1

PINEDALE ANTICLINE SPATIAL AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT PASQUA

2010-2011 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION SURVEYS

11/01/2010 to 04/30/2011

Data Summaries and Plots

Prepared for

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 122 West 25th Street

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

Prepared by

Jeffrey Soltis and Robert Field University of Wyoming

Atmospheric Science Department 1000 East University Avenue

Laramie, WY 82071

With support from

Derek Montague Brittni Emery Abram Pearce

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-1. Map showing overview of the study area. ................................................................... 7

Figure 2-2. Map showing June 2011 well locations. ...................................................................... 8 3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Spatial Monitoring Specifications ........................................................................................ 9 3.1.1 Monitoring site selection.................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Monitoring site locations – VOC canisters ........................................................................ 9 Table 3-1. Spatial canister survey monitoring sites and survey numbers..................................... 10

Figure 3-1. Map showing locations of VOC canister survey sites. .............................................. 11 Figure 3-2. Map showing locations of VOC canister survey sites by survey............................... 12

3.1.3 Monitoring site locations – BTEX/NOX samplers........................................................... 12 Table 3-2. Spatial BTEX, NO and NO2 Survey Monitoring Sites............................................... 13

Figure 3-3. Map showing locations of BTEX and NOX survey sites. .......................................... 14 3.2 Spatial monitoring equipment ............................................................................................. 15

3.2.1 Spatial monitoring equipment – canisters........................................................................ 15 3.2.2 Spatial monitoring equipment – passive samplers........................................................... 15

3.3 Spatial monitoring sampling ............................................................................................... 15 Table 3-3. Ambient air survey dates. ............................................................................................ 16

3.5 Sampling protocols.............................................................................................................. 16 3.5.1 Sampling protocols – Canisters ....................................................................................... 16

3.5.2 Sampling protocols – BTEX............................................................................................ 16 3.5.3 Sampling protocols – NOX............................................................................................... 17

3.6 Validation ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.6.1 Field Validation – blanks ................................................................................................. 17

3.6.2 Field Validation – passive sampler co-location ............................................................... 17 Table 3-4. BTEX/NOX co-located sites. ....................................................................................... 18

3.7 Sample Analysis.................................................................................................................. 18 3.7.1 Sample Analysis – canisters............................................................................................. 18

3.7.2 Sample Analysis – NOX passive samplers....................................................................... 18 3.7.3 Sample Analysis – BTEX passive samplers .................................................................... 18

4.0 Results – Spatial Surveys .................................................................................................... 19

3

4.0.1 Survey One – Spatial Canister Survey............................................................................. 19 Table 4-1. Measured compounds in ppb for survey one (16 November 2010 – 17 November 2010). ............................................................................................................................................ 19 4.0.2 Survey Two – Spatial Canister Survey ............................................................................ 20

Table 4-2. Measured compounds in ppb for survey two (14 December 2010 – 15 December 2010). ............................................................................................................................................ 20

4.0.3 Survey Three – Spatial Canister Survey .......................................................................... 21 Table 4-3. Measured compounds in ppb for survey three (01 February 2011 – 02 February 2011)........................................................................................................................................................ 21 4.0.4 Survey Four – Spatial Canister Survey............................................................................ 22

Table 4-4. Measured compounds in ppb for survey four (16 February 2011 – 17 February 2011)........................................................................................................................................................ 22

4.0.5 Survey Five – Spatial Canister, BTEX and NOx Survey ................................................ 23 Table 4-5. Measured compounds in ppb for survey five (22 February 2011 – 01 March 2011).. 23

Table 4-7. NOX Measured compounds in ppb for survey five (22 February 2011 – 01 March 2011). ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4-1. Map showing locations of benzene. ........................................................................... 27 Figure 4-2. Map showing locations of toluene. ............................................................................ 28

Figure 4-3. Map showing locations of ethylbenzene. ................................................................... 29 Figure 4-4. Map showing locations of m+p-xylene...................................................................... 30

Figure 4-5. Map showing locations of o-xylene. .......................................................................... 31 Figure 4-6. Map showing locations of NOX. ................................................................................ 32

Figure 4-7. Map showing locations of NOX, including DEQ-AQD monitoring locations........... 33 4.0.6 Survey Six – Spatial Canister Survey .............................................................................. 34

Table 4-8. Measured compounds in ppb for survey six (10 March 2011 – 11 March 2011). ...... 34 4.0.7 All Surveys – Spatial Canister Survey............................................................................. 35

Table 4-9. Measured compounds in ppb for six surveys. ............................................................. 35 Figure 4-8. Measurement means for alkanes, alkenes (and alkynes), and aromatics for six surveys. ......................................................................................................................................... 36 4.1 Validation ............................................................................................................................ 36

4.1.1 Comparative canister analysis.......................................................................................... 36 Table 4-9. Comparative Canister analysis by UW and Air Toxics inc......................................... 37

4.1.2 Co-location....................................................................................................................... 37 Table 4-10. Simultaneous sampling and analysis of BTEX compounds using canister and passive sampling methodologies ............................................................................................................... 37

4

6.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 38 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... 39

5

1.0 INTRODUCTION The University of Wyoming’s (UW) Atmospheric Science Department (ATSC) Pinedale

Anticline Spatial Air Quality Survey (PASQUA) study commenced in November 2011. UW designed and implemented six VOC canister surveys, one BTEX, and one NOX spatial distribution survey. These spatial distribution surveys were conducted through a contract with the Pinedale Anticline Project Office (PAPO) with oversight by Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division (DEQ-AQD), and with the support of the UW School of Energy Resources. This report describes work performed for each of the surveys conducted during the period from November 2010 through April 2011.

Any comments or questions regarding this report should be addressed to:

Dr. Robert Field, Principal Investigator RField1@uwyo.edu

(307) 766-2158

University of Wyoming Atmospheric Science Department

1000 East University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071

Or

Dr. Derek Montague, Principal Investigator

DCM@uwyo.edu (307) 766-4949

University of Wyoming

Atmospheric Science Department 1000 East University Avenue

Laramie, WY 82071

Or

Ken Rairigh, Project Manager

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division 122 West 25th Street

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

6

2.0 BACKGROUND A spatial survey using passive sampling enables an assessment of pollutant distribution

over relatively large geographic areas. This approach has utility for a number of purposes – most often to determine where elevated pollutant levels reside within an area. When monitoring data from spatial surveys are displayed as contour maps, pollutant behavior can be visualized. Contour maps are useful for determination of which areas contain either higher and lower pollutant levels. Contour maps may also be used to evaluate options for placement of monitoring stations.

This study conducted spatial sampling in Sublette County in the vicinity of the Pinedale Anticline Development Area (PAPA) and Jonah Field (Jonah) oil and gas developments. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the study area with population centers indicated. The map in Figure 2-2 indicates the location of the PAPA and Jonah developments. Sampling was conducted during the winter of 2010-2011. The first survey took place in November 2010 and the final survey was conducted in mid-March 2011.

Three techniques were used during monitoring for PASQUA – canister sampling of speciated VOCs, diffusive sampling of BTEX, and passive sampling of NOX (NO and NO2). Six VOC surveys were conducted using 6L Entech Silonite canister samplers. During five of the VOC surveys, samplers were placed in the field for 24 hours, a sixth VOC survey was conducted for a period of one week. The BTEX surveys were conducted using Radiello diffusive samplers. The NOX survey was conducted using ambient air passive samplers by Ogawa. BTEX and NOX surveys were conducted simultaneously for a period of one week.

For the purpose of spatial monitoring during PASQUA, sixty ambient monitoring sites were selected to represent different positions relative to the PAPA and Jonah developments. Maps are provided in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 that indicate the location of each of these monitoring sites.

7

Figure 2-1. Map showing overview of the study area.

8

Figure 2-2. Map showing June 2011 well locations.

9

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Spatial Monitoring Specifications

3.1.1 Monitoring site selection Sixty unique sampling locations were chosen for the spatial survey study conducted as part of the UW ATSC PASQUA project. Twenty-four sites were used during six canister sampling surveys; fifty-five sites were used during the BTEX and NOX surveys. Eleven canisters were co-located with BTEX and NOX samplers during survey five. Sites were selected through the use of a simple ten by ten grid projected over the study area. Based on this grid, approximately 108 sites were located. Final site locations were determined through consultation with DEQ-AQD, based upon criteria including modeling needs, representativeness, accessibility, and safety.

3.1.2 Monitoring site locations – VOC canisters Six VOC canister surveys were conducted during PASQUA. Surveys one and two are considered wide area surveys. The goal of canister placement for surveys one and two was to assess pollutant distribution in the entire development region, including potential upwind and downwind source locations. Canister placement for surveys three and five was shifted towards the east and provided a more focused picture of PAPA development area. The goal for sampler placement for survey five was to measure values along a generally northwest to southeast line transecting PAPA. Table 3-1 provides a listing of the twenty-four canister survey site names and positions, including which survey they were used for. Figure 3-1 provides a map that displays the locations of the canister sites. Figure 3-2 provides four maps, which show canister survey locations for each of the six surveys. The different distributions were a result of the study design. The map for surveys 1 and 2 show the widest distribution that aimed to give a broad assessment of ambient concentrations. Surveys 3 and 5 were the same, though two sampler valves malfunctioned during survey 5. These surveys gave a greater focus upon PAPA. The results of survey 3 informed the selection of sites for surveys 4 and 6. These surveys were designed as a transect through the most concentrated oil and gas development.

10

Table 3-1. Spatial canister survey monitoring sites and survey numbers. Survey No.

No. Site Name Position 1 2 3 4 5* 6 1 CALPET ROAD 42.3810,-110.2837 X X 2 DRY PINEY 42.41150,-110.1206 X X 3 BIG PINEY HIGH SCHOOL 42.5391,-110.1207 X X 4 OLSON RANCH 42.5993, -109.8696 X X X 5 DEQ DANIEL 42.7913,-110.0543 X X 6 DEQ PINEDALE 42.8698,-109.8711 X X 7 DEQ BOULDER 42.7184,-109.7522 X X X X X X 8 DEQ JUEL SPRINGS 42.3716, -109.5504 X X X 9 SPEEDWAY CD TRAIL/IRISH CANYON 42.6437, -109.4704 X X X X

10 BUCKHORN 42.3522,-109.8543 X X X X 11 LUMAN ROAD 42.4656, -109.5776 X X X X 12 QEP 1. MESA NORTH 42.7530, -109.8577 X X X X 13 QEP 4. MESA SOUTH 42.7065, -109.8232 X X X X 14 WARBONNET DEQ 6. 7-07B 42.5671,-109.7018 X X X X 15 YELLOWPOINT STUDHORSE 42.4508,-109.6899 X X 16 BOULDER SOUTH ROAD 42.6840,-109.7083 17 BOULDER LAKE BLAK2 42.7688,-109.6712 X X 18 MESA TOP 1. 02-04A 42.8357, -109.8838 X X 19 PARADISE ROAD 3. 5-06A 42.6806, -109.7956 X X 20 MESA MIDDLE QEP 2. 047 42.7396, 109.8427 X X 21 BOULDER CREST UW1 4.5-06B 42.6593, -109.7845 X X 22 BOULDER 351 UW2 1. 013 42.6274, -109.7540 X X 23 MIDDLE CREST DEQ 7. 6-07 42.6032, -109.7285 X X 24 MIDDLE FORK DEQ 5. 7-07A 42.5430, -109.6614 X X

* Survey five was conducted for a period of seven days. These sites were co-located with BTEX/NOx samplers during this period.

11

Figure 3-1. Map showing locations of VOC canister survey sites.

12

Figure 3-2. Map showing locations of VOC canister survey sites by survey.

Surveys 1 & 2.

Survey 3.

Surveys 4 & 6. Survey 5.

3.1.3 Monitoring site locations – BTEX/NOX samplers BTEX and NOX sampling sites were chosen using the same criteria that were employed in choosing the canister sampling sites. Nineteen of the BTEX/NOX sites coincide with canister sites, and nine of these sites were co-located with canister sites during survey five. Table 3-2 lists the fifty-five sites used during the BTEX/NOX survey. By using fifty-five sites, sampler density was much higher than in the VOC surveys, as shown in Figure 3-3. Additionally, samplers were placed both west and east of the PAPA and Jonah developments. These sites were along Green River Road and County Highway 353, respectively.

13

Table 3-2. Spatial BTEX, NO and NO2 Survey Monitoring Sites No. Site Name Route Position

1 BLM 1. 1-02 BLM 1 42.8775, -109.9749 2 BLM 2. AA28NEW BLM 2 42.8267, -109.9648 3 BLM 3. NEW Hennick Draw BLM 3 42.8032, -109.9623 4 BLM 4. 3-03A BLM 4 42.7797, -109.9624 5 BLM 5. 4-03B BLM 5 42.6931, -109.955 6 BLM 6. 06-03A BLM 6 42.6112, -109.9283 7 BLM 7. 067 BLM 7 42.6029, -109.923 8 BLM 8. 004 BLM 8 42.5775, -109.929 9 BP 1. LUMAN BP 1 42.4656, -109.5776

10 CURED 1. 3-08 CURED 1 42.7503, -109.6756 11 CURED 2. 048 CURED 2 42.7466, -109.7345 12 CURED 3. 077 CURED 3 42.8157, -109.8397 13 CURED 4. 076 CURED 4 42.8156, -109.7938 14 DEQ 1. BUCKHORN DEQ 1 42.3522, -109.8543 15 DEQ 2. YELLOWPOINT/STUDHORSE DEQ 2 42.4508, -109.6899 16 DEQ 3. 071 DEQ 3 42.4902, -109.6786 17 DEQ 4. 070 DEQ 4 42.527, -109.6678 18 DEQ 5. 7-07A MIDDLE FORK DEQ 5 42.543, -109.6614 19 DEQ 6. 7-07B WARBONNET DEQ 6 42.5671, -109.7018 20 DEQ 7. 6-07 MIDDLE CREST DEQ 7 42.6032, -109.7285 21 QEP 1. MESA NORTH QEP 1 42.753, -109.8577 22 QEP 2. 047 MESA MIDDLE QEP 2 42.7396, -109.8427 23 QEP 3. 075 QEP 3 42.7318, -109.8262 24 QEP 4. MESA SOUTH QEP 4 42.7065, -109.8232 25 SCCD 1. JUEL SPRING SCCD 1 42.3716, -109.5504 26 SCCD 2. 7-08A SCCD 2 42.5735, -109.6171 27 SCCD 3. 6-09B SCCD 3 42.605, -109.6375 28 SCCD 4. 6-08B SCCD 4 42.6265, -109.659 29 SCCD 5. 017 SCCD 5 42.7156, -109.7146 30 SCCD 6. 026 SCCD 6 42.7803, -109.7626 31 SHELL 1. DEQ BOULDER SHELL 1 42.7184, -109.7522 32 SHELL 2. 072 SHELL 2 42.6993, -109.7542 33 SHELL 3. 5-06A PARADISE ROAD SHELL 3 42.6806, -109.7956 34 TOP 1. 02-04A MESA TOP TOP 1 42.8357, -109.8838 35 TOP 2. 042 TOP 2 42.8377, -109.8642 36 TOP 3. 1-05 TOP 3 42.8559, -109.8391 37 TOP 4. 1-06 TOP 4 42.8539, -109.7869 38 USFS 1. BOULDER LAKE BLAK2 USFS 1 42.7688, -109.6712 39 USFS 2. 3-09A USFS 2 42.7522, -109.6008 40 USFS 3. 4-10 USFS 3 42.6917, -109.5578 41 USFS 4. SPEEDWAY-CD IRISH CANYON USFS 4 42.6437, -109.4704 42 USFS 5. 06-11B USFS 5 42.6156, -109.5054 43 USFS 6. NEWFS6 USFS 6 42.568, -109.5777 44 USFS 7. 7-08B USFS 7 42.5553, -109.6121 45 UW1 1. OLSON RANCH UW1 1 42.5993, -109.8696 46 UW1 2. NEW 6-05A UW1 2 42.6161, -109.8447 47 UW1 3. 5-05B UW1 3 42.6464, -109.8262 48 UW1 4. 5-06B BOULDER CREST UW1 4 42.6593, -109.7845 49 UW1 5. 078 UW1 5 42.6665, -109.7568 50 UW1 6. UW LAB BSR UW1 6 42.6840, -109.7083 51 UW2 1. 013 BOULDER 351 UW2 1 42.6274, -109.754 52 UW2 2. 068 UW2 2 42.6074, -109.75 53 UW2 3. 069 UW2 3 42.6142, -109.772 54 UW2 4. 6-05C UW2 4 42.6021, -109.8351 55 UW2 5. 7-XA UW2 5 42.57, -109.808

14

Figure 3-3. Map showing locations of BTEX and NOX survey sites.

15

3.2 Spatial monitoring equipment

3.2.1 Spatial monitoring equipment – canisters A 6L Entech Silonite® canister equipped with a Nupro® valve was deployed at each sampling site. These canisters meet or exceed EPA method TO-14A and TO-15 specifications. Each 6L canister can collect either instantaneous, or up to, seven day integrated samples when outfitted with the properly sized time-integrated sampling valve orifice.

3.2.2 Spatial monitoring equipment – passive samplers Each BTEX spatial site was equipped with a Radiello diffusive tube sampler. Tube samplers house a diffusive body and adsorbent cartridge treated to accumulate selected ambient air species. In this case, cartridges accumulated benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and m+p-xylene and o-xylene. Each NOX spatial site was equipped with an Ogawa passive sampler which house an NO2 and NOX reagent pad treated to absorb these ambient air species.

3.3 Spatial monitoring sampling Spatial monitoring volunteers were solicited prior to the monitoring period. Volunteers

were chosen from a pool of local residents, organizations, industry, and government individuals who had assisted the UW group in the past. Placement of samplers was facilitated with the cooperation of ten teams of individuals. Teams were representative of Local, State, and Federal Governments, University, Industry, and local citizenry. A full list of all participants is contained in the acknowledgement section at the end of this report. Team members participated in a training session before they took part in the sampler placement exercise. During this training session, they were instructed as to the use and placement of passive samplers, as well as instruction as to the location of assigned sampling sites. Canister-based ambient air surveys were conducted throughout the Sublette County ozone season, which is generally considered wintertime. The first survey took place on November 16-17, 2010, and the last survey on March 10-11, 2011. The BTEX/NOX survey was conducted February 22-March 01, 2011. This survey was concurrent with canister survey five. Table 3-1 provides a list of survey dates and duration.

16

Table 3-3. Ambient air survey dates. Survey Start Date End Date Duration Canister Survey #1 16 NOV 2010 17 NOV 2010 24 hours Canister Survey #2 14 DEC 2010 15 DEC 2011 24 hours Canister Survey #3 01 FEB 2011 02 FEB 2011 24 hours Canister Survey #4 16 FEB 2011 17 FEB 2011 24 hours Canister Survey #5 22 FEB 2011 01 MAR 2011 7 days Canister Survey #6 10 MAR 2011 11 MAR 2011 24 hours BTEX/NOx Survey* 22 FEB 2011 01 MAR 2011 7 days *Conducted simultaneously with canister survey #5.

3.5 Sampling protocols

3.5.1 Sampling protocols – Canisters Canisters were cleaned and evacuated prior to deployment using the Entech 3100A Canister Cleaning System. The system uses an oven, humidification chamber, and nitrogen gas to displace contaminants from interior canister surface. Canisters are evacuated to a vacuum level of 100 Millitorr (mTorr) immediately following cleaning. Canisters are fitted with an appropriate sampling valve and calibrated according to manufacturer's specifications prior to field deployment. For PASQUA, two valves were employed – a 24-hour valve and a 7-day valve. Canisters were distributed to the sampler placement team the day before the ambient air survey. During sampler placement, teams completed a log that specified placement time and any problems encountered. Samplers were placed at specified locations starting at 09:00 the day of the survey, and retrieved 24 hours later. After retrieval, samplers were delivered to the UW team for analysis.

3.5.2 Sampling protocols – BTEX Samplers were stored in a controlled environment in original packaging until the day

before the planned survey. Immediately before placement, sampling tubes and cartridges are assembled by volunteers according to handling protocols suggested by Radiello and given in the quality assurance project plan.

Samplers were distributed to teams and individuals the evening before the sampler placement exercise. Participants stored samplers overnight in a cool dry place in a container provided to them and placed samplers the day of the sampling operation starting at 9 am. Each team retrieved samplers approximately seven days later. During sampler placement, teams completed a log that specified placement time and any problems encountered. Samplers were collected and prepared for analysis immediately upon receipt from sampler placement teams or human exposure subjects. Samplers were stored within an insulated cooler overnight. Samplers were shipped in an insulated container next day, via air-mail to the analysis laboratory.

17

3.5.3 Sampling protocols – NOX Samplers were stored in a controlled environment in original packaging until the day

before the planned survey. Several hours before distribution, sampler bodies and pre-coated NO2 and NOX collection pads were assembled and prepared for use, according to protocols supplied by Ogawa and given in the quality assurance project plan.

Samplers were distributed to teams and individuals the evening before the sampler placement exercise. Participants stored samplers overnight in a cool dry place in a container provided to them and placed samplers the day of the sampling operation starting at 09:00. Each team retrieved samplers approximately seven days later. During sampler placement, teams completed a log that specified placement time, and whether or not they encountered any problems. Samplers were collected and prepared for analysis immediately upon receipt from sampler placement teams or human exposure subjects. Samplers were stored within an insulated cooler overnight. Samplers were shipped in an insulated container next day, via air-mail to the analysis laboratory.

3.6 Validation

3.6.1 Field Validation – blanks Field blanks are used for validation to discern whether or not species reported during analysis are measured, or sampler contamination. One canister blank was used for each spatial canister survey. For the BTEX/NOX survey, five of each type of sampler was reserved for blank validation. Blank analyses showed that all species of interest were below the data detection limit, except for i-octane. This species was therefore not reported for the canister samples.

3.6.2 Field Validation – passive sampler co-location Co-location of passive and diffusive samplers was employed to test the accuracy of these samplers relative to another sampler. Since passive sampling is a scoping methodology, samplers were co-located with two other types of samplers in the study area. BTEX samplers were co-located with nine canister samplers and the UW MAQML Boulder South Road site as indicated in Table 3-4. NOX samplers were co-located with DEQ Boulder and the UW MAQML. The DEQ Boulder and UW MAQML locations may be considered Regulatory Equivalent Method (REM) sites.

18

Table 3-4. BTEX/NOX co-located sites. University of Wyoming

BTEX and NOX Co-located Sites Co-located Site BTEX NOX DEQ Boulder ✓ ✓ CD Irish Canyon ✓ Buckhorn Draw ✓ Luman Road ✓ Mesa North ✓ Mesa South ✓ Warbonnet ✓ Yellowpoint ✓ Boulder South Road UW ✓ Boulder Lake ✓

3.7 Sample Analysis

3.7.1 Sample Analysis – canisters Canister samples are processed immediately they have been delivered by volunteer teams. Samples are passed through the sampling trap and gas chromatograph. A chromatogram of speciated VOC is created for each sample using Perkin-Elmer TotalChrom processing software.

3.7.2 Sample Analysis – NOX passive samplers Samplers were analyzed by RTI International, using standard protocols supplied by Ogawa, USA. RTI International supplied a spreadsheet with a mass loading for each sampler. UW then converted the mass loading for each sample to a final ambient NOX concentration using a derived uptake rate with blank correction. Travel blanks were used for approximately ten percent of the total number of samplers for the surveys.

3.7.3 Sample Analysis – BTEX passive samplers Samplers were analyzed by Air Toxics, Inc., using standard protocols supplied by Supelco, USA. Air Toxics, Inc. supplied a spreadsheet with a mass loading for each sampler. UW then converted the mass loading for each sample to final ambient concentrations using a standard uptake rate with blank correction. Travel blanks were used for approximately ten percent of the total number of samplers for the surveys.

19

4.0 Results – Spatial Surveys

4.0.1 Survey One – Spatial Canister Survey Spatial canister survey one was conducted from November 16-17, 2010 over a period of twenty-four hours. This was a wide coverage survey at eleven locations encircling both PAPA and Jonah developments. Sites were also located to the west and east of the area of interest, notably at Calpet Road in the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and gas development area.

Table 4-1. Measured compounds in ppb for survey one (16 November 2010 – 17 November 2010).

Dry

Pin

ey

Big

Pin

ey H

S

DE

Q J

uel S

prin

g

Spee

dway

Cal

pet R

oad

DE

Q D

anie

l

DE

Q P

ined

ale

Lum

an r

oad

Buc

khor

n

DE

Q B

ould

er

Ols

on R

anch

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 2.7 1.8 14 1.4 57.3 1.4 1.3 13.1 1.6 3.8 5.8 9.5 16.5 104.2 49.78% ethene 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.3 0.4 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.53% propane 1.3 0.8 6.4 0.5 30.4 0.4 0.6 4.9 0.5 1.6 2.1 4.5 8.8 49.5 23.65% propene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.24% i-butane 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.1 7.5 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 2.2 11.8 5.64% n-butane 0.3 0.2 2 0.1 7.4 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.1 2.2 12.6 6.02% ethyne 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.8 1.34% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.05% cyclopentane 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.14% i-pentane 0.1 0.1 0.9 0 3 0 0.1 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 5.1 2.44% n-pentane 0.1 0 0.7 0 2.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 3.8 1.82% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0 0 0.3 0 0.6 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.53% 3-methylpentane 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.24% n-hexane 0 0 0.4 0 0.8 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.6 0.76% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 0.1 0 0.4 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 1.00% cyclohexane 0 0 0.3 0 0.7 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.67% i-octane n-heptane 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.53% toluene 0 0 0.7 0 1 0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 3.7 1.77% n-octane 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.33% ethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.10% m+p-xylene 0 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.72% styrene 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.24% o-xylene 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.62% nonane 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.19% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.19% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.2 0.3 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.43% decane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.05% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% Totals 209.3 100.00%

20

4.0.2 Survey Two – Spatial Canister Survey Spatial canister survey two was conducted from December 14-15, 2010 over a period of twenty-four hours. This was a wide coverage survey at eleven locations encircling both PAPA and Jonah developments. Sites were also located to the west and east of the area of interest, notably at Calpet Road in the Big Piney/LaBarge oil and gas development area.

Table 4-2. Measured compounds in ppb for survey two (14 December 2010 – 15 December 2010).

DE

Q J

uel S

prin

g

Spee

dway

Buc

khor

n

Cal

pet R

oad

Big

Pin

ey H

S

Lum

an R

oad

Dry

Pin

ey

Ols

on R

anch

DE

Q B

ould

er

DE

Q D

anie

l

DE

Q P

ined

ale

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 10.4 4.8 11.3 20 7.4 11.3 11.9 74.3 33.5 8.2 11.7 18.6 20.0 204.8 46.15% ethene 0.4 0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0 3.1 0.9 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.9 7.6 1.71% propane 4.3 2 4.5 9.9 3.3 5.2 4.7 28.5 12.3 3.2 5.2 7.6 7.6 83.1 18.72% propene 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.4 0.54% i-butane 0.9 0.4 1.1 2.3 0.7 1.2 0.8 7.1 2.8 0.7 1.1 1.7 1.9 19.1 4.30% n-butane 1.1 0.7 1.4 3.1 1.1 1.7 1.1 7.8 3 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.0 23.4 5.27% ethyne 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.1 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.1 8.5 1.92% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00% c-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.07% cyclopentane 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0.23% i-pentane 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 5 1.8 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.4 12.2 2.75% n-pentane 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 3.9 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 9.7 2.19% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00% propyne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.02% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 3.8 0.86% 3-methylpentane 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0 1.1 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2 0.45% n-hexane 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 5.5 1.24% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00% benzene 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.7 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 7.5 1.69% cyclohexane 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 6.2 1.40% i-octane n-heptane 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 5.1 1.15% toluene 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 8.7 2.1 0.3 1.1 1.4 2.5 15.3 3.45% n-octane 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 3.9 0.88% ethylbenzene 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.7 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 0.23% m+p-xylene 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 6.1 1.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.8 9.4 2.12% styrene 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 1 0.23% o-xylene 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.38% nonane 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 3.1 0.70% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.9 0.43% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 1.3 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.7 0.38% decane 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 1.7 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.5 2.2 0.50% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.07% Totals 443.8 100.00%

21

4.0.3 Survey Three – Spatial Canister Survey Spatial canister survey three was conducted from February 01-02, 2011 over a period of twenty-four hours. The survey area included eleven locations situated along Mesa Road and eastward, and as far south as the DEQ Juel monitoring site. Sites were also located within the Jonah Field, notably in the Yellowpoint and Warbonnet areas.

Table 4-3. Measured compounds in ppb for survey three (01 February 2011 – 02 February 2011).

Buc

khor

n

Yel

low

poin

t

DE

Q J

uel S

prin

g

Spee

dway

Ols

on R

anch

Lum

an R

oad

Bou

lder

Lak

e

War

bonn

et

Mes

a So

uth

Mes

a N

orth

DE

Q B

ould

er

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 8.2 59.1 11.8 14.8 22.6 32.7 11.5 13.9 32.1 42.5 15.4 24.1 15.9 264.6 50.72% ethene 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 6.5 1.25% propane 3.3 28 5.2 6.4 9.3 14.8 4.7 5.2 11.1 13.3 6.7 9.8 7.1 108.0 20.70% propene 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.25% i-butane 0.6 8.2 1.1 1.6 2.1 3.9 1 1.1 2.6 3.2 1.6 2.5 2.2 27.0 5.18% n-butane 1.1 9.2 1.5 2 2.6 4.5 1.4 1.5 2.8 3.2 2 2.9 2.3 31.8 6.10% ethyne 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.6 1 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 8.2 1.57% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.12% cyclopentane 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.29% i-pentane 0.5 4.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 2 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.6 1 1.3 1.1 14.8 2.84% n-pentane 0.3 3.1 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.8 11.1 2.13% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 3.9 0.75% 3-methylpentane 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.42% n-hexane 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 5.1 0.98% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.2 2.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 8.4 1.61% cyclohexane 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 4.9 0.94% i-octane n-heptane 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 3.0 0.58% toluene 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.4 1.1 1 0.4 0.3 1.1 3.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 11.0 2.11% n-octane 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.33% ethylbenzene 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.08% m+p-xylene 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.71% styrene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% o-xylene 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.12% nonane 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.17% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.04% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.02% decane 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.04% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% Totals 521.7 100.00%

22

4.0.4 Survey Four – Spatial Canister Survey Spatial canister survey four was conducted from February 16-17, 2011 over a period of twenty-four hours. The geographic area for this survey was reduced to focus exclusively on the PAPA development. As shown in Figure 3-2, sampler placement was along a generally northwest to southwest line transecting PAPA.

Table 4-4. Measured compounds in ppb for survey four (16 February 2011 – 17 February 2011).

Bou

lder

Cre

st

War

bonn

et

War

bonn

et F

ork

Mid

dle

Cre

st 3

51

Mid

dle

Cre

st

Cen

ter

Mes

a N

orth

Mes

a So

uth

Mes

a M

iddl

e

Para

dise

Roa

d

Mes

a T

op

DE

Q B

ould

er

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 38.7 18.6 23.4 17.8 19.1 22.3 34.9 53.7 55.4 30.6 17.2 30.2 14.0 331.7 48.33% ethene 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 7.2 1.05% propane 14.3 8 10.5 9.5 7.5 7.7 13 17.3 20.2 12.7 6.3 11.5 4.4 127.0 18.51% propene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.19% i-butane 3.3 2 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.9 3.3 4.4 5.5 4 1.6 2.9 1.3 32.4 4.72% n-butane 3.3 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.9 3.2 4.2 5.4 4.2 1.6 3.0 1.2 32.6 4.75% ethyne 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.4 2.4 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.5 12.3 1.79% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.09% cyclopentane 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.22% i-pentane 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.1 1 1 1.6 2.3 2.9 1.8 0.8 1.5 0.6 16.6 2.42% n-pentane 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.8 2.1 1.3 0.6 1.1 0.5 12.6 1.84% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 4.5 0.66% 3-methylpentane 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.5 0.36% n-hexane 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 6.7 0.98% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.9 3.2 3.6 1.8 1.4 0.7 1.5 1.0 17.0 2.48% cyclohexane 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 8.4 1.22% i-octane n-heptane 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 6.4 0.93% toluene 2 1.4 2.2 1 1.1 3.6 6.1 6.7 3.5 2 1.1 2.8 2.0 30.7 4.47% n-octane 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 4.5 0.66% ethylbenzene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.23% m+p-xylene 1 0.6 1 0.5 0.5 1.1 2 2 2.2 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.7 12.1 1.76% styrene 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.04% o-xylene 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.32% nonane 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.6 0.52% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.6 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.35% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.5 0.36% decane 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 4.0 0.58% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0.7 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.16% Totals 686.3 100.00%

23

4.0.5 Survey Five – Spatial Canister, BTEX and NOx Survey Spatial canister survey five was conducted from February 22 to March 01, 2010 over a period of seven days. The survey area included eleven locations situated along Mesa Road and eastward, and as far south as the DEQ Juel monitoring site. Sites were also located within the Jonah Field, notably in the Yellowpoint area. Nine canisters were returned with results for this survey and two canisters were determined to have malfunctioned. This survey was conducted in conjunction with the BTEX/NOX spatial surveys using passive samplers. The spatial BTEX/NOX survey included fifty-five sites placed within the canister survey area albeit at a much higher density. A comparison of the canister and passive samplers is given in section 4.1.2.

Table 4-5. Measured compounds in ppb for survey five (22 February 2011 – 01 March 2011).

Spee

dway

Yel

low

poin

t

Buc

khor

n

War

bonn

et

Lum

an R

oad

DE

Q B

ould

er

Mes

a N

orth

Mes

a So

uth

Bou

lder

Lak

e

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 6.8 87.2 11.6 54.5 20.6 19.2 52.3 58.6 7.7 35.4 28.5 318.5 50.30% ethene 0.2 3.1 0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.9 7.0 1.11% propane 2.5 37.5 4 18.2 8.2 6.8 14.4 18.4 2.9 12.5 11.2 112.9 17.83% propene 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.22% i-butane 0.6 12.8 0.9 5.3 2.3 1.9 4 5.1 0.7 3.7 3.9 33.6 5.31% n-butane 0.8 14 1.1 5.5 2.5 2 3.8 5.2 0.9 4.0 4.2 35.8 5.65% ethyne 0.5 2.9 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.6 0.5 1.1 0.8 10.0 1.58% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.08% cyclopentane 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.21% i-pentane 0.3 5.9 0.4 2.6 1 0.9 1.8 2.7 0.4 1.8 1.8 16.0 2.53% n-pentane 0.2 4.6 0.3 2 0.8 0.7 1.3 2 0.3 1.4 1.4 12.2 1.93% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.5 4.4 0.69% 3-methylpentane 0 0.9 0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.8 0.44% n-hexane 0.1 2 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.1 0.7 0.7 6.4 1.01% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 0.3 2.5 0.3 1.9 0.8 0.8 4.9 3.2 0.3 1.7 1.6 15.0 2.37% cyclohexane 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.6 0.1 0.8 0.8 7.6 1.20% i-octane n-heptane 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 5.4 0.85% toluene 0.4 3.2 0.3 3.8 0.9 1.3 6.9 6 0.4 2.6 2.5 23.2 3.66% n-octane 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.51% ethylbenzene 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.14% m+p-xylene 0.2 1 0.2 1.7 0.4 0.5 1.6 1.7 0.4 0.9 0.7 7.7 1.22% styrene 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.03% o-xylene 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.24% nonane 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.28% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.14% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.14% decane 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.33% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% Totals 633.2 100.00%

24

Table 4-6. BTEX Measured compounds in ppb for survey five (22 February 2011 – 01 March 2011). No. Site Name Position

Benzene ppb

Toluene ppb

Ethbenz. ppb

mpXylene ppb

oXylene ppb SUM

1 BLM 1. 1-02 42.8775, -109.9749 0.54 0.50 0.03 0.15 0.03 1.25 2 BLM 2. AA28NEW 42.8267, -109.9648 0.55 0.57 0.03 0.19 0.04 1.38 3 BLM 3. NEW Hennick Draw 42.8032, -109.9623 0.49 0.57 0.03 0.20 0.04 1.33 4 BLM 4. 3-03A 42.7797, -109.9624 0.58 0.62 0.04 0.21 0.04 1.49 5 BLM 5. 4-03B 42.6931, -109.955 0.53 0.60 0.03 0.21 0.04 1.41 6 BLM 6. 06-03A 42.6112, -109.9283 7 BLM 7. 067 42.6029, -109.923 8 BLM 8. 004 42.5775, -109.929 0.76 1.08 0.06 0.43 0.08 2.41 9 BP 1. LUMAN 42.4656, -109.5776 0.83 1.12 0.06 0.39 0.07 2.47

10 CURED 1. 3-08 42.7503, -109.6756 0.45 0.54 0.04 0.24 0.05 1.32 11 CURED 2. 048 42.7466, -109.7345 0.64 0.69 0.05 0.29 0.06 1.73 12 CURED 3. 077 42.8157, -109.8397 0.62 0.62 0.04 0.22 0.04 1.54 13 CURED 4. 076 42.8156, -109.7938 0.32 0.31 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.77 14 DEQ 1. BUCKHORN 42.3522, -109.8543 0.26 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.61 15 DEQ 2. YELLOWPOINT/STUDHORSE 42.4508, -109.6899 2.35 2.80 0.12 0.84 0.15 6.26 16 DEQ 3. 071 42.4902, -109.6786 1.67 2.38 0.17 1.42 0.23 5.87 17 DEQ 4. 070 42.527, -109.6678 1.40 2.52 0.11 0.96 0.15 5.14 18 DEQ 5. 7-07A MIDDLE FORK 42.543, -109.6614 1.48 2.68 0.17 1.57 0.25 6.15 19 DEQ 6. 7-07B WARBONNET 42.5671, -109.7018 1.68 2.82 0.16 1.52 0.23 6.41 20 DEQ 7. 6-07 MIDDLE CREST 42.6032, -109.7285 2.06 2.81 0.17 1.31 0.22 6.57 21 QEP 1. MESA NORTH 42.753, -109.8577 4.62 6.51 0.20 1.57 0.24 13.14 22 QEP 2. 047 MESA MIDDLE 42.7396, -109.8427 4.95 7.74 0.35 2.70 0.39 16.13 23 QEP 3. 075 42.7318, -109.8262 4.61 7.33 0.44 3.75 0.60 16.73 24 QEP 4. MESA SOUTH 42.7065, -109.8232 3.58 5.30 0.21 1.71 0.26 11.06 25 SCCD 1. JUEL SPRING 42.3716, -109.5504 26 SCCD 2. 7-08A 42.5735, -109.6171 0.65 0.80 0.06 0.44 0.08 2.03 27 SCCD 3. 6-09B 42.605, -109.6375 28 SCCD 4. 6-08B 42.6265, -109.659 0.67 0.83 0.08 0.54 0.11 2.23 29 SCCD 5. 017 42.7156, -109.7146 0.63 0.73 0.06 0.41 0.08 1.91 30 SCCD 6. 026 42.7803, -109.7626 0.55 0.56 0.04 0.21 0.05 1.41 31 SHELL 1. DEQ BOULDER 42.7184, -109.7522 1.10 1.43 0.07 0.51 0.09 3.2 32 SHELL 2. 072 42.6993, -109.7542 1.17 1.55 0.08 0.60 0.11 3.51 33 SHELL 3. 5-06A PARADISE ROAD 42.6806, -109.7956 3.07 4.04 0.22 1.87 0.29 9.49 34 TOP 1. 02-04A MESA TOP 42.8357, -109.8838 2.62 2.73 0.10 0.70 0.11 6.26 35 TOP 2. 042 42.8377, -109.8642 1.41 1.50 0.06 0.33 0.06 3.36 36 TOP 3. 1-05 42.8559, -109.8391 0.34 0.31 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.79 37 TOP 4. 1-06 42.8539, -109.7869 0.21 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.48 38 USFS 1. BOULDER LAKE BLAK2 42.7688, -109.6712 0.36 0.45 0.04 0.19 0.04 1.08 39 USFS 2. 3-09A 42.7522, -109.6008 0.33 0.35 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.86 40 USFS 3. 4-10 42.6917, -109.5578 0.36 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.98 41 USFS 4. SPEEDWAY CD IRISH

CANYON 42.6437, -109.4704 0.27 0.29 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.71 42 USFS 5. 06-11B 42.6156, -109.5054 43 USFS 6. NEWFS6 42.568, -109.5777 44 USFS 7. 7-08B 42.5553, -109.6121 0.61 0.75 0.05 0.38 0.07 1.86 45 UW1 1. OLSON RANCH 42.5993, -109.8696 1.08 1.60 0.08 0.64 0.11 3.51 46 UW1 2. NEW 6-05A 42.6161, -109.8447 1.20 1.79 0.11 0.88 0.16 4.14 47 UW1 3. 5-05B 42.6464, -109.8262 1.59 2.31 0.15 1.19 0.21 5.45 48 UW1 4. 5-06B BOULDER CREST 42.6593, -109.7845 2.16 3.00 0.28 2.50 0.46 8.4 49 UW1 5. 078 42.6665, -109.7568 1.51 2.72 0.18 1.84 0.30 6.55 50 UW1 6. UW LAB BSR 42.6840, -109.7083 0.61 0.74 0.06 0.43 0.08 1.92 51 UW2 1. 013 BOULDER 351 42.6274, -109.754 1.33 2.13 0.14 1.13 0.20 4.93 52 UW2 2. 068 42.6074, -109.75 2.79 3.62 0.18 1.55 0.23 8.37 53 UW2 3. 069 42.6142, -109.772 1.55 2.25 0.11 0.90 0.14 4.95 54 UW2 4. 6-05C 42.6021, -109.8351 1.17 1.86 0.11 0.82 0.15 4.11 55 UW2 5. 7-XA 42.57, -109.808 0.64 0.75 0.06 0.38 0.07 1.9

25

Only NOx values are reported, as the temperature during sampling was so low that the gel on the NO2 filter did not collect the sample properly. The second filter, designed to give a value for NO with a calculation that includes subtraction of the NO2 value therefore did provide meaningful sample collection. Since the manufacturer recommended approach could not be adopted, a surrogate value for NO2 was estimated from UW and WDEQ-AQD monitoring sites. This value was used with a modified uptake rate that was selected to ensure comparability between simultaneous sampling of NOX using the continuous analyzers at the WDEQ-AQD and UW monitoring sites in Boulder and the spatial survey data. This data should be considered valid and is presented due to the importance of gaining a possible insight of the distribution of NOx concentrations in the region.

Table 4-7. NOX Measured compounds in ppb for survey five (22 February 2011 – 01 March 2011). No. Site Name Position NOX

1 BLM 1. 1-02 42.8775, -109.9749 5.3 2 BLM 2. AA28NEW 42.8267, -109.9648 5.0 3 BLM 3. NEW Hennick Draw 42.8032, -109.9623 4.8 4 BLM 4. 3-03A 42.7797, -109.9624 4.6 5 BLM 5. 4-03B 42.6931, -109.955 5.8 6 BLM 6. 06-03A 42.6112, -109.9283 7 BLM 7. 067 42.6029, -109.923 8 BLM 8. 004 42.5775, -109.929 6.0 9 BP 1. LUMAN 42.4656, -109.5776 7.0

10 CURED 1. 3-08 42.7503, -109.6756 4.3 11 CURED 2. 048 42.7466, -109.7345 6.4 12 CURED 3. 077 42.8157, -109.8397 8.6 13 CURED 4. 076 42.8156, -109.7938 3.2 14 DEQ 1. BUCKHORN 42.3522, -109.8543 12.4 15 DEQ 2. YELLOWPOINT/STUDHORSE 42.4508, -109.6899 9.6 16 DEQ 3. 071 42.4902, -109.6786 6.6 17 DEQ 4. 070 42.527, -109.6678 7.5 18 DEQ 5. 7-07A MIDDLE FORK 42.543, -109.6614 6.0 19 DEQ 6. 7-07B WARBONNET 42.5671, -109.7018 7.3 20 DEQ 7. 6-07 MIDDLE CREST 42.6032, -109.7285 15.9 21 QEP 1. MESA NORTH 42.753, -109.8577 4.8 22 QEP 2. 047 MESA MIDDLE 42.7396, -109.8427 7.3 23 QEP 3. 075 42.7318, -109.8262 7.1 24 QEP 4. MESA SOUTH 42.7065, -109.8232 11.4 25 SCCD 1. JUEL SPRING 42.3716, -109.5504 26 SCCD 2. 7-08A 42.5735, -109.6171 6.2 27 SCCD 3. 6-09B 42.605, -109.6375 15.7 28 SCCD 4. 6-08B 42.6265, -109.659 10.8 29 SCCD 5. 017 42.7156, -109.7146 6.1 30 SCCD 6. 026 42.7803, -109.7626 8.2 31 SHELL 1. DEQ BOULDER 42.7184, -109.7522 4.9 32 SHELL 2. 072 42.6993, -109.7542 6.4 33 SHELL 3. 5-06A PARADISE ROAD 42.6806, -109.7956 12.5 34 TOP 1. 02-04A MESA TOP 42.8357, -109.8838 3.8 35 TOP 2. 042 42.8377, -109.8642 3.8 36 TOP 3. 1-05 42.8559, -109.8391 5.2 37 TOP 4. 1-06 42.8539, -109.7869 3.7 38 USFS 1. BOULDER LAKE BLAK2 42.7688, -109.6712 3.8 39 USFS 2. 3-09A 42.7522, -109.6008 4.1 40 USFS 3. 4-10 42.6917, -109.5578 4.6 41 USFS 4. SPEEDWAY CD IRISH CANYON 42.6437, -109.4704 4.3 42 USFS 5. 06-11B 42.6156, -109.5054 43 USFS 6. NEWFS6 42.568, -109.5777 44 USFS 7. 7-08B 42.5553, -109.6121 6.0 45 UW1 1. OLSON RANCH 42.5993, -109.8696 7.7 46 UW1 2. NEW 6-05A 42.6161, -109.8447 6.5 47 UW1 3. 5-05B 42.6464, -109.8262 7.8

26

48 UW1 4. 5-06B BOULDER CREST 42.6593, -109.7845 8.8 49 UW1 5. 078 42.6665, -109.7568 6.6 50 UW1 6. UW LAB BSR 42.6840, -109.7083 6.5 51 UW2 1. 013 BOULDER 351 42.6274, -109.754 8.5 52 UW2 2. 068 42.6074, -109.75 9.9 53 UW2 3. 069 42.6142, -109.772 7.9 54 UW2 4. 6-05C 42.6021, -109.8351 8.2 55 UW2 5. 7-XA 42.57, -109.808 6.2

Figures 4-1 through 4-5 illustrate the distribution of each BTEX compound through iso-concentration contour mapping. The distribution for benzene is not homogenous with highest concentrations of between 4 ppb and 5 ppb evident along Mesa Road. This is a highly developed area of the PAPA development. A second area of elevated levels, of between 2 ppb and 3 ppb is evident along Middle Crest Road. Lower levels are evident elsewhere with most samplers recording concentrations less than 1 ppb. The passive samplers were exposed for a week and as such the map shows average levels for that period. At the Boulder South road site considerable variation was evident for the hourly data. Given the averaging period of the canister and passive sampler measurements it is likely that similar behavior would be evident at these sites. The maps for toluene, Figure 4-2, ethylbenzene, Figure 4-3, m+p-xylene, Figure 4-4 and o-xylene, Figure 4-5, show a similar distribution as that for benzene. This indicates the importance of common emission sources during the sampling period.

27

Figure 4-1. Map showing locations of benzene.

28

Figure 4-2. Map showing locations of toluene.

29

Figure 4-3. Map showing locations of ethylbenzene.

30

Figure 4-4. Map showing locations of m+p-xylene.

31

Figure 4-5. Map showing locations of o-xylene.

Figure 4-6 shows the iso-concentration contour map for NOx. It shows a different spatial NOX distribution from that for BTEX compounds. Three regions of higher concentrations can be identified. The highest is along Middle Crest Road, another higher region is at the junction of Mesa and Paradise Roads. A third area is to the South around the Buckhorn Draw area, but this may result as an artifact of a single measurement at site 14. As WDEQ-AQD sites were measuring NOx at this time we have included these sites in the iso-concentration contour map given in Figure 4-7. This map shows the importance of sampler distribution but nevertheless reveals that highest concentrations are associated with roads inside the development.

32

Figure 4-6. Map showing locations of NOX.

33

Figure 4-7. Map showing locations of NOX, including DEQ-AQD monitoring locations.

*DEQ monitoring locations included in the map:

Site No. Site Name 56 DEQ Pinedale 57 DEQ Juel Springs 58 DEQ Daniel 59 DEQ Wyoming Range 60 DEQ Paradise Mobile Location 61 DEQ Boulder

34

4.0.6 Survey Six – Spatial Canister Survey Spatial canister survey six was conducted from March 10-11, 2011 over a period of twenty-four hours. This survey was focused exclusively on the PAPA development. As previously mentioned, sampler placement was along a generally northwest to southeast line transecting PAPA.

Table 4-8. Measured compounds in ppb for survey six (10 March 2011 – 11 March 2011).

Mid

dle

Cre

st

Bou

lder

Cre

st

Mid

dle

Cre

st 3

51

War

bonn

et F

ork

War

bonn

et

Mes

a So

uth

Mes

a M

iddl

e

Mes

a N

orth

Mes

a T

op

DE

Q B

ould

er

Para

dise

Roa

d

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 50.8 66.7 43.5 39.2 41.3 45.7 67.7 39.7 77.4 25 62.1 50.8 15.7 559.1 48.74% ethene 0.8 1.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.0 0.5 10.8 0.94% propane 16.5 22.9 15.2 13.9 15.3 16.8 20.7 12.8 34.1 8.1 19.7 17.8 6.7 196.0 17.09% propene 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.15% i-butane 4.6 7.5 4.4 4.1 4.5 4 5.5 3.3 12.6 2.2 5.6 5.3 2.8 58.3 5.08% n-butane 4.7 8 4.5 4.3 4.5 3.9 5.4 3.2 12.5 2.2 5.8 5.4 2.8 59.0 5.14% ethyne 1.4 5.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.9 1.7 0.9 3.2 1.8 1.4 19.3 1.68% t-2-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.11% cyclopentane 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.5 0.22% i-pentane 2.1 4.4 2 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.9 1.4 5.3 1 2.8 2.5 1.3 27.4 2.39% n-pentane 1.6 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.2 1.1 3.7 0.8 2.1 1.9 0.9 20.8 1.81% 1,3-butadiene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.02% 1-pentene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.6 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.4 7.9 0.69% 3-methylpentane 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 5.1 0.44% n-hexane 0.9 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.4 0.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 12.2 1.06% isoprene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 1.6 4.6 1.3 1.5 1 1.7 3 3 2.3 1.1 2.2 2.1 1.1 23.3 2.03% cyclohexane 1.1 3.4 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1.6 1 1.2 0.5 1.5 1.2 0.8 13.7 1.19% i-octane n-heptane 0.8 3.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 11.3 0.99% toluene 2.6 11 2.6 5.5 2.1 3.1 5.9 5.8 3.3 1.7 3.6 4.3 2.7 47.2 4.11% n-octane 0.5 3.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 9.1 0.79% ethylbenzene 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.23% m+p-xylene 1.1 8 1.9 2.8 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 23.3 2.03% styrene 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.05% o-xylene 0.1 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 4.2 0.37% nonane 0.2 2.2 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 8.0 0.70% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0 0.3 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 4.6 0.40% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 5.7 0.50% decane 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.8 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.7 10.5 0.92% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.12% Totals 1147.1 100.00%

35

4.0.7 All Surveys – Spatial Canister Survey Table 4-9 shows the average levels for each compound measured during the six surveys.

Table 4-9. Measured compounds in ppb for six surveys.

Mea

n

SD

Sum

%

ethane 27.9 22.3 1782.9 48.96% ethene 0.6 0.6 40.2 1.10% propane 10.6 8.6 676.5 18.58% propene 0.1 0.1 8.6 0.24% i-butane 2.8 2.7 182.2 5.00% n-butane 3.1 2.8 195.2 5.36% ethyne 1.0 0.9 61.1 1.68% t-2-butene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 1-butene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% c-2-butene 0.1 0.1 3.4 0.09% cyclopentane 0.1 0.1 8.1 0.22% i-pentane 1.4 1.3 92.1 2.53% n-pentane 1.1 1.0 70.2 1.93% 1,3-butadiene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% propyne 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.01% 1-pentene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% 2-methylpentane 0.4 0.4 25.6 0.70% 3-methylpentane 0.2 0.3 15.1 0.41% n-hexane 0.6 0.6 37.5 1.03% isoprene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% benzene 1.1 1.2 73.3 2.01% cyclohexane 0.7 0.7 42.2 1.16% i-octane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00% n-heptane 0.5 0.6 32.3 0.89% toluene 2.0 2.4 131.1 3.60% n-octane 0.4 0.5 23.1 0.63% ethylbenzene 0.1 0.2 6.7 0.18% m+p-xylene 0.9 1.3 57.7 1.58% styrene 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.07% o-xylene 0.2 0.2 11.5 0.32% nonane 0.3 0.5 17.8 0.49% 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.2 0.3 10.4 0.29% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.2 0.3 11.8 0.32% decane 0.3 0.5 19.1 0.52% 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.08% Totals 3641.4 100.00%

Figure 4-8 shows the percentage distribution by compound class for each canister measurement from the first to the sixth survey. There is a similar distribution for the surveyed sites, with the notable exception of elevated alkenes for the two surveys at the WDEQ Pinedale site. This is likely to be due to the relatively higher proportion of traffic emission sources. Alkanes are by far the dominant hydrocarbon class (85%) followed by aromatics (10%). The highest levels of aromatics were measured at Mesa sites. This reinforces the findings of the BTEX survey.

36

Figure 4-8. Measurement means for alkanes, alkenes (and alkynes), and aromatics for six surveys.

4.1 Validation

4.1.1 Comparative canister analysis A comparative canister analysis was performed to improve certainty of measurements during PASQUA. Three canisters used during survey six were only partially evacuated by UW during sample analysis. The remainder of the sample, which is normally unused and vented to the atmosphere, was sent to Air Toxics, Inc. for independent analysis. Table 4-9 shows the results of selected canister analysis by UW and then by Air Toxics inc. Only species present in all three canisters are shown. Many of the species were below reporting limits, or were outside the protocol range employed by Air Toxics, Inc. Values show excellent agreement considering all the factors associated with second run analysis using a different calibration and analysis approach. When considering expanded measurement uncertainty that is primarily related to

37

application of response factors and calibrant variation. A value of between ± 10% and ± 25% is applicable as an uncertainty value for the analysis of trace levels of volatile organic compounds, including benzene. If considering two different measurement systems measuring a value of 5.0 ppb, with measurement uncertainty of ± 15%, values of 4.3 ppb and 5.8 ppb would be equivalent. As such the values in Table 4-9 are equivalent, with no significant differences.

Table 4-9. Comparative Canister analysis by UW and Air Toxics inc

Site Compound UW ppb

Air Toxics ppb

Boulder Crest cyclohexane 3.4 3.3 benzene 4.6 4.4 toluene 11.0 9.8 Mesa Center cyclohexane 1.6 1.6 benzene 3.0 3.0 toluene 5.9 5.1 Mesa TOP cyclohexane 1.2 1.4 benzene 2.3 2.1 toluene 3.3 3.1

4.1.2 Co-location During survey five, nine BTEX samplers were co-located with canister samplers. These co-locations were undertaken to evaluate sampler accuracy. Table 4-10 provides a comparison between canister and BTEX sampler results for the nine co-located sites. Canisters were sampled and analyzed by UW. Passive samplers were analyzed by Air Toxics, Inc. Values show excellent agreement considering environmental conditions, and variation amongst calibration and analysis approaches used by UW and Air Toxics, Inc. As noted in section 4.1.1, with consideration of measurement uncertainty the values in Table 4-10 are mostly equivalent with few significant differences.

Table 4-10. Simultaneous sampling and analysis of BTEX compounds using canister and passive sampling methodologies

Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m+p-Xylene o-Xylene Site Canister BTEX Canister BTEX Canister BTEX Canister BTEX Canister BTEX

Luman Road 0.77 0.83 0.87 1.12 0.05 0.06 0.45 0.40 0.10 0.07

Buckhorn 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.01 Yellowpoint 2.49 2.35 3.25 2.80 0.14 0.12 0.96 0.85 0.21 0.15 Warbonnet 1.88 1.67 3.76 2.38 0.23 0.17 1.65 1.44 0.28 0.23

Boulder DEQ 0.80 1.10 1.32 1.43 0.07 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.11 0.09 Mesa North 4.91 4.62 6.86 6.51 0.22 0.20 1.58 1.59 0.29 0.24 Mesa South 3.23 3.58 6.03 5.30 0.22 0.21 1.67 1.74 0.31 0.26

Boulder Lake 0.29 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.19 0.07 0.04 Irish Canyon 0.30 0.27 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.02

38

6.0 Conclusions

• The selected methodological approach was successful with all six surveys successfully completed.

• Canister sampling using critical orifice inlets collected sufficient sample for 70 out of 72 analysis runs (including blanks)

• The canister cleaning system ensured low blank levels for all measured volatile organic compounds (VOC) with the exception of iso-octane. This compound is not reported.

• The canister sampling approach allowed for flexibility of sampler placement, and led to wide scale, focused area and transect surveys.

• The spatial surveys relied upon the participation of volunteer teams. • In addition to following Standard Operating Procedures set by the Quality Assurance

Project Plan the project design incorporated field validation testing. • Three canisters were independently analyzed by Air Toxics inc. The reported values were

in excellent agreement with the values reported by UW. • To ensure confidence with the BTEX survey nine samplers were co-located with canister

sampling. The canister values, from UW, and the BTEX values, derived from analysis by Air Toxics, were in excellent agreement.

• The VOC surveys showed the dominance of alkanes, associated with natural gas, in the ambient air of the study region.

• The passive sampling of BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene and o-xylene) compounds was successful with only a few samplers lost due to theft.

• BTEX compound values were highest along the Mesa Road within the PAPA. • The passive sampling of NOX was difficult due to the extremely low temperatures during

the survey. This factor caused the non reporting of NO2 and NO. • NOX levels had a different distribution to that of BTEX. Highest NOX concentrations

were reported in three regions: Gobblers Knob near the junction of Mesa and Paradise Roads; along Middle Crest Road; and in the Buckhorn Draw area.

39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost we would like to thank all of the people that either deployed samplers for the ambient surveys or acted as backup. This project would not have been possible without this voluntary commitment and support. Our sincere gratitude is sent to the following people and the organizations that they represented.

• Sublette County Conservation District (Meghann Durbrow and Loren Racich) • Sublette County Health District (Keith Raney) • Wyoming BLM (Tim Zebulske, Kyle Schumacher, Brian Roberts, Cindi Etcheverry) • USFS (Ted Porwoll), • Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development (Bev Sharp, Carmel Kail, Tina

Rock and Mary Lynn Worl) • WDEQ-AQD (Jennifer Frazier and Brandi O'Brien) • Town of Pinedale (Patty and Dave Racich) • Shell (Nancy Feck) • British Petroleum (Don Brooks) • QEP (Kevin Williams)

Furthermore we would like to thank the management of the Rock Rabbit Café who

allowed us to train volunteers and use their premises as the center of operations on survey days.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Pinedale Anticline project Office and the UW School of Energy Resources, which made this study possible. We also thank the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division for their oversight of the project, in particular Ken Rairigh.