From: Warden, Lee <Lee.Warden@deq.ok.gov>

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:32 AM

To: Feldman, Michael; Bradley, Cheryl

Subject:RE: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

Michael,

In the spreadsheet I sent there were two diff projections. One was a "method 1" projection averaging  

the rrf derived dv and the other was the averaged rrf derived extinction values.  We appear to have  

mistakenly taken the extinction value and calculated dv.  This is inconsistent with our documentation  

indicating the use of method 1.

For the 2018 base g c1 "control" run, Texas and Environ are correct and our dv number is incorrect.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy STM III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

From: "Warden, Lee"

Date:07/11/2014 5:58 PM (GMT‐06:00)

To: "'Feldman, Michael'"

Subject: RE: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

From: Feldman, Michael [mailto:Feldman.Michael@epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 4:21 PM

To: Warden, Lee

Subject: FW: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

Lee –I’m trying to sort out the differences between data in the Texas SIP and the OK SIP with regard to  

the CENRAP control case scenario results.

Erik sent you an email about this back in January (see email below)  and I know that you discussed this  

with him but I don’t have a record of your response and Erik is currently out on vacation.

Specifically for WIMO, the CENRAP TSD and the TX RH SIP show a 0.75 dv improvement from the  

additional controls in the CENRAP control case sensitivity modeling run.  The OK RH SIP shows a 0.5 dv  

improvement.

Was there an additional control case model run? If so, can you identify the changes that were made  

between the two control case runs that account for the difference in visibility at WIMO?
Thank you,

Michael Feldman, PhD

Environmental Engineer

Air Planning Section

U.S. EPA Region 6, 6PD‐L

Phone: 214‐665‐9793

feldman.michael@epa.gov<mailto:feldman.michael@epa.gov>

From: Snyder, Erik

Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 9:36 AM

To: Feldman, Michael

Subject: FW: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

From: Warden, Lee [mailto:Lee.Warden@deq.ok.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:33 AM

To: Snyder, Erik

Subject: RE: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

Erik, I’m sort of busy today.  Is there a problem if I look in to this tomorrow?

From: Snyder, Erik [mailto:snyder.erik@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:07 AM

To: Warden, Lee

Subject: Projections at Wichita Mtns.

Hi Lee,

Appreciate the help on this.  I’ve attached excerpts from the CENRAP TSD and ODEQ RH TSD.  What I am  

trying to  clarify is what is resulting in the differences for the 2018 Base G Control Case for Wichita Mtns.

In the Environ/UCR report excerpt it gives the 2018 Base G as 21.47 dv and C1 control strategy as 20.72  

dv.  In the ODEQ TSD (page 109) it indicates that the simulations are for Base G.  In the table the 2018  

Base is 21.47 dv (which matches Environ).  In the table for the 2018 Base G with control scenario it  

indicates 20.97 dv, which is higher than the 20.72 from the Environ/UCR report.   Can you explain the  

difference.  From the write‐up in the ODEQ TSD, I was unclear if you all may have done a further run that  

might have incorporated other changes or controls.

Thanks,

Erik