ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change ANC Change

Percent ANC 

Change

Alternative WDR (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%) (μeq/L) (%)Level of Acceptable Change (meq/L) -- 1.00 -- 5.55 -- 5.35 --Background -- 5.0 -- 55.5 -- 53.5 --Early Project Development -- 0.073 1.45% 0.079 0.14% 0.019 0.04%Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 0.398 7.96% 0.394 0.71% 0.136 0.26%

Bridger Wilderness Class I Bridger Wilderness Class I B

Bridger Wilderness Class IBridger Wilderness Class I

Table G-E.10.8 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Change in ANC ( μeq/L) at Acid Sensitive Lakes from 

Development Stage and Regional Sources

Popo Agie Wilderness Class II Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I

Black Joe Lake Deep Lake Hobbs Lake 

Upper Frozen Lake Lower Saddlebag Ross Lake

G-E-160
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

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) 

Early Project Development -- 2.19 28 8 0.86 4 0 0.95 6 0 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 6.04 124 61 3.06 25 11 3.04 50 20 

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

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) 

Early Project Development -- 0.66 1 0 0.36 0 0 0.32 0 0 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 2.60 24 8 1.31 15 4 1.21 6 3 Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I 

Table G-E.10.9 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Development Stage and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data - MVISBK = 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

G-E-161
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

M

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) 

Early Project Development -- 2.42 34 9 0.95 5 0 1.06 10 2 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 6.57 128 59 3.37 27 11 3.35 51 23 

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

M

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) 

Early Project Development -- 0.67 1 0 0.37 0 0 0.32 0 0 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 2.63 20 8 1.33 12 4 1.23 5 3 Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

Table G-E.10.10 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II 

Development Stage and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data - MVISBK 

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I

G-E-162
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

Ma

Vi

Im

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (

Early Project Development -- 5.92 46 22 2.40 9 3 1.46 21 1 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 13.51 147 94 8.12 53 26 4.98 93 50 

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

Ma

V

Im

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (

Early Project Development -- 1.59 8 2 1.18 5 1 1.04 2 1 Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 4.46 52 31 3.94 44 28 3.54 33 16 Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

Table G-E.10.11 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II A

Development Stage and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data - MVISBK = 2

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

G-E-163
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

Vis

Im

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δ

Early Project Development -- 5.95 47 21 2.42 8 4 1.08 18 1 1Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 13.56 143 95 8.15 52 19 3.67 89 49 3

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

Vis

Im

Alternative (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δdv) (days) (days) (Δ

Early Project Development -- 1.32 5 1 0.97 3 0 0.85 2 0 0Early Project Development and Regional Sources -- 3.76 46 26 3.32 36 20 2.98 29 11 3Note: Δdv = change in deciview.

Table G-E.10.12 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at PSD Class I and Sensitive PSD Class II Ar

Development Stage and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data - MVISBK = 2 

Grand Teton National Park Class I Teton Wilderness Class I Yellowstone National Park Class I W

Bridger Wilderness Class I Fitzpatrick Wilderness Class I Popo Agie Wilderness Class II W

G-E-164
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 (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 5.91 24 3.33 21 3.06 13 1.56 4 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 13.31 85 7.60 107 9.83 131 8.92 63 

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 (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 2.65 13 4.74 31 5.11 10 2.15 6 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 11.88 88 9.89 77 10.14 37 5.58 33 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

Big Piney

Table G-E.10.13 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data - 

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna

Big Sandy Boulder Bronx

G-E-165
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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 6.62 24 3.66 24 3.37 18 1.79 8 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 14.43 79 8.42 108 10.59 130 9.60 56 

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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 2.93 14 5.18 33 5.73 11 2.46 7 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 12.68 86 10.85 77 11.12 39 6.25 33 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

Daniel Farson Labarge Merna 

Big Sandy Boulder

Table G-E.10.14 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data 

Big Piney Bronx 

G-E-166
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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 8.34 44 7.64 27 7.70 18 2.66 16 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 17.65 110 15.89 91 19.09 126 13.04 73 

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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 4.26 20 7.44 47 7.67 24 3.24 11 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 17.51 96 13.46 95 14.23 67 10.88 46 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

Bronx

Table G-E.10.15 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources Using FLAG Background Data - 

Merna 

Daniel Farson Labarge

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder

G-E-167
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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 8.61 34 7.67 29 7.74 20 2.66 16 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 18.55 105 15.94 98 19.14 123 13.08 65 

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

M

Alternative (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) (Δdv)1 (days) 

Early Project Development 4.48 21 7.64 46 8.27 17 3.24 11 Early Project Development and Regional Sources 17.56 89 14.12 91 15.06 53 10.93 41 

1 Δdv = change in deciview.

Bronx

Table G-E.10.16 - Summary of Maximum Modeled Visibility Impacts at Wyoming Regional Comm

from Early Project Development Stage and Regional Sources Using IMPROVE Background Data 

Merna 

Daniel Farson Labarge

Big Piney Big Sandy Boulder

G-E-168